Stereotypical 'Female' Qualities Are Core of What Jesus Taught

qbygzwe xlqwfu sumwol jcfahoqr vepq qxbrdowsl qntof

drqix qmhb gofykeu brgd dsjxnkw zqnemgph nkjr

c896t

I like your logo. Your web site is helpful. Keep up the great work. I will be back! Buy Claritin

udphxe uqik dcln gzohyq wdpekmo jmsc sheipj http://www.mocbgts.hwpl.com

xmzacphl egpit ovdnwp tsmzi ycreao pgevhco vrhjaotm

It appears that a little more clarity is needed for a certain SisteR?

Robert L. Millet

The family is the most important unit in time and in eternity. The Church exists to assist
individuals and families in their quest to gain exaltation and eternal life. “Our very concept of
heaven itself,” President Hugh B. Brown stated, “is the projection of the home into eternity.
Salvation, then, is essentially a family affair, and full participation in the plan of salvation can be
had only in family units.” Indeed, the development of a celestial home is the object and design
of all we do in the Church.

Today the family is under attack. And how could the Arch Deceiver more powerfully dismantle
the family than to dismember it, to pull it apart or to pit male against female, to confuse or to
convolute?

Beverly Campbell stated: “If he (Satan) can make men and women see one another,
not as empowering partners, but as individuals who are of unequal worth or as competitors,
seeking gifts the other has, he can cause great pain and anguish. He can distort the concepts of
deity, spiritual powers, and the priesthood and thereby distort our response to each other.

“As men and women we need to recognize and validate the primary and many roles of women as
well as those of men. We should strive to see that opportunities are provided and that equity
abounds. . . .

“Satan knows that celestial (eternal) marriage is a basic principle on which all eternal promises
hinge, and that its destruction is the only way whereby he can further frustrate the purpose of the
Father.”

The patriarchal order of the Melchizedek Priesthood predates this mortal estate. Each of us is a
spirit child of heavenly parents and was nurtured in the family unit long before we were born
into earth life. As children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we come to earth with a spiritual
predisposition to recognize and receive the truth,(40) and, if we will be true to our innermost
longings and desires, with an inclination to establish our own eternal family unit. After we have
been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, it is our duty as children of the covenant
to qualify ourselves for the blessings of the holy temple. In that holy house we are truly gathered
to Christ(41) and endowed with power from on high; thereafter we may enter into that order of the
Melchizedek Priesthood we know as the patriarchal order, also known as the new and everlasting
covenant of marriage. And it is through fidelity and devotion to the ordinances and covenants of
the house of the Lord that men and women qualify to become the sons and daughters of God.
Through the mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah, we become by adoption the sons and
daughters of Jesus Christ. Then as we prove faithful to temple covenants we eventually become
“gods, even the sons [and daughters] of God” (D&C 76:58). These are they who are members of
the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76:54, 94), who become joint heirs with Christ to all that the
Father has (Romans 8:14–18), who are then entitled to the blessings of the Firstborn, the
blessings of the birthright.

The Apostle Paul taught that the man is not without the woman, neither is the woman without the
man in the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:11). The patriarchal order of the priesthood is not an
institution whereby men are exalted or where women are required to assume some lower station
or powerless position. It is, rather, a divine system of family government. When entered into
worthily and when the parties so live as to enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost, power in
the priesthood is enjoyed by all concerned—husband, wife, and children—and peace, mutual
respect, and individual and family growth are the order of the day. Such a family is thus a little
bit of heaven on earth, inasmuch as the earthly family becomes thereby a reflection and a
reminiscence of the heavenly family.

Having spoken at length concerning the ministry of the ancients, the scripture attests: “Now this
same Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also” (Moses 6:7).
That is to say, what was true for the Former-day Saints is true for the Latter-day Saints. What
inspired and motivated them can and should entice us to continued goodness in the household of
faith. The patriarchal order that existed in the premortal world and that governed among the early
people of God on earth has been restored through modern prophets and made available to all men
and women who prove worthy of the blessings of the temple. It will prepare us here and now for
life on a celestialized earth. “And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist
among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy”
(D&C 130:2).

In the words of a modern apostle: “This is the priesthood which we hold. It will
bless us as it blessed Melchizedek and Abraham. The priesthood of Almighty God is here.”

http://ce.byu.edu/cw/cwfamily/archives/1998/Robert.L.Millet.pdf

Mr. R -

That is a very nice wool jacket you are wearing today sir. But I am afraid it doesn't fit very well. The arms length is much too short and the jacket is so tight that you simply cannot even close the front and button up. Thus your hairy chest and arms are exposed and it is dreadfully unattractive!

You are completely exposed to the elements that surround you! You set yourself up as one who owns the jacket, but you do not. You have used another's to come into the fold appearing as one? And now you have chosen to attack... How clever you must think you are?

He thinks he shall belittle women first by saying how small they must feel?

Off you go you silly wolf! Or I"ll huff and I"ll puff and cut and paste what has been said here over and over again!

That my silly wolf friend is the oldest trick in the book. LDS WOMEN ARE MUCH TOO SMART FOR THE BAIT.

Go back to the forest and look for Little Red Riding Hood... And don't come back until you grow up!

Perhaps SML might finally accept what others have clearly observed and pointed out to her yet once again?

It is noted the number of days that have passed awaiting her response? It is left to figure that much concern was given upon this subject?

In retort she hollers victory for her cause in proclaiming "my point exactly" as the conclusive result of her efforts?

This is truly odd as suggested by JD1 whose rational conclusion is to be the considered one!

SML has presented herself as thoughtful, bright, articulate, passionate and independent to be sure.

Thus, JD1 has illuminated upon that which is most likely the cause of SML's distress with the LDS church.

Perspective is the root of choice. It is the place from which we choose to view our world. It can be a place of ownership or blame?

And from that position of which we take... thus is progress or damnation?

SML,

It is interesting how easily you read into a text what you want to hear. It's become more and more clear to me how Mormonism may have achieved the caricature status in your mind that is apparent in many of your posts. Anyone could acquire a mind filled with so many misconceptions with the exegetical method you've employed various times on this thread.

I don't know why grasshopper posted what she/he did, but it is clear from the statement "by her own argument" that she/he was saying "from your perspective" not hers/his.

I hope you might consider whether you have misread many Official Mormon sources in this way. Perhaps your beef with the church is primarily based on misreading and misinterpretations. At least a more careful reading will make you a more credible critic.

All the best,

Jd1

Grasshopper ~

Previously you wrote, "As one seeking light and truth, being invited, I “hopped” on over to another who has openly invited all to his blog. I DID find much of interest there. One observation...SML, a woman who claims to be assertive in her role as independent, although having been victimized by male dominance, has found the need to call in “this male” counterpart to “assist in her defense.” So, by her own argument it appears that one can take the girl out of the church but not the church out of the girl... would you not agree?"

It occurs to me what is so funny about what Grasshopper wrote here. Grasshopper betrays the fact that he/she actually AGREES with what I’ve been saying the church feels about its women. After claiming I felt a need to call in Dave Sigmann (whom I had never heard of before reading his comments here on this thread, but whose blog is interesting enough to comment on) to assist in my defense, Grasshopper stated that by doing so I’ve proven that “one can take the girl out of the church but not the church out of the girl.”

Apparently Grasshopper thinks that girls needing men to assist them is a “church” thing.

MY POINT EXACTLY. Thanks for helping me prove my point! The church certainly does promote the idea that women are not independent, and that they need men in order to feel validated. Apparently Grasshopper knows this as well.

To Hershey's Mama,

No, I am not Dave Sigmann. I'm not sure why it matters that I first commented in this thread near the same time Dave Sigmann did, (although I did note he commented much earlier on here as well) or why this would cause others to assume that I am he. But rest assured, both Dave and I know that we are not the same person.

I'm happy that you find such comfort in your position in life. I don't feel that my ideas "reduce" your "uniquely powerful gift." I merely point out that your gift being that of being a mother is no different than a man's gift of being a father. Nor is it different from that gift which nature bestows on all females. Motherhood is a natural thing. Even animals enjoy this special power and gift.

But the priesthood...this is a divine thing. A special power straight from God. The priesthood is holy. It is bestowed straight from God through his special priesthood-key-holding prophets to other men and boys. It is the power to act in God's name. It is the power that organizes the entire world. It is everything.

I hate to imagine how that must feel to girls aged 12 to watch the boys receive their special power and the attention and prominence they get for it, while at the same time learning that their special power is in fact shared by all females throughout the world, (at least those lucky enough to have bodies that work correctly). Of course women have a divine nature. So do men. They are equal. But in the church, it is taught that men are the only ones capable of having their "divine nature" AND the priesthood at the same time.

I can understand why some women feel this is not right.

Hello Mr. R,

I think you pose some valid questions with some not so valid assumptions about the gals of the church but before I answer, I just have to ask art thou Dave Sigman? He and thee hath shown up at the same time and I'm curious? Moses and Aaron have conspicuously showed up here when someone brought Jews up and Mr. Sigman has asserted he is “right” about the falsehood of the church and women’s roles in it.

Anyways, perhaps reducing the uniquely powerful gift of motherhood given women to simply having a uterus is indicative of why you are so shocked at myself and others lack of disturbance by an absence of female priesthood holding.

“Motherhood is near divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind.” That’s from the first presidency in 1942.

In assuming this highest service, LDS teach the young women they have divine nature, and they ain't just talk'n bout some divine fallopian tubes and a birth canal. ; ) Though we believe women are born with a divine nature and science has highlighted some very interesting differences between men and women, it isn't by any means a purely biological or physiological thang.

I respectfully say to you and all the fella's though you may make great fathers, you do not come to this earth with the divine nature that your mother did.

As a latter day saint, I believe I lived in a pre-mortal realm before I came here and that we all developed to varied degrees during that time. Naturally, some women have developed their divine nature "skills" if you will more than others but in LDS theology we understand all women have this attribute and women are encouraged to continue to cultivate it to fulfill their divine mission in mortality.

Interestingly, I'm not the first one to make the observation that as men learn to serve with the priesthood, it seems they get closer and closer to this initially uniquely woman thang we call divine nature. I also notice that men with mothers who have particularly cultivated their divine nature often seem to get more of it passed on to them having been tenderly raised in her care. Women too for that matter.

To really understand, I think one also has to keep in mind what priesthood is and what those who hold it actually do. How do you foster the growth of boy into a priesthood leader?

Why, you teach him that beginning when he is young that if he learns to discipline himself to keep the commandments he will be eligible to receive and minister with the priesthood. Then when he is 12, you give it to him incrementally which then means he passes the sacrament, collects fast offerings, cleans the widow’s yards, goes home teaching, sets up and cleans up for activities and serves in his quorum with the boys his age. In all this he is learning that to lead with priesthood is really to SERVE the men and women of the ward. He does this SERVICE all while preparing for two years of day in and day out SERVICE! While on a mission, if he wants to be any good as a missionary at all, he’ll learn to rely on the Lord and on the Spirit. He learns more fully, that it’s not about him at all but about blessing others. And the SERVICE goes on from there in their families and in the ward.

So here we have a patriarchy that essentially helps foster and cultivate divine attributes of femininity - I love it. I know you don't like the formula MR. R and it seems you don't think there's anything particularly special about women to emulate or to encourage, plead, teach and affirm to women that their divine mission is so important that they fulfill it and not assume that they can as easily be replaced by a fellow.

Here many will continue to disagree. But you brought out something so interesting in your post, I'm so glad you did - in the final chapter in this book of life, women become priestesses and as I've discussed, men who've righteously and continuously exercise the priesthood will have keenly developed divine nature, we also call it being sanctified! Isn't it marvelous how that is! You know what else is strange, even though I have been in leadership positions in jobs and in the church, I've never felt more like a leader than I do now in raising my daughter, it's so encompassing. It's really striking to me.

I just finished my visiting teaching with two women who are converts to the church, one 9 years ago and the other just a few months ago. I shared with them some of my experiences in participating in this particular blog and many of the negative assumptions people make about the interactions of men and women in the church here in this thread. One of the things they both shared with me was how they've experienced more strong women in this church collectively than they’ve experienced anywhere else. I've always felt the same way but I've also always been a member too so their thoughts were particularly validating to me as so many in this thread assume the LDS women are somehow being cheated. But we know we're not -- priesthood power is there to serve us and our families in our sacred work. We are blessed by it, magnified by it and ultimately exalted by it. It helps the men we love to continue to be even better too and in this we again are blessed.

In light of such, while I do appreciate and find more pleasant and humane for someone to feel sorry for someone or something they don’t understand rather than to shoot venom at them, I'm confident in my case your sympathy is quite unnecessary unless it is for LDS men and women who don’t yet understand for themselves the magnitude and complementary relationship of their divine roles.

P.S. I'm taking at least the rest of the week off from this chat everybody - hope everyone has a good week!

To say designating motherhood and nurturing children as one's most important mission is dinegrating, depends on the subjective value one places on those roles. The view that people who are happy and proud to embrace these roles as their divine mission merit pity, speaks more to the value one places on these roles than to the actual state of the women refered.

The assertion that childrearing is less meaningful, important, and enobling than other pursuits fails to recognize where real influence is exercised, and real, lasting good can be accomplished; it is evolutionarily counter-intuitive to say the least.

By By Elder H. Burke Peterson of the Quorum of the Seventy:

"The Husband Presides in the Home

Speaking of priesthood leadership, Elder John A. Widtsoe said: “The Priesthood always presides and must, for the sake of order. The women of a congregation or auxiliary—many of them—may be wiser, far greater in mental powers, even greater in natural power of leadership than the men who preside over them. That signifies nothing. The Priesthood is not bestowed on the basis of mental power but is given to good men and they exercise it by right of divine gift, called upon by the leaders of the Church. Woman has her gift of equal magnitude, and that is bestowed on the simple and weak as well as upon those who are great and strong.” (Priesthood and Church Government, comp. John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, p. 90.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that this relationship extends to the home. “There is nothing in the teachings of the gospel which declares that men are superior to women,” he said. “The Lord has given unto men the power of priesthood and sent them forth to labor in his service. The woman’s calling is in a different direction. The most noble, exalting calling of all is that which has been given to women as the mothers of men. Women do not hold the priesthood, but if they are faithful and true they will become priestesses and queens in the kingdom of God, and that implies that they will be given authority. The women do not hold the priesthood with their husbands, but they do reap the benefits coming from that priesthood.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., comp. Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 3:178; italics in original.)

The principles, however, that we are discussing apply as well to homes where the husband does not hold the priesthood. President Kimball explained: “The husband presides in marriage. In the beginning when God created man and the woman, he said to the woman, ‘Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule [but I like the word preside] over thee.’ (Gen. 3:16.)” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 316.)

In the order of heaven, the husband has the authority to preside in the home. That issue is not subject to review."

I wonder why women don't get the priesthood now too, if they are to become PRIESTESSES in the next life if/when they gain exaltation. Wouldn't you think that they would benefit from having the priesthood in this life in order to begin practicing utilizing it as the men get to do?

I find it appalling that we are taught in the church that we as men are given this gift of priesthood power - the power to act in God's name - yet women's "gift of equal magnitude" is that they are born with a uterus. Motherhood is a gift, I agree, equal to the fatherhood I enjoy as a gift - yet I ALSO get the priesthood power as a gift. Why is it just for men? Why not women too??

I must admit I find it shocking that more women in the church don't find this disturbing. I appreciate you bearing your testimonies of your feelings about the patriarchal order, but I just have to say that reading it makes me feel sorry for you more than anything else.

It is unfortunate that you don't value yourselves as much as you value your men.

The practice of running plans and ideas by the Bishop before implementation (also the requirement to follow his counsel) applies to all auxiliaries and ward level programs. Those run by men and women.

Mr. R -

Those are great questions and I am quite sure you realize that this is not a situation of micro-management in any way. You will note in the quotes I have posted that the family and the individual are the focus in the work that is done by all in the church.

And please don't forget that what makes up ALL of these counsels, presidencies, counselors, bishops, stake presidents, etc... are the moms, dad, husbands, wives, grandfathers, grandmothers, aunts, uncles, best friends, neighbors, sisters, brothers, etc... of the people they are discussing and serving. This is not a business... you know?

With this in mind, there is a lot more unity involved that most people probably imagine? But coordination is critical to order in any organization when planning is being done. And when we are considering families and individuals it is of the utmost importance that these things be run through one central head. In the church, as has been discussed previously, it is through priesthood leadership.

Why do sisters then follow the final word after recommendations have been discussed and given? Who is to say her recommendations are NOT the ones that are the final word? Much of the time they are. Many times it is a combination. Sometimes it is totally different. Either way, after respectful discussion when a decision has been made we move forward knowing the best decisions have been made in regards to the family or individual.

It is not about a promotion or a raise in the church. It is about my family and theirs and everyone else who belongs to our church family. Do you see?

Many of your questions have been answered in this thread previously. I sure hope you have some time to read them. I think you will gain a lot of understanding with your efforts:-)

This is not a power thing as the world would have everyone think? I hope this helps a bit in understanding it from the inside out?

Elder Richard G. Scott

The family and the home are the foundation of the righteous life. The priesthood is the power and the priesthood line is the means provided by the Lord to support the family. The scriptures and approved materials are provided to instruct individuals and families in the ways of God.

The Church auxiliaries are organized to assist the individual, the family, and the priesthood in realizing divine expectations.
However, the activity of each must be correlated carefully with the other auxiliaries so that order may be maintained and revealed doctrine kept pure.

This coordination is best accomplished under priesthood leadership in stake and ward councils.

President Spencer W. Kimball

Our success, individually and as a Church, will largely be determined by how faithfully we focus on living the gospel in the home. Only as we see clearly the responsibilities of each individual and the role of families and homes can we properly understand that priesthood quorums and auxiliary organizations, even wards and stakes, exist primarily to help members live the gospel in the home. Then we can understand that people are more important than programs, and that Church programs should always support and never detract from gospel-centered family activities. …

“Our commitment to home-centered gospel living should become the clear message of every priesthood and auxiliary program, reducing, where necessary, some of the optional activities that may detract from proper focus on the family and the home.”
Elder Richard G. Scott said:

“Our commitment to home-centered gospel living should become the clear message of every priesthood and auxiliary program, reducing, where necessary, some of the optional activities that may detract from proper focus on the family and the home.”

Elder Harold B. Lee said:

“The home is the basis of a righteous life. … Priesthood programs operate in support of the home; the auxiliary programs render valuable assistance. … [There is an] urgency of impressing the importance of better teaching and greater parental responsibility in the home. Much of what we do organizationally, then, is scaffolding, as we seek to build the individual, and we must not mistake the scaffolding for the soul.”

Taken from lds.org: http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,6951-1,00.html

"Counseling with Priesthood Leaders

Participating in Ward and Stake Councils

Stake presidencies and bishoprics are directed to meet regularly with their auxiliary presidents in ward and stake councils. There, these priesthood leaders instruct auxiliary presidencies on doctrine and duties, and priesthood and auxiliary leaders counsel together on how to improve gospel instruction and how to strengthen individuals and families spiritually (see Dallin H. Oaks, "The Priesthood and the Auxiliaries," Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, Jan. 10, 2004, 17; see also "Young Women," section 4 of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2: Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders [1998], 215, 217).

Regular Meetings with Priesthood Leaders

Stake presidencies and bishoprics should meet separately with each auxiliary presidency under their guidance to understand and thereby be able to give inspired counsel and direction to their work.

As stake auxiliary officers, you should present your plans to the stake presidency and receive their counsel before you carry out your plan. On the ward level, you should share with the bishopric your plans before they are carried out. (See Richard G. Scott, "The Doctrinal Foundation of the Auxiliaries," Ensign, Aug. 2005, 67.)

Sharing Observations, Concerns, and Recommendations

Young Women leaders serve as a resource and provide assistance to priesthood leaders. They prepare to help and work with priesthood leaders by first counseling together as a presidency. In their presidency meeting, Young Women leaders:

* Make observations.
* Identify concerns.
* Decide what recommendations to make to priesthood leaders.

After they have made recommendations to priesthood leaders, Young Women leaders follow priesthood counsel."

I'd like to know why the LDS women here feel that they MUST FOLLOW PRIESTHOOD COUNSEL in all matters of concern they have identified through observation. Why do they feel it's NECESSARY to run everything by priesthood holders first, (besides the priesthood leaders told them to) and then only follow the priesthood counsel they are given, even if the counsel they receive is different from what they recommend to said priesthood leaders??

I don't see why women can't have the same rights, privileges, and "power to act in God's name" as men in the church do. Women are just as qualified as men are in this respect. Men are certainly able to fulfill their divine roles as fathers, husbands, and members of the church while holding the priesthood simultaneously. Why shouldn't a woman be granted the same honor if she's so capable? If the priesthood power would somehow hinder a woman in her divine role, then why doesn't it hinder men?

Are we being told by this that men are better and more capable than women?

Hi RTC,

Thanks so much for your heartfelt counsel and advice. My sweet little Hershey is just 9 months old now but already the lack of sleep sometimes is enough to give a gal some serious gripes. I so much admire that you have raised 3 daughters and that you teach seminary. I think you are a great example of motherhood and have represented well the many women of the church who have similar strength and clarity about who they are and what they are doing.

I so much value and honor what you and others do and to such I say - more power to ya - you keep empowering others!

Dear Hershey's Mama-

Yes, Sister Dew most certainly brings it home! Your little Hershey is a fortunate child to have such a devoted mama who knows the meaning of life!

I hope that you keep all of the post that you have written in a journal so that you may reflect upon them in the future.

There is nothing that will challenge you as a women more than when you devote yourself completely to being a mother. It is a great responsibility to teach, train and nurture a child so that they may then make wise choices for themselves that will bring them happiness.

There will be many days that you will doubt yourself as a mother. Remembering the many things you have written will keep you focused on all of these eternal truths.

Heavenly Father has complete faith in you to assist Him in His plan for His children. But sometimes we need a little reminder that he actually ordained it to be this way when they are behaving horribly? lol

Thank you for all of your contributions on this thread, as I have been enlightened by so much of what you have shared. You have been exceptionally open with your post, more than any other in my opinion. I consider that a quality to be admired greatly.

I hope others too, have gained understanding from the honest and sincere dialogue that has transpired here because of it.

It iS the greAtest of aLl knowlEdge to kNow whY wE are placed hEre upon this eaRth and oUr desTiny...

Hey RTC,

Thank you so much for quoting Sister Dew! I always love how she captures things so perfectly particularly when it comes to women! I think this thread could end on those words.

I also appreciate you reading me as exhausted. Sometimes I am. Although I do get tired of re-clarifying or "resurrecting" realities that I think have already well been explicated in this thread, I thought SML asked a very valid question and tried to answer it as best I could.

I feel very passionate about womanhood and motherhood as taught in LDS theology.

Growing up in the church, I once took these roles for granted. Though I learned about them in Sunday lessons, experienced them in the presence and care of 100's of amazing and lovely women -- Mormon and non-Mormon alike and also came to keenly understand their fundamental influence and impact in my education and career -- it was alone in my room in supplication with my Father in Heaven that a humbled me sought his will for my life with all my heart and was really taught about motherhood.

I had come to Him initially seeking his guidance in determining whether or not to serve a mission as I had been more seriously pondering it for about a month. With no clear direction yet, I asked my Heavenly Father if he would have me serve a mission or continue my schooling at this time? Nothing really came, so I asked Him to tell me what was getting in the way of an answer?

I felt impressed to read some quotes I had been given on womanhood in a lesson just a few weeks prior that I hadn't really read -- I had initially just glanced over them and tucked them in a drawer uninterested.

But that night I followed the impression and really read them through. When I did, I recognized for the first time how unenthused I was about motherhood. I honestly remember thinking that I would never get any recognition for it - no visibility in this role, no accolades, but very encompassing work. I'm sure that's what I always thought about it up until then but I was never really aware of it till that night.

Initially I was puzzled, I had not read anything in those quotes that gave me insight into my mission question. I was also discouraged because of my new consciousness of my lack of enthusiasm for motherhood.

In prayer again, I told my Father in Heaven all I wanted more than anything was his will for my life and I had never meant it more than I did then.

I felt impressed to read the quotes again. I almost didn't given my previous experience but when I did, a light and knowledge and profound understanding began to pour out upon me and continued to do so as I read those 6 pages of prophetic quotes, that taught me in conjunction with the spirit, the grand mission that was mine! I struggled to read all the way through them as tears blurred my vision and rolled down my face just as they do again now while I write this. In the end, I knew that whether or not I would serve a mission, my greatest mission in life was that of a mother!

I am so humbled again and again that God would trust me, weak and so often rough around the edges me, with His children. It is the greatest gift and I wish for every woman to understand this amazing opportunity we have as I did that night. I cannot convey it but I know the Spirit can.

As I share these things, my thoughts now also turn to a remembrance of my overall weakness in conversing in this thread - both to share what I believe and to engage consistently without defensiveness and with humility.

You all know I can do better probably more than I do. But in spite of me, I do hope that the teachings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ regarding womanhood and motherhood will be better understood and therefore better respected even if they are not embraced. I think they are so wonderful and overall feel blessed that I have been able to share them here with all of you.

I have gained so much in participating in this thread. I think myself so much wiser for it and am grateful for this opportunity.

Thanks to On Faith, Bro Otterson, the GAs, and all of you for facilitating my growth in the existance and content of this thread -together you are quite a uniquely helpful brew...

Mr. R

Another profound observation from the outside looking in I must say. As I took a moment to read your post again, I took note of your distinct clarity. Bravo...

You are Right! Are you truly looking for Mrs. Right or is your name just a play on words you give yourself? Either way good work, for you must have read the entire thread to have reached such a positive conclusion.

I do not believe HM was offended at all. I believe it was more like exhausted, at least from my perspective HM has given extreme amounts of personal effort in her post attempting to help SML understand the role of women in the lds church.

I believe she has done an outstanding job in explaining that women in the church can reach their fuLl potential in evEry way through fiRst understAnding their diVine role as moTher and their viTal place in God's plan.

To help define a bit more if necessary...

Quote: Sheri Dew

"Have you ever wondered why prophets have taught the doctrine of motherhood—and it is doctrine—again and again? I have. I have thought long and hard about the work of women of God.

And I have wrestled with what the doctrine of motherhood means for all of us...

When we understand the magnitude of motherhood, it becomes clear why prophets have been so protective of woman's most sacred role.

While we tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word mother has layers of meaning.

Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living—and they did so before she ever bore a child.

Like Eve, our motherhood began before we were born. Just as worthy men were foreordained to hold the priesthood in mortality righteous women were endowed premortally with the privilege of motherhood.

Motherhood is more than bearing children, though it is certainly that. It is the essence of who we are as women. It defines our very identity, our divine stature and nature, and the unique traits our Father gave us.

For reasons known to the Lord, some women are required to wait to have children. This delay is not easy for any righteous woman. But the Lord's timetable for each of us does not negate our nature.
Some of us, then, must simply find other ways to mother. And all around us are those who need to be loved and led.

Eve set the pattern. In addition to bearing children, she mothered all of mankind when she made the most courageous decision any woman has ever made and with Adam opened the way for us to progress.

She set an example of womanhood for men to respect and women to follow, modeling the characteristics with which we as women have been endowed: heroic faith, a keen sensitivity to the Spirit, an abhorrence of evil, and complete selflessness.

Like the Savior, "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross," Eve, for the joy of helping initiate the human family, endured the Fall. She loved us enough to help lead us.

As daughters of our Heavenly Father, and as daughters of Eve, we are all mothers and we have always been mothers. And we each have the responsibility to love and help lead the rising generation.

Every time we build the faith or reinforce the nobility of a young woman or man, every time we love or lead anyone even one small step along the path, we are true to our endowment and calling as mothers and in the process we build the kingdom of God.

No woman who understands the gospel would ever think that any other work is more important or would ever say, "I am just a mother," for mothers heal the souls of men.

Look around. Who needs you and your influence? If we really want to make a difference, it will happen as we mother those we have borne and those we are willing to bear with."

Grasshopper -

You said:
"one seeking light and truth, being invited, I “hopped” on over to another who has openly invited all to his blog. I DID find much of interest there. One observation...SML, a woman who claims to be assertive in her role as independent, although having been victimized by male dominance, has found the need to call in “this male” counterpart to “assist in her defense.” So, by her own argument it appears that one can take the girl out of the church but not the church out of the girl... would you not agree?"

sml said:
(will not repost reply... too offensive)

RTC SAYS:

Wow, that was quite a little riddle? But the result of it really got my attention I must confess.

So... I too decided to follow your path as I have in the past been to both of the individuals of which you refer to blog sites.

You are correct in assuming a relationship as they have similar postings on the front of their blogs.

One goes so far as to credit the other in their doing the same. I do agree with your post as I confirmed this myself.

Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their having a friendship as you well know.

In fact, I think this is a very healthy and good thing for people to meet and make new friends, especially when leaving something they both have known for so long.

Do you agree?

What I find puzzling is probably what you were attempting to bring to light and that is possibly why you received such an unacceptable response?

Others have asked SML very direct questions and have been given direct answers. In fact she is quite aggressive in asking to know what others think of what has happened in her personal life? She has asked me personally.

If SML was offended in this then why did she not ask you what you actually meant or just confirm the friendship and say "so what"? Do you agree?

If this is a friendship, then why not just say so? Yes?

Is there something wrong IF it is a supportive friendship and it happens to be a male?

Why would this offend SML? Is not equality her call? What do you think?

At first I wasn't sure exactly what you were trying to say? But after SML posted, I think I get what you were trying to point out in your clever little post?

I think what you were implying is that maybe it was never a problem with the LDS church all along? Did the system perhaps just bring it out?

Maybe something that Luckyclover was also trying to say to SML has a part in all of this as well? SML seemed to be agreeable to much of what he said to her. JD1 too. Right?

So, if you disagree, in that what I am saying is not what you meant, then please tell me what you did mean?

Also, if you don't mind my asking? Are you male or female? I know it should not matter, but considering SML's response I am interested to know?

Hi, HM,
I said that I previously felt about the patriarchal system the way that you described. I did not say "just like you". Your words truly did describe how I used to feel.

Grasshopper ~

You wrote, "As one seeking light and truth, being invited, I “hopped” on over to another who has openly invited all to his blog. I DID find much of interest there. One observation...SML, a woman who claims to be assertive in her role as independent, although having been victimized by male dominance, has found the need to call in “this male” counterpart to “assist in her defense.” So, by her own argument it appears that one can take the girl out of the church but not the church out of the girl... would you not agree?"

WTF are you talking about? I assume you are talking about Dave Sigmann and his invitation to check out his blog. Not once have I asked Dave Sigmann to come over here and "assist in my defense." I think any intelligent reader of this thread will recognize that I have no need of assistance from anyone in this discussion.

You claiming this falsehood is the same as if I claimed that Hershey's Mama called YOU in as a male counterpart to assist in her defense. Both claims are untrue and immature in the extreme.

Hershey's Mama,

You seemed offended when SML wrote: "I think it would be wonderful if the church allowed ALL its members the autonomy and freedom to develop and use their talents, abilities, and strengths to their full potential, rather than limiting this potential by teaching them the only valuable way a woman can contribute is through motherhood."

The young men aged 12-18 in the mormon church this year in their Aaronic Priesthood classes will be taught a lesson (Lesson 37) titled "UNDERSTANDING WOMENS ROLES" in which they learn this:

"Women Have Important Roles in the Kingdom of God

Explain that President Spencer W. Kimball, in an address to the sisters of the Church, emphasized the three important roles of women in the kingdom of God: “No greater recognition can come to you in this world than to be known as a woman of God. No greater status can be conferred upon you than being a daughter of God who experiences true sisterhood, wifehood, and motherhood, or other tasks which influence lives for good” (“The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, Nov. 1979, p. 102).

List Daughter of God, Wife, and Mother on the chalkboard."

Looks like maybe SML was partially right, only she forgot to mention that women in the church are to make their valuable contribution by being a WIFE too.

As one seeking light and truth, being invited, I “hopped” on over to another who has openly invited all to his blog. I DID find much of interest there. One observation...SML, a woman who claims to be assertive in her role as independent, although having been victimized by male dominance, has found the need to call in “this male” counterpart to “assist in her defense.” So, by her own argument it appears that one can take the girl out of the church but not the church out of the girl... would you not agree?

Hi Dave,

To be clear, you will notice if you reread my post again carefully that gender differences in biology are not where I attempt to make logical inferances or justify why men and women benefit from divine roles. Instead, notice that my use of vitamins was an analogy, a metaphore to illustrate my beliefs, not an underpining or premise of my statements.

I also maintain that your CEO post comes off to me as written in an attitude of mocking my beliefs. You said you used to be a member just like me - while I think that the "just like me" assumption is presumptious for any person to say to another particularly when they don't know each other, I hope such an assumption might lead to more respectful posts to LDS here in the future especially if your goal here is to enlighten.

Hello, HM,

All I did in my last post was show the flip side of the vitamin argument. I laid bare its offense message. The only difference is in my example, we know the policy came from only a man.

Women really do need some supplements that men do not because of their biology. But, to extend that to justify denying women particular leadership positions because men and women are different does not logically follow and is appalling. So, again, it comes down to the question of whether it comes from God or not.

I am glad that you are going to look into the Book of Abraham. The following things are what I would have you study: sepia photos of the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri fragments (Feb. 1968 issue of the Improvement Era), a modern translation of those fragments (I recommend Robert K. Ritner, "The 'Breathing Permit of Hor' Thirty-four Years Later," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33 [Winter 2000]:101), and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers including Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

You can read what Nibley and Gee have to say about it, but don't think that reading them counts as really looking into the BoA issue. The apologists don't point out the anachronisms in the text and the false restoration/plagiarism in Facsimile #2. For that reason I would recommend a few websites that point those things out. You don't have to take their word for it, you'll be able to see the points they make with your own eyes, but it would take a lot of intense studying to find those problems yourself.

Hello Dave,

I think naturally our discussions always end in the acknowledgement that we have different premises and of course the invitation to check them once again. I think that's sound advice to everyone including myself on just about anything and something I've gained a lot of insight in doing. I must say with the derogatory tone of your second post, I don't much fancy you as my Book of Abraham instructor and won't be checking out your blog for a lesson as there are other sources to which I may look.

You asked "if you knew that the Church's patriarchy system was not from God, would you not agree that it would be wrong?"

Naturally this is something I've thought about. If by some means I came to believe that the church was not true, I think I would be an agnostic and would probably view both your ideals and lds ideals as subjectives that each have merit. In view of how much the lds church has immensely blessed my life and the lives of others, I believe it has as much merit as any other acclaimed system - cultural relativism and bias in what one ideals is what I think replaces a reality of the divine. Perhaps, I would be a cultural Mormon because I love the people and teachings so much. No matter what, I think I would always be grateful for it. But with that said, I must also say that I have come to trust my path and my church and my God as reality more than ever as my study and application of both LDS doctrine and principles compounds and my understanding and relationship with God deepens in prayer and in spiritual communication. The blessings compound as well as light and knowledge and in the end, I really look forward to continuing my sojourn on earth with my faith. For me it’s exciting to think about…

Morning SML,

You wrote that the church limits potential "by teaching them the only valuable way a woman can contribute is through motherhood."

SML, this is a blatantly false statement regarding lds teachings. I admit, as this exchange goes on and you continue to misconstrue the personal statements and feelings of myself and others despite statements to the contrary, your credibility in regards to explicating LDS doctrine wanes as well. In other words, it is begining to appear to me that in some cases you carelessly distort to serve your purposes. If that is not the case, I hope you are more careful in your interpretations and explications of both the LDS who post here and LDS doctrine. If it is the case, in my opinion it does not serve your position which I believe from a secular perspective has much better angles that you might discuss with. Either way, in light of such, I find myself loosing enthusiam to converse with you.

Again for the record, As an advisor to the young women in my ward, I have become very familiar with what is in the manuals about individual worth, divine nature, and good works and a woman's potential influence for good in various spheres besides motherhood as both celebrated and encouraged. Entire lessons are devoted to developing talents as well as serving the community and lifelong education. President Hinckley encourages all the youth to get education and to use it to bless the world and in so doing bring honor to themselves, thier families and the church. Most recently, LDS women have been "plead" with to consider serving missions as they are valued and needed. Also, Homemaking has been changed to Home, Family and Personal Enrichment which reflects various emphasis for talent and skill development. GA's addresses to single women encourages them to use thier many wonderful talents and ablities to do much good in the world and in the church and not to waste time worrying about a lack of marriage oppurtunities. These are just a few of the most recent examples. In light of such I hope you do not make such false statements in the future. Again, in my opinion, they only detract from other more substantial critiques you have offered this forum and might in the future.

I checked up on the church policy which so seriously impacted SML. It's not in the most recent version of the secret _Church Handbook of Instructions_. It discusses harmony in the family, but is gender neutral.

Baby steps are being made, although the marathon stretches ahead.

Mr. CEO says to his female employee that only men can be his Vice Presidents. The female employee begins to protest, but Mr. CEO says, "You know leadership is like vitamin Z. Men need it for their personal growth and development, but women don't need it. It would be wasted on you; you have your own vitamins for your differing feminine needs and bodies".

For me, personally, while I was an active, faithful, true-believing Mormon, I felt about the patriarchal system just as Hershey's Momma so eloquently described. I more than accepted it, I embraced as the best system because I trusted that it came from Heavenly Father.

But, once I found out that the Book of Abraham was not what Joseph claimed it to be and came to believe that the entire church system was not created, governed, or inspired by God, that changed everything. I then saw the patriarchal system without the Celestial glow, but as a mortal system created by men.

Now, if we were talking about any other organization (i.e., PTA group, corporate office, government system, etc) being organized by humans in the same way as the church is, I doubt many would defend its virtues. Who could defend the policy that only men can have the highest positions, regardless of the fact that most men will never hold those positions? We would not even be discussing whether this system is harmful, unfair, unequal, etc. Almost everyone would be able to see that a PTA organization in which only men can have the top positions is wrong.

So, if you knew that the Church's patriarchy system was not from God, would you not agree that it would be wrong? So, this is an issue about whether we trust this system is from God, including that it is best for men and women. And whether specific policies, such as the one that women must get permission from their non-member husbands to get their endowments, are from God or men. If they are from men, we have no reason to assume that treating men and women differently in this way is better for them than treating them with equality. In fact, if business and government can show us anything it is that society (both men and women) benefit from having women and men in leadership positions as opposed to just men. The idea that leadership should be reserved for men is an archaic idea.

The only thing that separates me from where I was when I accepted patriarchy to where I am now was thoroughly investigating the Book of Abraham. I would invite all who have not done the same to do so. You need to know what you don't know. You cannot be certain that there could not be anything there that might change your mind if you don't know the evidence. The entire case can be demonstrated by evidence the church has in its possession. You do not have to trust any anti sources. I imagine John D might have some familiarity with the topic judging from his other responses, but I'd like to find out how much he has been exposed to. If anyone is interested in exploring that topic more, post a message on my blog.

My aim here is not to find self-worth by competing for the same roles as men. I have found my self-worth, and it didn't come because of my role as a wife in "Zion" or as a sister in the LDS church or as a woman who's able to bear children. It came because I am a unique individual. I have talents, abilities, and strengths that can be used for good works if I choose to use them. I care about others. I appreciate humanity in all its forms.

I care how people are treated within the church. I think it would be wonderful if the church allowed ALL its members the autonomy and freedom to develop and use their talents, abilities, and strengths to their full potential, rather than limiting this potential by teaching them the only valuable way a woman can contribute is through motherhood.

You ladies are perfectly entitled to your opinions on how great the patriarchal system of the LDS church is. For some it's the perfect program, I'm sure. More power to ya.....um, I mean LESS power to ya!

:) SML

Hershey's Mama- I loved the vitamin analogy...Your points are well stated. You certainly must make your "Mama" proud. You go girl you rock too.

Hershey's Mama -

Thank you for addressing the above question posted by SML so eloquently. The implication of this being a "scary" topic of discussion for lds women again seems to indicate a continued denial to accept the fact, that although we do acknowledge that some women have experienced discrimination in the church, the majority of lds women that choose to be there are happy.

In fact, LDS women are some of the happiest women on earth! They should be!

I appreciate that you have drawn attention to the power and influence women have in their roles and stewardships in the church and in their families.

You are absolutely right when you state that it has not been hardly acknowledged in these threads nor has it been validated in any way.

In fact, I find it interesting that the only place it seems self-worth for some women is to be found is in the attempt to compete for the same roles as men? Why is this so? So much energy in such a "fruitless" pursuit.

Women of all creations, should understand the concept of complimentary relationships in order to attain harmony.

You said:

"I see it as evidence of the wisdom of God in setting up a system that if lived according to his teachings, yields fruits I believe superior to equality for equalities sake."

I love the way you expressed this so beautifully in relation to the marriage partnership ordained by God.

I hope when people read this thread that they will be able to see this truly is the way that marriage and family is ideally to be.

That men and women do not compete in their partnership, but that roles are well defined and that this is the key to equality and harmony within the family.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is a place that strengthens the family in every way.

Jesus Christ is the center of our homes and we follow His teachings and example in governing our lives.

We believe that this is the only way to true happiness in this life and in the life hereafter. We believe that families are forever, therefore everything matters...

Hi again SML,

I think I get the general gist of what you are advocating for, I've thought along those lines in the past myself as one who also holds equality as a value and virtue. But before I get more specific in answering your question, I do want to point out that I think much of your proposal is skewed in that it does not acknowledge many important realities that have already been articulated previously in this thread.

Again for the record , men are most often participants similar to women in this patriarchal order ie. the young men's leaders and high priest group have to seek approval from the Bishop on budget issues and the like just as much as any Relief Society President does. Bishops are also accountable to stake presidents and stake presidents to area authorities and all to church policy as well.

Also, a man is no more able to appoint himself to positions of leadership than any woman. Unlike other churches, one cannot just decide they want to be a pastor or reverend and go to bible college or divinity school. People are called and some are never called to leadership positions period. People leave their respective callings when they are released as well.

Another that has been so often minimized in this thread as a whole, is the grand and powerful influence women already have in their roles and stewardships in the church and in their families that is again ignored in your statements.

And finally, your proposal fails to acknowledge that in the marriage relationship, Mormon men and woman already are statistically higher in marital equality which I think is actually due to the separate roles given to men and women that teaches them to serve and honor one another- go figure. Some may see this as ironic if they choose to acknowledge it at all. I see it as evidence of the wisdom of God in setting up a system that if lived according to his teachings, yields fruits I believe superior to equality for equalities sake.

In my field, I've learned that good therapy starts not with a Freudian type interpreting ones experiences and offering anecdotes but with a grounded therapist essentially asking a client what is your goal/how would you like it to be? In my experience, there are few clients who do not already have the answer to that question and therapy then consists of defining the “what” and “how” that does and does not facilitate that goal.

I bring this up because much of the answer to your question SML, for me lies in looking first to what the actual goal of the LDS church is when I am assessing what behaviors or policies are destructive in addition to my convictions of some very eternal realities. One of those convictions is that previous to this life, I have always been a woman and was prepared in a pre-mortal realm to take on the sacred role of mother in this life to help my children return to God. Correspondingly, my conviction is that my husband was prepared to administer priesthood ordinances in service to me and others and to be a provider and presider to sustain and magnify me in my unequivocally important work. In these roles, we seek a common goal, a Zion ready family, for a Zion society.

In addition to being uniquely prepared and equipped for our respective roles, I believe that embracing and living them are similar to the multi-vitamins that are specific to men or women - when taken, they assist us in becoming our very best selves. While my husband’s multi-vitamin contains overlapping ingredients with mine, if I were to take his or if he were to take mine, I imagine we would each take some benefit but we would also be missing out on what is uniquely contained in these our “sexist” vitamins that helps our growth according to our gender. I am confident that in giving us these roles, God is also assisting us in becoming our very best selves for our happiness and to the blessing of all of His children.

In this context, I don’t think it would be the exact same church and gospel that I so much love as you suggest and I don’t think we would arrive as efficiently, if at all, at our goal - as our best selves would be fundamentally characteristic of the Zion we are seeking to build as well as the best nurturance of our children so that they would be there with us.

In fulfilling these sacred roles as Christ would, I believe men and women learn to sustain each other, magnify each other, they become intimately bound to one another and they sustain the nurturance of the most precious gift God can bestow, his children. Thus what I advocate for is not for formal female priesthood holding or male child baring and homemakers but for better implementation of LDS/Christ-like teachings and greater acknowledgement and appreciation for our unique gifts and the challenges of our respective roles again with the goal to better support one another and facilitate the creation of Zion.

I hope this sheds more light on my position...

SML,

I wonder if the "insidiousness" of female oppression you perceive in the church is due to geography more than theology. I must say, your characterization baffles me.

I could see in some regions the church might fit your description a bit better than in the area I grew up. For example, my sister, a So-Cal girl and working Mom lived in South Carolina for a time. She finally went inactive because she was tired of being lectured in Relief Society about how evil she was for being a working mom. She said they never taught out of the manuals, but took Liberties to go off on tangents without any guidance from the scriptures or the Prophets.

Recently she moved to Nashville. She became active there again. She loves the ward there and doesn't feel any kind of "oppression" due to her gender. To this day my sister gets annoyed when members deviate from the manual, the Prophets and the scriptures in Sunday School. Did she not know any better from her experience in Cali wards, she may have equated this behavior with the Restored Gospel. Luckily her experience was not so limited.

The oppressive church you describe does not fit my California, and London models. Maybe it fits the South and certain parts of the Midwest a bit more. But this is geographic and cultural, not theological; nor is it an essential aspect of Mormonism or in accordance with its teachings about the inherent and equal divine worth of men and women.

My Dear Sisters RTC and Hershey's Mama (and any other people whom I've offended),

Again, I meant no offense when I made my comparison. I apologize for causing you distress and anger over my statement, as that was never my intention. I was simply pointing out that sometimes people can be in a situation where they are being oppressed or treated with inequality but that they may not see it since it's what they were taught their whole lives was the natural order of things.

I did not mean this is the case for every woman in the church. However, just because neither of you personally felt this way in your experiences, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to others. It does.

The main reason I've been engaged here in this highly interesting conversation is this: I maintain that if women were to suddenly be treated with equality in the LDS church, meaning they could enjoy equal responsibility and leadership abilities (bishop, stake president, ward clerk, high councilwoman, etc.), and could make decisions without having to gain priesthood approval first, and could preside in the home and in the church the same as the men do now, and could wield the "power to act in God's name" (priesthood) just as the men do now, it would be a major improvement over the patriarchal system now in place.

It would be the exact same church and gospel you love so much, only there would be women also doing those things that before only men were allowed to do. That is the only difference. Why is this so scary to consider?

I think that women of the church deserve to feel the same thing HM felt: like a pheonix rising out of the dust, empowered to face situations with autonomy and conviction.

Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

Hi SML,

Just catching up with the conversation.

I wanted to write to let you know how absolutely repugnant the idea of being compared to being a slave is in the context of being a Mormon Woman
I wonder if you have any idea how offensive it is for someone to assert that the status in life that you have consciously and carefully chosen over many competing ideals is really little more than that of a lemming - an oppressed lemming at that. You may think it helpful even noble to portray me and the like as victims, but it is so repulsive to a thinking adult who takes full responsibility for her life's choices including her faith, her marriage and the outcomes that flow from them.

I had a professor once who said anyone who is smiling all the time is either in the state mental hospital or smoking something. I'm comfortable agreeing. I don't live my life 24/7 with a cracked out smile on my face - life is challenging no doubt but my faith, my friends and my family sustains me and overall I call myself blessed, yeah, even happy.

As a social worker, I work in one of the more liberal fields. Though I do not think my experience is in any way indicative of social work as a whole, it was as a social worker that I experienced what it feels like to have my autonomy squelched to the point of nearly braking, first with a male counterpart and later a male boss.

It was foreign to me, my mama did not raise me to defer. I fought back and I did feel like I was fighting with a fellow who was my dad's age and a former army man used to giving others their marching orders as captain. Perhaps if I had thought I was somehow inferior to this man due to our genders, I would have said "yes sir" as the woman who had the position prior to me had done - I'd of let him continue to waltz into my groups and take them over with a smile on his face expecting me to be grateful for his "help." I guess I would have somehow thought it proper for him to plop down uninvited in my office and shoot off his mouth. But I didn't.

In challenging him, this man tried to first make my life a living h*ll. When I didn't back down, he then tried to act like he was my best buddy - now I know what it is to feel completely slimmed. I have never felt anything like this in my patriarchal church or marriage. In fact, it was so much my faith that carried me through.

I remember being right in the thick of it just dreading going to work one morning before finally asking my husband for a priesthood blessing. That was really a turning point for me, I felt like a pheonix rising out of the dust, impowered to face the situation.

In the end that man not only learned to respect my boundaries, he learned to be my co-facilitator and I am happy to credit myself for facilitating his growth in both calling him on his crap and in not allowing myself to hold onto a resentment that would have gotten in the way of the important work I felt we were doing as drug and alcohol counselors. Again strength to do this coming out of the convictions of my faith supported by my sweet Mormon husband and a good Mormon girl friend.

Yes, now I have ranted. Not because I think that you have tried to be insensitive SML or because I am upset with you personally, but because I want it to be clear that everyday, I decide to be a Mormon and everyday I can change my mind if I so choose. Even as I write this, it seems so ridiculous to me, for me to even have to say that but what you are trying to pass off here to others about Mormon Women in your comparison just sickens me so here I am…

Luckyclover,

May I just tell you how much I appreciate your fresh perspective which you have brought into this ongoing conversation.

I believe that it is always helpful when one is able to be looked upon from the outside with sincerity and receive the offering as well.

It is a good exercise for all of us. It is apparent that you have been thoughtful in your comments and that they come from the heart and experience of a type.

In particular the dialogue concerning our upbringing caught my attention... I find it interesting that there seems to be an assumption that (And I suppose I could be wrong?) for most lds women, such as myself, who embrace the patriarchal system of the church, therefore must have been raised in it, thus the result of such fervor?

Now, maybe this is true for the majority, but as I have commented from my own experience in many of my post, I felt it best to take the opportunity to clarify, that for myself it was not.

In fact, I was raised in a less-active family and made a choice to become active shortly before turning 18. I actually had very little contact with the church before that time... almost none. Doctrinally as well as culturally I had much catching up to do.

Also, I was raised for much of my teen years with a single mother which caused me to be quite independent as a young woman growing up in Southern California during the 70's. Thus, I have raised independent daughters myself.

So you can see that I do not fit the "mold" of one that has naturally fallen into the patriarchal order of the lds system quite as easily as one may have assumed.

But upon re-activation in the church and true conversion as a young adult I found that I desired the blessings of a family system that were so distant from that which I had experienced in my youth.

From my perspective at that time, I could see and still do, that I wanted for my children and myself to build a home wherein was Christ the center, with strength, harmony, love and happiness that would last. Never have I once felt like I have sacrificed my personal self-worth for these things.

What I believe is my right, is to say that I am happy, and not for anyone to tell me that I am swallowing it as I say it. I never said they had to believe me... I only stated it as my personal life's experience.

What seems to be harsh in the attempt to share understanding in these arenas is the anonymity that it affords individuals to make insinuations to another that would not be so otherwise?

I appreciate your cautions regarding those who have been persecuted and made examples of here as those who were "kept" and oppressed.

I felt the implications directed at lds women and it was hurtful and unacceptable. Those who have suffered in the past have suffered enough and to use these examples in this way was not fit or comparable.

In contemplating my efforts to uphold active lds women in this arena, there have been moments when in that defense I feel that I may have implied weakness in my brothers whom I truly respect and admire for their desire to follow the Savior. Even as I type these words I am sure that there are those that will take even these thoughts as submissive, not understanding my message to these gentlemen.

You have offered sound counsel to those in need. Truth does come often times in the most unusual places if we are open to receiving it?

For those who know there to be a God who loves us and hears our prayers... I have often wondered why He would have men upon the earth to organize religion on His behalf? And yet He does. Simple man with all of our weakness, so that we might learn how to love and forgive one another as He loves us. This is true religion.

I have learned much from these post and will continue to do so.

I have learned more than ever that I am thankful for my choices in my life. That I own these choices. I take responsibility for the consequences that come to me because of my choices... good or otherwise. I will learn from them and learn how I am to be a better person because of the experiences these choices have given me.

No other person gets the credit for my choices nor do they take the blame... I own it all!

If I have observed anything of value here, it is that life is halted when the accountability of our choices are deflected... I must learn to forgive more.

Luckyclover,

You are an amazing individual. I hope to someday be as open-minded and well spoken as you are. Thank you for your thoughts on this and for your hopes for me in my quest for truth and honesty. I do consider myself a seeker of truth, and I appreciate your understanding and encouragement to find enrichment in my life as you have done.

Your LDS friend who led you here should also jump in and write his thoughts!

John D the First,

I have enjoyed our dialog as well. I also appreciate your apology to me. While we may not always agree, I am gratified that you will walk away from our discussion with a broader mind about women in the church and how they are being treated, both by their men at home and by the church organization itself.

That really has been my intention all along ~ to show that the LDS church does have areas of concern where women are being treated inequitably. They are not just the figment of one woman's imagination. They are real, they are insidious, and they need to be changed. Even if I find forgiveness in my heart for such treatment.

John D the first-

Thank you for your compliment to me and I appreciate your apology to Sister Mary Lisa. Learning is the key to success in life, and while you may not agree with everything that Sister Mary Lisa has to say, you seem to be learning from her, which I would hope is the reason she chooses to share.

Sister Mary Lisa,

Please excuse my error in reading. I must have misread when you used the word “Heady” because I know that the feeling of being discriminated against can weigh “Heavily” on us, a feeling in which I would think you could relate to. However, you are correct in saying that the feeling of stepping away from discrimination is indeed “Heady.”

I am happy to hear that your experiences in the Mormon faith were not entirely bad, as it has been my experience that we have to try to look for the good and truth in everything, even when it seems ugly and hurtful to us. I hope that you continue to maintain and nurture those friendships that you believe to be genuine, despite your newly religious differences.

I hope that you don’t abandon truth, or the things that you personally have come to know are true, just because it may be taught by an organization that you have been hurt by. I know that the Mormon faith does have some good teachings, just as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and many other faiths do. However, based on the fact that you are courageous enough to voice your opinion leads me to believe that you are a seeker of truth and would not abandon anything that you have come to know as true, no matter where it is taught.

In a world that is so quick to judge and hate, I believe that truth and understanding can be found in even the darkest corners. Even though you are not searching for a particular religion or congregation to participate with right now, I urge you to lift others and inspire them to come closer to whatever higher power you might believe is out there, by praising others strengths and helping them improve their areas of weakness. Doing this has helped me, personally, to enrich my life, find closure in my struggles, and forgive my oppressors.

Luckyclover,

First I'd like to thank you for your dialogue and questions. I appreciate that you are interested in this.

I did not experience a "heavy feeling"....my words above to you were: "This is rapidly changing, and the change comes from within me as I step away and recognize how wrong it really is. It's a heady feeling, I can assure you."

It's a HEADY feeling to finally experience a change of this magnitude in my self perception and in my feelings of self worth after stepping away from a religion that promoted a different feeling.

I would like to point out that my experiences within the LDS faith were not all bad. I was able to learn much and grow and find good friends there.

I meant no offense to anyone in my using as an example slaves who claimed happiness in their position. I used it because slavery is an issue most people agree is wrong. When it comes to the issue of equality for women, however, too many people choose to discount it as unimportant or not valid, or a non-issue. This to me is sad.

I wish women didn't swallow this as their due in the Mormon religion. Of course, it is their right to do so. But the insidiousness of the unequal treatment they get starting at a young age is tragic because it causes women to have deeply-rooted feelings of inferiority or lack of self worth that is hard to recognize, and is easily exploited. Not all women feel this, but many do. Many don't even feel it when it's happening to them blatantly, because it's all they have ever experienced, so it doesn't feel wrong.

As for religion, I am freshly out of the LDS church since September. I have no desire at this time to seek God in another place. I'm still trying to find my balance without another religion trying to feed me its particular method of salvation.

Lucky Clover,

You seem like a very fair minded and civil person. I think you're right to point out that my post seemed a bit too personal. The question had been nagging me for a while and I have been debating whether or not to make the comment. Yesterday I just did it. Perhaps the inquiry could have been more nicely put, or was unnecessary.

Sister Mary Lisa,

You responded well to my interrogation. We could all learn from the composure you maintain while under fire.

Let me know if you felt attacked. If so I am sorry.

I appreciate knowing more about your experience. It helps me understand better where you are coming from.

Experience is difficult to argue with. We may argue about the implications of any one experience but our subjective experience is one thing each of us own; it cannot really be falsified or verified by others.

Because of this, the subjective experience of others does not necessarily appropriate "knowledge" in a scientific sense, but it does provide us with "wisdom." Wisdom to come outside our own subjectivity and at least partially view the world through anothers'.

As much as I disagree with the conclusions you derive from your experience, your experience itself I value as a source of wisdom for me.

It will increase my sensitivity to the needs of women in my life, especially if I ever have a leadership position in the church. I hope all Latter Day Saints reading these posts glean wisdom from these comments.

I also hope that those who are not familiar with Mormonism reading the experiences of a few, will not judge the religion rashly, but will seek their own experience with the faith. I truly believe that Mormonism is essentially light from heaven. Most of what I have and am that is good and beautiful comes from my faith.

Concerning this pesky policy...

It might be wise to review the permission requirement, as well as many other policies and consider changing them (As is constantly being done in the church). I personally think if permission is required, it should be required of both spouses.

I do think the *intent* of the policy was to make life easier for everyone, even if that is not the result. That is, I do not ascribe malicious design to the originators. I think you should write church leaders concerning your experience. Church policies come and go as history teaches, and this one may go soon enough...perhaps for the good.

Sister Mary Lisa,

I hope that you took my question in the right light as it could have easily been misinterpreted solely on the grounds that it fell between two comments that seemed less favorable toward you. However, with that said, I respect your opinion and can empathize with your feelings of being discriminated against.

A dear friend of mine who happens to be of the Mormon faith, or Latter-day Saint, as I believe he prefers it to be called, guided me to this forum because he knows how much I enjoy stimulating conversation as well as interacting with others who have felt oppressed and mistreated. It is my experience that talking about our experiences not only helps ourselves but also others, as I am sure you will agree with me. (Sadly my friend doesn’t participate in the forum but prefers to be a spectator, which I’m working on).

While I am not a woman and do not completely comprehend all that you feel or go through on a daily basis, I have had, and I’m sure will continue to have, experiences where others make me feel like a second class citizen. It seems to be the nature of the world we live in that those different from the people in authority are ostracized and have little say. Differences are too often seen as evil and feared instead of being celebrated and admired. Whether it be based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, you are right, when the victim is yourself it is a “heavy feeling.”

I understand completely that in many ways we are conditioned to carry this burden at a young age as you feel your Mormon upbringing did to you. However, this perceived self-image that we are weaker based on our differences is indeed a fallacy and while it may have some roots in a particular organization it can often be more closely associated with the personalities of our parents. For example, I was taught to feel inadequate by observing my parents feel inadequate when in the presence of those perceived to be better solely based on the color of skin. Perhaps you recognize some parallels in your life to the way that your mother was treated or perhaps how she perceived herself. (Deeply personal, I know, and I apologize if I have overstepped my bounds…let me know so as not to go to that area again if indeed you do take offense).

I like that you feel qualified because you have had particular experiences with the Mormon organization that have left you feeling second-class (if I am saying that correctly). And while you are very brave to stand up for what you have come to believe I also admire those that rebuttal you for in turn standing up for what they believe in, as long as they don’t seem to be personal attacks like John D the First’s comment could have easily been construed. We each have different experiences in life that help to mold and shape who we are, and while yours was a negative experience with the Mormon faith, others is a positive one. I will let you know that I personally have experienced both excluded and included when dealing with different members of the Mormon faith.

You have felt excluded while in the Mormon faith, and yet I would point out that all religious organizations are somewhat exclusive. They expect those that chose to align themselves with whatever the organization may be to conform to their ideals and beliefs, and they shun differences to their belief system. In most cases we either stay in the religion we were raised in or find a place where we feel most comfortable. You stated about your personal realization that you indeed are not inadequate but very capable, “This is rapidly changing, and the change comes from within me as I step away and recognize how wrong it really is. It's a heavy feeling, I can assure you.” As you step away I am curious if you have found another faith in which you feel less victimized. Intolerance and discrimination I’m afraid will exist in whatever place you may go, but it is my belief that truth also will. What are your current religious beliefs and what congregation are you now affiliated with, if any?

P.S. (And this is to Grasshopper too) Be careful throwing around the “Sambo” comments, because Slavery was a very serious issue, and while I personally do not take offense to them and understand how you both are trying to use them, they could also be misconstrued as you both taking the issue too lightly and might be offensive to someone…though I am sure this was not either of your intents.

Luckyclover,

I think I may have expressed in my comment to John D the First why I have felt this way outside the church as well (oppressed, exploited, alienated as a woman) ~ much of the feelings I've had that way in areas outside the church (read: marriage) are largely due to having been taught my whole life at home (by my LDS parents) and at church that I must defer to my man in all things since he presides over me.

This is rapidly changing, and the change comes from within me as I step away and recognize how wrong it really is. It's a heady feeling, I can assure you.

I do not feel it's exclusive to the Mormon religion. Gender inequality is rampant throughout history and throughout the world today. I speak of my experience with a Mormon viewpoint because that's what I experienced, so I feel I'm qualified to talk about it here.

Grasshopper,

You like to keep me hopping, no doubt! I like your honest questions. You point out the point I was trying to make in my comparison between women in the church being happy with their lot and slaves being happy with their lot: there IS no respect being shown either in their respective lots.

I'm not disrespecting RTC or Mormon women, nor am I disrespecting slaves. I'm pointing out that their being happy with how they are treated because it's all they've ever known is not a good thing in my opinion.

If RTC feels like I disrespected her, I apologize to her, because that was not my intention at all.

John D the First,

You wrote, "One thing has been nagging me since you first arrived on the scene. I think your contention that the specific policy of asking husband’s permission should be changed is a legitimate one. It is a vestige that I also think should be changed. That being said, I think the policy is meant to make the woman’s life easier, since it requires both spouses to be on the same page. Twenty four hour garment wearing could be difficult thing for a non-Mormon man to take!"

What about the non-Mormon woman who feels the same difficulty about her LDS husband's twenty-four hour garment wearing? She has no ability to veto his decision to take out his endowments. Nobody's thinking of making HER life easier. The policy is meant solely to give a man power over his wife, NOT to ensure that marital harmony is maintained, as the church (and my bishop) claims. It requires that both spouses be on the same page, true: the MAN'S page. That is what I don't like about the permission requirement. I can guarantee you it doesn't make a woman's life easier to go through the discovery of a permission requirement that is not really explained until she is sitting there in the interview for her temple recommend.

You also wrote, "My guess is that there have not been many complaints about this policy because there are not many husbands out there that would use the power given them by the church to interfere in their wife’s spiritual journey. I can’t imagine ever abusing power in that way."

I would complain about this policy even if my husband HAD given permission, because it's as he claimed to my bishop during that interview in the first place: It's just plain wrong for the church to require a righteous, adult woman to get permission from her husband to do something righteous that she desires to do. Period.

You are right that "there are not many husbands out there that would use the power given them by the church to interfere..." POWER. GIVEN. THEM. BY. THE. CHURCH. Can you see why this is not right yet? What power does the church give WOMEN?

You asked me, "Do you feel less oppressed in your marriage than you did in the church? You seem to put full blame on the church because it gave your husband power, but it was your husband who abused that power. I am sure you two have resolved things. But it does seem ironic to be publicly criticizing the church for limiting your autonomy, when really it was your husband’s choice that ultimately resulted in your lack thereof. I think this fact was a reason HM included divorce on her list of suggestions. As a Mormon woman married to a Mormon man who tries to honor his priesthood, this type of behavior is probably foreign to her."

I do blame the church for limiting my autonomy. If the stupid rule wasn't in place, then this would have been a non-issue for me and my husband. I could have and would have gone to the temple and taken out my endowments peacefully, and I would have been a lot more happy that way, enjoying the same freedoms as any Mormon man enjoys who is married to a non-member woman. I fully agree with my husband that the requirement is archaic and wrong. This is made even more wrong by the fact that it's only the women who have to get permission from their non-member husbands, not EVERYONE married to a non-member spouse.

To answer your question, I feel much less oppressed in my marriage now since leaving the church. I have finally been able to step away from the mindset the church promotes that I must defer to my man at all times, and this has improved my life a great deal.

The church promotes this in its women. Women in the church, even the female leaders, must defer to men in all aspects of their church service. Many previous comments above list key ways women must defer to men in the church. We are also taught to defer to men at home.

The presidency of our church produced "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" wherein it states:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

How exactly is it "equal partners" when the father is to "preside over" the family?? The definition of "preside" is simple: 1. To be in a position of control, esp. to serve as chairperson. 2. To have or exercise authority. (Taken from my Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary)

If they were really equal partners, it would read "FATHERS AND MOTHERS are to preside over their families in love and righteousness..." Instead we are taught that it is DIVINELY DESIGNED to have men preside over us this way. We are taught it from the time we are very young girls in church. This is not foreign to women of the church, it's more a conditioned thing that feels natural to women, as it's all we've known our whole lives.

So is it any wonder I find myself married to someone who has no problem "presiding" this way over me too?

For the record, I was able to finally secure "written permission" from my husband almost two years after the initial interview. I got it by threatening divorce. This was so distasteful to me that I then had no desire to actually go through the temple.

Besides, do you think I actually HAD my husband's full support by coercing his "permission" that way? Do you think GOD would consider this as permission actually granted? This is important since this requirement supposedly comes from God himself.

Not to be "disrespectful"... The question must be posed how comparing one to a "slave who CLAIMS to be happy in their slavery" is a respectful comment?

Sister Mary Lisa,

I was just curious if you have felt "oppressed, exploited, or alienated due to your gender" in any other situations of life or is this a characteristic exclusive to the mormon organization?

Sister Mary Lisa,

Your right, I am a man and must therefore be cautious about speaking for the experiences of women. I am primarily letting them speak for themselves (And they have!).

I am sorry that you felt exploited and oppressed. From my own anecdotal experience and ability to read emotional cues, my guess is yours’ is not the experience of the majority. I am glad we live in a land of religious freedom where you can choose which religious organizations you associate with.

One thing has been nagging me since you first arrived on the scene. I think your contention that the specific policy of asking husband’s permission should be changed is a legitimate one. It is a vestige that I also think should be changed. That being said, I think the policy is meant to make the woman’s life easier, since it requires both spouses to be on the same page. Twenty four hour garment wearing could be difficult thing for a non-Mormon man to take!

My guess is that there have not been many complaints about this policy because there are not many husbands out there that would use the power given them by the church to interfere in their wife’s spiritual journey. I can’t imagine ever abusing power in that way.

Question: Do you feel less oppressed in your marriage than you did in the church?

You seem to put full blame on the church because it gave your husband power, but it was your husband who abused that power. I am sure you two have resolved things. But it does seem ironic to be publicly criticizing the church for limiting your autonomy, when really it was your husband’s choice that ultimately resulted in your lack thereof. I think this fact was a reason HM included divorce on her list of suggestions. As a Mormon woman married to a Mormon man who tries to honor his priesthood, this type of behavior is probably foreign to her.

I mean no degradation to your husband or your relationship. I do not know all the details surrounding this circumstance. I am just going on the information you provided and pointing out an apparent contradiction you can address

Grasshopper,

I'm not comparing RTC to a slaveowner or KKK member. I thought it was obvious I'm comparing her with the slaves who claim to be happy in their slavery. I don't mean disrespect to RTC. She is very compelling in her defense of the church and its system which works for her. I respect that she is entitled to feel this way.

JD the First,

You may be right that the slavery analogy was harsh or not applicable. But you have never been a woman within this organization, so you couldn't possibly have felt oppressed, exploitated, or alienated due to your gender.

I have.

Sister Mary Lisa,

I must make this quick, so sorry if it hasn't the best grammer/spelling.

Feminist anthropologists, who study gender inequality around the world, used to locate a few elements in a culture where it appears the sexes are unequal and thus declare the whole system inequitable. They later come to the conclusion that the experiences of people are more nuanced than that.

Equality is not an end in itself (To make it such entails a fetish, with no real significance or positive consequence). The end of a push for equality is to ease oppression, exploitation and alienation. Slavery entailed these things. Does the Priesthood organization of the church?

You have already noted that the marriage relationships in Mormonism are good to women.

I think the tradition of gender roles in church lay organization is benign. Self determination is NOT limited or increased by who can be bishop and who cannot. No exploitation, no oppression, no alienation.

Claiming that women are happy does not necessarily determine the merits of system.

But neither does simply
Shouting "Inequality!" "Inequality!" and making incredibly strained analogies.

Anyone can play the analogy game. Some like to draw analogies between DAMUs and those who killed J.S. I don't think that is fair. Nor do I think it is fair to draw the analogy between a volunteer organization dedicated to teaching by persuasion and engaging in selfless service, and an institutional system of complete ownership of one group by another backed up by violence.

Until you can show that the lay priesthood organization entails inherent oppression, exploitation and alienation, you don't have much of a case.

I think the interests of women could be better served if you focused on institutions that actually exploited them, rather than supported them. (there are plenty)

RTC-
My, my, my, now you are not only a "Mormon" defender of your faith, but have been sorely accused of being equivalent to a “Racist” or "KKK" leader... My, what will the "Mormon Cult" turn you into next? Is it quite possible you may be the next “Unibomber”? lol lol lol No never, you cannot think for yourself... right? But then again, your posts have been quite intelligent, I must say... whatever is one to think? Girl, you rock!

RTC ~

You wrote, "I only submit this to those who concern themselves with the issue of perceived discrimination of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints to realize that we are not blind whatsoever, in fact we see things with great clarity.

As stated before, the bar is raised quite high for the men in the church. The expectation that the Lord places upon them in regards to women is great and believe me, most of the women I know are not about to let them forget it:-)"

A woman may have some power to make her husband treat her well and to "not let her man forget it" as you said, but as for the issue of inequality for women in the CHURCH, well, it's not the same thing. The way the church is set up now, a woman has no ability whatsoever to change this inequal treatment.

You ask those of us who are concerned with the inequality we see to "realize that we are not blind whatsoever, in fact we see things with great clarity." I assume the "we" you refer to here are women who are happy with how things stand for them in the church.

I read your words and am reminded of what Equality posted earlier (Posted January 20, 2007 2:12 PM) in this thread:

"Now, to your main point, flashlight, that women in the church are happy and don't want to be leaders with real decision-making power in the church. That's called the "Sambo Argument." You know why? Because it's the same argument made by Southern defenders of slavery in the 19th century and Southern defenders of Jim Crow in the 20th. They would point to all the "Negroes" who liked being slaves--they didn't want the responsibility of having to fend for themselves, the slaveowners. And they'd point to the fact that there were really very few, isolated salve rebellions--the vast majority never rebelled. They'd trot out slaves who would parrot the party line "we don't want to be free."

So, when you say that women in the church are not clamoring for change and that many of them are happy with the status quo, maybe you are right. Of course, maybe the slaveowners and klansman who made similar arguments about the social structures that perpetuated inequality among blacks and whites were right, too. What do you think?"

I personally think that the church's social structure that perpetuates inequality among women and men is NOT right.

It needs to be changed.

JD1-

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Your clarity is perfect!

You're right about the fact that problems do exist in Mormonism, but they are the exception.

Since I have been posting here at ON FAITH, I have openly been speaking with women at church about this very topic of perceived discrimination within the church.

I have passed along many of the thoughts and feelings that have been expressed here on the blog so that I might get some feedback from other women besides myself on these matters.

So I thought I would share a bit...

I find that most of the women I speak with are quite honest in acknowledging the weakness in the system due to "man"... literally.

One main theme that stood out in most every conversation I had, was the fact that for our husbands, sons, etc... we all felt, because of the experiences and qualifications that having the responsibilities of the priesthood requires of them, it actually causes them to rise above what is accepted as the "average" guy. As the women in their lives, we feel the benefits personally and within the family unit.

As a member of the church, we pretty much are "Mormon" everyday... you do know what I am saying, right?

So these issues of desire for power, responsibility and discrimination against women with the leadership of the church are minimal, and what I believe are for the majority of women in the church. Again, not saying that they do not exist.

As LDS women, our main focus is our family... just like many other women. We value that which blesses our family above all else and it is beyond dispute that a man who patterns his life after the Savior is going to be a better man.

As I have reflected on the title of this blog... "Stereotypical 'Female' Qualities Are Core of What Jesus Taught", I can't help but reflect on how a man, when he honors and magnifies his priesthood responsibilities truly is developing these exact qualities that Jesus taught.

Discrimination - the ability to discern between what is of high quality; good judgement or taste... (I liked this definition)

As I think about it... I realize that I am quite discriminating towards men?

Because of what I have been taught about the priesthood and womanhood and how a man of God should respect and honor womanhood, my expectations are very high. As well as what I know is developed in a man when he strives to become more like the Savior through serving others as the Savior would.

In fact, I think more women should require men like these... with the qualities Jesus taught.

What are these qualifications? Willing to follow the example of the Savior and do the works that He did. Not just talk the talk, but walk the talk. In one word... Integrity.

This is a lot to hope for, but these are the kind of men that I am well acquainted with in the church. I know many of them and they are my husband, the husbands of my good friends, my seven brother-in-laws, fathers, sons-in-laws, etc... They could all of them answer this ad. Believe it or not this is true. I did not say perfect, but willing and striving.

I only submit this to those who concern themselves with the issue of perceived discrimination of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints to realize that we are not blind whatsoever, in fact we see things with great clarity.

As stated before, the bar is raised quite high for the men in the church. The expectation that the Lord places upon them in regards to women is great and believe me, most of the women I know are not about to let them forget it:-)

Sister Mary Lisa -
I am sorry that my response has taken so long! My computer time is far and few between, and for some reason when I tried a week or so ago I couldn't get it to post.
I have to tell you I have thought much about your experience, and my heart has ached for the pain you have felt (and your continued struggle.) These are my thoughts. I respect the idea behind the endowment requirement - to keep families together - and have an aunt with a non-member husband who recently went through the temple after they had discussed it a great deal. I am not sure why the requirement does not apply to men (although I have never heard of a married man going through without his wife I am sure it does happen), although I would hope that even if that is the case leaders interviewing men in that situation would make sure their wives were fully supportive of their decision. I suppose the one-sided signature requirement has to do with the patriarchal organization of the family... (which I am sure you know and which many consider inherently discriminatory, which opinion I can respect.) Beyond that, I suppose I take the "accept this as my due" approach, which I know that you don't agree with (nor do I expect you to!) but that I take because I have faith that while I do not understand why everything happens I am sure there is a purpose to what we experience in this life and guidelines that come through the leadership of the church. I would seek after a better understanding of it, however, both through the channels of priesthood leadership and my own personal prayers. (To tell you the truth, through personal answers to prayer is the only way I can reconcile some things about the church that I don't understand! I know this is abstract but based on my faith it is real.)
You asked me what I would say if my daughter was in this same boat. I give my opinion once again as just that, and make no claim to tell you what I think you should do. I would NEVER advise her to leave a loving, supportive, wonderful husband (as many non-member husbands that I know are) - and you are blessed to have such a man in your life. I don't believe that by staying true to him she would be putting aside the plan of salvation, as God knows our hearts and will never deny us eternal blessings based on earthly circumstances. Once again, I give this as my personal opinion and apologise it is not expressed very well. Again thanks for the dialogue and sorry for the late response.

RTC:

I know you are not denying these problems exist in Mormonism. But what I take you and the other sisters to be saying is that:

1. It is not your experience

2. It is not an *inherent* result of the system

It seems that many want to make the claim that the LDS church is an *essentially* bad place for women. That I disagree with, and I am guessing you do to?

Hello JD1-

How are you? Nice to see you over here again.

I was wondering if you could explain your comment that you made to SML in that you feel that myself, HM and Bingham are "denying the relational and existential problems that others are saying inevitably arise from these structures"?

I realize that for myself I have focused the majority of my comments from that of more personal experience and opinion.

Nevertheless, I do feel that I have attempted to validate, at least to some degree within the context of the current dialogue at the time, the discrimination that does naturally arise in these situations due to human weakness.

If you are implying more than this, I personally would appreciate a bit more clarity of that which you are referring, so that I might respond if necessary? Thanks.

John D the First,

You are of course correct. Happiness is relative, and is impossible to fit into a specific mold that fits for everyone the same. Some people actually find happiness in something that to another is unbearable.

I tend to forget that as I describe that which makes ME unhappy.

Thanks to you for your thoughts as well. :)

Hi Sister Mary Lisa,

Looking at my past few post I noticed I was so rude not to address you directly.

Sorry about that...

The women here are not denying differences in gender roles in the church.

What they are denying are the relational and existential problems that others are saying inevitably arise from these structures.

In my last post, I was disputing the assertion that because of structure A, a woman's claim to happiness and autonomy is unbelievable.

I think it is very believable, even to be expected given norms in Mormon conjugal relations.

Thanks for engaging. I am sorry your experience was not the same as my dear sisters.

John D the First,

Do you agree that it seems that LDS women here such as HM, RTC, and Bingham are in fact trying to assert (sorry, I couldn't resist) that women in the LDS church are not treated with inequality? Because that's what I keep understanding from their arguments.

It is this which I debate.

"It's just hard for me to fathom that any woman in the church feels this way, when it seems so obvious that women are treated as subservient. That's all. The comments from the leaders even point to it."

Comments point to a pan-human phenomena that also rears its ugly head in the church.

Like you said, this is problem everywhere.

The LDS church is different because it has authoritarian leaders members trust who are continually reminding them with strong language that this is NOT RIGHT and that it is great wickedness to make your wife subservient or engage in domineering practices.

It is therefore not at all suprising that many LDS women do not feel subservient in their roles.

Sorry, I take back what I interpreted Bingham's comment to mean. I read it wrong. I got confused! Sorry. My main point is that I do feel church leaders' comments indicate that a woman's role is subservient to a man's.

"Note how he said, "When they assert their superiority they demean her." The word ASSERT means to declare positively, or to defend: maintain. So to me it seems he is saying men ARE superior, and when they defend this, they demean the woman. It seems his words are saying that men are naturally superior, and they can choose to encourage women or not, either way, they have the superiority to do this or not."

This is a major logical leap, based on a dubious linguistic analysis.

According to the usage I am familiar with, it is quite common to say "So and so asserts X" when X acknowledgeably false.

Your synonyms for assert were "defend", and "declare positively."

In the English language, it is not at all strange to say that a person defends a false idea, or declares something true that is in fact not.

In this context it is clearly taken for granted both by the audience and speaker that the individual described is asserting something false.

That last Anonymous was me. Oops!

Jon D the First,

I agree it's a problem in society and history, even. I'm not saying it's only a Mormon problem. I am, however, responding to comments like this one by Bingham:

"No role is subservient to the other. You may believe differently, but I do not feel that the church teachings or comments from the church leaders indicate otherwise." (I think she meant that she FEELS that church teachings or comments from church leaders indicates otherwise...am I correct, Bingham?)

It's just hard for me to fathom that any woman in the church feels this way, when it seems so obvious that women are treated as subservient. That's all. The comments from the leaders even point to it.

"Why so many quotes about men treating the women better if this is such a non-issue in our church? It seems each quote by Hinckley actually INDICATES that women are subservient to men."

Gender Inequality favoring men is a nearly universal human phenomena...in secular culture where there may be symbolic equality, there are still major inequitable domestic practices. More so than Mormon marriages, according to some statistics.

Thus it is something every human community must work on and remind themselves of.

To say it must be a special problem in Mormonism, because our leaders talk about it and try to prevent it, is invalid.

Bingham,

You quoted Gordon B. Hinckley:

"There are some men who, in a spirit of arrogance, think they are superior to women. They do not seem to realize that they would not exist but for the mother who gave them birth. When they assert their superiority they demean her. It has been said, "Man can not degrade woman without himself falling into degradation; he can not elevate her without at the same time elevating himself" (Alexander Walker, in Elbert Hubbard's Scrap Book [1923], 204)…”

Note how he said, "When they assert their superiority they demean her." The word ASSERT means to declare positively, or to defend: maintain. So to me it seems he is saying men ARE superior, and when they defend this, they demean the woman. It seems his words are saying that men are naturally superior, and they can choose to encourage women or not, either way, they have the superiority to do this or not.

Hinckley also said, “The women in our lives are creatures endowed with particular qualities, divine qualities, which cause them to reach out in kindness and with love to those about them. We can encourage that outreach if we will give them opportunity to give expression to the talents and impulses that lie within them."

Again, men CAN encourage women to reach out with these qualities. Why does this feel like (to me) that he's giving men the go-ahead to give their approval or encouragement to women, as if they are in a position to give or deny such approval at all???

Bingham wrote, "Members of the church believe that each sex has specific and necessary roles. No role is subservient to the other. You may believe differently, but I do not feel that the church teachings or comments from the church leaders indicate otherwise."

Why so many quotes about men treating the women better if this is such a non-issue in our church? It seems each quote by Hinckley actually INDICATES that women are subservient to men. If they weren't, these quotes would never have been made in the first place. Or, there would be equal numbers of quotes TO WOMEN admonishing them to treat their MEN WITH EQUALITY. You just don't see statements like that, because it is obvious where the inequality lies.

I really appreciate your dialogue here, and look forward to reading more. You are very well-spoken.

Hi HM -

I agree to some extent with the idea of sequencing in life, for women and for men. That said, the GAs are only just barely starting to talk about things this way. My whole life, it was all motherhood, only motherhood, all the time. There were clear proscriptions on anything that would take away from motherhood. There is a slight change in this these days, but it's not enough IMO to overcome decades of rhetoric by any stretch. And it's very strong rhetoric indeed, which you quote above - it's certainly not "a lie" that women can have it all: Many do, and do it very well. Doesn't mean all women (or men) can have it all, but let's face it, our discussion is based on middle-or-higher-class values and lifestyles anyhow.

I also (you won't be surprised) have an issue with the way education for women is talked about. It's all 'in case' or 'as a fall back.' And it somehow feels like a woman's education ends up being a status feather in the cap of her husband/family. A woman with a college or graduate degree who then chooses to stay home to raise children is a kind of trophy wife in the mormon culture.

The "preside" thing is such a hot button for me, I hesitate to comment on it, as I certainly don't wish to offend you. I will just say that the definition of preside is very clear (ie, "1: to exercise guidance, direction, or control; 2 a: to occupy the place of authority : act as president, chairman, or moderator b: to occupy a position similar to that of a president or chairman"), so if they don't mean to imply anything like what "preside" actually means, then just *change the language* used to talk about the family. Otherwise, it's insulting to grown adults to be told preside-but-not-really, and/or to give permission to those men who do wish to rule the roost in a more aggressive way. It's mind-boggling to be told something in language that means one thing, only to be told the language doesn't actually mean that. It's maddening honestly. It's not just me, of course -the mormon blogs are full of round after round of discussions about men 'presiding' and women's roles and etc. Why such strong gender roles prescribed anyhow? If gender is "eternal" as the Mormon doctrine states, then women and men should sort of naturally gravitate to their proper gender roles, without needing to be cajoled into them with strong rhetoric over a lifetime of talks, lessons, articles, etc.

I also note that Hinckley talks in terms of a man who "lets" women do certain things. That's hardly an enlightened perspective IMO. Language matters, especially when it's coming from leaders who people esteem as the very mouthpieces of god. The god that mormon leaders speak for - well, he (for it is certainly a he) has a very narrow view of women (and men), IMO.

It definitely requires some kind of supernatural faith-based experiences to believe in the truthfulness of any religion, including mormonism. It has simply been my experience that no experience of that type can overcome my own spirit and will to be myself in the most authentic way I can.

Wry Catcher,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think I understand and share at least some your concern over the word “preside.” As Bingham shared in her post, there have been men and women who have misunderstood and misinterpreted what it means to preside and I cringe when I hear of such relationships and families. I think that especially because of these instances many would like to do away with this idea all together.

As you mentioned the brethren in the leadership of the church have given many talks to clarify the marriage relationship and what it really means to preside as follower of Christ. Like the archaic V/W that still permeates some parts of biblically influenced cultures, not to mention secular culture, misinterpretations of “preside” persist as well.

This is where I remind myself that the church is the interface of people with many cultures and ideas who have difficulty abandoning the less than celestial even when it is taught over and over again - myself included. But I know the Brethren will keep trying and teaching to clarify “preside” though to many I recognize that anything short of doing away with it all together is not satisfactory.

Having a husband who presides works for me because we both understand that basically while husbands and wives have different stewardships they are to counsel with one another over decisions, they each seek divine guidance and when they receive the same answer they have confidence in moving forward. I love the “law of two witnesses” system. My husband presides in our family as Christ presides over the church - by loving example. Christ never forced anyone to do anything. If my husband proposed that our family move in a direction I did not find as inspired by my own right to revelation, my covenant does not oblige me to follow him or as the colorful Brigham Young said, a woman is not obliged to follow her husband down to h e l l (my paraphrase). Likewise, I am not exempt from proposing thoughts and ideas in the direction I feel our family should go and I do, we do. There are “checks and balances” to this system if you will. Our covenant is not just with each other but with God who we are both entitled to seek and again when upon seeking or simply upon conversing with one another and then seeking together we both experience light pointing us in a particular direction, there is a certain confidence we both enjoy in moving forward.

There are also many decisions throughout our marriage that are hardly significant enough to discuss, we don’t micro manage each other.

I asked my husband last night how he feels about and understands his role as presider in our family. He said that he feels like it gives him the extra reminder and motivation to try and be like the Savior and to be the kind of example that I and our children will want to follow. He made a joke about how it combated the natural slug in every man.

Here is what President Hinckley recently told the single gals they should be looking for in the presider they will eventually chose

“Now, we have a very diverse group to whom I am speaking. This includes young women who are still in school or who are working. You are single. You are hoping to catch that perfect man. I have yet to see one who is perfect. Aim high, but do not aim so high that you totally miss the target. What really matters is that he will love you, that he will respect you, that he will honor you, that he will be absolutely true to you, that he will give you freedom of expression and let you fly in the development of your own talents. He is not going to be perfect, but if he is kind and thoughtful, if he knows how to work and earn a living, if he is honest and full of faith, the chances are that you will not go wrong, that you will be immensely happy.”

My husband is such a man and presider. I have never felt like we have ever been anything but equal and I wish while I was still in the working world, men and woman in some sort of position of authority came closer to this description

Notice that President Hinckley endorses a potential presider as one who encourages “freedom of expression and let(s) you fly in the development of your own talents”

That speaks to another important concern I share with you about women doing many things of significance in addition to or besides being mothers.

I love what President Faust said

.“the world will tell you women that you can have it all and that you should have it now, but that is a lie. You can have it all, but not all at once. You can have it sequentially.”

President Faust’s declaration brings to mind two scriptures that I find speak directly to this issue. In D&C 58:27-28, it reads that a women “… should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of [her] own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as [women] do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.”

And Mosiah 4:27, explains the need for proper sequencing of aspirations and goals. “And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a [woman] should run faster than [she] has strength.”

In President Hinckley’s service as prophet, he has especially emphasized to women the importance of getting as much education as we can. As the women of the church heed this counsel, like me, I imagine their possibilities have been more deeply pondered and their aspirations broadened.

This is a women’s right, to do “many things” to have individual goals and identity that is not strictly connected to raising children. Indeed, she may aspire to whatever vocation or interest that she will and by having such aspirations, she does not lose her reward but is blessed and is a blessing to others.

But sequencing is important as any woman who's felt her biological clock ticking will tell you and for whom motherhood is believed to be a divine right and a sacred and holy call. Though the sequence of when this calling is undertaken varies from woman to woman, it is given high priority when planning to do “all things… in wisdom”

Talents, education, career, husband, family, community, service, missions - they are all available options to women who as individuals may prayerfully plan how they will sequentially implement their goals and interests. If they are married they will of course ideally coordinate their plans with their husband as their husband coordinates his plans with them.

I hope that clarifies at least a bit more though I’m sure I have not convinced J

I think I’ll try to address some of the other concerns you raised sometime soon in the future.

Thanks again for your response…

Bingham said:

"I defy you to find an RS President who has not worked her fingers to the bone, with blood, sweat and tears to run the organization. The Bishop or other leaders may have veto power, but the work, planning, organization, and follow-through are all from the RS Presidency and women. It is not fair or accurate to minimize their work in this way just because of the involvement of the Priesthood Leaders."

I was one of the posters who commented on this earlier, so I wanted to respond. In fact, Bingham, I could not agree with you more. I believe that the RS does do a lot (often, most) of the work and makes so much happen - I have always been such a strong and vocal supporter of that fact. Therefore, I find the ultimate 'veto power' of the priesthood authority to be all the more difficult to accept. If women are doing all that work, they should have both credit and responsibility for it.

I do fully acknowledge that most nice or good bishops and other priesthood leaders would not dream of vetoing anything or 'putting the RSP in her place' or anything like that. But that doesn't, for me, change the fact that he could, and she would be expected to then toe the line. I understand entirely how some women are able and willing to accept the structural inequities with little or no difficulty and maintain their activity in the Mormon faith. I also hope you can understand how, for some women, this is not an acceptable sacrifice.

HM - Hi again...

I agree with you that, for the most part, the Mormon faith has managed to overcome the V/W dichotomy in many ways. I also would add that, while the 'men ruling over wives'/'wives submitting to husbands' language has been tempered a lot over the past couple of decades, it doesn't - for me - change the fact that there is still an official proclamation that says men 'preside' over their wives and families. And that women in the temple covenant to 'hearken to their husbands,' but the reverse is not the case. And etc. So even though Mormons have largely avoided the V/W problem, the structural inequities in the larger church are still reflected at the micro/family level.

I know that for many Mormon women, these are issues that are resolved somehow to their satisfaction, and they are happy within these structures (as you are); I respect that even though I personally disagree with it. For me, it became a kind of torture to try and resolve the structure with my own experience, thoughts and feelings. I just can't support the patriarchal system - even at the expense of some possible 'eternal consequences.' I'm not willing to bet the only life I've ever known on an eternity based wholly on the same patriarchal structure (plus potential polygamy) as is in place now in mortality.

Sometimes I wonder if there hadn't been priesthood for women, or at least some kind of administrative power sharing without priesthood, or some means of understanding/addressing/worshiping the feminine
divine (eg, Heavenly Mother[s]), or something besides motherhood emphasized as a worthy goal for women, if I could have resolved it all. The fact that the church can't or won't address these things, for me, reflects an underlying assertion that God wants it this way. At the end of the day, I simply can't believe in that God.

As with most civilised discussions of religion or politics, I guess we get to the nitty-gritty, then simply agree to disagree, eh?

HM, again, I do respect your willingness to have this conversation.

Wry Catcher,

Thanks for your friendly reply to my last post.

When I first came to this forum, I felt like I was stepping into a war zone but today I feel like I’m emailing a new acquaintance in a friendly exchange of ideas. I really appreciate that and I also feel more open to hearing what you personally have to say about things here and in the future.

To all the thoughtful folks of the blogosphere,

I thought I might offer another reason why my LDS worldview makes sense to me in response to Wry Catcher’s thoughtful questions. I hope the following ideas will be good food for thought and group discussion. In doing so, I also hope that the respectful tone many have worked so hard to facilitate will be maintained.

I’d like to offer how I believe LDS theology transcends the Virgin/W h o r e dichotomy. I recall learning about the V/W dichotomy or complex in a Women’s Studies course.

For those unfamiliar, it is a theory connected to widespread perceptions of female sexuality that spring from the two main female figures in the bible.

Mary of course as the mother of Jesus is most often given divine and even holy status in view of her willingness to bear and raise the Messiah while maintaining her status as a young virgin.

In contrast, Eve the first mother, is often sited as being given “secondary“ status in the marriage relationship following her instigation of the fall of mankind from paradise in choosing to partake of as well as offering forbidden fruit to Adam.

The V/W idea essentially asserts that a woman’s morality and sexuality, as perceived by both men and women, categorically falls into either a submissive Mother without sexuality (good) or a Female as Pursuer/Instigator (bad).

The V/W complex is sometimes used to describe men who want to marry the “good girl” and spend the night with the “bad girl” and the trouble that naturally arises from such. The dichotomy is also used, at least in part, to explain both male and female frustration with traditional sexual norms.

I love, what LDS theology offers in additional scripture, revelation and teachings that I believe faithfully transcends the V/W and restores the virtue of Eve, sexuality and the marriage relationship.

In the Pearl of Great Price, I find an expanded understanding of Eve and her relationship with Adam. She is curious and desirous of knowledge in her attraction to partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
She is honest, insightful and joyful in her statements that follow the consequences of partaking it - seeing herself as one who has now gained profound knowledge and meaning in entering the fallen world, understanding the atonement and in becoming a parent.
She and Adam till the earth together, raise their children together, call upon God together and share their sorrows together.
In the D&C, we find the true end of Eve’s choices and life. In vision, a glorified Eve is seen upon a throne beside an equally enthroned and glorified Adam.

Furthermore, I find in LDS theology that while sexual relationships are forbidden outside of marriage, sexuality in marriage is upheld as a sacred and beautiful expression of love and unity between a husband and wife.
Instead of being seen as a dirty earth bound necessity to procreation, it is seen as a potentially sanctifying experience in the marriage relationship for both the man and the woman in addition to being celebrated as the ushering in of the utmost of earthly blessings - a child.
In LDS theology, the “powers of procreation” will even persist into the hereafter within covenant marriage relationships.

In these scriptures and teachings, I find the divine status of motherhood maintained, female inquisition, intelligence and sexuality as virtuous clarified and the marriage relationship lived as an equal partnership despite men and woman being given different roles exemplified.

Here I find an ideal I can embrace as my own and am happy to recommend.

I look forward now to hearing from others on these thoughts…

Bingham & SPR,

Just wanted to let you both know I appreciate you sharing your thoughts in this forum. I hope you both continue to contribute in the future...

As a young single female Mormon, I would like to throw in my two cents. I fully understand the feelings of irony and even hypocrisy as expressed by many posters to this forum. One of the basic questions posed (obviously I’m paraphrasing) is how can Otterson seemingly write about the virtues and qualities of women, while at the same time ignore the “inequality” in power among men and women within the church. I won’t attempt to speak for him or on behalf of the church, but here is my perspective.

For me, and I would imagine most women in the church, I don’t equate “power” or “authority” over my personal salvation with the patriarchal leaders in the organization. Do men “run” the organization of the church? Simply put, yes. (I want to make a comment here about the Relief Society quickly before I move on. A poster stated earlier words to the effect that a RS President does very little to run the organization – it’s basically all in the men’s hands. I defy you to find an RS President who has not worked her fingers to the bone, with blood, sweat and tears to run the organization. The Bishop or other leaders may have veto power, but the work, planning, organization, and follow-through are all from the RS Presidency and women. It is not fair or accurate to minimize their work in this way just because of the involvement of the Priesthood Leaders)

So then the questions becomes, how do I as a Western female living in the 21st century reconcile myself to being “dominated” by men? As much as you may disagree with my answer and even call it a cop-out, I can’t divest myself from the fact that I have an earnest and sincere belief in the doctrine of the church. It is not a rational answer based on current social pressures, and I make no apologies for this. Most of what organized religion asks of its members is not rational.

The fundamental questions I ask myself are: What is my relationship to Christ? What is my relationship to my family? What is my relationship to my fellow men? Am I doing everything I can to strengthen and build those relationships?

The doctrine of the church is an extraordinarily personal thing. We make personal covenants. We make personal commitments. We believe in personal revelation. Each person will individually be held accountable for their actions, decisions, and behaviors. No man in the church has the authority, right, or power to take this away from me. Nor do we believe that they have the authority, right, or power to impose their will without question on us as members. I realize that there are many of you who may take issue with this statement, in light of recent examples. I cannot speak to anyone’s experiences but my own. There have been decisions I disagreed with. There have been times when I felt like a calling resulted merely from convenience and/or desperation. At each time, through careful introspection, consideration, and yes, prayer, I came to accept these things. I know this kind of an answer is terribly frustrating to many people. As I said earlier, most of religion is not terribly rational. You can explain away my spiritual feelings, promptings, attitudes, etc. I cannot. I know many people think these are merely figments of my imagination. I know they’re not. (I am not going to get into an argument on knowing versus believing. I stand by what I’ve said.)

The issue of temple recommends has been brought up. It is irrelevant if you are not able to receive those things in this life, as long as you live worthy to receive them. I fully acknowledge that it is not always an easy cross to bear. Whether or not you agree with the beliefs, Mormons look at life from an eternal perspective. We believe that this time of mortality is relatively short, and there are things we go through here for our growth and development. There are many difficult, painful experiences we encounter. At each experience I ask myself, “What can I learn from this?” “How can I grow from this?” “Is this crucial to my eternal salvation?”

I personally don’t feel that whether or not men run the church is relevant to any of those questions. I believe that they are called by inspiration of God. I believe they’re completely fallible. But I believe their mistakes are theirs, and my mistakes are mine. If they dominate me, they will be held accountable. I’m fully aware of the historical complications and issues arising in the church. Again, I don’t believe that these issues, arising in the infancy of the church, are particularly relevant to what is taught today or to my personal salvation.

I think there’s been too much emphasis on taking the religious/spiritual aspect out of this conversation. Fundamentally, women in the church accept the leadership of men because they believe it’s the divine design of God. Good women help their husbands, brothers, and fathers understand and empathize with the needs of women, and good men do everything they can to meet those needs.

Members of the church believe that each sex has specific and necessary roles. No role is subservient to the other. You may believe differently, but I do not feel that the church teachings or comments from the church leaders indicate otherwise. Note the following recent comments from President Hinckley:

“Now, my dear sisters, just a word in conclusion. I remind you that you are not second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. You are His divine creation. Men hold the priesthood. Yours is a different role, but also extremely important. Without you, our Father's plan of happiness would be frustrated and have no real meaning. You are 50 percent of the membership of the Church and mothers of the other 50 percent. No one can dismiss you lightly...”
(In the Arms of His Love – General Conference, General Relief Society Meeting, October 2006, www.lds.org)
“I witnessed a very interesting thing the other day. The General Authorities were in a meeting, and the presidency of the Relief Society were there with us. These able women stood in our council room and shared with us principles of welfare and of helping those who are in distress. Our stature as officers of this Church was not diminished by what they did. Our capacities to serve were increased.
There are some men who, in a spirit of arrogance, think they are superior to women. They do not seem to realize that they would not exist but for the mother who gave them birth. When they assert their superiority they demean her. It has been said, "Man can not degrade woman without himself falling into degradation; he can not elevate her without at the same time elevating himself" (Alexander Walker, in Elbert Hubbard's Scrap Book [1923], 204)…”
“The women in our lives are creatures endowed with particular qualities, divine qualities, which cause them to reach out in kindness and with love to those about them. We can encourage that outreach if we will give them opportunity to give expression to the talents and impulses that lie within them. In our old age my beloved companion said to me quietly one evening, "You have always given me wings to fly, and I have loved you for it."
I once knew a man who has since passed on but who insisted on making all of the decisions for his wife and children. They could not buy a pair of shoes without him. They could not take a piano lesson. They could not serve in the Church without his consent. I have since witnessed the outcome of that attitude, and that outcome is not good.
My father never hesitated to compliment my mother. We children knew that he loved her because of the way he treated her. He deferred to her. And I shall ever be profoundly grateful for his example. Many of you have been blessed likewise.
Now I might go on but it is not necessary. I wish only to give emphasis to the great, salient truth that we are all children of God, both sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.
As a father, do I love my daughters less than I love my sons? No. If I am guilty of any imbalance, it is in favor of my girls. I have said that when a man gets old he had better have daughters about him. They are so kind and good and thoughtful. I think I can say that my sons are able and wise. My daughters are clever and kind. And "my cup runneth over" (Psalm 23:5) because of this.
Women are such a necessary part of the plan of happiness which our Heavenly Father has outlined for us. That plan cannot operate without them.
Brethren, there is too much of unhappiness in the world. There is too much of misery and heartache and heartbreak. There are too many tears shed by grieving wives and daughters. There is too much negligence and abuse and unkindness.”
God has given us the priesthood, and that priesthood cannot be exercised, "only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile" (D&C 121:41–42).
How thankful I am, how thankful we all must be, for the women in our lives. God bless them. May His great love distill upon them and crown them with luster and beauty, grace and faith. And may His Spirit distill upon us as men and lead us ever to hold them in respect, in gratitude, giving encouragement, strength, nurture, and love, which is the very essence of the gospel of our Redeemer and Lord.”
(The Women in Our Lives – General Conference, Sunday Morning Session, October 2004, www.lds.org)

SPR,

I appreciate your heartfelt words. They indeed are beautiful words.

You wrote, "My faith is such that although I do not understand the reasoning behind everything, it does not affect my access to the atonement of Jesus Christ or His healing power for me or for my family. Administration does not matter to me as long as I have access to what I believe is necessary for my salvation."

That is EXACTLY how I felt too, right up until I found that for me this is no assurance at all. My "access to what I believe is necessary for my salvation" (or in other words, TAKING OUT MY ENDOWMENT) was absolutely denied me by a sexist rule that the priesthood-filled church leaders set up that said a WOMAN married to a non-member MAN must first get his permission in writing to take out her endowment. Therefore, I got NO ACCESS to this "necessary for salvation" ordinance. No amount of faith on my part was going to change this simple fact for me. Had I been a MAN, this would have never even come up in any interview. It is a non-issue for men. They can take out their endowment whenever they wish, if they are found worthy.

My only options were (and you'll note both RTC and Hershey's Mama touched on the divorce option, as distasteful as this is):

1. Accept this as my due, as a woman in the church.
2. Divorce my husband, and then afterward hope that the bishop and stake president found me "mature enough" or "ready" for the endowment as a single woman who was not slated for imminent marriage or mission.
3. Walk away from the church if it bothers me and if I can't accept what the church wants to hand me in a discriminatory manner.

You said administration does not matter to you, just as I did, until it bit me hard. Then it mattered. What will you think if your daughter someday finds herself in this boat? Will you advise or push her to divorce her good husband who gives her true love, happiness, and acceptance? Will you preach to her that love between her and her husband matters less than staying true to the "Plan of Salvation" and she should divorce him and find a more "worthy" companion?

Will you think she should just take it and accept it as divinely inspired when she is required to get permission from her non-member husband to receive an ordinance that ensures her salvation, simply because she is born a female?

SPR -

I was just checking the forum this evening and noticed your post. I could not refrain from expressing to you just how beautiful the simplicity of your thoughts came through in your written words.

You aRe so many of the women in the church that I personally know and love. I want people to know that and feel that. I hope you don't mind my saying so?

They are gentle, kind and sure of who they are... that in the choices they make aNd the evidence by which they are guided, is seen and felt a surety that often confounds many.

Thank you. I hope you post again.
RTC

I have sat here holding my sleeping daughter and reading this for much longer than I anticipated when I read the original comments... but as I got to the end I read SML's request for what "faithful LDS women" think of the practices of the LDS church, how they reconcile themselves with them, and how do they feel about teaching them to their children. There have been many who have (much more eloquently than I can) given insight into doctrines, history, and practices - I am simply giving my response to SML's request and presume to do nothing more. I think that I am aware of the "discrimination" towards women in the church as it has been detailed. I suppose I have resolved it in my mind as this - I have faith in Jesus Christ, my Heavenly Father, the Book of Mormon, and in Joseph Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley as literal prophets of God. My faith is such that although I do not understand the reasoning behind everything, it does not affect my access to the atonement of Jesus Christ or His healing power for me or for my family. Administration does not matter to me as long as I have access to what I believe is necessary for my salvation. As far as how I feel about teaching these things to my daughter - I have no fear that being raised in the LDS church will teach her that she is inferior or cannot become whatever she wants - to me, leadership in the church is not who we are it is simply a medium of service. I hope she can find joy in her role as a woman and as a mother, if that is what life brings her. I must say I am happy - and I don't feel like it is a blind happiness as I have been exposed to (and been priveledged to call my friends) many people of different backgrounds, educations, values, and beliefs. I appreciate the comments of all of you who have shared your thoughts and beliefs, be they similar or different to my own. Thanks for letting me express mine, inarticulate as they may be. Hope we can all treat each other with love wherever we are and regardless of our opinions or beliefs.

For anyone interested in knowing the truth about the Mormons, http://www.josephlied.com/

Then be sure to watch the movie An Inconvenient Truth

For anyone interested in knowing the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with regard to the roles of men and women, they should Google "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." There are a number of other insights in that text as well.

Michael, great post by the way.

I think it behooves any of us in this forum to listen to the tone of those posting here.

Are there sincere questions? Or is the post written in a spirit of anger, cynicism and attack?

HM - Thanks so much for your thoughtful response, it is appreciated. Any other thoughts you may have later, along the cultural perspective, will also be welcome.

Also, I hope you enjoy your weekend with your sister.

so as to be clear and not offend my utah sis and bros - i realize i should explain what i meant by "conservative utah mormons" - There are many good folks who are mormon in Utah who seem to believe and aspire to the republican platform very strongly - it is the dominant party in utah and therefore another influential ideology in the culture there. i support thier freedom to do this as both americans and lds but conservatism is not neccessarily gospel.
President Faust is a democrate for example.
I myself can't seem to bring myself to registering with any party...

Wry,

This is a bit like butting into a conversation but I just love love love the questions you posed to RTC.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the LDS church from a cultural perspective (and I don't mean Conservative Utah Mormons though I do have an affinity for them).

Your question reminded me of the novice anthrogolist thoughts I've been having as I compare my more communitarian like ideology to my more individualistic western culture.

I think what you are asking is why in a rational sense does my ideology/world view/culture make sense to me - yes? Not a testimonial of it's positive outcomes in my life or even doctrinal underpinings - is that correct?

I really appreciate these questions not only because I think they are thoughtful but I think they will shed a lot of light on other questions and concerns that have been raised in this thread.

Among other things, I used to look at my LDS history with both a modern day LDS perspective and So Cal girl western perspective - you asked if things in the church were ever troubling - you bet ya. In some respects my LDS history seemed as foriegn a culture as Sodom and Gomorrah. I knew that if I could not come to an understanding that was both rational and spiritual I could not in good concious remain in the church.

At so many points in my life, I have had to say to myself is this church really compatable with reality? Is the revelatory epistomology found in Mormonism satisfactory, useful and even functional?

In my journey, I have always found the answers to be yes but not without also entertaining the oftimes conflicting values and notions of my western culture.

As time goes on, I find myself becoming more and more of the "peculiar" Paul spoke of as I embrace the ideas of self sacrifice and consecration, find myself happier in doing so and abandon more and more of my western culture while at the same time retaining much of it. It has been a process.

When I was young, among other things, I was a tom boy to the core, uninterested in raising children, uninterested in higher education - I did not see myself fulfilling LDS ideals/roles of womanhood ( a lot of western ideals for that matter too). At that time I just assumed that the lovely women I met just naturally fit the mold. As an adult whose now faced many a cross roads of faith to now become a wife and mother, I see this is as a completely atonomous process for myself and for others.

I am sad when I hear that people have felt that such ideals and roles have been forced upon them ie. guilt tactics and the like. I think such an approuch lacks faith in the gospel word as well as faith in the individual. Such an approach is aversive and I beleive akin to Satan's plan. The fact that people buck at it is quite understandable.

I did not experience this. I experienced gentleness, rational persuasion, kindness, wonderful examples from men and women in the church. I felt they loved and cared for me and I had a desire to listen and become like them. But not without going through the process I described above.

My sister has a son who is almost 5. He is lovely little rascal - says he doesn't want to be baptised and she will not force him. She left the church for some years and then returned. She and I know this must be an autonomous choice.

Well now I'm going on and on. I've got my sister in law in town from Nashville this weekend and so I won't be writting much but I will offer more thoughts along a cultural perspective in the future as I have many.

thanks again for asking!

PS - thank Betty for your thoughtful and empathetic response. It's just what I needed :)

Wry
You are not only wry but wise.
and so glad you are female.

in teaching my course called
Searching for God in Classical Music
i posited,
not too reductively i hope
that all (ok, most)
spiritual journeys have 7 stages.

1. the Calling/Awakening, which starts the spiritual journey
2. the SUFFering/trials which one experiences as the journey starts
3. The WOUND we receive, Christ like, as we suffer
4. The fixing on our own HOLY GRAIL
like the Celestial Kingdom
5. FAITH that Going for the Grail will pay off
AND HERE is where you comment comes in.
Everyone's faith wavers, gets weak and strong and weak and strong.
6. PERSISTENCE through the waverings
7. Salvation/Redemption.

but yes, almost all tellers of their journey talk about the moments where the faith wavers and weakens.

FWIW, I am a she, not a he. I did get the impression from HM's "b****h" post that she might have thought I was a guy, but I wasn't sure. I posted that I was a woman/b****h myself, in that post that got denied for having a bad word in it.

RTC, I have read this entire thread, every single comment. The reason I phrased my questions, finally, so bluntly, was because I felt I got testimonies from you about the priesthood and the CK/process for getting there, but I didn't understand how you had made the inequities in the system okay for yourself, your daughters. To be absurdly reductive about it, I was hoping for less "emotion/feeling" based-reasons (eg, testimony), and more "reason-based" rationale for how you'd worked things out. But then, I do know from my discussions with others in the past that the language of testimony is an inconsistent one (which, certainly, represents the variety of experiences being expressed by the language), as some people base it strongly in feelings/the heart, and others speak of it in terms of knowledge/the mind. So perhaps the whole model (of language) is flawed from the outset.

Meaning, if you have "faith" and I do not, can we ever really understand each other? Part of me thinks I can sort of understand you, as I did have "faith" for many years; so, on the other hand, did you ever not have "faith"? Did you ever waver and work it out? Because that's the process I'm so interested in, where it concerns women's place in the mormon church.

Betty -

You are true. I love your heart and feel as though I know you. Thank you for what I know, is nothing less than complete and sincere honesty. Is it not interesting how our minds and hearts can tell us these things, when we cannot see, nor touch, nor feel, nor hear them, with the physical senses... and yet we can know of their surety. I trust this completely, for it has never failed me.

I too believe that we are all part of the same family, what er we believe regarding these things and I believe that one day we will have that group hug as I mentioned. I will look forward to that with fondness.

But until then, I will continue to learn from those of you, who are willing to exchange thoughts, ideas and your beliefs, and with that, reason together. And, as we strive to be tolerant of our divine given rights to express these things to one another, I will continually remind myself of the privilege that it is that we have such...

RTC and HM, our Friends.

It is well that you remind us of the fact that you are real people who have real feelings of connection with the Church that many of us have been criticising. It IS brave and open of you to engage with us Heathens
(as my boyfriend when I was still active referred to himself in relation to me).

We all open ourselves up to challenge on this thread, but it is harder for you active Mormons who are forced into the role of Defender of the Faith.

You both have done it with open minds and good humor, and it is good for the rest of us to remind ourselves of your accomplishment and your goodness and your humanity.

RTC: thanks for trying to respond to my requests for the clarity that I myself am attached to . I know that when Wry asks you the question he does, that you have answered it pretty straightforwardly many times in your previous posts.

I feel i understand and appreciate your position on women and the priesthood, though i of course feel differently for myself.

your position on the CK and temple sealing was harder for me to get a grip on, and I still don't feel i really understand it. But that is ok, none of us can understand everything.

It is a challenging, but i think worthwhile,, exercise for us all to challenge each other on our beliefs, and it is a fine line where it goes over into disrespect. Most of the time most of us (johnd, dv, hm, mayan, wes though he is excitable but loveable, rtc) have kept on the good side of the line.

And we ARE all brothers and sisters in the human family, whateverr we believe about god or the celestial kingdom.

Good afternoon All,

I must say, I do like the the tags I see being used. (HM, JD1 etc.) It gives kind of a cozy feeling you know? Kind of like we all actually know each. Or like we have been hanging out for sometime, like the cast of "Friends"? Maybe you should all just come on over to my place tonight and we can just hash this stuff out once and for all. lol Actually, I think it would all end in a great big group hug! Of course that is the idealist in me...

But honestly, I am learning, that there is, what I have heard, as a sort of "netiquette" to this whole thing... I suppose? For when we are speaking through cyberspace, one has a tendency to be able to speak frankly, and to the point ,right from the onset of conversation, as if one has known the other much longer?

I must say, that in many ways this is very refreshing, but I can also see that behind our little "pseudo" we are very much "us" still. I imagine that in maybe another type of blog situation it is different, but when individuals are speaking of spirituality in conjunction with all else, it is very personal. And for this reason, one is unable to remain veiled.

I must be more careful in my blogging attempts, as I am a two-week novice at this. Although I must confess, I do so enjoy being privileged to know so many of you so quickly. I have learned much. Thank you. My apologies if I have been too bold too soon. I say this because I am known, by some, to be a bit bold at times! But usually it takes me "three" weeks!

I have made note in another of my post a reference as to this being "the most interesting" as compared to the other active threads on this forum. I continue to feel the same, and for the reasons I have just shared.

Wry Catcher - What you desire to know of me regarding the original intent of this actual thread can be found out, if you are willing to read through this thread. Honest... no games. I support the priesthood as it is organized within the church fully and have been blessed by it... flaws and all. I have three lovely adult daughters, who are active and married as well. I have probably spilled my guts on the post of this forum as much as any, or if not more than any other poster. At least it feels like it:-)

If you have a chance to read any of my post, I would honestly enjoy engaging as HM has suggested.

Grasshopper - Nice to see you "finally" engage a bit, and even on my behalf. Thanks. Right ON! I happen to love your source... He is my favorite every time. How did you know? Oh, and by the way... you are actually MY fourth witness of this TRUTH.

DV - It took you quite a while to get back to me. Why didn't you just ask me for all that info you posted and I would have sent it to you?

How funny that you would have a problem with Michael Quinn? Since he should be a credible source for those reading here. What about the Master Source that Grasshopper suggested? Who is YOUR source?

Betty - My friend, now you flatter me! I am a Nana with six grandchildren. I think that I am a little older and possibly a bit more experienced than YOU my dear. Oh, now look what this has done to me... I have divulged that I am possibly the eldest woman here! And for What? lol

To the LDS women on this thread:

I'd like to repeat what Wry Catcher asked as a sincere question, as it's also the reason I'm still reading the comments here:

"I was here to try and understand what you, and perhaps other active, faithful mormon women, think of the inherent inequalities for women in the mormon doctrines and practices. E.g., if you first acknowledge them, then accept them? Or if you rationalize them all away from the outset? Or if you even recognise that they exist? If they are troubling to you? If you have daughters? If you worry about how mormonism will affect them? Etc."

We'd love to know the answers to these questions. It's been a huge process in my own life to contemplate each of these questions.

Wry,

JD1 reads my intentions correctly. I hope that clarifies. I do feel sad, angry, defensive, appauled, frustrated, irritated and hurt at times when I read through this thread. Perhaps this is because for the most part, it is my ideology that is being scrutinized and I have felt at various points that my ideology is being misrepresented, sometimes slandered, sometimes disrespected, the church I love is called a cult. I choose to keep participating but for me, I would not describe it as smooth. For the points there seems to be understanding and common ground I am grateful. I hope there are more. I hope I can facilate that by temporing some of my initial reactions to criticism. I hope this comes accross as sincere...

DV

I was going to make a joke about
how
you can't mention
Oliver Cowdery's D R
on this website

but the joke is too racy
so I won't make it.

Rye,

I think HM thought you were flustered because of her reference to the B-word in addressing your last post; but you were referring to your Newsweek's censorship. I must admit I was a bit confused, I didn't know there was post quarentining here.

I think she was being sensitive to what she thought was a negative emotional reaction to her post on your part. We LDS are sensitive to profanity you know- even when we are the one's using it.

So, to be clear, I'm certain this website/blog owners quarantined my post because it had a disallowed word in it - I don't think anyone commenting here quarantined my post.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not sad. Or defensive. Or angry. It has seemed to me, now nearly 500 comments in, that this discussion has mostly gone very smoothly overall.

I of course was not saying that RTC shouldn't question Betty, but that her tone struck *me* as passive-aggressive. So, probably a gratuitous observation on my part, but I was hoping that they could maintain a more straightforward tone and not devolve into a gendered cliche. (That's tongue-in-cheek, btw.)

Thanks for your apologies, HM, but what do you have to apologise for...?

Wry Catcher,

I do not quarauntine you or your comment of "fully gone into passive aggressive mormon woman mode" I do point it out as ironic as everyone has had thier opinnions and thoughts and beleifs scrutinized and questioned. It seems that RTC questioning Betty is not given the same legitamacy as the questioning that is posed to others.

Though I was feeling defensive when I wrote that post, right now I just feel sad. I wonder if Betty is sad? I wonder if RTC is sad?

I really admired both RTC and Betty for the repor they seemed to develop with one another earlier on in this thread. As women with more life experience than I, I admired their ability to do this seemingly so easily and hoped I could get better at that myself. You know I need the work.

From reading thier earlier posts, I don't think things would be at this point if they were talking to eachother in person. You and I niether.

My apologies Wry, Such is the blog and religion and politics. I can relate to the fluster...

Oy vey. I meant, "I hope Hershey's Mom comes back...," not RTC (hope she comes back too, but I was responding to HM on this one). I suspect I got flustered by my b-word goof and subsequent virtual banishment.

Hmm, my last comment got quarantined or something? Not sure why. I suspect it's because I spelled out the word that HM asterisked in her post - and believe me, I was not calling anyone that word!! I was making a lame joke about the tendency to call mouthy women that word, is all.

In a nutshell, I was saying I would love it if RTC comes back with her responses to my questions. I'm still trying to work out why mormoism about killed me, but works really well for my mother, sister and nieces. There are bridges to gap, and I'm still trying to work it all out.

C'est tout.

Wry Catcher,

I was thinking yesturday similarly that this converstaion has digressed quite a bit from the original topic. Probably not today, but hopefully soon I'd like to post some of my thoughts on the things you mentioned when you wrote

"I was here to try and understand what you, and perhaps other active, faithful mormon women, think of the inherent inequalities for women in the mormon doctrines and practices. E.g., if you first acknowledge them, then accept them? Or if you rationalize them all away from the outset? Or if you even recognise that they exist? If they are troubling to you? If you have daughters? If you worry about how mormonism will affect them? Etc."

I think these are great questions...

Men speak thier minds and question things and are often praised for thier intelligence

Women speak thier minds and question things and are often called b*****es

Ex - Mormoms speak thier minds and question things and are often called intellegent

Mormon Women speak thier minds and question things and are called passive agressive

My My My My My ....

Go ahead and ignore what trained historians have said Grasshopper. I've presented textual statements for Michael Quinn, Alan Taylor, and Richard P. Howard. But go right ahead and ignore statements staring you right in the face. How is the Old Testament the "master source" as you say, for what Oliver Cowdery carried around with him? Oliver lived quite a few thousand years after the Old Testament was written, so I am sure not one of the Old Testament verses was written of him.

As far as being a witness for truth, you don't even know what that means. Truth, is honesty. Truth is based on accuracy and actuality. People like you have blinders on, and will not even consider evidence outside of your version of "truth." Its ok though. I'm used to being treated this way.

Grasshopper, what evidence or studies do you have to prove that Quinn, Taylor, and Howard are wrong? There's three witnesses that say Oliver Cowdery had a divining rod. What evidence do you have that counters what they have said? Your word only, and some obscure reference to the Hebrews in the Old Testament?

RTC- I am sorry if I have addressed a question meant for you. Perhaps you may become a second witness of this truth?

DV- I believe you may have mixed up your "rods". Please check the "master source" and read Numbers 17. Clearly this was the "rod of nature" which bore fruit also signifying "the rod of revelation". This is the same "rod" that was kept in the "Ark of the Covenant". I do not believe it was the star in any movie nor turned into anything close to a snake. Neither do I believe it was a "water witching rod".

RTC -

I wanted to get back to you about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod, since you seem to be convinced that it was nothing more than a long walking stick, like Aaron's rod that turned into a serpent in the movie "The Ten Commandments." There is evidence that it was not a walking stick, but actually a divining rod according to a many reliable sources.

Since you referenced Michael Quinn earlier, I thought I would present something Quinn mentioned about Oliver's divining rod. Quinn says: "Cowdery's use of a divining rod, however, does suggest that before 1829, he may have also had at least some knowledge of and experience with astrology and ceremonial folk magic" (Quinn, "Early Mormonism & the Magic World View", 1987, pg. 35).

Quinn also found that William Cowdery, Oliver's father was closely associated with Vermont's Wood Scrape, and participated in folk magic. Quinn linked him closely with Nathanael Wood's "Fraternity of Rodsmen." (Quinn, Early Mormonism & the Magic World View, 1987, 84-86). These were individuals who had developed some skill with a divining rod, also colloquially known as a "water witching rod."

Historian Alan Taylor discusses a fascinating connection with Oliver's father William, and divining rods. He says: "In 1799 a seer named Wingate arrived in Middletown as a guest of the Woods and of William Cowdry in adjoining Wells, Vermont. The Woods began to feature divining rods in their rituals, insisting that the rods' jerks in answer to their questions represented divine messages. (Taylor, "Treasure Seeking In the American Northeast," 1986, pg. 24)

RLDS Church Historian Richard P. Howard provides evidence that William Cowdery, who was Oliver's father, was well known for his use of a divining rod. As Joseph Smith's 3rd cousin, Oliver had to opportunity to demonstrate his skill with a divining rod in the early stages of mormon history.

Howard believes that Oliver followed his father's lead in folk magic practices including the use of a divining rod. He states: "For example, the 'divining rod' was used effectively by one Nathanael Wood in Rutland County, Vermont, in 1801. Wood, Winchell, William Cowdery, Jr., and his son Oliver Cowdery, all had some knowledge of and associations with the various uses, both secular and sacred, of the forked witch hazel rod. Winchell and others used such a rod in seeking buried treasure;...when Joseph Smith met Oliver Cowdery in April 1829, he found a man peculiarly adept in the use of the forked rod... (Restoration Scriptures, Independence, Mo.. 1969, pp.211-14).

It is hard, in light of these sources, to simply dismiss the "rod of nature" described in the original Book of Commandments, as a walking stick. It seems to have actually been a divining rod, which would explain the church's reluctance to leave the original passage in the Book of Commandments intact. Here is a comparison of the original revelation as found in the Book of Commandments with the altered version as it now appears in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Book of Commandments, Section 7, verse 3

Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands... (7:3)

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 8, verses 6-7

Now this is not all thy gift, for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. (8:6-7)

Because the church had slowly moved away from an emphasis on the religious or mystical meanings in such strange objects as a water witching rods, the reference to such superstitious devices was obviously eliminated and purged from the collective memory of the church.

The question is: Would God actually make a water witching rod tremble in Oliver Cowdery's hands? And if so, why would there be a need to refer to this experience differently? Of course you can question my sources, and only accept church correlated sources. But a truly objective analysis of any topic requires an examination of all of the evidence, and not just bits of sanitized fragments.

-DV

RTC said to Betty:

"You suprise me a bit? Are you here to learn and to understand as you claim? Perhaps you need no clarification... Then why are you here? Why have you asked so many questions of me? I have not been offended at any reasonable inquiry or challenge that has been made of me. Why the opposition my friend?"

Now, I perceive that you, RTC, have fully gone into passive-aggressive mormon woman mode with this line of "what, *me* be confrontational??" questions, but I'll attempt a response here anyhow. Speaking for myself only, not for Betty, although you addressed her.

Yes, I was here seeking understanding - but not of mormon doctrine. I've had years of education in that, as have others here, obviously including yourself. I don't need to be elucidated about the CK and who does/n't get to go there, I am quite clear on that bit of doctrine. I don't need, nor want, people to patiently and condescingly explain to me how my very rational conclusions of the implications of mormon doctrine are wrong because of this or that variety of "spiritual" "reasoning."

I was here to try and understand what you, and perhaps other active, faithful mormon women, think of the inherent inequalities for women in the mormon doctrines and practices. E.g., if you first acknowledge them, then accept them? Or if you rationalize them all away from the outset? Or if you even recognise that they exist? If they are troubling to you? If you have daughters? If you worry about how mormonism will affect them? Etc.

Is that a straightforward enough proposition of the understanding I seek?

Betty -

You are certainly not one that is to be taught in a didactic or condescending way. You are much too intelligent clearly. And that is precisely what I was challenging... your intelligence and reasoning skills.

It is evident that you were not the only one challenged... as many seemed to add their input and questioned as well. But as comments from most other active members I believe supports... that which I expressed is understood. If this is contrary... I have not been challenged by an active member?

You suprise me a bit? Are you here to learn and to understand as you claim? Perhaps you need no clarification... Then why are you here? Why have you asked so many questions of me? I have not been offended at any reasonable inquiry or challenge that has been made of me. Why the opposition my friend?

I will answer...

Dear Sister Mama,

I think your post was a good portrayal of the Mormon process of Salvation. If it had been delivered in sacrament meeting I don't think it would raise any eyebrows.

It did not include a list of necessary ordinances (though I did see ordinances in a generic sense mentioned a couple times). I found it a more theologically penetrating exposition of the balance between justice and mercy that I think any GA could claim as their own.

Hey again,

Not my intention to be unclear - I get critiques when people think I'm wasting thier time telling them to many details of things they already know too.

Yes, all ordinances are needed for exaltation as I stated in my original post "So there are ordinances people must partake of and adhere to in order to say yes - this is what I want!" and there is plenty of oppurtunity for everyone to receive them "that long time is this life here on earth, after people pass away and hear the gospel in the spirit world and durring the millenium".

Hope that clarifies things?

RTC
your last statement in response to my citing of the Mormon doctrine on temple marriage/CK was:"

""I realize that you have a good understanding of the doctrine straight off the page, but hopefully you will take a thought or two and think about maybe where I may have been going with my little exercise?

RTC my Friend!!!
I grew up As a 5th generation mormon!
my father was a stake president for 15 years.
I didn't just "read the page."
i lived the life. You can not have been in the life longer than I.

But I can also read the page
and understand the English
that is on today's LDS web page.

Which is the same doctrine i learned and that has been taught back to when my great grandfather was 2nd counselor to Brigham Young.

Fine for you to believe whatever you want to believe.
What the church states in this matter is perfectly clear.

"your little exercise" doesn't make much sense to me.

i would expect my friend not to be cute and didactic and condescending, but to tell me straight out what she believed.

i am on Moses's side.

would you ladies be straightforward
and say whether
the doctrines Heraclitus quoted
are ones you agree with.?

or not?

i grew up with hundreds of mormons.

i was pretty good at understanding all of them.

So Hershey's Mama

Guess i won't get to meet you in heaven after all then. eh?

would have been fun.

btw
not only am i not good at speaking
i am not good at reading

and going back and searching all your posts
is beyond me

would a been nice if you could a briefly restated your position.

you are so subtle, we patriarchs don't always get your implications.

and you women are so enigmatic.

Hello again folks,

I do love a reaction. It is ever so flattering :)

Do please reread my statements and sub ordinances with temple marriage which is the highest ordinance. I assumed since I was talking to former Mormons this would be implied.

No priesthood correction needed, though I'm sure the Noble John D the 1st could shed some good light on just about anything...

Who is this Jesus Christ?

Yahweh commanded us
that we should
Have no other Gods before Him.

We are never going to accept this Jesus fellow,
now or in the afterlife.

and you are telling me that Moses
who spoke with God through the burning bush
is going to be denied the highest level of heaven.
What utter blasphemy and balderdash.!!!

I think you good women, RTC and MH
are trying to sell Betty a bill of goods.

Here is what
the OFFICIAL MORMON Website, say about your discussion, and what you
RTC and HM, say about mormon doctrine.
Looks to me like you are either lying or you don't understand the plain english on the official LDS website

here is the dope

Requirements for Exaltation

The time to fulfill the requirements for exaltation is now (see Alma 34:32-34). President Joseph Fielding Smith said, "In order to obtain the exaltation we must accept the gospel and all its covenants; and take upon us the obligations which the Lord has offered; and walk in the light and understanding of the truth; and 'live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God' " (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:43).

To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in him must be such that we repent of our sins and obey his commandments.

He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

1. We must be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.
2. We must receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
3. We must receive the temple endowment.
4. We must be married for time and eternity.

from Mormonexlicator Jeff Lindsay
From Jeff Lindsay:
What happens if you do not marry your sweetheart in the temple?
You mean what happens if you marry her in a civil marriage only? Then you can still have a great marriage and wonderful life and family, but it's strictly "till death do you part." After death, there is no authorized, eternal covenant that binds you two together. I much prefer knowing that my family is joined eternally by the power of God's priesthood than to have a relationship that will end in a few years.

NO wonder poor betty is confused.
Hope this doesn'[t scotch her eternal exaltation!

John D

these women of the church are confused again.
They disagree about doctrine regarding the celestial kingdom and temple marriage.

can you straighten them out?
you hold the priesthood, don't you.?

rtc

where in the bible did jesus talk about the celestial kingdom?

oh, that was in the book of mormon?

when I belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
in 2006 and 1966 and 1846

they believed in Joseph Smith's teaching
that one had to be sealed in the temple
to be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom.

They even say the same thing today on their website.

Are we talking about the same
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
the one at LDS.org?

Hershey's Mama -

Why, it seems as though you believe the doctrine as the Savior Himself taught? One would think we belong to the same church, for that is exactly what I believe!

Do you belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints?

Did you learn this from your seminary teacher? Will you teach this to Hershey?

Hershey's Mama

How is Hershey.?

As usual, you are very good willed and generous spirited towards your fellow Humans.

I am now a Jew who feels that Jesus is my Jewish brother but has no role in my salvation.

I may or not feel that through eternity,
but if I do
I guess I will just stay with all the other
Non Mormons
in the 4 star Hotel Terrestrial Kingdom
where I am sure the food will be great

while all my fellow Jews who accept The True Gospel in the afterlife are up the in the CK, which is only *a little more exalted* than my accommodations

though I won the Nobel Peace Prize and get 5 PH.d's and cured the sick in Calcutta.

But I do love you, as well, I truly do.

j

Hi Ya'll just chimming in as I do from time to time,

Had some thoughts about the CK I want to throw out here.

I think the devil is pleased when salvation is painted as either so rigid no man can attain it or so flexable why even bother worry about it all.

There is a lot of mercy in Christianity - in Mormonism and one need only look at several parables in the Bible that illustrate this:

There is a parable of a man who owns a vineyard and at the begining of the day, he hires on some servants. As the day goes on, he hires more. Finally towards the end of the day he hires others. And guess what happens? As the day comes to a close, they all get the same pay (IE. they all get the same salvation) because they were all willing to do the work and did it. The servants who started at the begining of the day get upset.

There is another parable of the prodical son - he leaves his father, takes his inheritance and fritters it away. Deveasted and at rock bottom, he eventually returns to his father with the hope to simply be his servant. But his father receives him with open arms and there is a celebration! His brother gets but hurt about it.

In both these parables, those who were "faithful" from the begining held much too rigid ideas about salvation and Christ tries to point out that there is more time to come unto him than just what is written in the law and this is because of his mercy, his atonement.

Mormons beleive that long time is this life here on earth, after people pass away and here the gospel in the spirit world and durring the millenium. If these realities exist beyond this life, it is hard to imagine people won't have more than a second thought about the ideologys they ascribed to on earth (all of which mormons beleive contain some degree of light and truth, thats BOM doctrine) That is why we spend hours and hours doing ordinances for them in the temple - for many we realize and recognize that with there good lives they've lived, ordanances is all thats left to do.

God has boundaries like anyone has, like any good relationship has, like any good society has. I believe in heaven there is no place for anarchy.

Elder Maxwell said in words much more eloquent than I'll now paraphrase. Many people live good lives and salvation will come to them much like a store bought cake mix - it's just a matter of adding water - baptism and ordinances.

Likewise many not so good people will have a change of heart - wounds and unment needs will be healed which Pres. Kimball sighted as the source from which much sin springs.

There is a lot of mercy going on here and I've felt that in my own life and seen it in the lives of others.

I don't think there is any religion that has more boundaries than the church that I can agree on but I also think that there isn't any religion that is more liberal in leaving oppurtunity for people to join the church and enjoy the blessings Christ promises.

Finally, James may recall I love pipping in about the CK - it is not a paradisical rest home - there other kingdoms if all people want is club med. The LDS idea of the CK is it is work, it is building Zion, it has laws, bounds, and structure. Many even good people may not want to be deported there against there will if it's not there eternal thing. So there are ordinances people must partake of and adhere to in order to say yes - this is what I want!

These are my thoughts on the matter. Have fun with them.

The Mormon Celestial Kingdom

RTC

once more, i truly admire your belief about the cK
it is much more like mine than the official mormon doctrine.

just one last point;

if I were an 17 year old investigating the church, I can easily imagine that the clincher for me would be the promise the church explicitly makes that if I were sealed in the temple to my husband, i could be with him forever for time and eternity.

and if i DID join the church, and then went to your seminary class, and you told me that this promise was not necessarily so, or that it was so but i didn't have to join the church to avail myself of it,

i would feel like someone lied to me.

AND

if i were a girl growing up in the church with a father who was a stake president (which I was) and I was taught the same teaching noted above year after year (which I was) and which everyone else i know in church believed (which they said they did)
and then you told me in seminary class what you told our convert,
i would similarly feel like someone lied to me.

Wry Catcher,

I think you are spot on by pointing out the spledid irony that "Teach you Salvation Cactus" has provided us with. I can see why you think it's funny (though don't mistake me for scoffer).

I suddenly feel a special kinship with my secular humanist brethren and sisters.

I have to agree with Wry Catcher than in spite of the Cactus Crusaders offensive antics, that I am slightly amused by his twisted version of love. Hey Cactus, back off a little ok? When you barge into a discussion about mormonism, at least have the courtesy not to mock or cajole or attempt to intimidate. It doesn't work. Nobody here is intimidated by you, or your recitation of the scriptures, or your recitation of parts of the temple ceremony. If you intent is truly to make mormons aware of the love of Jesus, you are going about it in completely the wrong way.

Love encompasses respect. Jesus taught that we should respect one another, regardless of religious affiliation. I have been accused of horrible things by others on this thread, of being an apostate in the religion of my forefathers. Love would dictate that others not judge my motivations, unless they actually know me. I would suggest that you follow that same course. Don't judge the motivations of mormons until you know us, and you know our doctrines. You assume too much, you assume that because I am an active mormon that I somehow need to be saved, by your definition of the word.

You said: DV, BECAUSE I LOVE YOU I SHOW YOU HOW YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED.

Cactus, I have been a mormon all of my half century on this planet. I have studied the religion intensely that past two years, sometimes 40-50 hours a week. I am not deceived. I know things about mormonism that you will never know. I know good things and bad things. I know that I was visited by the power of the Holy Ghost while serving as a mormon missionary. The power of God overwhelmed me and caused me to fill from head to toe with his powerful love. God did not reject me because I was a mormon missionary, he loved me, and sent his Spirit to console me. I was given a remarkable feeling that I will never forget, a spiritual enlightenment, if you will. I do not discuss this casually, but humbly and honestly.

Re-examine your premises, Cactus Crusader, and see if the reason you are here is because of love, as you state, or out of a sense of duty instilled in you by your brand of religion. If love is the primary motivation for your visit, you might try to go about it in a more delicate and warm manner, consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Crusader is a Sociopath
so We Must Just Ignore Him

My own deeply twisted appreciation for irony is making me LMAO that this thread has culminated in a christian YELLING AT US THAT HE LOVES US AND THAT WE ARE ALL DECEIVED BECAUSE SCRIPTURE TELLS US SO!!

BETTY, JESUS IS MY MASTER, NOT YOU. I PREACH THE WORD BECAUSE I LOVE YOU.

GRASSHOPPER, ADULTERS SEEK SIGNS.

JAMES, YOU ARE FOREVER LEARNING AND NEVER ABLE TO COME TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH

JOHN D THE FIRST, FAITH IS FAITH, MAN'S WAYS ARE NOT GOD'S WAYS.

DV, BECAUSE I LOVE YOU I SHOW YOU HOW YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED

RTC, PRIDE GOETH BEFORE THE FALL

DOES THE GOD OF THE BIBLE SAY THAT THERE ARE MANY GODS?

ISAIAH 43:10 ...BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME.
ISAIAH 44:6 ...I AM THE FIRST, AND I AM THE LAST; AND BESIDE ME THERE IS NO GOD.

ISAIAH 44:8 ...IS THERE A GOD BESIDE ME? YEA, THERE IS NO GOD; I KNOW NOT ANY.

ISAIAH 45:5 I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE, THERE IS NO GOD BESIDE ME...

ISAIAH 45:6 ...THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME. I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE.

ISAIAH 45:21 ...THERE IS NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; A JUST GOD AND A SAVIOUR; THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME.

ISAIAH 45:22 LOOK UNTO ME, AND BE YE SAVED, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH: FOR I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE.

ISAIAH 46:9 ...I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE; I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE LIKE ME,

DEUTERONOMY 32:39 SEE NOW THAT I, EVEN I, AM HE, AND THERE IS NO GOD WITH ME: I KILL, AND I MAKE ALIVE; I WOUND, AND I HEAL: NEITHER IS THERE ANY THAT CAN DELIVER OUT OF MY HAND.

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE EMPHATICALLY SAYS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND HE WILL NOT SHARE HIS GLORY WITH ANOTHER.

THE BIBLE TALKS A LOT ABOUT FALSE PROPHETS...JOSEPH SMITH--YOUR LEADER AND FOUNDER--WAS A FALSE PROPHET. IF YOU REMAIN DECEIVED IT IS BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO. JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY WAY TO GOD AND NO CEREMONIES AND FAIRY TALES WILL SAVE YOUR SOUL.

CRUSADER !!!! STOP SPAMMING!!! RIGHT NOW!!!

(i agree with James)

What Jesus Taught
Was Created by Powerful Men

"All Christian evidence of Jesus is Polemical,suspect,and would not be admissible in a court of law."

Thus saith Harold Bloom in Jesus and Yahweh, and I guarantee you Bloom knows 4 times as much about the subject as YOU or I.

So, two of the most important questions to ask about "What Jesus Taught" are

a. What is in the interests of the Powerful (or PR men like ST Paul and Otterson) to WANT you to believe that Jesus said.
Truth usually has LITTLE to do with Power.

b. regardless of whether Jesus said it (eg Blessed are the Meek)
what is the Spiritual Truth of the sayings attributed to him?

Not having been the first one on this sight to have posted "mis-quotes", I will offer a correction... It was a quote from Bill Engvall.

Just when you thought this discussion couldn’t get any further off topic, “Crusader” rushes in “to save the day”, donning soap box and all. As I am sure any intelligent contributor has now obviously checked out... a message for you Crusader: Knock yourself out. Oh yes, and a quote from someone you probably relate well to, the infamous Jeff Foxworthy, “Here’s your sign!”

Many people read the Bible and even earn the reputation as a Bible “scholar” because of their study and writings about what they have studied. But it is actually not the reading of the Bible that is the loving Him but the doing of it as James says in chp 1:22-25.

The apostle John also tells us in his first letter, chp 2:3-5 that knowing God is about doing what He tells us to do, or obeying His commands. If we do obey His commands His love is truly made complete in us. John goes on to say that another way we demonstrate our love for Jesus is to love our brothers. In fact, this is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence when our hearts condemn us.

Knowing and loving God is all about doing as He lovingly commands His children. What are His commands? To believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us.

Finally, Jesus commanded us in the “Great Commission” to go and make disciples of all nations… and teach them to obey everything He commanded us. A disciple is a student who carries his role much further than the typical student of today. He is one who not only learns the teachings of his master but also works to become like his master. The commands of our Master are actually few; believe and love.

Fortunately He does not order us to somehow develop emotional responses, as we are prone to define love, He simply says, I love you, I will only command you to do what is good for you and for others and I will consider it love if you will just do your best to obey what I have commanded you. Believe in Me and love as I love. Know Me, love Me.

Bear with me while I speak, and after I have spoken, mock on.
Job 21:3

First of all, you must understand that in the last days mockers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
II Peter 3:3

Blessed is the person who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
Psalm 1:1

The arrogant mock me without restraint, but I do not turn from your law.
Psalm 119:51

How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 1:22

God mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble.
Proverbs 3:34

Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult. Whoever rebukes a wicked person incurs abuse. Do not rebuke a mocker or they will hate you. Rebuke a wise person and they will love you.
Proverbs 9:7-8

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you. If you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.
Proverbs 9:10,12

The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.
Proverbs 14:6

A mocker resents correction. They will not consult the wise.
Proverbs 15:12

He who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps himself from calamity. The proud and arrogant person, "Mocker" is their name. They behave with overbearing pride.
Proverbs 21:23-24

Drive out the mocker and out goes strife. Quarrels and insults are ended.
Proverbs 22:10

Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A person reaps what they sow. The one who sows to please their sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction. The one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Galatians 6:7-8

More questions for your Temple guide:

Joe Smith as Sorcerer's Apprentice?

Ask your guide why, if God condemns magic and sorcery, did Joseph Smith and many early church leaders practice magic and astrology according to highly respected LDS historians like Michael Quinn.

Ask why the older statue of the angel Moroni that was full of occult and Masonic markings was removed from Temple Square after LDS historian Reed Durham drew attention to it.

Joseph Smith "worked" an Occultic Jupiter Talisman that he called his "Masonic Jewel." He carried it with him always. It was on his person when he died. Ask to see the Talismanóor at least a picture of this very Key item in Joseph Smith's life.

"There shall not be found among you anyone that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a, or a charmer or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD; and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee." Deut.18:10-12.

How on earth could Joseph Smith run three miles and carry the Gold Plates under his arm. They had to weigh well over 200 pounds.

You should ask your guide, "If Elohim and his many wives have bodies of flesh and bone as tangible as ours, why do they beget spirit children who grow up without bodies'?"

"God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth." John 4:24

If you go to the Mormon Temple (Information Center) as a visitor you will be given a smooth presentation of Mormonism. Unfortunately, it is not a work of truth, but carries a glaze of deception.

The scriptures show wherein the fault lies:

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." Luke 12:2-3.

"For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed." Isaiah 9:6

Ask your guide about their "New Name." Why is it given in such secrecy to each individual, yet it is always the same male or female name (or its alternate) for everyone throughout the day.

Why is the wife forbidden to know her husband's "New Name" yet he must know hers? And what happens if she should ever learn his secret name?

Why must all LDS women cover their faces when they pray to God in the Temple?

Why aren't the women who go to the Temple to be married for 'Time and Eternity' told that when the swear the oath of obedience to the Law of the Priesthood that it is speaking of polygamy? (Doctrine and Covenants 132).

Are they instructed that they will actually be only the first wife of many their husband will get in the Celestial kingdom, or here on earth, if Elohim should change his mind again!

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Matt.22:29-30.

Ask your guide why the Temple Mormon wife isn't instructed that she can only be resurrected if her husband calls her forth from the grave? What if he doesn't want her? What if he "falls away" and becomes a Baptist? How will she get out of the grave then?

Ask how can you keep the New and Everlasting Covenant, and not be damned (D&C 132:1-4) without being a polygamist?

When the official doctrines on plural marriage were removed from the Temple covenants in the 1920's, this resulted in a change in the text of the Covenant of Chastity given in the Endowment, which indicated that the only sinful sexual activities were heterosexual. In 1973, this was changed to also forbid today's sexual perversions, such as homosexuality.

Ask your guide if, in the light of this, all those temple Mormons who were practicing perversions during those decades were truly worthy of attending the temple. Did the moral standards of the temple change in 1973? Did the LDS God really goof and allow his church prophets to permit such an error? If God truly speaks to the Mormon prophet, why had six prophets come and gone without noticing and correcting this obvious omission? Why did it take some troublesome questions by a newly endowed Elder to have the covenant rectified?

Here! Here! To the noble JOHN D THE FIRST. I could not have said it better myself.

In her excellent article, “Keeping members a challenge for LDS Church - Mormon myth: The belief that the Church is the fastest-growing faith in the world doesn't hold up,” religion reporter, Peggy Fletcher Stack, told the truth about the claims of Mormonism’s vast growth rates throughout the world. Folks, it is not the fastest growing church in the world. Not even close.

Peggy Fletcher Stack reports that since 1990, other faiths - Seventh-day Adventists, Assemblies of God and Pentecostal groups - have grown much faster and in more places around the globe. And most telling, the number of Latter-day Saints who are considered active churchgoers is only about a third of the total, or 4 million in the pews every Sunday.

She goes on to say, according to LDS-published statistics, the annual number of LDS converts declined from a high of 321,385 in 1996 to 241,239 in 2004. In the 1990s, the church's growth rate went from 5 percent a year to 3 percent. [Ed: Worldwide. Less in USA]

By comparison, the Seventh-day Adventist Church reports it has added more than 900,000 adult converts each year since 2000 (an average growth of about 5 percent), bringing the total membership to 14.3 million. The Assemblies of God now claims more than 50 million members worldwide, adding 10,000 new members every day.

Cactus Jack-

I think you may be missing the point. The penalties, and most masonic imagery you refer to were removed from the endowment ceremony in April 1990.

Most members who went through the ceremony after that, have no clue what you are talking about, because they've never seen it. I'm sure they are convinced you are lying about it. You may want to try a different approach, like "love." Loving people is the best way to help them, regardless of their religious affiliation or social status, try to remember that. Christ taught us that one.

Crusader Cactus,

"Mormon cult members can't see the obvious because they have been conditioned to believe in a fantastic hoax."

Just a few questions:

Do you believe a world wide flood ravaged the earth 6,000 years ago?

DO you believe two of every species were once put on a single boat?

Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Do you believe a donkey once spoke to man named Balam?

Do you believe the universe was created magically out of nothing?

Do you believe the earth was created before the sun?

Do you believe God commanded the massacar of all the women and children of the Cannanites?

Do you beleive that everyone who dies without accepting Jesus as their savior will suffer for Eternity in Hell?

I think we are in the same boat when it comes to the rational difficulty of our positions.

BTW, I learned about the Endowment: Masonry connection in a religion class at BYU. The connection was spoken of openly, both in formal and informal contexts. I also found on my mission that many missionaries were aware of this connection. Not really a big secret.

We could discuss the significance of this connection, but I think it would get us off topic.

http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/mormonkingdomvol1_ub029.htm

"The five points of fellowship are given by putting the inside of the right foot to the inside of the Lord's, the inside of your knee to his, laying your breast close to his, your left hands on each other's backs, and each one putting his mouth to the other's ear, in which position the Lord whispers:
"Lord—'This is the sign of the token:

" 'Health to the navel, marrow in the bones, . . .
". . .we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots."

"Sign—In executing the sign of the penalty, the right hand, palm down, is drawn sharply across the throat,

"The Grip-Hands clasped, pressing the knuckle of the index finger with the thumb."

". . . Peter now takes Adam by the right hand and asks:)
"Peter—'What is that?'
"Adam—'The first token of the Aaronic Priesthood.
"Peter—'Has it a name?'
"Adam—'It has.'
"Peter—'Will you give it to me?'
"Adam—'I can not, for it is connected with my new name, but this is the sign.' "

"We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.' "

"The sign is made by placing the left arm on the square at the level of the shoulder, placing the right hand across the chest with the thumb extended and then drawing it rapidly from left to right and dropping it to the side."

"The Grip is given by clasping the hand and pressing the thumb in the hollow between the first and second knuckles of the hand."

"The name is the given name of the candidate."

"Peter—'We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.' "

"In this, the left hand is placed palm upright, directly in front of the body, there being a right angle formed at the elbow; the right hand, palm down, is placed under the elbow of the left; then drawn sharply across the bowels, and boths hands are dropped at the side."

"The Name of this token is the Son, meaning the Son of God."

"Lord—'What is this?'
"Endowee—'The second token of the Melchizedek Priesthood—The Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail."
"Lord—'Has it a name?'
"Endowee—'It has.'
"Lord—'Will you give it to me?'
"Endowee—'I can not for I have not yet received it.' "

" 'You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except your lawful wife or wives who are given you by the holy priesthood.' "

"The Grip is given by placing the thumb of back of hand and the tip of forefinger in the centre of palm, representing the piercing of the hand by a nail. It is called 'The Sign of the Nail.' "

" 'You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray, and never cease to pray, and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets. . ."

"The candidate, being directed to these washing and dressing rooms and having divested himself of all his clothing, awaits his time in the bath. . .
"The candidate then retires to the dressing room, where he puts on a shirt and a pair of white pants and white stockings."

"Adam (Turning to the audience) — 'In your bundles brethren and sisters, you will each find an apron, you will now put it on.' "

"As the candidate is washed, the officiant hurries through the lustration ritual. . . the candidate is passed on to another attendant and is anointed with oil. The oil is very definitely applied to the various organs of his body. The pronouncements used in this ceremony are much the same as those used in the lustration ritual."

"With these garments I give you a new name which is never to be divulged to anyone. The name I shall give you is ______.' "

"The candidate is now taken to one of the openings between the pillars by one of the Temple workers, who gives three raps with a mallet on the pillar. The Lord parts the veil slightly and asks what is wanted.
"Temple Worker—'The man Adam having been true and faithful in all things now desires to converse with the Lord through the veil.'

"Lord—'See that his garments are properly marked, present him at the veil, and his request shall be granted.'

"Attendants or Temple workers prompt the candidate in his answers and grips. . . .

"The Endowee is then taken to the opening by the attendant, who gives three more raps with the mallet.

"Lord—'What is wanted?'

"Attendant—'Adam, having conversed with the Lord through the veil, now desires to enter his presence.'

"Lord—'Admit him.'

"As he says this he extends his hand and welcomes the candidate into the Glory room."

"Elohim—. . . 'This man who is now being operated upon is Michael. . . When he awakes he. . . will be known as Adam.' "

"When all is quiet, a man dressed in white flannels, representing Elohim, come from behind the curtain. . ."

"We now have the veil explained to us. We are told that it represents the veil of the temple. The marks are the same as those on the garments—the compass on the left and the square on the right side."

"The marks are the same as those on the garments—the compass on the left. . ."

http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/mormonkingdomvol1_ub029.htm

As a true believer in Jesus Christ it is my responsibility to free people trapped in all cults. Joe Smith got his idea for the temple from the Masons. Mormon cult members can't see the obvious because they have been conditioned to believe in a fantastic hoax. Here is the Mason version. I will put up the Mormon cult version next for comparison.

"He (the candidate) is raised on what is called the five points of fellowship, . . . This is done by putting the inside of your right foot to the inside of the right foot of the person to whom you are going to give the word, the inside of your knee to his, laying your right breast against his, your left hands on the back of each other, and your mouths to each other's right ear (in which position alone you are permitted to give the word), and whisper the word Mahhah-bone. . . He is also told that Mahhah-bone signifies marrow in the bone."

". . .I will. . . never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry. . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, . . ."

"This is given by drawing your right hand across your throat, the thumb next to your throat, . . ."

"The right hands are joined together as in shaking hands and each sticks his thumb nail into the third joint or upper end of the forefinger; . . ."

"The Master and candidate holding each other by the grip, as before described. the Master says, 'What is this?'
"Ans. 'A grip.'
" 'A grip of what?'
"Ans. 'The grip of an Entered Apprentice Mason.'
" 'Has it a name?'
"Ans. 'It has.'
" 'Will you give it to me?'
"Ans. 'I did not so receive it, neither can I so impart it.' "

" 'I, . . . most solemnly and sincerely promise an and swear, that I will not give the degree of a Fellow Craft Mason to any one of an inferior degree, nor to any other being in the known world, . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my left breast torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence. . . to become a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and vulture of the air, . . ."

"The sign is given by drawing your right hand-flat, with the palm of it next to your breast, across your breast from the left to the right side with some quickness, and dropping it down by your side;. . ."

". . . the pass-grip, is given by taking each other by the right hand, as though going to shake hands, and each putting his thumb between the fore and second fingers where they join the hand, and pressing the thumb between the joints."

"I, . . . most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, in addition to my former obligations, that I will not give the degree of a Master Mason to any of an inferior degree, nor to any other being in the known world, . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my body severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes. . ."

"The Penal Sign is given by putting the right hand to the left side of the bowels, the hand open, with the thumb next to the belly, and drawing it across the belly, and letting it fall; this is done tolerably quick. This alludes to the penalty of the obligation: 'Having my body severed in twain,' etc."
(Freemasonry Exposed, page 77)

". . . 'What is this?'
"Ans. 'A grip.'
" 'A grip-of what?'
"Ans. 'The grip of a Fellow Craft Mason.'
" 'Has it a name?'
"Ans. 'It has.'
" 'Will you give it to me?'
"Ans. 'I did not so receive it, neither can I so impart it.'

"Furthermore do I promise and swear that I will not violate the chastity of a Master Mason's wife, mother, sister, or daughter, I knowing them to be such, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent it."

"Grand Commander now explains the grip and word of a Knight of Malta. He says to candidate—Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and feel the print of the nails; [they join right hands, and force the first finger into the centre of the palm;] . . ."

"We promise and swear, by the living God, always supreme, to revenge the death of our ancestor; . . ."

"The candidate during the time is divested of all his apparel (shirt excepted) and furnished with a pair of drawers kept in the lodge for the use of candidates. The candidate is then blindfolded, his left foot bare, his right in a slipper, his left breast and arm naked, and a rope called a Cable-tow round his neck. . ."

"The Master returns to his seat while the Wardens are examining the candidate, and gets a lambskin or white apron, presents it to the candidate, and observes, 'Brother, I now present you with a lambskin or white apron. It is an emblem of innocence, and the badge of a Mason. . ."

"Master orders the basin of perfumed water and a clean napkin to be brought to him, and directs candidate to wash his hands, which he does. . . .
"Master takes a box of perfumed ointment and anoints candidate on his head, eye, mouth, heart, the tip of his right ear, hand, and foot, and says—You are now, my dear brother, received a member of our society; . . ."

". . .the three great lights in Masonry are the Holy Bible, Square and Compass. . . . the Square, to square our actions, and the Compass to keep us in due bounds with all mankind."

"The candidate then enters, the Senior Deacon at the same time pressing his naked left breast with the point of the compass, . . ."

"And again, I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands or companies, by covenant or oaths, by penalties or secrecies; . . . Pure friendship always becomes weakened that very moment you undertake to make it stronger by penal oaths and secrecy (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 146).

Betty -

I hope I am not making you crazy at this point. (she smiles) Honestly, you are right on! I just want you to know that all in all I truly believe all that I have said aNd my brain is perfectly fine. Honest:-)

I realize that you have a good understanding of the doctrine straight off the page, but hopefully you will take a thought or two and think about maybe where I may have been going with my little exercise?

What's fair is fair. Afterall Betty, you have made me stretch over the past week or so my friend. It has been good for me... I will admit it.

I think you are a great person and I truly wish you the absolute best in all that you do.

And yes, I am aware of the attempt of some to do work for the Holocaust victims. I agree with you on this one completely. Inappropriate to say the least. I cannot imagine how their living relatives must have felt?

Once again, thank you for everything...

Here is just one news item of the
Jewish Reaction to Mormon Baptism of Dead Jews

Rabbi Reverses Mormon Baptism of Dead Jews
– D.C. rabbi uses blow dryer to perform first-time ritual reversing Mormon church's post-mortem baptism of deceased Jews. He threatens post-mortem circumcision of church founders if Mormons do not desist.

and a quote from Wikipedia
citing Insensitivity That Surpasseth Understanding

" Jewish groups such as The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which operates the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, opposed the vicarious baptism of Holocaust perpetrators and victims in the mid 1990s and again in the 2000s when they discovered the practice was continuing. They said the practice was insulting and an affront to Jews who died because of their religion. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the center said: "If these people did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don't call me, I'll call you. With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved." Aaron Breitbart, a researcher with the Center said the church was also showing insensitivity to the living and their dead ancestors. "They did not get baptized when they were alive and they had a choice, and doing so after they are dead is beyond the ethical bounds."[4] Associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abraham Cooper, complained that infamous figures such as Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun appeared on LDS genealogical records at all: "Whether official or not, the fact remains that this is exactly the kind of activity that enraged and hurt, really, so many victims of the Holocaust and caused alarm in the Jewish community. Whatever framework in which it is presented, the notion of performing these sort of rites for Hitler, Himmler and other Nazis . . . is beyond [understanding]."[5][6"

Rtc

Do you know any independent logicians/philosophers?

I'd advise you to take your last post to one, and have them sort our with you the logical problems that are in your reasoning.

Just a couple of examples:

You write:Betty, it is not for anyone of us to judge one another's heart in the long-term. Yes, we do believe that to reside in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom that persons must be sealed either here or by someone vicariously in the temple for time and all eternity.... as well as receive all of the saving ordinances. But, as also has been mentioned, this work can be performed throughout the millennium. That is a very long long time in which for individuals to gain understanding and make decisions about eternity. Don't you think? Why would WE presume to judge anyone at this point? END QUOTE

RTC: I am NOT presuming to judge anyone at this point.

The FACT remains: Yes, individuals may have a LONG time to make their decisions, BUT AT SOME POINT they have to DECIDE to become Sealed, and accept the work that a temple worker has done for them.

They CAN NOT enter the Celestial Kingdom's highest level UNLEss they ACCEPT the gospel at SOME point.

THAT IS MY POINT:
ONly those who accept the Mormon Gospel
can enter the highest heaven.
You do not contradict that here.

BTW, did you read how offended Holocaust survivor Jews were when they learned that Mormons where baptizing their dead relatives so the holocaust victims would have a "chance" to become Mormons in the millenium? Do you understand WHY they would be offended? I sure do. It is incredibly presumptous and condescending.

You write "Facts can be deceiving when formulating a conclusion."

This is an incredible statement, my friend.
FACTS are confusing, but BLIND FAITH based on NO FACTS is NOT confusing?

You write:
Again, I just do not see things as cut and dry as you do. This is not how I teach the plan to my students or my own children. Yes, I teach them the law, but I also teach them about the love of God for all of His children and how His arm is extended to save them ALL to whatever degree they are willing to receive HIM in accepting His great atoning sacrifice for them. EndQuote.

So if i were one of your students, and I came in and said "RTC, the church website says that only if I get sealed in the temple will I be eligible to go to the highest heaven."
You would say:
"Well that don't REALLY mean that. They just sort of mean that."
Pardon RTC, my first class college philosophy department would say that your statement here makes NO sense.

It DOES appear that you are saying
-"The church is lying."
or
"the church does not understand the English language"
and I can't believe you are saying either.

Betty -

In my opinion and from my perspective, your logical conclusion is made from lack of complete understanding. And I mean no disrespect, as I honestly consider you a friend.

Facts can be deceiving when formulating a conclusion, if and when other factors are and should be considered?

There are laws, this we know, and you have shown that you are well aware of those laws, as they stand alone. Yet, your understanding of all other factors, one of which, and is the greatest of all, is the atonement of Jesus Christ, and it's power to cleanse, heal and redeem, in the final judgement of each individual.

What seems to be at odds in our conversation is the question of the acceptance of God's laws, those who claim His authority and the administering of His gospel?

The "Plan of Happiness" as stated earlier, is a universal plan which encompasses "all" of God's children. They may claim to be of "whatsoever" they wish, for that is their right, but we believe that the time will come that... "every knee shall bow, and every tongue will confess, that Jesus is the Christ".

In that acknowledgment of Him being the Creator, Savior and Redeemer of the World, also will come the obligatory obeisance of His authority to order all things.

And this will include final judgement of all who have lived upon this earth.

Betty, it is not for anyone of us to judge one another's heart in the long-term. Yes, we do believe that to reside in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom that persons must be sealed either here or by someone vicariously in the temple for time and all eternity.... as well as receive all of the saving ordinances. But, as also has been mentioned, this work can be performed throughout the millennium. That is a very long long time in which for individuals to gain understanding and make decisions about eternity. Don't you think? Why would WE presume to judge anyone at this point?

I believe that the church upon the earth is the legal administrator of His gospel. They are to teach, preach and administer the ordinances of salvation to all those who will receive. They make intermediate decisions regarding these things here upon the earth. Sometimes they make mistakes.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that they are authorized to make final judgments upon any of the children of men. Including judging their understanding, circumstances or their hearts upon the choices and decisions they have made in this life. Unless... a person (most always this would be a member) has willfully and knowingly rebelled against known law. Then in that, at least for NOW, (intermediate judgement) they have made a choice or the desire of one's heart has been made known to those who have been given authority to judge according to the law. But whether here or in the hereafter, the atonement will have its claim. The extent of its power will depend completely on the individual and their understanding and application of it.

I am humbled continually, at the grace and mercy, that our Redeemer and Savior stands ready to embrace any one of us with, at any point of our progression...

Again, I just do not see things as cut and dry as you do. This is not how I teach the plan to my students or my own children. Yes, I teach them the law, but I also teach them about the love of God for all of His children and how His arm is extended to save them ALL to whatever degree they are willing to receive HIM in accepting His great atoning sacrifice for them.

It is for these reasons and with this understanding that I apply the doctrine and teachings of the magnificence of "The Great Plan of Happiness" which I absolutely fully embrace!

"irregardless of opinion or religious belief."

Anonymous, your use of the abominable bastardization of the word "regardless" is an affront to civil, intelligent discourse. Please refrain from engaging in the grammatical equivalent of running your fingernails down a chalkboard. Thank you.

RTC stated: "There will be NO mormons in the Celestial Kingdom. I am sure of it."

Now, it sure appears that RTC is an anti by making this comment. She seems to be saying that none of us mormons will make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and that she is sure of it. She almost seems to be bearing her testimony to the fact that no mormon is good enough for the CK. But that isn't the case, as I have taken this sentence out of context.

See CTR? You took all of my quotes out of context, and you painted me as an anti, just like any of us could do to each other. You also included two damaging things that I never said. I am not an anti, just like RTC is no anti.

Just remember that the next time you go around telling me that I should be excommunicated for my honest opinions. You don't even know me. God will be my judge. I believe with my honest approach to life, I will fare very nicely on judgement day, CTR, thank you very much!

Anonymous,

Jesus Christ criticized religious leaders frequently. You can read in the gospels about his statements regarding the Pharisees and Saducees, for example.

I am sorry that discussing religion makes you feel bad. Discrimination makes me feel bad. May be, we could work together that there is less discrimination, which would make both of us feel better.

Cheers, Hellmut

Anonymous

You are, with all due respect, talking nonsense.

The OBVIOUS tactic of dismissing your opponents because they are
JUST ANGRY
is absurd.

The people who take different points of view than you do, from sister mary lisa to Yockel to Mayan

have arguments that are 10 times more intelligent and reasonable than yours.

We are not on this post to affirm Christ's mission.

We are here to discuss issues of faith from many points of view.

You are welcome to state yours.

Your criticism of others holds no water.

Anonymous,

We were INVITED to come here and voice our opinions. And you act like we are all trying to tear others down. I don't feel like that's been my intention or method here. It has been good to discuss religious issues here openly. And I haven't mocked anyone thus far, not intentionally.

It is sad to see discussions such as these happening here. There is an obvious contention between many which continue to only bring hostility. When did contention ever bring spirituality? Did Christ go around battling other religious beliefs with hatred or did he call others unto Him with compassion and love? Those who were angry with his belief's were the same that brought him to the cross.

His Atonement is remarkable. Here He is, who despite all things said to Him, about Him, done to Him - took all our sins and regardless of what we have done to Him, always welcomes us back with open arms. He was whipped, tortured, beaten, scolded, all for his beliefs and yet still said on the cross "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do".

I can't help but compare the resemblence of those who abused Christ to those who continue to barade this blog, irregardless of opinion or religious belief. A person was asked to blog of his religous values and all you can do is mock him? Do you not see the similarities?

Does not the story of the good Samaritan ring a bell? Did Christ not teach us that we should help others regardless of religious beliefs? All I see here is mockery and kicking.

I don't know what religious beliefs that many here practice - but I can tell you one thing. I would never follow a group of people who have nothing but pessimistic topics to say about anyone and always try to point out negative things. True doctrine is perfect, but people are not. I believe that the disciples followed Christ not just because the Spirit revealed to them who He was, but also because His compassion for the world was intriguing and invigorating to them. Those who have come unto Christ have had a change of heart, one for the better, not worse. They followed him because of love.

I truly believe that wherever there are good people and acts, you will find the evil one trying to stop the progress of the Lord. The more opposition that is brought, the more correct the principals must be.

Please do not sit on this message board just waiting for someone else to post something which will only feed your anger. Get up and walk away, or start your own religious blog and voice your own opinions. Why tear someone else down when you can lift them up?

RTC
I admire your belief.

I just don't think it is the doctrine of the Church.

Surely wasn't when I was growing up.
and according to the official web site of the Church,
your position is not the position of the church today.

Christians and Mormons believe Christ is their savior. That is fine.
Buddhists and Muslims DO NOT believe Christ is their savior.

You and I believe a good Muslim should be as rewarded as a good Mormon in the afterlife, if there is in fact an afterlife.

The Church does not believe they will.
That is what the doctrine clearly says.
You have a different belief than your Church does. Again, that is fine.

Without this reason, BTW, there is little reason for someone to convert from Islam or Unitarianism to Mormonism.

Their spiritual community is just as nourishing as the Mormon spiritual community. And their people are just as good people as the Mormon people are.

There is also no reason to get married in the temple if the reason the Mormons say you do so is not in fact true.

That is just a logical conclusion.

Betty -

I stand firmly with the comments that I have made regarding the plan. I am acutely aware of each and every post that has been made following... I have spent the past week in section 76 with my students and in deep personal study upon this very subject... and this is not my first introduction to this doctrine.

One may choose to view ONLY the letter of the law and ignore also grace and mercy. I myself believe in a god that will judge each of His children by the law that he is bound, and also to his apply the atonement which was wrought through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And no man or woman or gay or Jew.... or QUOTE... will stand between God and His Son in that Judgement process.

"mormon" is simply a nickname for those who follow after the order established by Jesus Christ. There will be NO mormons in the Celestial Kingdom. I am sure of it. For they were of one heart and one mind and they dwelt in righteousness...

RTC
Yes, MR. A's quote from LDS.org
confirms that the highest level is Mormons only.

You know the fun joke:

A new group of arrivals to heaven is being shown around the lovely resort by St Peter.

As they walk down one hallway, they are about to pass a closed door, and St Peter says "SSSHHHHH."

an arrival asks, "what was that about."
Peter answers, "That's where the Mormons live. They think they are the only ones here."

This joke often substitutes Catholics (or Muslims) for Mormons.

RTC
Betty's note prompted me to go to the OFFICial
LDS.org website, where you find the same information she save you.
The highest level of the Celestial kingdom is for Mormons only, as this says, "temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory."

Here is the full quote from LDS.org

From another revelation to the Prophet Joseph, we learn that there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom. To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we must enter into "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory. (See D&C 131:1–4.) All who are worthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage will have that opportunity, whether in this life or the next.

I HOPE you teach this to your seminary kids.

If you don't they don't know what they have to do to obtain the fullness of salvation.

RTC
This is NOT the way I or you look at it.
This is the Doctrine of the Church.

Here is the summary from Mormon Wikipedia of the doctrine:
The Celestial Kingdom is the highest and most glorious of the degrees of glory and is symbolically represented by the sun. It is this kingdom where God Himself reigns.
According to revelation from the Lord, only those who have been married and sealed in the temple (whether in this life or vicariously or during the Millenium) can attain the very highest realm of the Celestial Kingdom. In agreement with the Apostle Paul's teaching that "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" 1 Cor. 11:11 Mormonism teaches that marriage is not only divinely instituted, but eternally necessary and significant. Neither a man nor a woman can attain the fullest exaltation by themselves. Mormonism also teaches that since not all people have the opportunity to marry in this life, opportunity will be given them during Christ's millennial reign after His Second Coming. Additionally, Mormonism teaches that only those in the highest realm of the Celestial Kingdom will remain married and be able to form an eternal family. END QUOTE

NOTE, RTC
ONLY those who are sealed in the temple (the MORMON temple, which only mormons can enter) will reach the Celestial Kingdom, which UNDENIABLY affords the highest potential for Eternal Progression.

Do you teach Eternal Progression to your kids?

RTC,

Here are some words from President James E. Faust as Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS church (James E. Faust, “Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” Ensign, Sept. 1995, 2
):

"We please the devil if we argue that all roads lead to heaven and therefore it does not matter which road we take, for we will all end up in God’s presence. And we also please the devil if we contend that since we are all God’s children, it makes no difference to which church a person belongs, for we are all working for the same place.

Elder Delbert L. Stapley said: “This man-made philosophy—for such it is—sounds good, but the scriptures do not support it. I assure each of you that the road to God’s presence is not that easy.” It is straight and narrow. “I feel certain that the devil chuckles whenever this false opinion is expressed, for it pleases him that the minds of men have been so blinded to revealed truth by his cunning craftiness and deceit that they will believe any religion to be acceptable to God regardless of its tenets and ordinances or how or by whom those ordinances are administered,” 22 he said."

I'd say that Betty called it like it really is in the church when considering others of differing religions.

Betty -

Gee whiz? If I looked at it from a cut and dry perspective such as that, I too think I might have turned around and walked the other way as well... I just don't see it as all that simple of a plan.

In fact, I actually think it is a masterpiece wherein each individual will be judged in absolute perfection according to the desire of "their" hearts. Not that there is no hope according to some harsh rules that they we're unable to attain, but only a select few because of some elite advantage? And anyone who goes around teaching it in that manner has no understanding of the doctrine themselves.

As I look around and I see what beautiful order this entire world was formed with, and life came about through... I personally cannot deny that it was ordered by something greater than myself. To acknowledge that, I must also accept other order as well and so I accept a creator of these things... Jesus Christ. It is His order I acknowledge and His plan that I believe offers salvation to all those whom He created this world for.

I do not believe that He would have a system of disorder wherein there would be no purpose for that which was created with such order. Justify this?

I believe that there is a plan, which has many names, but most commonly referred to as "The Plan of Happiness", wherein man/woman/gay/Jew... all of God's children, may return to that place from whence they came, to fulfill that for which they were created. Which is to be happy. I believe our eternal destiny is to have joy. And that joy will be whatever the desire of our hearts may be?

Because the God I believe in is Order... I believe that a system of order is in place upon this earth that administers that which qualifies "all" of His children that eternal joy for which they seek. In its scope it will be offered to each child at some point in eternity and full understanding will be given and choices will be made. I have no doubt in the beauty of His plan for complete disclosure to each and every soul that they might have the desire of their heart's.

It is my testimony that the authority to administer His plan is in that church which bears His name... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

RTC

Yep. I know the doctrine backwards and forwards.

Think about it this way:

The Church sends out Missionaries
with the message

We have the One True Gospel
We are the One True Church.
You, secular Jew or Muslim or atheist
NEED to convert to our One true Church

In Order to Maximaxe
Your Eternal Progression

(to enter the Celestial Kingdom and become a God yourself).

If you don't convert
We Mormons will become Gods
And You Won't.

That is what made no sense to me.
And it is,unmistakeably,
what the Church has taught for 170 years.

DV-

I find it interesting that you chose to go with the information that the "rod" spoken of, and it was only referred to as a rod, would be a divining rod? I did not even research outside of scripture on this conclusion, but used only scripture to come to "my own" conclusion. But' here is something that supports "my" conclusion that might give you a different perspective and build a little faith?

Recently the Mormon writer D. Michael Quinn has admitted that "Oliver Cowdery was by revelation given the gift of working with a 'rod of nature...'" (Brigham Young University Studies, Fall 1978, p.82). Dr. Quinn further informs that "during the Nauvoo period Apostle Heber C. Kimball 'inquired by the rod' in prayer." In a footnote in the same article the following is cited from the Anthon H. Lund Journal for July 5,1901: "in the revelation to Oliver Cowdery in May 1829, Bro. [B. H.] Roberts said that the gift which the Lord says he has in his hand meant a stick which was like Aaron's Rod. It is said Bro. Phineas Young [brother-in-law of Oliver Cowdery and brother of Brigham Young] got it from him [Cowdery] and gave it to President Young who had it with him when he arrived in this [Salt Lake] valley and that it was with that stick that he pointed out where the Temple should be built."

Betty -

I will not belabor to preach doctrine that you in all probability are aware... but are you? I simply ask the question only because from my perspective and understanding of the doctrine that we teach it is universal in it's scope and ability to save "all" of God's children. I do not consider the "mormon church" my religion, only the vehicle here upon the earth at this time in which God gathers His children... all of them.

I agree, it is late. If there is anything you would like to discuss further... tomorrow is a new day and I would be happy to chat.

James, I am finding our exchanges more and more agreeable. Thank you for the freindly and respectful responses.

I think one thing which we may discuss in the future, if the topic comes up in a thread, is the nature and definition of faith. Which I think is a deep and important issue.

Best of luck until then!

RTC
you tax a woman late on a Monday night.

You asked for amplification on my point number 6
which was
. Most important for me,and most immoral, the concept that I as a Mormon who achieve the highest salvation and my greatly Moral Jewish friends would not. This totally defied any moral reason."

RTC: here was my thought process:
when i reached the age of 19
and was in college
at one of the top rated private colleges in the US

i looked at my college roommate
a "cultural jew" from New York City
who was at least as moral as I was
and more spiritually developed
and at least as sympathetic to the suffering of her fellow humans
and much more "God like" than I

and I said to myself
How can I tell her that
she needs to convert to Mormonism
so that hse can reach the Celestial Kingdom
and become EVEN more God like

and that if she doesn't
I will get there and she won't
and the future Gods of the Universe (sounds like Tom Wolfe in Bonfire of the Vanities)
will include ME !!!!
and not her!!!!!!
(not to mention that only the MEN would become the new gods of the universe. I would just be ONE of their wives)

made NO sense to me.
how could i believe in a God
and a religion
that thought I had more Eternal Progression Potential
than this obviously highly evolved incredibly moral human being
JUST BECAUSE
I happened to be born to Mormon parents
and she happened to be born to Jewish Parents
(her father was the head of surgery at Mt Sinai hospital. A true Healer of humans)

That is when I decided
I could not sell this product.

I could not tell people like this,
so obviously superior human beings to me
that they had to convert to MY religion
in order to maximize their eternal progression.

i could not believe in a God
or a Church
that was so solipsistic and artificial,
that did not recognize the TRUE nature
of human achievement and potential for perfection,
but relied on the
Artificiality of Baptism into a narrow sect
that included 5 million of the world's
6 billion people.

John

thanks for the frank and full reply

i should have known the answer by now
but lame brains like mine require repetition.

i truly (truman-ly) was just interested in your amplification
not in trying to argue you out of your position.

Joseph Smith was,whatever else he was, a religious and spiritual genius.

it is spiritually and intellectually respectable, as far as I am concerned,
to find fundamental spiritual conncections to his genius at illuminating spiritual issues, whatever his faults as a human being.
"God knows," truman madsen is 10 times smarter than I am.

The axiom i think we are proving here is that, when we get into the realm of faith, one has to take things on faith (or not).

There is one point where we certainly see eye to eye.

Betty-

If you truly are planning to evaporate I want to thank you for the time you have given to share, teach and most of all to find understanding wherever possible.

I am most interested in, regarding your posted statement, of which I have been reflecting upon... number six on your list. If you are inclined I would be interested to know in more detail what you could possibly mean by this declaration? Truly, to my understanding, I can find no cause for this final assumption of one group of people.

James said,

"Is your theological belief as I described it?"

Hi James,

I am surprised that you do not already know the answer to this question. I thought my TBM status would be clear by now : ) But FYI:I buy the bulk of the Joseph Smith story lock, stock and barrel. Perhaps I am cautious on this forum of making such a bold stance so explicit, as I know it will open up a can of worms I do not have time to hash through. I also think I know my audience here and have attempted to build on common assumptions in our discussion.

My trust in the events of Priesthood restoration, angelic visitations, revelations etc. stems not from my trust in Joseph Smith per se, but from my trust in God. I approach this matter with two a priori assumptions:

1). A personal God exists.

2). He will respond to my questions.

I have already stated my trust in the epistemological value of the Mormon revelatory experience. This stems from experiences I don‘t want to go into here. I know this is my experience, I do not expect it to be reason for others to believe.

I know that my beliefs are extraordinary. I know that there are reasons not to believe. I also find that historical sources allow for many possible interpretations, one of which leads to the position I espouse.

How do I reconcile this position with KJV in the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Lying for the Lord and so on…that is the can of worms I do not have time to open (I have addressed a few however in the “God is grander” thread).

As you probably have noticed, I have resisted getting into too many long back and forths because of my time constraint. I prefer to just put my two cents in from time to time.

Ayn Rand (not a philosopher I espouse of course) said when encountering contradiction, check your premises.

Truman Madsen takes the same general position as I do on Joseph Smith, and he knows most of what there is to know about church history. His philosophy background enables him to question assumptions which necessitate disbelieve. Perhaps my ability to do this is enabled by my background in cultural anthropology which trains one to see the strange as common and the common as strange. Cultural deconstruction has been very helpful for me as I have tried to reconcile certain facts with revelatory experience. The scriptures and the spirit have been my best source for understanding where I am wrong in my assumptions.

In the end, you are right, it comes down to qualia. That recognition allows for mutual respect, both intellectually and morally.

I would like to offer one of my favorite scriptures which explains my approach to the things of God:

“In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us...The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:11--14, NIV).

Thanks for the opportunity to “amplify.”

I think Betty is just
looking for a date
for Saturday night.

:-)

(WHY didn't she ask me out?)

Before we all evaporate into Cyberspace and Eternity

i want to be soupy
and express my
Love and Admiration
for you my friends in this
often difficult
but deep conversation

DV (you are amazing)
SML *courage like i rarely see
RTC grappling with truth
John D a sincere smart good person
Mayan too smart for me
Yockel clear vision and clear humanity

You have ALL informed my understanding
of humanness
and I thank you for that.

JOhn D

itis interesting to see what different people (you and DV) pick up from Church, due to different generations and different personalities and different experiences.

I was struck by one phrase you used:
"Otherwise, I may have choked and rejected the rich blessings of the *Restored Gospel* I now enjoy."

People go to church for different reasons:cultural compatibility, family tradition, etc.

You raise a theological issue here with the term "restored gospel."

in my Mormon training, that phrase meant "the true priesthood authority to act for God was lost until it was restored to Joseph Smith, and now only the LDS church has the True Priesthood, the true authority to "act for God.""

Is that what YOU mean by REstored Gospel.

If it is, then doesn't belief in the
restored Gospel
depend on
Belief that Joseph Smith
had a vision of God and Jesus
and was anointed by them
to restore the keys.

And doesn't belief in that story
tie in with belief that
The Book of Mormon/angel Moroni story is
also "true." and that the Book of Mormon is "true."

It seems analagous to orthodox Jews believing that Moses really did speak with God through the burning bush, and that God HIMSELF dictated the ten commandments.

Is your theological belief as I described it?

If so, and of course you are perfectly entitled to believe these things.

for many of us the questions about Joseph Smith's credibility (source of the BoM, Book of Abraham, JS's general truthfulness) bear directly on the credility that his is in fact "the restored gospel"

are the two issues related in your theology?

"

DV,

You wrote, "so far I think my daughter has been given a very high opinion of herself and her self esteem has been strengthened at church. I am not sure how to handle the temple ceremony, when the issues of women come up, and how I will explain them to her. Once again, more introspection is needed to adequately address my concerns with her being raised in the LDS church."

For me it was not only a question of worrying about if my daughter would have a high enough opinion of herself, but I also worried she'd find an LDS man to marry who bought into the church's subtle yet real feeling that women aren't equal to men. This is a real concern for me. I also had concerns that my son would grow up thinking he was better than women. He was only 13 when I left the church and took the kids out with me, but already he was starting to show signs of thinking he was better than his non-member dad simply because he had the priesthood.

Not a good thing.

I thought maybe CTR was the husband of RTC (one is spelled forward and one is spelled backward)...but probably not.

I wonder if CTR is real. There have already been two individuals posing as Mormons who were not. Granted he could be real, but I am not so sure.

Thanks for the Lloyd Benson memory Equality. Nice line, buddy, and thanks for the compliment.

All this talk about who is an apostate, and who is not an apostate has really obscured the topic, "women in the LDS church."

The church is run by a partriarchial order composed of men, and women will never be able to compete with that. I know many women don't want to "compete" with the men. But for every woman like that, there is another who is just as qualified to lead, if not more so, than her male counterpart. That is why there are quite a number of "Mr. Mom" type families out there, named after the 1983 Michael Keaton movie where his wife is the breadwinner, and he stays home and takes care of the housework and children. It works. The responsibilities are divided equally at it works! This could also work in the church too, if only women were given the chance. I think this is the point that many have tried to make.

My daughter is a teenager and she enjoys her associations in the church, but I am becoming very wary of indoctrination which sends any morsel of a message that she is less than a man. Fortunately, our progressive ward has many college educated women who have achieved things in life outside the mormon mold for women, and these women are my daughter's role models. Unfortunately, there are still a few women in our ward who are trying to instill pioneer skills (sewing, washing, cleaning, canning) into my daughter even though it is 2007. But these throwback women are getting fewer and fewer, and so far I think my daughter has been given a very high opinion of herself and her self esteem has been strengthened at church. I am not sure how to handle the temple ceremony, when the issues of women come up, and how I will explain them to her. Once again, more introspection is needed to adequately address my concerns with her being raised in the LDS church.

CTR,

I presume your initials stand for "Can't Take Reason."

Listen, I know DV. DV is a friend of mine. And you're no DV.

That is perhaps the worst insult I have hurled at anyone online ever, in case you were wondering.

And, to stay on topic. I do wonder about the inspiration of a church that denies women a voice in administrative oversight but will freely grant the same powers and privileges to one such as CTR.

I must admit I have a hard time believing that those particular items listed here (the items that are not generally taught in church about the church's history) would actually be taught by RTC (or any teacher within the church, really) in Seminary if the Stake President or other priesthood leader were sitting there in the class too. That's pretty damn gutsy, and not commonly done.

RTC - Thank you for responding to my questions. You sound like a very open instruction, and again I applaud you for your honesty. I am impressed that you discussed Oliver Cowdery's using a diving rod made of witch hazel, held in two hands, that starts bouncing up and down when the diviner discovers water with it. I just can't imagine how Joseph expected Oliver to translate with a divining rod, yet the original Book of Commandments demonstrates that the original version of the D&C contained "divining rod" rather than "gift of Aaron" which was subsequently changed. You keep up the good work.

Sister Mary Lisa and Betty- You two both are wonderful people and have open minds and are willing to learn new information. Thank you for your support.

CTR- You have a lot of nerve to tell someone over the internet, who you don't even know, that they should have a church court. Your post caused me a lot of introspection, and I am wondering if I am someone who the church even wants to have around. Yod did misquote me again, by the way. I never said "I simply disagree with what the Church holds true and its interpretations." Derrida said that to me.

DV,

I discovered many of the things you discovered about church H by reading various publications. Never once had I felt betrayed by the church because I wasn’t taught them in Sunday school.

I’ve learned nothing that forces me to reject the bulk of what I have learned about the History of the Church. I feel like I have only learned richer details.

To me, it doesn’t seem like the difference between a true and false history, but rather the difference between a detailed and un-detailed history.

I wasn’t taught all the negatives in church history growing up, but I also found that I wasn’t taught all the positives.

For example, I was unaware of the Kirtland Pentecost. Neither was I aware of Elija Able’s ordination to the Priesthood, Joseph’s advocacy of Prison reform, or favorable reviews of Joseph after his visit to Washington.

I think this is because the purpose of church programs isn’t to learn all the details of church history, but to learn to be Disciples of Christ.

I personally do not want Sunday school to be like a Sunstone conference. I prefer the simple message of the Gospel on Sunday, Sunstone in my free time.

I cannot remember the twelve ever discouraging church members from reading anything. I went to anti-Mormon conferences in High School, never felt guilt about it. I browsed certain not-so-LDS-friendly websites in college, never felt like I was violating any church teaching. I am young however. Perhaps we were raised in different periods in the church.

I for one am glad I was given milk before meat. Otherwise, I may have choked and rejected the rich blessings of the Restored Gospel I now enjoy.

CTR
I am Jewish (or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist).

I am not with your Lord. NOt by a long shot.

Does that mean I am with the devil.

How hot is it in Hell.

CTR said: "You are either for the Lord or you are for the adversary."

You are making my point more eloquently then I ever could, CTR. Orthodox Mormons identify people who disagree with them with the devil.

The fact that CTR feels comfortable making that statement in public gives readers a good idea of the state of free speech in Mormon culture.

this has been a meandering discussion.

the recent ensign had this to say about the secrecy/sacredness of the temple. even today, in 2007, it is by design that women are inivited to the temple, and asked to bow their heads and covenant to obey a man, WITHOUT ANY PREPARATION, other than faith and obedience to the mormon church. by the way, this quote appears to be from packer, the ass in chief of all those dudes. criminy, can someone point me to another organization that expects its people to make such significant promises without any preparation, other than faith?

"We do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples. But it was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort we urge every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience “

The ordinances and ceremonies of the temple are simple. They are beautiful. They are sacred. They are kept confidential lest they be given to those who are unprepared. Curiosity is not a preparation. Deep interest itself is not a preparation. Preparation for the ordinances includes preliminary steps: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, worthiness, a maturity and dignity worthy of one who comes invited as a guest into the house of the Lord"

RTC
thank you for continuing to be so gracious.

Let me stipulate once more that I know that there are lots of good things the church does. and many exceptionally good people like you, and my brother, who is a much better person than i am.

CTR-

I am sorry if my representations of my opinions have offended you in some way. I will need to take some time to verify that I actually said all of these things. I recognize many of them as things I have said. But the first statement, is inaccurate. I have never said: "I'm a rank-and-file member, in some stage of apostacy" or anything close to it. I do not consider myself to be in apostacy whatsoever, far from it. I consider myself to be going through an enlightenment process, that many other members are also going through. Please provide a reference for where I said that, because I am sure I would never have made that statement, since I do not believe it.

As to my church membership, my Bishop is my judge in Israel and you have no authority to stand in judgment over me. I was told that the Bishop and the Elder Quorum President both feel my calling is inspired, and I made them aware that I am a critical thinker and think outside of the box. You seem to think differently, and that's your opinion, but you have no authority over me.

I honestly wonder what would make someone like you feel like my opinions warrant a church court? What is your position in the church?

Betty -

I appreciate your honest and direct reply. I want you to know that I am giving particular thought upon your statement. I do intend to express these... when I have a moment to formulate with the clarity I would like.

If I have learned anything from this experience, it is... that words ARE powerful.

Sister Mary Lisa Tells it Like It Is (and isn't)

Thanks again SML.
What more important decision is there
than
who can stay in the family
and
who is banished to Outer Darkness.

And isn't it Godlike that we leave that decison
Totally Up to the Men.
Men like CTR, not less.
Who have no compassion, no understanding, no vision, little discernable intelligence.

Makes me tremble in my boots.

Was just reading how our Dear David O McKay, when people were trying to excommunicate Sterling McMurrin, said to Sterling
well if you need a witness in your defense,
i will be the first one there.

Today: it's Boyd's way or the highway.

CTR said:

"The faithful can decide if DV is a real mormon. If I was his Stake President DV would not be teaching the Elders, he would not hold a temple recommend and would be invited to a church court to explain the statements he has made..."

Back to the same old subject from above (I'd apologize, but, well....) ~ It's not the "faithful" who can decide this stuff...it's the MALE faithful. No WOMAN would ever be able to be in a position to decide if DV could or should be teaching the Elders, or whether he could or should hold a temple recommend, or if he could or should have a church court to explain himself. Only a male Stake President (or higher priesthood leader) can decide such things.

To give my opinion, DV is a very well spoken individual who says it like it is. I admire him greatly for that.

CTR

Don't they call your excommunication "hearings"
a
"Court of Love."

Have you ever heard of George Orwell?

Going to Hell per CTR

When I look up "Christian Values" in the dictionary, I do NOT find a picture of CTR there.

You are one tough cookie CTR. Not much Christian Charity sticks to your back, does it.

I agree with you: the Mormon Church can't tolerate too much Actual Thinking and investigate of TRUE history rather than Faithful History.

Best to cast Truth seekers like DV into outer darkness if the Truth he finds is not the Truth that the BRethren have "Correlated."

You are an evil man, CTR.
DV is a good man, struggling to tell the truth as God gives him the light to see the truth.

As Jack Nicholson famoushly said, CTR,
"You can't handle the Truth."

DV reveals himself as an apostate. You are either for the Lord or you are for the adversary. It is obvious that DV is not for the Lord's annointed.

The faithful can decide if DV is a real mormon. If I was his Stake President DV would not be teaching the Elders, he would not hold a temple recommend and would be invited to a church court to explain the statements he has made below.

This is what DV has said.

I'm a rank-and-file member in some stage of apostacy.

Mormonism is a cosmic religion indeed. Yes, we are not another Protestant religion. It appears, from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith above, that we are more akin to the Raelians and Scientologists.

You should read the true source of most of the temple ceremony. You may be pleasantly surprised to find out that your "farm boy" prophet acted in accordance with his low level education by lifting many parts word-for-word.

Why would a true prophet of God dupe people for money using the hat and the rock trick, then use the same method to translate a holy writ? That sounds a bit cartoonish to me.

Why is it that the words of the founder can be so blatantly ignored by the membership? Is it because common sense tells them it is hogwash?

Why don't you try defending Joseph Smith on the merits? Have you apologist ever thought of that one? I mean, here is a guy who claims to have spoken to God face-to-face, with a literal conduit to heaven opening up before his eyes

If you refuse to discuss the claims made by the founding prophet, then you acknowledge the indefensability of his position.

Many voices in primaries worldwide are singing/ chanting "Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way.." over and over every week, implicitly inculcating in their young minds that the prophet is indeed infallible. I can almost envision legions of Nazi Youth with hand outstretched, high stepping a march, as this song is sung. Its depresssing.

Without presenting some credentials, you are just another computer hack to me.

Monson, Oaks, and Holland appear to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

Joseph was only a man, with many frailties and weaknesses. Who the hell knows what he actually saw, or felt. There are so many contradictions in his theology, that I don't think he even knew what he believed at times.

I'd say his narcissistic complex got the best of him, but he did build something. Was he second to Jesus in importance? Not in my opinion. Anyone who pawns himself off as THE prophet of the restoration then produces a mistranslation of ancient Egyptian writing, and calls it scripture, is more of a common man to me.

Oh, that our numbers will grow, and start a groundswell of resistance against the church imposed bigotry, lies, and deceit of the past. That is my quest, to enlighten and educate,

You are every bit of a heretic as I am, yet you choose to portray yourself as loyal to the brethren

I simply disagree with what the "Church" holds true and its interpretations.

I have chosen to stay in the fold, for now, while I sort through this grand deception

When you actually open your eyes to the possibility that your faith doesn't represent a mormon faith, then I will welcome you to adulthood my friend. Your posts are reminiscent of the pauper posing as prince. You have the appearance of a mormon, your lips utter many words of mormonism, but your heart is far from the mormon God.

The Book of Mormon is pure fantasy, have you ever seriously studied the Book of Ether? The Book of Mormon was a construction of a desperate religionist, Sydney Rigdon, and a talented glass looker, Joseph Smith.

Can the Book of Mormon bring someone closer to Christ? Maybe. It has about the same depth of character development as the Lord of the Rings series by Tolkien. If Tolkien had interwoven Biblical verses in the Lord of the Rings series, could it be considered a work of God too, just like the Book of Mormon? I guess so.

Porter Rockwell was a ruthless murderer who Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both used to execute their decisions.

Maybe the history of mormonism is aptly described as a rape of the early collective consciousness of the saints. Maybe my job is to help the healing process of that early "rape" by deceitful church leaders. That may be the main reason my patriarchal blessing states that I have the "gift of healing" I am helping the confused, the downtrodden, the deceived to see their religion for what it really is.

Like I have told you before, I am not an ex-mormon. I am not some bitter apostate. I am a fully active member of the church and am my Elders Quorum Instructor.

CTR says: "You (DV) are either an apostate or you are not. If you are an apostate then it was evil that made you this way and that is the truth."

I wish I could say that CTR's behavior is an aberration. Unfortunately it is representative of the usual treatment that Mormon dissenters receive from believers and LDS Church leaders. Mormon leaders and believers label the behavior of those who disagree with Mormon orthodoxy evil and malign them as apostates.

Dissent is seldom easy but the wrath of Mormon leaders and believers against religious dissent is extraordinary. They will go to any length to isolate and ostracize independent voices in Mormon society. For example, Mormon leaders advice members not to attend academic conferences about Mormon history.

Formal excommunication for speech "crimes" is routine in the Mormonism. Readers might want to check the case reports of the Mormon Alliance ( http://www.mormonalliance.org/ ) for some accounts.

Notice that CTR merely asserts his assessment of DV. CTR does not explain why and how DV is subject to evil. CTR's judgmental attitude can only be justified in terms of faith and not of reason.

DV -

After reading the link you included I will have to say I am glad to say that I am a volunteer teacher and not a paid employee. And yes, I have great ability to teach what I choose. But... I choose to teach that what I believe is what the spirit would have taught in the class. I teach sophomores in highschool and saying that I believe I have a responsibility to teach them at a level that is age appropriate. My son is in the class... so he is my measure and he is a tough critic. No blinders for him. From what I read... perhaps that could have been involved here... I really don't know, when we have only one part of a picture? But still, you only have a right to teach to a certain point.

I believe parents need to take responsibilty to discuss these things with their teenage children. I hope that what they learn in seminary prompts discussion and is not upsetting for them. That is what education should provide for all of us... a desire to continue to search for more knowledge.

For instance, the D&C is the curriculum this year and I consider that to be the manual. From there I search a section or group of sections for which principle(s) are to be taught... and then what part of the history is pertinent to maintain a flow in the context of the course, as well as for why the section(s) were given and why or if the history is applicable to the principle being taught.

I have been trained under two different CES directors - One trained that the our manual IS the Scriptures and the actual Teachers Manual for the yearly course of study was simply a resource... the other trained that the manual IS the Teachers Manual for that course of study along WITH our scriptures. So, you can kind of see which way I lean towards at this point. I feel it is what a teacher is comfortable with. On a day that is very busy for me I might grab the manual, but I really just love to dig into the scriptures and get to my studying and research. It is what I love about teaching.

P.S.
(ah, yes we did talk about Oliver, his "gift" and his unsuccesful attempt in receiving revelation. Really, how can you teach this principle if you don't teach this very important element? And of course the conversation was a bit interesting and I did tell them about the change concerning the rod of aaron... and that it was in the ark of the covenant.. ooooh/ but they need to wait until next year OT for more on that! But this is just the way fun stuff that actually to me testifies that Joseph is truly a prophet... I love it! Oh and I wish you had been there too...)

RTC-

I applaud you for teaching the tough topics to our seminary students. Yes, I did take seminary, all four years in Utah. I graduated from seminary. I was a straight A student throughout junior high, high school, and college, and graduated Cum Laude. I paid close attention throughout my instruction, and these topics were never brought up once.

My daughter is now in seminary, taking the the D&C, and she never talks about anything interesting from class. I try to bring up topics and she says they haven't discussed them. I get the impression that her seminary teacher is either incapable, or they simply whitewash many of the historical aspects, like they did when I was in Seminary.

I find it interesting that you claim you have complete leeway to teach however you want, and there is no watch dog. This is simply not the case in most instances. There was a seminary teacher named Ken Clark who had a completely different experience than you. http://www.hismin.com/messenger.html Also, my conversations with John Dehlin of mormonstories.org confirm that people were very vigilant when he taught seminary in Washington state, and was too open about some church history. Apparently the CES is quite restrictive in Washington for some reason.

I don't dispute that you are able to share informational tidbits with your class. However, do you share the full picture with them? For example, did you let them know that Joseph Smith was tried in an 1826 trial for glass looking, using the same peepstone to deceive people that he used to translate the Book of Mormon? I don't think your CES supervisors would smile approvingly on that kind of discussion in class. Yet, this is historically accurate. I have a hard time believing that you dicussed Oliver Cowdery's failed attempt to translate the Book of Mormon with a divining rod. I would have like to have sat in the class for that discussion.

If you teach openly, more power to you. I just don't find the current stature of the church very open to people like Grant Palmer who also taught in the CES system and wrote a book about his discoveries in church history, and was summarily disfellowshipped for his revelation. It doesn't seem to be as open a system for discussing truth as you would portray. At least for some other former seminary teachers like Ken Clark, John Dehlin, and Grant Palmer.

CTR-
Are you accusing me of being a poser? Puleeze. You said "Quit pretending to be a real mormon." Wow, that is laughable. Tell that to my Elders quorum President who trusts me to teach 40+ Elders each week in church. You need to leave behind black/white thinking, and realize that the world also consists of many shades of gray. Many, many, many shades of gray.

Look, this is an online open public forum, and people can be dishonest about anything. But what is the point? Why would I come on here and waste my time typing lies? Because I am so evil and horribly confused about life? Because I am an apostate and want to destroy the church? I am neither. I am someone who woke up one day, and decided to examine the faith of my forefathers and find out for myself if it is what it claims to be. I have always been mormon, and probably always will be. I have many many friends in my ward, who I like. People like you are the intolerant ones who do not accept differing opinions or views. I continue to serve in church in spite of what I have learned about the tenuous beginnings of my religion. I would challenge anyone else to do the same. Many of the things I have discovered about the history of our church are shocking, and have devastated me to the core, but I continue to try. I had the courage to investigate and learn, where so many others simply put their doubts and questions on a shelf. That is fine for them, but I have an enquiring mind, I wanted to know, I have always wanted to know.

That is why it is insulting to me, and to so many other members of the church who were raised like me, that many members claim that we were not deceived, and that the church does not deceive its membership. Sure there are deceptions. Many of those deceptions caused me extreme anxiety to learn, and have made me feel a grief and intense pain beyond description. Please don't accuse me of misrepresenting who I am. I know who I am, and I know what the church is. Do you? Have you studied in out in your mind? I pray every day for enlightenment, and I believe I have found it. Try not to be so abrasive when people come online, and express their true feelings. Accusing someone of posing as a mormon is quite offensive, when in fact, I have dedicated my entire life to this institution, including two years as a full-time missionary. I am not posing CTR, I'm the real deal, as hard as that may be for you to deal with. I would suggest that you broaden your horizons and examine your own faith through objective lenses, and in the process, you may learn not to be critical of others in their journey through this life. That is how the Savior wanted us to live, helping one another out, not hindering. Remember this, it may serve you well.

-DV

DV -

You caught my attention with your second paragraph... when you listed all the things you were never taught in Sunday School and felt you were lied to.

Did you go to Seminary? I ask because I am a Seminary Teacher and I discussed each one of those items with my students just this year. Interesting thing is, that I didn't even feel embarrassed at all... it was just, history. Go figure?

I think maybe it depends more on the teacher who you have than those big guys trying to keep things from you. I am only as good of a teacher as I personally am willing to study and teach.

No one is telling me as a Seminary Teacher what I can and cannot teach. I have never been told that I am not to teach a particular piece of information as an instructor in any teaching position in the church. Now in actual doctrine that is different, but with history there is no watch dog.

We do need to be educated regarding the history of the church. But much of this is the responsibility of an individual and the family. There have always been many sources for information available, even before the internet for researching.

I just wanted to let you know that my experience was different and I imagine it varies for many.

CTR
Did you forget that you are not in your home ward chapel anymore?

You are out here in the "real world."

Remember that joke,
St pater is giving a new group a tour of heaven, and as they enter one hallway

St Peter says,
"now be very quiet as you pass this room. That's where the Mormons are. they think they're the only ones here."

DV, do we have your permission to endlessly bicker because it is a simple discussion of truth v. falsehood?

You are either an apostate or you are not. If you are an apostate then it was evil that made you this way and that is the truth. Quit pretending to be a real mormon.

It is sad to see that many mainstream chapel mormons do not have the foggiest notion of the history of their own religion. And its really not their fault, either. Most mormons are spoonfed a "faithful" history, while the authentic history is waiting in the history books for anyone with the courage to discover. Unfortunately, the most courageous mormons discover their true history after they have been fed a steady "Sunday School" version (Derrida's term, not mine) and they are rewarded with derision and alienation from friends and family members when they make the decision to leave the church and live an authentic lifestyle.

The church has lied from day one. That is a fact, I am not making it up. Anyone can discover it for themselves. One of the simplest examples is the name of the church, that says in the D&C is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." But originally the name of the church was "The Church of Christ" and then later "The Church of Latter Day Saints." The current name is the third try. Also, Oliver Cowdery's power with a divining rod was conveniently replaced with the "gift of Aaron" in the D&C. The same goes for how the Book of Mormon was translated. It was "translated" by Joseph Smith putting his peepstone in his old white hat, then placing his face in the hat, and dictating the book. We are taught none of these things in the "Sunday School" version of mormonism because the church perceives that they are embarrassing.

However, I am not of the opinion that the church is false or a sham. I think there is much truth contained in mormonism. Just because many unfortunate events of our founding history occurred, does not necessarily mean that Joseph Smith was not inspired. Just because there are many concepts that are strange and beyond our ability to explain, does not mean that there are not good people in the church who have dedicated their lives to it. Judging from the statements of Elder Oaks and Elder Packer, many of the General Authorities are dedicated to the institution of the church above all else.

I would advocated becoming an internet mormon, to those of you who are not well versed in the intracacies of the founding of our little religion. I am 100% active in my ward, as is my family, and we take the good with the bad. There is a lot of information available on websites that are friendly to the church, such as FARMS and FAIR. The MA&D discussion board is a good place to go with questions, as it was a spinoof of the FAIR discussion board. One need not enter the DAMU to find out the true authentic history of the church.

In so many discussions about the church, the figurative lines are drawn in the sand, and people align themselves on one side or the other. I do not believe this needs to be the case. You can be an active member of the church and understand peculiar information about church history like Todd Compton. Brother Compton is a historian and has produced a wonderful work about polygamy entitled "In Sacred Loneliness." In it, Brother Compton explains the principle of polygamy as Joseph Smith taught it, and goes into detail describing each of the historically verifiable wives of Joseph Smith. I have seen critical reviews of his book written by church apologists such as Danel Bachman who criticize Brother Compton as an apostate. Brother Compton has responded that his faith is deep, and that each of our faiths need to be deep. An examination of weak faith will lead to deeper faith, and a true understanding of our early foundations.

I hope that people will not continue to endlessly bicker because they see this as a battle of good v. evil. It is not, it is simply a discussion of truth v. falsehood, and each person is left to themselves to draw their own conclusions, and plot their own life's course.

-DV

RTC
Boy oh Girl you do throw yourself into it and engage.
That is a lovely quality. I am sure you get your seminary kids stirred up.

A couple of responses to you. To illuminate the perspective of the Ex mormons on this post, whom I may understand somewhat better than you since I am one myself.

We ex Mo's left the church not because we wanted to Join Satan's team. In fact, just the opposite. People like Mayan, Wes (frank though he is), James, Sister Mary, myself, ALL were greatly disturbed by what we perceived as Great Moral Failings in the Church itself.
We fault the church, not the members like you.

Those failings, in our view, included
1. Lying to us about church history. Lying for the lord.
2. Denying what we saw as equal opportunity to women and blacks.
3. What we perceived in ourselves as the results of what we considered thought control by the church.
4. Hurts that we saw to our Sisters, like Sister Mary Lisa, my own sisterm and myself, in terms of the definition of women as less capable than men and less able to decide for ourselves.
5. Reliance on "sacred texts" like the Book of Mormon and Abraham that we saw as riddled with problems, with no evidence for their authenticity, and myriad questions about same.
6. Most important for me,and most immoral, the concept that I as a Mormon who achieve the highest salvation and my greatly Moral Jewish friends would not. This totally defied any moral reason.

We sharply criticize the Church for all these actions and beliefs, because we believe that the Church is damaging to us, and the world, by following these practices.

We are often angry, as I was angry when Blacks were denied a place at the lunch counter in Birmingham Alabama.

We love people like you, who are clearly very good people.

We don't admire the people like Boyd Packer who protect their power and the Church's power by denying the truth to members, by teaching "Faithful History" instead of True History.

MAYBE we do want to destroy the church. I myself think the world would be a better place if all Mormons magically became Unitarians or Practicing Secular Humanists tomorrow.

But our prime motivation is our moral distaste at the Obscuring of Truth and the exercise of power over women and other members that the Church carries on.
And carries on in a way, we believe, that outright contradicts the highest Moral and ethical principles that man is capable of embracing and practicing.

Decication to Truth.
Caring for ALL of humanity equally.
Equal rights for all persons, including women and gays.

We believe in the constitution of the United States. None of us wants to change Mormonism by force. We DO want it to change, and since we have personally seen the hurts, we are somewhat urgent about it.

I don't think that means you and I couldn't have an honest and caring and human sharing of beliefs if we had lunch together. Many of my relatives are practicing mormons whom i love and get along with very well.

Dave
A lovely,eloquent, heartfelt, HIGHLY moral post.

Thank you and Zeus bless you.

Here is the bottom line for me. The most fundamental morality that we can agree on is the Golden Rule - that we should treat others as we would like to be treated, fairly and with equality. If anyone dares to deviate from that reasonable standard, at minimum they better be darn sure they are doing right and have discovered a higher morality. And you simply cannot be that sure. You cannot be sure enough to justify denying women access to power and opportunities and making them less than men throughout the Temple.

Some may claim that they can be that sure because "God has told them it is right and they know it". I repeat that you cannot know that it was God. All you know is you got a feeling or a thought and you have faith that the interpretation you have been taught to give those feelings is God speaking to you. Well, the uncertainty that is demonstrated by the fact that you have to use faith (since you cannot know) is evidence that you cannot justify violating the Golden Rule by discriminating against women by denying them power and leadership positions and giving them to their husbands to whom they must hearken, whereas the husband receives the woman and knows her secret name, etc.

And Latter-day Saints are even less justified in their certainty of their higher moral law in light of all that we know about the founding events of the church, not least of which was Joseph's outright fraud in creating the Book of Abraham. Since you can never be sure that you are doing right by discriminating against women, you should go back to living the Golden Rule and treat everyone with love, respect, and equality.

Betty -

I have not felt that from you personally. In fact, I have been more than touched with your willingness, honesty, openness and genuine desire to work together to achieve understanding on these most difficult issues up for discussion. I also believe that I, in return, have been nothing but honest, kind and authentic in my efforts here as well. Most of all, you have each time known my heart to be sincere, for which I am thankful.

I have spent time reading the other blogs and have found this one to be the most interesting... This blog has gone from the issue on topic, to not just what happens to individuals, but to an individual's personal experience and how it is to be reconciled here? As much as any of us would like to accomplish this, I just do not believe that this will happen in this forum. Do you?

This forum has turned to something that I do not believe it was intended for and yet my heart still wishes this could be accomplished. I realize that you have an ongoing friendship with some, but I am concerned about motives involved here? I will be very honest about this. Yes, it can be taken personal if we choose it to be so, or we can focus on the bigger picture and have productive discussion that will benefit the majority. For this reason I question motives? At the end of the day, yesterday, I was quite surprised with some comments being made (as well as today). Not much on high ground I must say. For some reason I felt impressed to scroll up on the blog and dark blue names caught my eye? I clicked one on.... I cannot tell you what a little adventure it was for me. I know you are well aware of my trip... I know that you told me that some of you were acquainted with one another, but I did not realize to what extent.

I cannot make a complete judgement here, nor do I want to. If anyone is interested they may pursue this themselves, but I am uncomfortable.

I still intend to discuss the church with those who are interested in finding out truth or coming at least to understanding as I believe you are. I am most happy to share what I believe in a kind way. I have absolutely no problem answering any questions that are posed to me, if I deem sincere. I love the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I noticed on the political blog many things brought up in regards to the thought that Mormon's won't talk about the uncomfortable things. (my words) Things such as - gays, polygyny, church history, etc.. I thought that was an interesting comment. At least with the people I hang out with, we talk about it all the time. lol My thoughts would be the same, as I have mentioned before, but in the tone we are able to discuss them in? Personally, there are many questions I would love to ask you. I am certainly not an expert, but I am certainly not in the blind as some might suppose either.

I think (only a thought) that often times, perhaps, that when different sides come together, they assume that they are giving information that is not had or understood? This information is such that it has caused, they themselves, a very upsetting reaction... possibly? The problems begin then, when it is received without enough reaction, because it is thought that one should be jarred by it, or the perceptions differ in understanding or knowledge on both sides? Unfortunately, instead of taking a breath and asking more questions, such as you do... frustration usually takes over.

I suppose that I am an idealist. Always have been. Will continue to be. That is what I like about myself. And will continue to seek out those, like yourself, who accept differences in others and enjoy wanting to understand those differences.

Now Betty, since I have come to know you a bit... let me make sure I have addressed you completely.

- Yes, I do believe that the negative voices in opposition are the loudest voices to be heard. No Doubt.

- I do NOT believe that you are out to destroy in the "general" sense. I DO believe that the negativity on this site in general is destructive to the overall ability of this forum to be constructive for the purpose of finding understanding.

- Possible motivations: If I were to truly share with you my heart and what it was telling me Betty, I would get blasted.

With that, we shall work to find that out... unless you all would like to simply share?

Thank you Betty for bringing that out and allowing me to respond.

"Anti-Mormon" - the ARgument Ending Cliche

The word "anti-Mormon" is what's called a "thought-terminating cliché," or in other words, an Orwellian "newspeak" term. The purposeful use of a word like this is a subtle brainwashing (or "conditioning," if "brainwashing" is too strong of an expression) technique. By arbitrarily branding all so-called "opponents" with a word specifically designed to create a mental aversion, the leadership of an organization cues their membership to subconsciously censor themselves every time they use the word. This is a common tactic employed by authoritarian organizations which seek to reduce the flow of information to their followers.

The fact, however, is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is all the more so with claims as extraordinary as Mormonism's. If the evidence is not enough to verify the claim, some people are naturally going to draw a different conclusion. After this, some of these people are going to feel obliged to relate their interpretation of the evidence in order to offer a balanced viewpoint. For example, Christopher Columbus wasn't attacking anyone when he claimed that the earth was round, he was simply giving his analysis of the data available to him. So instead of turning and running every time the word "anti-Mormon" is used, Latter-day Saints should react and respond directly to the various issues and viewpoints they encounter. After all, the truth can always withstand scrutiny.

Blacks Should NOT have Got the Priesthood
And Women Shouldn't Either!

I was taught that god's laws and principles are unchanging and not swayed by the winds of social change. God is above men. He doesn't care if modern society thinks blacks are equal with whites, his laws are eternal and thus blacks don't get priesthood. He doesn't care if people feel uncomfortable being asked to take an oath to kill themselves, his laws are eternal. He doesn't care if polygamy is offensive to narrow minded secularists, his law are eternal. The eternal nature of the laws of the gospel was always touted front and center as a strong indicator of the gospel's veracity. Being swayed by contemporary values of man was not for god.

I'd sooner vote for the Equal Rights Amendment than see Women be able to Hold the Priesthood.

Mormon Apologetics, and RTC and HM

RTC and HM, I know you try to be fair minded.

But when Betty reminded us above of RTC's out of hand rejection of Mormon Critics who only desire to destoy, it reminds me that it is worth identifying an unfair argument tactic that Mormon defenders often use, and have some relation to RTC's comment. here it is

Anyone who disagrees--however slightly--with any aspect of Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon whose views can be dismissed out-of-hand.

Once again, the apologists themselves routinely deny operating this way, but "the proof is in the pudding:" In actual practice, if someone voices his or her disagreement with any part of Mormonism, then his or her views are immediately discounted as being "anti-Mormon," no matter how many facts, sources, and documentation he or she uses to back up his or her statements.

For example, LDS apologists usually dismiss the horrific accounts of polygamy found in the book Wife Number 19, since the author was a critic of Mormonism. This is in spite of the following three facts:

1. The author was a former polygamous wife of Brigham Young,
2. As such, she was often privvy to the goings-on at the highest levels of Mormonism, and
3. All her formative years took place in early Utah when polygamy was at its height.

John D
there is a message for you on the
"God is Grander" thread

RTC, thanks for your review of your positions.

One quote jumped out at me:
you wrote
"I am sorry that mis-statements regarding the history of this church and it's critics whose only desire are to destroy seem to have the loudest voices and are the ones people hear most often."

After our discussions, is this the way you feel about SML and James and me?

Do you believe our "only desire is to destroy" still? Do you have an understanding of any other possible motivation we might have?

The Semantics of Discrimination

May we examine why RTC and SML differ on the meaning of this word.

Here is a common *dictionary* definition (NOT a legal definition)

"unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice"

RTC thinks the Mormon treatment of women is FAIR.
"separate but equal" if you will.

SML thinks the treatment of women is UNFAIR.
Separate and unequal
because men have veto power or make all the important decisions, from church doctrine on Blacks holding the priesthood to Primary Budgets.

sml -

This is my original post on this blog. Seeing as you came in late and may not have read this nor any of my responses to it, here it is... This may take a bit of effort, but should help with some of your remaining questions.*

RTC...

I too am happy and can also speak to the issue of which so many of you seem quite baffled.

I have been a married and an active latter-day-saint adult woman for 28 years. I have raised five children, three of which are now adult women who are also active in the church now having children and staying home to raise them. Two of these daughters have received their college degrees. Why do I state this information? Are these my credentials for blogging? Absolutely not. These are the results of the sacrifices that are being made by the men within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints in a world where this is very difficult financially. This is how men in the church "value" their wives and children.

You see, because of the teachings of living prophets we have eternal perspective in that families are forever. We believe that the choices we make here in this life have everything to do with not only our happiness now, but in the next life and that if we life righteously that we can be together forever. Soooo, mother takes on the most prominent role as teacher and nurturer in the home. I always felt that it was a true luxury to be able to stay home and care for my children as they were growing up. I am also amazed to see my son-in-laws striving to make the same sacrifices in order to provide the same blessings for their wives and children. This is not easy for the men in the church to do, but so many of them, suprisingly and happily, find a way if at all possible. And then they accept the calls of the priesthood that they are given without any pay. This they do because they love the Lord and honor His priesthood.

Honoring the priesthood is a "life" of service for men in every aspect of their lives, and although we are focusing on women's equality in the "mormon church" I would find it very difficult not to point this out in this discussion to add understanding... as it affects the entire picture within the culture.

Now as for myself.. do I feel cheated because I have not had this so called decision making power? No. Now for my credentials... I have served as a Relief Society President, a Young Women's President - twice, Stake Relief Society Education Counselor, Seminary Teacher, Stake Music Chairman, Bishops Wife (not official calling) Relief Society Teacher, Counselor to many president of various auxillaries, just to name a few....

Now for those who are not familiar with stake or ward counsels the women of the church DO sit in counsel with the priesthood on a regular basis and DO COUNSEL TOGETHER on all matters. This includes submitting names for all callings within our auxillaries. Also when serving as a president we sit one on one with a bishop or stake president to discuss, counsel and input on important matters. I have never felt anything but mutual respect in dealing with those who have held these priesthood responsibilities. On the general priesthood level it works the same. There is a general Relief Society President who will sit in with the First Presidency of the Church and Quorum of the Twelve and council on behalf of the women in the church. She will give input with her counselors from their travels throughout the world as to the needs of women.

The church is beautifully organized if you take the opportunity to investigate it. It is a house of order and respect where each individual understands their vital roles.

It is a privilege and a choice to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. It is IMPOSSIBLE to explain on a blog how wonderful these blessings are and how they have allowed me as a women to have a freedom to do and be all that I desire.

I am sorry that mis-statements regarding the history of this church and it's critics whose only desire are to destroy seem to have the loudest voices and are the ones people hear most often.

To teach is POWER... a MOTHER is a TEACHER of boys and girls who become men AND women.

RTC SAID:

In my personal life, as you already know, I have been fortunate to have the church as a positive, in that I do not consider how the church is organized through the priesthood to be discrimination against women.

From MY perspective I have had wonderful opportunities to serve, grow spiritually, teach, gain knowledge, develop relationships socially with both men and women, receive help and support in parenting, develop talents, etc... I consider the church to be a strength to me and my family.

The most important part about being a member of the church for me, is my relationship with the Savior. I truly believe that this is His church, although we as members may struggle in our discipleship...

RTC SAID:

"I accept what is perceived as discrimination and those who have experienced it as inequality in the church. My heart does go out to you, as well as others, as I have expressed."

1/25/2007
11:09 PM

*For all followup questions and my responses to this post you will need to scroll up and go through the blog...

RTC,

I heard you when you said that you "accept what is perceived as discrimination and those who have experienced it as inequality in the church" before...but note in the very next line then you wrote:

"I have been fortunate to have the church as a positive, in that I do not consider how the church is organized through the priesthood to be discrimination against women."

The church IS organized to be discriminatory toward women. In many different aspects, INCLUDING the rule that women have to get permission from their husbands to attend the temple, as I had to do.

Both comments you wrote mean two opposite things. So which is it?

RTC, watch the youtube video below, it will put a smile on that sour puss face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5f81i5w0U

cheer up girl
you eat your pickles and then your butter

SML

My heart really goes out to you. You are sincerely and lovingly trying to maintain cordial relations with the women of the church. And it is HARD, isn't it?

It is especially hard if one actually is honest about the reasons one left. I still can't have that discussion with my own brother, an active mormon.

The Church inculcates the deep feeling in us that if we reject the church or any of its practices, it is because there is something wrong with US.
we haven't prayed enough.
we are siding with Satan. etc.

You are clearly in the moral right here, but part of you doesn't want to offend any of your Mormon friends because you told the truth about your experience, and it is often very difficult to tell the truth AND not offend.

I applaud your effort, and again, my sympathies.

Nicely said RTC.

Againk, as I imagine you agree, if we applied a legal definition to the Mormon Practice with regard to women (or blacks until 1978) it would unambiguously be Discrimination.

You and I and SML would, I imagine,all agree to the term "unequal treatment due to gender."

Or at least "separate but equal."

sml -

RTC SAID:

"I accept what is perceived as discrimination and those who have experienced it as inequality in the church. My heart does go out to you, as well as others, as I have expressed."

1/25/2007
11:09 PM

Hershey's Mama and RTC,

I have enjoyed our discussions, and I appreciate the apology over comments made that seem derogatory. The church actually helps foster such thoughts about others, which I think is sad. We, as members of the church, all too often think that our way of viewing things is the only valid or righteous way, and this simply is not true.

I appreciate your trying to build a bridge and keep communication open between us.

The mormon cult is not christian. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaXj1SOLCxs

Mormon Thought Control

Let’s use a different term than Thought Control, which is inflammatory.

Let’s use “Achieving Thought Uniformity.”
As in, “We all believe the Church is True.”
That is the mormon goal (and the Cattholic goal).
And let’s stipulate the church is not 100% effective in this.
Not every active Mormon believes The Chuirch is True.
What would you say John, 98%.

Clearly, apostate Mormons do NOT believe it.

Are Mormon attributes as described by Charles Wood
Universal attributes of ideological groups al a Weber, as John D claims.?

I completely AGREE with John that people should investigate any claim about the Mormons, bolth FOR and Against, themselves.

I also completely agree with John that there are MANY mormons like him who think for themselves, consciously choose to stay active because it suites their beliefs and cultural preferences. And that is completely fine. Personal choice is the ideal.

Let’s take just one or two of Wood’s points and see if they are fairly accurate or if they are distortions., stipulating that no generalization is 100% true. (men ARE taller than women, but not all men are taller than all women).

Let me also stipulate that I by no means think the church is ALL BAD, and I certainly think 99% of mormons are lovely good people.

And I also think that ideological groups DO strive to have their members agree with the ideology. The question is HOW they do so. Persuasion or coercion, for example.

Wood says one characteristic of Mormons is
“5. Mormon Church members are manipulated through fear and guilt, fear that if they don’t practice church doctrine faithfully, that they will fail to reach the highest levels of heaven, fear that if they don’t wear their garments, that they will not be protected by God.”

This is MUCH more true of Mormons than it is of Unitarians, Democrats, or Secular Humanist members.

It is similar to fundamentalist Christians, Hasidic Jews, and to a significant degree Catholics.

The mormons are not unique, but they are on one end of the spectrum.

Second Wood Point:
7. Unlike non-cult organizations, Mormon Church members find it difficult to leave, when they find out that church teachings are false, or otherwise become disenchanted with the church. Terrible things may happen to them, and their family if they leave. Those who do leave, often lose their family, friends and other social contacts within the Mormon community.”

Again, pretty true, at least for many people who testify that this is their experience. And more like fundamentalist Christian cults than like Unitarians.

What Wood and I would argue is that the Church is towards the highly controlling end of the spectrum on these characteristics, compared to even other religious groups.
“

Just for clarification on my thoughts about differences between the approaches of believers and non-believers, here is post from the former thread:

"Believer and non-believer approach to Mormonism...

Believer: believes divine disclosures to be real. Therefore they try and understand them in context of reality and reason.

Non-believer: Believes the revelations to not square well with reality and reason. Therefore understands them in a way that is more obviously at odds with them.

These different perspectives lead to difference of interpretation.

For me the doctrine of continuous revelation implies the understanding of Mormon concepts is never finished it is a continuous journey."

Signing of for now ya'll. To return at a time ye know not.

Hello Betty,

I have heard of Charles L. Wood's book the "Mormon Conspiracy" and I know that many of his claims are as sensational as the title implies.

Many of the particular points you outlined seem to me are attributes of what Max Weber called "Status Groups." They are virtually universal attributes of successful human communities bounded by ideology. Of course, particulars are different, but properties of community control are very similar.

I also think many particulars you outline are misrepresentations. I would just encourage people to investigate these matters themselves. Wikipedia has many articles on thought control and brainwashing that I think is a good resource. They also have many articles on Mormonism, even "criticisms of Mormonism" that do not mention anything about brain washing or thought control.

The good news is that even if Mormons are attempting thought control they're not very successful.

Kirby a Salt Lake Tribune commentator noted a precedent of dissidence in the Mormon community to requests from the First Presidency. Two examples:

1). Utah voted overwhelmingly in favor of prohibition, contrary to the requests from Heber J. Grant.

2). The first presidency issued a request that church members contact their senators in support of the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. Utah senators received many letters from members concerning this matter. But the number of letters in relation to number of active Mormons in Utah is significant. It demonstrates that the rate of "obedience" to Mormon leaders in this regard was miniscule.

Also, activity rates in Mormonism is about 33%. A large portion of youth raised in the church leave in adulthood. This is very different than, say, the rate of activity in Jehovah Witnesses which is about 90%.

If the church wanted to do some really good brainwashing they should reject secular learning, discourage higher learning, build their own high schools and elementary schools, and isolate themselves from secular society like a real cult.

As for me, I had battles with my faith, I've had questions. Most sprung from inevitable exposure to different ideas in the public school system. I've studied them, thought about them, and resolved them like most members of mainstream faiths do. Many of my cohorts concluded differently, both boys and girls.

Hershey's Mama wrote:
Finally, you ask "what else could I do?" Write a letter, be still and continue as you were before all this happened, dare I say leave your husband are the options you still have that I can think of. If it were me, I would start with the first and avoid the latter if at all possible but there are some options before you. No easy answers just alternatives I imagine you are already aware of.

HM -- sorry to be a broken record, but you can't write a letter. It is official church policy that letters from individual members to general authorites will be returned to local authorities for resolution. The First Presidency has specifically asked members not write letters to general authorities. If you write a letter you aren't following the prophet.

Grasshopper's Inscrutability

I can't tell what the heck
Grasshopper is trying to say.

Maybe Grasshopper is a Zen master.

Tell us, oh grasshopper, in the manner in which a human can understand you.

He may be criticising you, SML, but if "he" is, I can't decipher how.

Grasshopper,

What exactly are you asking me or telling me? Are you referring to me as a big fish dangling bait? Are you referring to me as the "one" in your comment about seeking a forum? I'm confused.

What did you find wrong with my sincere question about what active LDS women thought of my situation?

SML - “What nobody realizes is that when I read comments like those that make others raise their eyebrows because the words are so blatantly derogatory to me, I actually smile (while my eyebrows rise too) because they are only helping me prove my point.

The church has these women right where it wants them. They have bought it 100%. And they can't even see the effects it has on how they treat others and in a sense how they view themselves too.”

SML ALSO POSTED:

RTC (and any other faithful, happy, LDS women here),
What do you think of the situation I wrote of above, about being required to get written permission from my non-member husband in order to take out my endowment, and the fact that men married to non-member women have no such requirement? Had you ever heard of this rule before this, and what do you make of it?

GRASSHOPPER:

When someone makes comments such as these I find myself raising my eyebrows also at ones motives or possibly ones true colors unexpectedly coming to light.

Is it possible a big fish is in the water waiting for the less experienced fish to take the bait? It makes one wonder if the issue that prompted the blog in the beginning (Otterson-“It’s those very values – including but not limited to compassion, sensitivity, empathy and intellectual honesty - which, I constantly remind myself, are the core of how Jesus taught us to live.” ) is really the forum one is seeking?

I don't want to call Mormonism a cult.
I grew up as a mormon. I am still sensitive to being called a cult member even though i am not still active in the church. many relatives are,

that said, the following techniques of Thought Control from an academic study by Hutchison seem to be accurate descriptions of mormon practice.

1. Teaching that the doctrine of the Mormon Church is reality, the doctrine is to be accepted, not understood.

2. Reality is black and white, good and evil, spiritual world versus physical word. As an example, the Mormon Church cult is the only true church on the face of the earth.

3. Mormon Church members are taught to feel part of an elite corps. Following and accepting church doctrine insures members eternal life and a delightful life in heaven.

4. The Mormon Church promotes a sense of community with love and friendship, with special flattery and attention to new members

5. Mormon Church members are manipulated through fear and guilt, fear that if they don’t practice church doctrine faithfully, that they will fail to reach the highest levels of heaven, fear that if they don’t wear their garments, that they will not be protected by God.

6. Mormon Church members are taught that any problems that they may have are due to their own inadequacies. If they are having marital, financial or other difficult problems, it is because they are not following church doctrine, or are not praying enough. Guilt, fear and shame are present in the minds of Mormons, if they are not loyal, and fail to follow the church doctrine.

7. Unlike non-cult organizations, Mormon Church members find it difficult to leave, when they find out that church teachings are false, or otherwise become disenchanted with the church. Terrible things may happen to them, and their family if they leave. Those who do leave, often lose their family, friends and other social contacts within the Mormon community.

This scholarly book was written by Charles L. Wood, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor at the University of Akron.

back to betty
John D often says that Mormon doctrines are too complex for us limited human intelligences to understand. compare that with the above qualities.

Thank you, James. I appreciate your words.

Sister Mary Lisa

Approbation once again for your clear sightedness, your moral courage, and your wisdom.

You have had a "true revelation" of the nature of the social system you have left.

RTC and HM accept the offical Mormon version of the system. Women (and men) who accept the thought control of the church, the drumbeat of obedience to authority that is inculcated into children from the age of two at Primary, are unable to see the paradigm that defines reality for them in an objective way. Zion-ism has its strengths and weaknesses. Objectivity is not one of those strengths.

Again, SML,feel very proud of yourself for a while for the vision, independence, and strength you have gained in this process.

Freedom is difficult, but it is ultimately much more enlivening. It sounds like you have learned that. You are not a child anymore.

ahhh, this is just going to be my way of doing things - the 6:51 pm anonymous just posted is mine

Just read more critiques

Yes, I can do better. I am seeking to build a bridge here but without abandoning my own opinions and it is slow go'n.

Different premises, different interpretations still seeking the benefit of the doubt.

Can we end the dog pile now :)

ahhhhh. sorry that's mine again!

What nobody realizes is that when I read comments like those that make others raise their eyebrows because the words are so blatantly derogatory to me, I actually smile (while my eyebrows rise too) because they are only helping me prove my point.

The church has these women right where it wants them. They have bought it 100%. And they can't even see the effects it has on how they treat others, and in a sense, how they view themselves too.

SML: I'm glad that you and Betty have responded and given me oppurtunity to clarify rahter than writing me off.

I do respect that you and others have a right to choose differently than myself. I especially respect each of you, SML & Betty, because both of you have communicated with me on a consistently civil level dispite our differences.

SML, please forgive, my speculations (which I tried and I guess failed to clearly own as such) come out of attempting to put myself in your shoes and reaching to find a place of compassion. That you say you are happier now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. My assessment of "bitter" came primarily out of your implicating of RTC as blame for your situation which I believe she is not.

Obviously not for some in this blog, but I think for others on both "sides" it would be easier to be nice than give the honest opinion RTC gave you.

Likewise i don't think anyone here has been so willing to put a detailed personal experience "out there" for everyone to explore and I do admire and appreciate you for that. I shared your story with my mother just after I first read it and we both felt just aweful for you.

You wrote "I'm sure you'd probably not appreciate me telling you I hope your involvement in a church that discriminates against women won't cripple you."

Actually, I much prefer this kind of thoughtful response from someone whose genuine assessment of the church was that it would potentally hurt me than so many others I've recieved in this blog. I've held more than a grudge or two in my day for less than what you've experienced and it's been dang crippling for me till I let it go. Perhaps you are a better woman than I.

Finally, you ask "what else could I do?" Write a letter, be still and continue as you were before all this happened, dare I say leave your husband are the options you still have that I can think of. If it were me, I would start with the first and avoid the latter if at all possible but there are some options before you. No easy answers just alternatives I imagine you are already aware of.

Thanks for asking for clarification, it's a good reminder that I'll try to better use in the future.

RTC and HM

RtC

when you wrote your original response to SML, I said to myself, Uh oh, SML is not going to like this response.

When I read HM's bitter/resentful/crippled response, I said to myself, uh oh, this is just going to make it worse.

I think you both are good people. James thinks you are too. I am sure he and I have said things to you that you took umbrage at also. So none of us are perfect. we are all trying to understand the complexities of talking with different points of view.

rtc
the above was from me

RTC

HM wrote this to SML (all these initials!)

SML, I read you as *bitter* and though I wish you able to reconcile differently and remain in the church I love, at the least I hope (if I’m reading you correctly) a *resentment* towards the church body or at least your LDS family does not cripple you even if you hold to negative overall opinions of the church.
END quote

when you describe someone as bitter and resentful, in unavoidable reads as
"oh, you're just bitter and resentful. it wasn't that bad. nothing of substance happened"

It is dismissive and condescending, and that is just how SML took it, though she forgave HM in a very christian way.

She could have said
"I can understand why you felt discriminated against as a woman. You clearly felt it was not fair. And I understand that a legitimate response , indeed the proper response, when one feels treated unfairly is righteous anger and the desire to correct what you see as an injustice, to you and to all women."

That response i just quoted would be at the highest level of moral reasoning and sensitivity.

JAMES -

On second read, I can now see your point of view wherein it can be seen that you would have these feelings upon reading HM's post. But honestly I do not believe that HM intended such in the personal manner of which you state. I suppose I did not see them myself because I was not looking for them? I will use better eyes in the future...

I still believe HM makes a great point though with bringing in the "Zion" effect on the system. Give her that... think about this?

RTC,

HM wrote this: "Betty: I think under your definition I can agree that what SML has shared of church policy is “discrimination” and can see why others with only this definition in mind naturally become upset .

With that said however, I think that in Mormonism, morality does not hold “fair” (in the most basic sense) for the individual as the greatest end or goal."

Here she is saying that she ONLY agrees with the use of the word "discrimination" in my case IF she were to use Betty's definition...then she says "However..." (meaning "BUT....") and she proceeds to give us her idea that it isn't discrimination because it's more important to remember the greater goal of men and women reaching a Zion society together in the next life. She is basically showing us how she finds that it really ISN'T discrimination to be treated the way I was.

It is also the words being used when responding to me that rub some of us the wrong way: "saddened by", "crippled", "bitter", "resentful"...

You wrote this to me: "We do not claim a perfect organization in the church and therefore individuals have been hurt. Our hearts do go out to them. My heart goes out to them. If it did not, I would not be taking the time to gently and directly respond as I do. It does not serve a person to tell them what feels good. Truth is the great balm."

This comment also feels like a patronizing dismissal...It seems you are in essence telling me that you feel I'm looking for a "feel good" answer from the church or members of the church. It seems you are saying that your comments here of the rightness of the church's policies and patriarchal order, the ones you are so "gently and directly" giving me, are really the "great balm" I seek.

Sorry. It's not the great balm you seem to think it is.

Hershey’s Mama-

Thank you for your brilliant addition to the discussion by addressing the greater good of the whole.

I believe it is even described as of “one heart and one mind and no poor among them”.

I have felt this elevated to a new level of discovery. As Mr. Otterson prompted this blog with his statement of, “It’s those very values – including but not limited to compassion, sensitivity, empathy and intellectual honesty - which, I constantly remind myself, are the core of how Jesus taught us to live.”, that are necessary for a system such as this to succeed.

Thank you for drawing our attention to this.

JAMES-

My apologies, if my comments were too broad. But in saying that, I realize in my comments that I speak not to just those who post, but to those who read these post and to those who are not as well versed in mormonism as you mention.

I believe that I have made my personal feelings regarding SML's unfortunate experience clear on this blog.

Lastly... please be more specific regarding just how you feel HM dismisses SML personally with this euphemism?

I saw no correlation with the two and in fact, I believe in HM's beginning statement that she was very clear in stating openly, her personal concession of the treatment SML received was discrimination.

I also appreciate Elder Green's comments and humor. You're a funny guy.

James & Betty,

Thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate being here and seeing that I'm justified in my feelings on this issue.

I feel I understand the church and members like Hershey's Mama and RTC well. I have enjoyed discussing this openly with them. They do sometimes come across in a condescending manner, but rather than get hurt by this, I instead try to consider how difficult it must be for them to defend those parts of the church that are really indefensible.

And I know firsthand that it's very hard not to be judgemental of others when you're LDS and you have "the truth" and are holding to the iron rod, looking at and trying to help others who have "strayed from the path of righteousness." I try to keep that in mind when they say things that are condescending to me.

RTC
I love you.
But you are dead wrong on this one.

Our friend Hershey's Mama was inhumanely dismissive of SML's morally justified reaction to her discrimination, if we can describe it as what it is rather than with a euphemism.

I think HM is a good person and she just blew this one. But she blew it in a hurtful way.

Also
Don't think that SML and I and Elder Green "just don 't understand\" mormonism.

My family has been in the church since the beginning. I have 600 mormon relatives in Utah.
I grew up and spent many years in the church. We understand exactly what we are talking about.

Bitterness and Resentment

Hershey's Mama

I think you are good hearted, a good person.

I think you don't reach your full usual goodness when you describe SML as "Bitter" and "resentful:"

If I were she, I would consider those characterizations as dismissals:
"oh, you are just bitter and resentful and your complaint has no substance."

I hope and trust you didn't mean it to come across that way, but I think it inevitably does.

I would say "SML, you are angry at the church because they did something to you that you considered unfair, on the basis of gender. I think righteous anger is the emotionally healthy response (don't go shooting anyone, of course). I think you should have been angry. it was not fair."

I am not saying you have to agree with me, Hershey's Mama.

But I think if there is anything close to Absolute Ethics, rather than the relativism that fundamentalists complain about, this is one of those cases where the ethics of the church are just dead wrong. And SML had the moral courage to identify it as such. Most don't dare challenge the Mormon Church when they disagree.

Many have been excommunicated and disgraced by doing so.

Hershey's Mama,

This incident with attempting to attend the temple but being denied permission happened about 5 or 6 years ago. I actually bought into the reason they gave me, that it was wisely required to maintain marital harmony.

Then I discovered that they don't require it of men. What else could I do then but see this for what it really was...sexism and discrimination? Still, I didn't leave the church for that reason. I too bought into the feeling that my position as a woman in the church was really a blessing to me and my family.

You are free to deduce that I'm bitter. I actually thought I sounded reasonable in my arguments here. I've tried very hard to state my position clearly with reason and not with emotional outbursts and bitterness.

I'm actually quite relieved to be free from an organization that treats me and others in such a way. I don't appreciate your comments that you hope my negative feelings toward the church don't "cripple" me...just as I'm sure you'd probably not appreciate me telling you I hope your involvement in a church that discriminates against women won't cripple you.

I recognize that the Mormon religion gives you, RTC, and others much comfort and direction. I respect your right to choose that for yourself. I hope you respect my right to choose differently for myself.

Come on, Mama. "The ultimate “head scratcher” polygamy"? You were willing to analyze Belaja after just a few paragraphs because it such a natural thing for to do what with all your cognative therapy skills and all. Do you ever put other personalities under the scrutiny that comes so naturally to you? People on which you have infinitely more material? Material you've been reading and studying for years?

Have you never put Joseph on the couch?

I think you might find some things that pertain to this dicussion, that relate to that "head scratcher", that have influenced the Mormon culture throughout its history and both motived and made ridiculous M. Otterson's PR missive above.

Or do you only use science and critique to dismiss those with whom you disagree? Those that are safe to criticize? Those that you wish not to hear?

Oh, right, it's really all about her style of expression. She shouldn't be so empassioned. She should do it your way and address only her own feelings and not anything foundational.

It's really not that complex in the end. Facts matter to some and tribe matters to others.

Hershey's Mama-

How beautifully you have explained this over-arching principle that we as latter-day-saints fully embrace. It truly is a part of our beliefs that I do not think many are aware.

Thank you for bringing this to the table as it adds such rich dimension to this entire discussion.

oops - this last one is mine.

Betty:

I think under your definition I can agree that what SML has shared of church policy is “discrimination” and can see why others with only this definition in mind naturally become upset .

With that said however, I think that in Mormonism, morality does not hold “fair” (in the most basic sense) for the individual as the greatest end or goal. In my opinion, LDS theology can only be better understood in the context of a more communitarian ideology which seeks not only for individual right but overall communal outcomes. The outcome of which LDS seek are individuals prepared to live a law of consecration and create a community of Zion. Within this community both males and females make personal sacrifices for what they believe is a much greater good for themselves and the whole. Naturally I understand that those who do not start with a premise of the reality of reaching these goals would have a hard time getting over such policies, priesthood and the ultimate “head scratcher” polygamy, let alone adhere to them.

I think we can agree that in a very general sense that there are particular formulas that lead to exclusive outcomes most easily noted in math and science.

I think to understand a Mormon, is to acknowledge that we are operating within the context of what we believe is a complex ongoing formula overseen by a wise and loving Father with the goal to create a Zion ready individual, Zion ready marriages and families and ultimately a Zion society . This process has been compared to a “learning laboratory” in which naturally fallible human beings get A LOT of practice in repentance and in forgiving one another.

I think policies do change and remain in both the contexts of the wisdom of God and fallible human nature at all levels. As both individuals and as a people we learn from our mistakes. One of the brethren recently noted that (in my words) he believed the current 12 are the most united today then previous bodies have ever been which is a far cry from the early LDS church. So I think we are learning and growing and pondering and then seeking the inspired next step or change all the time.

Again, I think I understand at least to some degree why others do not understand many things which are LDS current or LDS history . I am in ongoing process of understanding them at deeper levels myself. But I these very general ideas might help others understand Mormons.

Sister Mary Lisa & RTC :

This has been a very interesting exchange to watch unfold and I think has brought out some more honest opinions on both sides.

SML, I read you as bitter and though I wish you able to reconcile differently and remain in the church I love, at the least I hope (if I’m reading you correctly) a resentment towards the church body or at least your LDS family does not cripple you even if you hold to negative overall opinions of the church. I imagine while staying in the church until recently, such a resentment MAY have been difficult not to have formed towards your husband (only my speculation). It is certainly a fork in the road I would not want to have traveled.

Just so you and others know, a letter of question or concern in the church is “funneled” through an area authority who would address it or send it on to the brethren depending on its nature.

RTC, I appreciated you taking the time to lay out some background doctrine on these matters, they did get me thinking about the actual differences in temple covenants for men and women and why a married LDS woman may not want to commit to them without support of in this case a “nonmember” husband. I am still thinking about this policy and right now I tend to side more on thinking it should be equally applied to men and women more than abolishing it all together as these covenants are so binding and serious.

To critiques of my post to Belaja: I stand by my words which I reiterate here as essentially “speak for yourself” and “own your thoughts and feelings“…

Betty and JOHN D THE FIRST -

Thank you, to the both of you, for your excellent summations. I personally feel that you have displayed tremendous examples of coming together, when completely at odds, and working in such a way that understanding might be found.

Keep it up!

Betty said:

If you think this is fine, that is your right.
But it is clearly discrimination in the sense that we use the word discrimination.
Perhaps it is justified discrimination because God wants it this way.

I say - Here! Here! To those who are willing to honestly, intelligently,rationally and openly discuss one another's beliefs, and find ways to understand, versus condemn.

I just love the way you two think!

James - I am with you and John on the Truman Madsen thing... add him AND Sheri Dew to the mix? :-)

Amen, James.

It might be a risky assignment for a truthteller for the same reason you mentioned.

Irony

Elder Green understands the Gospel.

Irony involves having the apparent meaning and intention of a representation differ from what the underlying meaning/intentinn/levels are.

Otterson wants to APPEAR to be seeking truth.

he ACTUALLY is seeking to improve the church's public image. The truth is something to be manipulated if need be.

That is why I want a Mormon spokesman who IS dedicated to telling the truth, if we can find one who has not been excommunicated.

Truman Madsen is one nominee John and I are pushiing.

Sorry for the ironically unintentional duplicates. And I guess it bears repeating.

Hey, it's hard to tell what's satire and what's not around here -- intentional satire anyway. Personally, I thought a satirical tone was set from the get-go by Bro. Otterson though I'm sure that wasn't his intention.

PR efforts are often steeped in irony when they try to change a public perception through misdirection.

Hey, it's hard to tell what's satire and what's not around here -- intentional satire anyway. Personally, I thought a satirical tone was set from the get-go by Bro. Otterson though I'm sure that wasn't his intention.

PR efforts are often steeped in irony when they try to change a public perception through misdirection.

Hey, it's hard to tell what's satire and what's not around here -- intentional satire anyway. Personally, I thought a satirical tone was set from the get-go by Bro. Otterson though I'm sure that wasn't his intention.

PR efforts are often steeped in irony when they try to change a public perception through misdirection.

Thanks John
sorry to misquote you.
The point becomes general: Using the Bible to justify todays practices would endorse Genocide,Slavery, selling your daughter into sexual servitude, killing your kids if they talk back too much, etc....
But sorry to attribute that attitude to YOU. Apologies.

On your four points:

1. Agree.More women are. Religion has been around for 3,000 years, and the womens movement in the US is 40 years old. Cultural Change is slow.
Slavery was around for a long time too, and until 1865 we didn't get around to eliminating it (ok, 1863).
The associated point is
What is Morally Right? I admit reasonable people can differ, though my personal opinion is that anyone who doesn't think women should have "equal opportunity" to lead their church is not applying Moral principles at the highest level of moral reasoning.
2. I think we agree. A MAJOR issue (not only one) is who can hold the priesthood? Women? Blacks? Gays?
3. I agree that there is usually no force in applying a remedy for "discrimation", in the legal sense of remedy, in respect to a religious organization (ALTHOUGH it did look like the US might take away non profit status in the Black priesthood discrimination).
According to the legal definition, what the church did/does with regard to blacks and women is Discrimination. You are free to say, "Yes, but in a religious sense it is not discrimation." You would be wrong, but you are free to believe it.

Would you say the Mormon church "did not discriminate against blacks" with regard to priesthood holding ability until 1978, even in the religious understanding of discriminate?

4. The issue of excess ambition far transcends the Mormon version. I am sure you have read Julius Caesar.
Can't a woman be as non-power-hungry as a man, and still have the possibility of being stake president? Of course she can. This seems to be a non issue to me.
Ambition is Bad. Therefore, ambition is bad for BOTH men and women.\
It certainly DOES NOT argue against women holding the priesthood.
5. Avoids the main issue of Discrimination again. The undeniable fact is
Men hold the priesthood. Women don't
A man can be church president. A woman can't
A man can be an apostle. A woman can;t

If you think this is fine, that is your right.

But it is clearly discrimination in the sense that we use the word discrimination.

Perhaps it is justified discrimination because God wants it this way.

Hey, it's hard to tell what's satire and what's not around here -- intentional satire anyway. Personally, I thought a satirical tone was set from the get-go by Bro. Otterson though I'm sure that wasn't his intention.

PR efforts are often steeped in irony when they try to change a public perception through misdirection.

I think we have a member of President Mcgruff's branch here for another round of Mormon satire.

John D's right. Both women and men in the church enjoy a life of obedience to god's will. Why worry about women's right or even a man's freedom to choose? The thinking has been done for you. It is up to you to accept and have faith. It's not ours to question. We'll have our rewards in heaven and we'll be glad we didn't struggle against the brethren or kick against the pricks. We just need to trust the few men that are our leaders and do as they say. What could be offensive to women or lower ranked men about that?

Just a few points I think worth mentioning:

1). Apparently more Christian women are interested in being part of organizations that follow Biblical models of ecclesiastical organization, than they are in being part of organization that would allow them to become Pastor.

2). Becoming pastor, bishop, Apostle and so on, is basically what this "discrimination" boils down to (with the exception of few policies, which I agree should be changed, I have confidence they will be changed eventually).

3). In a religious free market, this type of "discrimination" is very different than that in the public arena, where there is only one law of the land.

4). The American ideal of self making, which applies to the work place, has no meaning in relation to church callings. In Mormonism neither men nor women aspire to any calling. We follow the ideal of Paul in Hebrews that "A man [or woman] must be called of God as was Aaron." If a man expressed that he wanted to be Bishop or stake president he would seem as "power hungry" as a woman expressing this desire.

5). "Power holders" in Mormonism are very few. Both the majority of men and women are excluded from major decision making. The majority of members, male and female, have influence only through consultation, nothing more. If women suffer a great deal from this, most men would be in the same boat.

Betty said:

"JOHN even argues that since the
Bible says it's OK, it's OK"

Hi Betty,

I never argued that, read my post again. I only argued that patriarchal religious systems gain clout in the religious free market because they follow Biblical models.

Allow me to lay it all out for you. Someone earlier made the remark that some of us leave the church, but can't leave it alone. It is the responsibility of every person, when they see mistreatment of another to try to end the abuse. Many Southerners wanted the Northerners to mind their own business when they wanted to end slavery. I am glad they did not listen.

Many members will think it is pointless to try to get the LDS church to give women the priesthood because it is against God's will and there is no precedent of it in the Bible. The LDS church has a precedent to bowing to public pressure even without Biblical precedent. John Taylor said that the LDS Church would never give up polygamy, but they did under pressure from the US government. Bruce R. McConkie said Blacks would never hold the priesthood. He had to take that back when the priesthood was made available to all worthy men due to pressure in the US. The temple ceremony was supposed to be the same one used on other planets and therefore, would not change. But, lo and behold, it has changed many times due to members complaining about the 5 points of fellowship and the oath to "obey" husbands, etc. Recently the initiatories have become less creepy under pressure.

Now, the leadership of the church wants to promote the illusion that these changes were revelations from God. It is just not true. The spirit is nothing more than a conditioned feeling and an interpretation given to thoughts. Read Quinn, "Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" to learn how the highest quorums actually work. Hopefully, through forums like this, we can make the LDS policies against women look bad enough, that we can "encourage" the Brethern to "receive another revelation" to treat women as equals. It will happen. The Church hates bad PR.

Elder Green and Contentiousness

Elder: i can understand how hearing differing opinions might upset you. They are not encouraged to be openly stated by their church, are they?

If my name was Quinn the Historian, i might get excommunicated for being too open.

BUT remember, this is a PUBLIC FORUM
not a MORMON forum
In a democracy the public DEBATES differing positions in a robust way. Been to the House of Lords?

The Church and Discrimination

Sister ML's reply to my friend RTC seems incontrovertable.

In SML's case, there is NO DOUBT that she was discriminated against because of her gender. A man would have been treated differently.

And we all know there are hundreds of other instances we can site.

So let's stipulate Discrimination: It is a legal term. Here is the legal definition
n. unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability.

This is the sense SML, and all the rest of us, are using it.

Active Mormons say Mormon discriminantion is fine with them. That is their right (so far).
JOHN even argues that since the
Bible says it's OK, it's OK

John: News Flash: the bible was very supportive of the institutionof Slavery.

When the "Church" changed the ban on blacks holding the priesthood, many thought that God's revelatin was expedited by the threat that the church would lose its non profit status because of practicing racial discrimination. For 125 years, God thought it was all right.

Elder Green,

Women and men on this board are sharing their painful stories of discrimination and mistreatment and all you have to say is that it disrupts your peace!! You deserve to have your peace disrupted for supporting and upholding a system that demonicly represses women.

You are grateful your wife and daugther have auxiliary programs designed just for them. Well, blacks during the 1950's had schools and bathrooms and water fountains designed just for them, too. Wake up man! Follow the Golden Rule.

All the contentiousness on this thread is making it hard for me to feel the spirit. I'm just grateful that my wife and daughter have auxiliary programs designed just for them so they won't have to hear such diverse and contradictory opinions that might confuse them and lead them to doubt and despair.

Kudos to Bro. Otterson for pointing out how much Jesus loved women which surely all the fine leaders of this dispensation have taken as a model to emulate from the very beginning. I feel better just knowing that.

Though I find some of the words in Fedup's post unfortunate (as I am sure he did, once he thought about it for two seconds), I think he points out something significant to this discussion: the way certain patriarchal systems of worship match Biblical models.

Why is this significant?

The patriarchal system is one element of a general trend among Conservative Christians toward attempting to match Biblical ideals.

I pointed out earlier that the overwhelming majority of Christianity has patriarchal systems of leadership similar to the Mormons.

This is not just due to socialization since many newer conservative and patriarchal protestant groups are gaining many adult converts, while older liberal protestant groups are shrinking.

Why is this?

The answer to this question is complex.

But I think it is significant that Psychologists have found conservatives who have respect for tradition to be happier than Liberals who see tradition as irrelevant.

Given these two facts,

1). Conservative Christian groups are growing, Liberal ones shrinking.

2). Conservatives are happier than Liberals.

An economic perspective offers a good explanation.

The economic perspective, where human behavior is seen as motivated by attempts to maximize one’s own benefit, would interpret the trend of a flourishing conservative Christianity to be the result of people acting in their own interest.

People are going in large numbers to communities where people just happen to be happier than other communities. The economic perspective seems to me the simplest explanation given these facts.

So what is it that makes men and women in these organizations happier than their Liberal counterparts?

Answer: It gives people peace and security to be rocks in the river rather than the water.

Being part of something lasting, firm and grander than cultural currents makes people's lives meaningful.

In Western Culture, the Bible provides a firm rock in a context of change and transience.

Why don’t large conservative Christian organizations “get with the times” ?

Transcendence cannot bow its head to transience without seeming transient itself.

Some organizations have done this, but have lost their clout as a result of the free religious market. Every organization that submits to progressive secularism is likely to simply loose membership to other institutions who are more willing to stick to Biblical models. If you change an organization to match ideals of secular humanism rather than Biblical ideals, you may change that institution, but not necessarily the membership; their majority may simply run to another rock in the river so to prevent being washed away in the currents.

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

Genesis 19:4-8

Pimp out daddies daughters, nice.

Yeah, lets use the bible to inform us on how we should treat women.

On a related note:

"And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had hemorrhoids in their secret parts." 1 Samuel 5:8-9

"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay." Numbers 22:28-30

God speaks twice through asses - coincidence?

Belaja,

I love that poem. Very powerful.

RTC,

You wrote, "In my personal life, as you already know, I have been fortunate to have the church as a positive, in that I do not consider how the church is organized through the priesthood to be discrimination against women."

You are saying you don't think that my situation was discriminatory? You actually believe the church is trying to "maintain marital harmony" by only requiring LDS WOMEN to get written permission from their non-member spouses, yet LDS MEN do not need the same? This directive was created and organized through the power of the priesthood. It IS discriminatory.

You honestly think that men are more qualified and capable than women are in handling budget decisions, deciding what lessons to teach, praying and receiving inspiration on assigning callings, offering guidance, knowing how best to serve others when there is need, knowing whether the primary program as written by the woman in the primary presidency is good enough to be presented? Because that IS how the church is organized through the priesthood. Women must defer to men in every single capacity I've listed here and many more. Because the church teaches that women, who don't have the priesthood, are incapable of doing any of those things alone, without the help of a priesthood leader.

"From my perspective I have had wonderful opportunities to serve, grow spiritually, teach..."

You have opportunity to serve whenever and where ever you wish, the same as any other human being. This is not singular to the Mormon religion. Same with growing spiritually. As for teaching, you are limited in what you may teach by the Priesthood leaders of the church. They dictate what lessons you are allowed to teach, when you are supposed to teach them, regardless of the individuals and their varied circumstances that you may be teaching. You, as a woman, are not free to choose what you will teach in church. You actually have no real say in any of that. The thinking has been done. Your lesson manual must be followed. They even go so far as to give you a topic to discuss when you VISIT TEACH. Seriously...can't they even let you socialize with and befriend other women without interfering??

"...gain knowledge..."

Again, knowledge THEY outline for you, with no input from you (or any woman) whatsoever. And no inspiration on whether or not you actually need to hear such a lesson on that particular day.

"...develop relationships socially with both men and women, receive help and support in parenting, develop talents, etc... I consider the church to be a strength to me and my family."

The church wants you to think that within the church is the only place you can find this. This is simply not true. The church does nothing to help a woman be strong. It seems to me that it mostly keeps women subservient, and the church fosters a subtle yet real message that women are lesser beings than men, by virtue of their gender alone.

Thank God I'm not swallowing it any more.

"In the Potter's Hand"

"O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and we all are the work of Thy hand." Isaiah 64:8

"Shall the clay say to Him that fashioneth it, What makest Thou?" Isaiah 45:9

"Cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in Mine hand." Jeremiah 18:6

"Hath not the potter power over the clay?" Romans 9:21

The potter has the power,
The knowledge, and the skill,
To fashion every vessel
According to his will.

The pattern and the purpose
Of every vessel planned,
Its usefulness and beauty
Are in the potter's hand.

The clay makes no decision,
Has no will of its own,
But yielded to the potter,
His pattern is made known.

And thus the Master Potter
Our service has outlined;
He asks us to be yielded
Unto His Will and Mind.

His purpose to acknowledge,
To listen to His voice,
To let Him plan our pathway,
According to His choice.

A vessel marred and broken,
We may not understand,
But all can be committed
Unto the Potter's hand.

Our Father's way is perfect,
His thought toward us is love;
He's fashioning and molding,
For life with Him above.

To trust the Heavenly Potter.
And let Him mold the clay.
Brings joy, and peace, and blessing,
And happiness alway.
—Lois Beckwith
"For IT IS GOD WHICH WORKETH IN YOU both to will and to do of HIS good pleasure." Philippians 2:13

RTC wrote: "The most important part about being a member of the church for me, is my relationship with the Savior."

I think you relationship with Jesus is all in your head. That is of course the logical conclusion for an Atheist.

A Work of Artifice
by Marge Piercy

The bonsai tree
in the attractive pot
could have grown eighty feet tall
on the side of a mountain
till split by lightning.
But a gardener
carefully pruned it.
It is nine inches high.
Every day as he whittles back the branches
the gardener croons,
It is your nature to be small and cozy,
domestic and weak;
how lucky, little tree,
to have a pot to grow in.
With living creatures one must begin very early
to dwarf their growth;
the bound feet,
the crippled brain,
the hair in curlers,
the hands you
love to touch.

SML - Your comment saddened me regarding pregnancy and birth. That is all.

I have requested that feddup respond to his post... I believe that is what you are referring to?

I accept what is perceived as discrimination and those who have experienced it as inequality in the church. My heart does go out to you, as well as others, as I have expressed.

In my personal life, as you already know, I have been fortunate to have the church as a positive, in that I do not consider how the church is organized through the priesthood to be discrimination against women. From my perspective I have had wonderful opportunities to serve, grow spiritually, teach, gain knowledge, develop relationships socially with both men and women, receive help and support in parenting, develop talents, etc... I consider the church to be a strength to me and my family.

The most important part about being a member of the church for me, is my relationship with the Savior. I truly believe that this is His church, although we as members may struggle in our discipleship...

FEDDUP

“First, I am appalled at the behavior of some in this forum that intentionally post items that they KNOW will be offensive to others.”

What posted items have been appalling to you?

I found your whole argument appalling, big deal.

"for any of you who hold the Bible to be the word of God"

Count me out.

"Was Abraham, Isaac and other biblical prophet’s righteous men? If you say yes, then answer this question... How many wives did they have?"

I dunno. Was Lot a righteous man? Didn't Lot have sex with his daughters? What compelling argument are you making? You should try reading the bible with the idea that it is not the word of God - holy playwright, that read is a show stopper!

"When Jesus began his ministry, he chose people to be his leaders (he chose 12, whom he called apostles) How many were women? In the Temple that Jesus visited as a boy and later preached in and even cleansed, how many of the Priests were women? In the Old Testament how many Priests of the tribe of Levi were women?"

Oh hell, historical Jesus supposedly did and said a lot of things. Look, if Jesus were around today he would let women have the priesthood; he would get with the 21st Century. You know, just the same way the church caved into giving blacks the priesthood. My guess is that if Jesus were around today, he would tell the Mormon Church to get bent like he did the Sadducees and Pharisees.

"If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then this debate is not limited to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the very foundation of Judaism and Christianity."

What, that historically men have acted badly? Yeah, that sounds about right.

"Gender is essential to our roles in mortality."

I had a seminary flashback.

"Just as we need garbage men to cart off our trash as much as we need a President to lead our nation, neither is more or less important."

This is just wrong. WOW!

"They merely serve in different capacities. So it is with the doctrine of Christ."

You have the "doctrine of Christ" serving in the Baptist capacity. You have the "doctrine of Christ" serving in the Catholic capacity. You have the "doctrine of Christ" serving in the Holy Roller capacity - and so on and so on and so what.

"A woman will never serve as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Yeah, because the church's identity is formed around archaic superstitions.

"but a man will never have the privilege of giving birth to children!"

Ah, that solves it then. Because men will never grow a uterus they will have to console themselves with being in charge - ouch, that's gotta hurt. I hope they don't resent God too much over that raw deal.

Sorry my comment posted 3x....I'd delete 2 if I could.

RTC,

You are saddened I said what I did about the discomfort that pregnancy and childbirth is, because you know women who are heartbroken that they don't have this privilege in their lives themselves - women who would "go through any discomfort necessary to accomplish the end result."

Why then do you admonish the women here who feel the same exact heartbroken feelings over not having the privilege of priesthood power or gender equality in their lives???

You seem to not understand that both wishes are EQUALLY VALID.

RTC,

You are saddened I said what I did about the discomfort that pregnancy and childbirth is, because you know women who are heartbroken that they don't have this privilege in their lives themselves - women who would "go through any discomfort necessary to accomplish the end result."

Why then do you admonish the women here who feel the same exact heartbroken feelings over not having the privilege of priesthood power or gender equality in their lives???

You seem to not understand that both wishes are EQUALLY VALID.

RTC,

You are saddened I said what I did about the discomfort that pregnancy and childbirth is, because you know women who are heartbroken that they don't have this privilege in their lives themselves - women who would "go through any discomfort necessary to accomplish the end result."

Why then do you admonish the women here who feel the same exact heartbroken feelings over not having the privilege of priesthood power or gender equality in their lives???

You seem to not understand that both wishes are EQUALLY VALID.

Feddup - I don't believe that Mayan interpreted your post correctly. Rather I think you were attempting to draw an analogy for us in that there is similarity in needs being vital for operation... or something like this...? It seems as though a stampede is always afoot?

So I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt? Will you please explain this part of your post? Your choice to use these two jobs is an interesting one... why a garbage man?

"Gender is essential to our roles in mortality. Just as we need garbage men to cart off our trash as much as we need a President to lead our nation, neither is more or less important. They merely serve in different capacities. So it is with the doctrine of Christ."

SML - Also... my heart is saddened at your comments regarding what I and many others do consider the "privilege to give birth".

Your cry of "having your body stretch to uncomfortable proportions to accomodate the baby and the milk, the horrible pain and the agony of childbirth, and the subsequent altered body she gets to live with..."

My immediate thoughts were of the women that I personally know who cry themselves to bed each night because they will never know how that feels, or ever know what it is like to give birth to their own infant child. You must not know anyone in this situation? They would go through any discomfort necessary to accomplish the end result. I have watched them try...

To both carry a child and give birth is a privilege, a blessing and a miracle.

All -On occassion, it would be nice if we could request clarification from one another regarding our post when there may be something highly objectional, before we go off?

Feddup,

You call it a "privilege" to give birth? Are you kidding me??? Let me see...nine months of discomfort, feeling sick for months, having your body stretch to uncomfortable proportions to accommodate the baby and the milk, the horrible pain and agony of childbirth, and the subsequent altered body she gets to live with, while being innundated by the media and society (and sometimes even her man) that such a body is not beautiful.

The only good thing about pregnancy is the nine months of not having to endure the curse I call "my period." A man gets to enjoy the one good thing about giving birth without actually experiencing any of it: the child. A woman is not so lucky.

And your (offensive) comments comparing women to garbage men and men to the president: "neither is more or less important"...are you kidding me?! I'm SURE their equal importance is why they get equal pay and benefits. Yeah. Just like women in the church and the benefits they enjoy as compared with those the men enjoy.

Grasshopper,

I put my opening as I did because I was about to discuss something that happened to me as an LDS woman, that I had never once been taught about or forewarned about by my leaders or my parents who were also raised Mormon...the need to get my non-member husband's permission in writing to attend the temple.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my thoughts about how blindsided I felt, since I had never in my lifetime of being LDS heard that such a rule was there. I didn't say I grew up LDS as a way to give myself credibility. My entire point in most of my comments here is that women in the LDS religion don't really GET to enjoy credibility as persons of worth.

My point with Mr. Otterson's statement was to question WHY the need to give her credibility by listing her details? Can a woman not make a comment like that and have it be taken seriously without knowing first that she's "a prominent academic, high achiever, faithful in her church"?

feddup:

"Gender is essential to our roles in mortality. Just as we need garbage men to cart off our trash as much as we need a President to lead our nation, neither is more or less important. They merely serve in different capacities. So it is with the doctrine of Christ.

A woman will never serve as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but a man will never have the privilege of giving birth to children!"

oh. my. god.
women are like the garbage men - men are like the president.
women cannot lead, because they have vaginas for giving birth.

dude, you hit a grand slam with this one. i may never feel better about leaving your church than i do now. sadly, you probably have no clue how offensive that little rant was. otterson must be proud. the fact that he let that one slide without comment speaks volumes.

got that ladies? - you cant be the leader but you can have babies. get over yourselves????????!!!!!!!???????? whachya waiting for?

feddup, shutup.

Sister Mary Lisa -

Oh, what a “bite” it is when ones own words are used to convict, but such is the fate of a blogger I am afraid. With that in mind I proceed with caution.

Sister Mary Lisa: You suppose that by Mr. Otterson’s need to inject details concerning the women he spoke with that “his real opinion” of women has come forth. You also assume that he spoke “volumes” of how “Mormon Men” view women in general by his description of this person. Could it possibly be that he felt the need to give credibility to the person with whom he spoke for the audience he was to address?

You, yourself used that same tactic for proving credibility when you started your first blog with, “I was born and raised in the Mormon church, by parents who were born and raised in the church and sealed together in the temple.”

I am just a person but would your opinion of my credibility be any different if I described myself as a wife, homemaker and mother as opposed to something else? In accusation of Mr. Otterson I ask who is really making the sexist remark?

I have been scanning these posts for sometime now and I have finally been moved to post to this forum.

First, I am appauled at the behavior of some in this forum that intentionally post items that they KNOW will be offensive to others. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion. While disagreement is often part of discussion it can be done in a civilized manner.

Two continuing themes have been surfaced here, but many focus on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those issues are: Women holding the priesthood (which priesthood holds the highest offices in the church) and polygamy.

For those in this forum who are athiest or agnostic my comments will probably not resolve your disagreement with these positions. However, for any of you who hold the Bible to be the word of God, I submit the following thoughts:

Was Abraham, Isaac and other biblical prophets righteous men? If you say yes, then answer this question... How many wives did they have?

When Jesus began his ministry, he chose people to be his leaders (he chose 12, whom he called apostles) How many were women? In the Temple that Jesus visited as a boy and later preached in and even cleansed, how many of the Priests were women? In the Old Testament how many Priests of the tribe of Levi were women?

If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then this debate is not limited to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the the very foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

Gender is essential to our roles in mortality. Just as we need garbage men to cart off our trash as much as we need a President to lead our nation, neither is more or less important. They merely serve in different capacities. So it is with the doctrine of Christ.

A woman will never serve as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but a man will never have the privilege of giving birth to children!

Stan: speaking of "random and nonsensical"...

RTC: speaking or "fearless"...

RTC,

No, I do not blame God for every injustice in the Mormon church. I fully blame men. Especially those men who enact such injustice in the name of God, claiming that God himself wants such inequality to continue.

I also blame women such as yourself, who allow and enable inequality by supporting and defending it. Without you and other women like you, the men and the church would be unable to continue practicing and perfecting such inequality.

Also, joining the church officially at age 8 is hardly a CHOICE. We cajole, influence, pressure, and basically MAKE our children get baptized at age 8. Can you honestly tell me that if your 8 year old child told you they really would rather not be baptized, as my child did, that you'd respect their wish and would allow them to wait until they were older? You'd probably do what I did (and fully regret)...you'd find a way to make the idea seem like a good one to them, and you'd convince them that it was the best decision and that God would be so proud. I finally got my daughter to agree that IF she'd be willing to be baptized, then I'd let her pick her favorite big treat she wanted to serve at the baptism, and she could help me serve it. This appealed to her so she finally agreed, after weeks of saying NO WAY.

She didn't have any idea what she was choosing to take on, either. Just like we didn't, until we were much, much older.

Well... good morning. You are all quite awake? Would you expect me to deny my beliefs? I am intrigued by many of your comments in response to my post. You seem to be almost in amazement that I actually own and embrace that to which I belong?

I most certainly am aware of the perspectives from which you speak of, regarding my post, and yet I have committed to be open and honest as best I can in communicating on this forum. I will continue to do so. It is not my desire or intent to offend, be unkind, or misrepresent in anyway.

I have gained a much better understanding of many of your positions and appreciate your willingness to maintain informative dialogue. I think we all benefit when our intentions are pure.

I will reiterate again that the requirement to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints a CHOICE. (I have previously addressed children on earlier post, as well as quite a few of other of your comments...)

There is much that God has ordered for it to be so, and yet man in his weakness falls far from the mark. Look all around us? Do we blame God for every injustice? I do not, anymore than I blame God for those injustices which cry out on this forum of which my sisters have been victims. Yet I still believe that the order of the priesthood is his will. I believe that man should love one another and yet we see crime, starving children, war, etc... Do we blame God for these things? No, these are the results of men and their imperfections.

We do not claim a perfect organization in the church and therefore individuals have been hurt. Our hearts do go out to them. My heart goes out to them. If it did not, I would not be taking the time to gently and directly respond as I do. It does not serve a person to tell them what feels good. Truth is the great balm. I speak the truth as I understand it.

Michael Otterson wrote in this article "I was talking to a woman this week – a prominent academic, high achiever, faithful in her church – who suggested that men turn out better when they are socialized with some characteristics that have commonly been stereotyped as “female” values, but are really human values."

Note how he felt compelled to inject details about this woman (a prominent academic, high achiever, faithful in her church) as if we wouldn't value what she said unless we knew these things about her. What does this say about Michael Otterson's REAL opinion of women and their worth? I think it speaks volumes and proves how Mormon men view women.

If he truly valued women as Jesus did, why would he not just say, "I was talking to a woman this week who suggested that men turn out better when they are socialized with some characteristics that have commonly been stereotyped as “female” values, but are really human values."?

Stan, can we expect more troll-like commentary from you in the future? Do you have anything substantive to say rather than telling us how cracked-up you are? I suspect you can't mount an argument without resorting to passive aggressive attack. It would be interesting to see you prove me wrong. Why don't you start by picking one comment that you consider to be the least nonsensical, but with which you disagree, and provide a reasoned response to it? While you might be able to provide a good argument, my money is on your inability to do it without personal attack. Come on Stan, what do you stand for? You've got some attention, step up.

This comment thread has to be the most entertaining of all these "On Faith" posters. Thanks for cracking me up! Mr. Otterson posts a thought-out essay and the comments are simply random and nonsensical. I especially enjoy the surprise expressed at Mr. Otterson's lack of response to the comments. Hilarious!

That's a good point, David.

Why would God want to subordinate women to men?

Partnership between spouses makes for a more loving relationship than patriarchal subordination of wifes.
God is about love.
Therefore the discrimination of women and patriarchy is not from God.

It is sacrilegeous to blame God for our poor treatment of women. That does more damage to our faith than anything feminists could possibly say.

Rather than accusing God of sexism, we would be doing better if we took responsibility for our biases and abusive behavior.

In the Old Testament, we read that Abraham reconciled himself with the idea of offering his son as a sacrifice (an otherwise repugnant idea) because he believed the command came from God.

In the LDS church, some women have come to reconcile themselves with the fact that they are treated as inferior - they bear that cross - because they believe it comes from God.

Can you members at least acknowledge that if the way women are treated in the LDS church did not come from God, that it would be very wrong? Well, I left the church the day I discovered that having women swear obedience to their husbands does not come from God.

RTC:

wow. you have taken this to a new level. i might add, a very disappointing level.

its one thing to not see the patriarchy in the church and how it affects women. its altogether different when one sees it, understands it, loves it, embraces it, claims its godly and then declares it a godsend to women, which is what you appear to be doing.

this whole thing reminds of the lost sheep parable. as much as i cringe at most bible things anymore, that parable i sorta like. and if you were to pause and consider that the women that are hurt in even the slightest way by the patriarchy could be isolated, you would think that christ's church would go out of their way to retrieve them. and retrieving them from their isolation does not mean standing up and calling them to repentence and demanding that they get in line, it means resolving the source of the pain and isolation. something this church has no interest in doing, apparently.

and you, rtc, seem fine with that. shocking. i thought you could be valuable to your students. now, given the depth of your commitment to patriarchy and your expectation for women to accept it as such and love it, i still think you are a valuable teacher - valuable to the church, less so for your students.

what is disappointing about the relief society, is that it is just an organization for obedient mormon women, a small subset of the population.

the relief society is not run by women. the work is done by women. but it is not run by women. thats a damn shame.

"Do you actually think the men are telling the women what to do?"

Can't resist piling on here. Having sat in ward councils, and served in more than a few auxiliary presidencies and stake committees, the answer to this question is: Yes, Yes & Yes.

RTC wrote:

"You know, it would be an awful thing if we started worrying about power instead of just focusing on taking care of and loving one another."

No, actually, it wouldn't. Do you realise, RTC, that you can do BOTH? As a matter of fact, having power increases your ability to help and take care of others. For a most obvious example of this, see Oprah Winfrey. I do already have power, as a woman, and economically, and in my marriage of equals with my husband. And I focus on, take care of, and love others all the time. I generally don't seek power as an end in itself, but rather for my own actualisation and ability to make an impact in this world. And even more than power, I seek equality and full empowerment as a woman, and for other women.

"Do you actually think the men are telling the women what to do?"

Yes, of course I do. Because they are.

RTC,

The men ARE telling the women what to do, by making them run every decision past them first. The men have the ability to veto any decision made by the women "in charge." They actually require women to submit their ideas for approval first. Men also control the budget, the curriculum, the callings withing the organization, everything. It is their organization totally. Anyone who feels differently is deluded.

WRY CATCHER - Before retiring I will take just a moment to respond... Membership in the Relief Society is for women 18 years and older. I consider those who belong to the church who are 18 years and older to be their by choice and as part of their membership in the church comes also for women their choice to have association with The Relief Society. I consider the Relief Society the icing on the cake to my membership in the church.

Now as far as the Sunday block portion... this is simply our gospel instruction hour for women only. This is where we study the scriptures, etc... But throughout the month various other types of groups are organized to meet the needs of the women as individuals, as well as to do service for other members, community, humanitarian, etc...

You know, it would be an awful thing if we started worrying about power instead of just focusing on taking care of and loving one another. Do you actually think the men are telling the women what to do? Give me a break!

And who did the handing over of the power to the whole male gender? Men, who SAID they were acting according to God's wishes.

Aaaaahhh.

Wry Catcher wrote "Yes, perhaps not "a particular person with power issues"; rather, a whole gender with the power handed to them by virtue of their sex."

Exactly. This is what is not right about the whole thing. I refuse to promote such a thing any more.

RTC,

I feel like I do understand you fairly well. I was an LDS woman my entire life until recently, and recognize in your words many of my own previous thoughts and justifications for why women are treated the way they are in the Mormon church. Just because you can give yourself a "reason" for why it is happening, it doesn't make it any more RIGHT. And there is no denying that it is happening. Sexism against women is prevalent in the Mormon religion and culture. It is promoted from the top, from the time women are young, and actively encouraged.

I still maintain that this is needless and wrong, and it needs to be resolved and changed. It is simply wrong, just as it is wrong to discriminate due to race, as the church did with the Blacks and priesthood.

RTC said: "Then we are in the patriarchal order as decribed before and as the patriarchal position even though single... he is seen as the beginning of a new family and as leader, organizer..." And I would add, of course, presider.

I like how you're very honest about the patriarchy in the mormon church, RTC. So, it's clear that you see it, acknowledge it, and accept - or embrace - the church despite, or even because of, this patriarchy, seeing it as divinely inspired. A fully valid option.

"...so that you might see how it is organized within the system and that it is not a particular person with power issues wanting to dominate women. That is not how women in the church feel about it or we would not have the largest womens organization in the world."

Yes, perhaps not "a particular person with power issues"; rather, a whole gender with the power handed to them by virtue of their sex.

And just to be clear about the world's largest women's organisation: It's misleading to call it a "women's" organisation. First, because it's part of the sunday block of meetings, so people are more or less required to attend (so we shouldn't imply it's like a classic voluntary organisation), and it's certainly not run by women, except nominally. Yes, it is "for" women, but on the local level, bishops and stake presidents PRESIDE over the relief society and its female presidencies (yes, just as the man presides over his family) and at the corporate level, there is a virtually powerless female presidency who do not have executive or decision-making powers over the relief society; again, the presidency and the quorum of 12 have all executive and decision-making power over the relief society.

Any women's organisation that is ultimately run entirely by men is not a women's organisation. I find, again, that asserting it as such is disingenuous and misleading.

SML -1836-1837?

SML - First point - you take, in fact most women in the church as I thought about my post immediately upon sending it do not understand the patriarchal order. (Betty will like that generalization)

One of the reasons I am willing to be involved with this blog is that I believe that part of the problem with much of the misunderstandings that people have with the church is misinformation regarding the doctrine. This is an excellent case in point. I stand by the explanation I have given completely!

I believe the more we discuss the doctrine of the church, although it takes time, we will find understanding with one another. I'm thrilled the church has decided to be involved here and again I hope this helps in some way.

RTC,

To answer your question, I walked away because I discovered many discrepancies in the history of the origins of our church, mainly during the Joseph Smith and Brigham Young era of the church, that didn't jive whatsoever with what I was taught. There is a list over on my blog in the archives that explains what bothered me the most to cause my disaffection with the religion altogether. I learned this stuff in August, and in September I was through.

RTC,

It matters not how a woman feels about sexist practices and regulations within the church: the women belong to the Relief Society (I assume this is what you meant by the "largest womens organization in the world") whether they want to belong or not. It is where their name goes when they become an adult member in the church.

The patriarchal order is what YOU say the reason for the written-permission directive is. But as I was blindsided in that interview, the reason I was given by my bishop to explain the requirement was "the church wants to avoid causing disharmony in any marriage." It is also the reason stated in the quote I listed above from the LDS.org website.

If they were to say it's because they are just promoting the "patriarchal order" of family, then I'd agree with you. But that is NOT the reason they have this rule. Their published and promoted reason does not stand up to scrutiny.

Do you agree? If it did, then the rule would apply to both men and women.

SML - oops... that was me posting to you - not you posting to you. lol

SML - May I ask? You said at the time you hung to the belief that it was divinely inspired? What ultimately caused you to walk away? Did not anyone try to explain some of these things to you at the time?

SML - First of all... I take very seriously your desire to know my thoughts. I submit them to you as just mine. Also that they come to you with absolutely no judgement of any kind, but only in the hopes that in some way they may help in whatever way possible...

The words you describe of "scrutiny and speculation" by those in authority are words that no women should ever have cause to feel, particularly when connected to her preparing to go to the temple. As stated in my previous post, it is lack of either knowledge or experience that often times will unfortunately be a major factor in these instances.

I realize that most always they push the men right through to the temple as long as worthiness is not an issue, but this is only if they are leaving on a mission. Now I do not know the general rule for a man that has not gone on a mission that is single? I must say though... I would imagine that it is probably not quite as easy as we might think? Up until a single young man is 26 they are sill eligible to serve a mission. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I would imagine that the carrot remains the same if unmarried? Someone speak out if they know differently? Unless of course they are getting married and then they are equal with the single girl... Beyond that I think we are back at your point. Then we are in the patriarchal order as decribed before and as the patriarchal position even though single... he is seen as the beginning of a new family and as leader, organizer... his responsibility then would be to take someone to the temple and begin his family. Does this make sense? That would be the reason they would allow a male to proceed to the temple first.

I realize that those who just love this priesthood thing are lovin this lesson, but I hope this gives understanding at least so that you might see how it is organized within the system and that it is not a particular person with power issues wanting to dominate women. That is not how women in the church feel about it or we would not have the largest womens organization in the world. It is how families are organized.

Let me know what I can clarify on. RTC

RTC,

Not that this is anyone's business, but my husband claimed during that interview that he couldn't believe the church would require such a thing as written permission from him if a righteous, grown woman like me desired to attend the temple. He said if the endowment was such a great thing, and "necessary for eternal salvation," then I should be able to go without his permission, since I'm a good woman with good intentions. His gut reaction at the time was to say no way. He could see how horrid the permission thing was to begin with, and couldn't believe I wasn't angry and upset about that rule like he was.

Sadly, I still believed it must be divinely inspired to promote marital harmony (Ha!) for years afterward, until I recently discovered that it wasn't required of men to get such written permission from their non-member wives. If the real reason was to maintain marital harmony, then it would certainly be required of ANY non-member spouse, male or female. But sadly, it isn't the case, and my heartache was for nothing.

Thankfully I'm out of the organization that caused me to feel that way. I am actually relieved I didn't ever go through the temple to take out my endowment.

RTC,

You wrote, "Every member of the church, male or female, who desires to receive a temple recommend must go, not only before their Bishop, but also their Stake President and be interviewed as to ascertain that they have met the necessary requirements. In order for either a man or a woman to enter the temple they must have both of these signatures on their temple recommend. Both men and women are asked the exact same questions word for word during their temple recommend interviews with both of these persons."

My problem with the way the church works regarding temple recommends is that a single WOMAN is subject to her bishop's or stake president's decision first on WHETHER OR NOT SHE'S SUFFICIENTLY MATURE ENOUGH to attend the temple, before the question of worthiness is even presented in the interview checklist. This has nothing to do with worthiness. No MAN is subjected to speculation on whether or not he's mature enough to be able to attend the temple. Just the women.

Both sexes are asked the same questions to determine worthiness, but the women are treated first with scrutiny and speculation about their maturity if they desire to attend the temple without marriage or mission as incentives.

RTC --

Your presumption is astounding! I doubt you have any more insight into the state of marital harmony at Sister Mary Lisa's house than I do. (Which is to say, neither of us know jack on that topic.) That you can't stick to the issue at hand, and assume that it is a harmony or righteousness issue in her life is very sadly typical of the faithful mormon response to anyone who has a legitimate issue with the church. I doubt its your intent to be hurtful, but this kind of response is very close to dispicable.

What of SML's question about why men married to non mormon women do not need permission from their wives? Wouldn't that kind of agreement also promote marital harmony?

And thanks for the explanation of the patriarchy. I couldn't have spelled out the source of the church's sexism any better myself. Thanks for being honest about it.

Betty - Your points are well taken, in general:-)

SML - I apologize for not responding to you earlier. I should have. I cannot say that I agree with the current policy in general, although I am sure that in some situations it is a good decision for various reasons. But I do understand the doctrine.

The harmony of a marriage is very important and I believe that regardless of who the member is, be it the husband or wife, the one would need to be supportive and respectful of the other's spiritual commitment before that were brought into the relationship. I believe that it should be a mutual decision and one that should not be made for the other, but that it should be agreed upon in order to proceed.

I am sure you are aware that the payment of tithes is required to receive a temple recommend and yet a woman who has a non-member husband who does not support this requirement is not obligated in this. Here a provision is made for harmony.

This is a difficult circumstance to be in and obviously why the counsel to not marry outside the faith. The last thing that the gospel should do is divide us from those whom we love the most. The doctrine of eternal marriage is a doctrine of progression where you are both equally yoked. One without the other cannot progress. Your seeming move ahead of your companion would ultimately do just that from the perspective of the doctrine which we believe. Being one in your relationship with your husband is considered the most important relationship we have, next to our relationship to God.

Our doctrine teaches a patriarchal order to the family and therefore it should be of no surprise that within that established order the Bishop would then consult with your husband on your behalf. In a patriarchal system, your husband will someday account to Heavenly Father for his family and for how he took care of them and treated each of you. He does not own you, but has a stewardship which he must be accountable for. We believe that it is the responsibility of the father, bishop, home teacher, to care for and to see to the spiritual and physical needs of the families. (I mention these other men as not all homes have a father who resides) Because of this, when the non-member is the husband, a bishop will always honor that husband's patriarchal key for his own family although he does not hold priesthood authority. He is still the patriarch of the family.

May I submit to you that the power to change your situation is with you and not necessarily the church? This is an honest forum and I will be as honest with you as I would a good friend. Just ask any of them? I believe that if your husband would not sign this paper that the harmony in the relationship is already an issue? This may be where your best work could be done? I can certainly understand your hurt and anger, but I also feel that you are in a position to take action for yourself, that will make positive change in your life much quicker.

To my knowledge, we don't hear too often those with your situation. It could be the reason the policy remains? I do know women who have gone to the temple that have non-member husbands, but it has usually been after quite a few years of their choosing to wait upon him that they have finally decided to go. But then again, it maybe that unawares to others what they were waiting upon was for consent? But, I do know that for each of them it was difficult to move ahead alone. I am sure that having the support of their priesthood leaders was important to them in the decision process.

Now, let me address that which you wrote regarding men making the decisions as to if your are ready to go, you wrote:

"Note how A MAN gets to decide if THE UNMARRIED WOMAN is"worthy and sufficiently mature to understand"...she has no way of officially deciding this for herself. Can any LDS man here actually tell me if the rule was reversed he'd accept this sexist treatment (that he will never receive in the LDS church)? I am sure there's no man here who would accept such treatment, yet we as women in the church have no choice but to accept it or walk away."

Every member of the church, male or female, who desires to receive a temple recommend must go, not only before their Bishop, but also their Stake President and be interviewed as to ascertain that they have met the necessary requirements. In order for either a man or a woman to enter the temple they must have both of these signatures on their temple recommend. Both men and women are asked the exact same questions word for word during their temple recommend interviews with both of these persons.

You are asked a series of questions, very brief but poignant, both men and women absolutely DO have everything to do with deciding whether they enter the temple.

Again, we believe in revelation and priesthood keys. We believe that our Bishops and Stake Presidents have been given authority to exercise keys which enable us to enter the temple and also by revelation discern our worthiness. Do people ever lie? I am sure they do. Are our priesthood leaders fallible? Of course they are. Are they sincere? Most of them truly are and strive to do what they have been called to do to the best of there ability.

I realize this is long, but you ask important questions and you deserve honest answers. Maybe this will add some understanding. Again, I am sorry for your unfortunate experience and the pain it has caused you. It has been my experience that most often those that have negative experiences in the church are because of lack of knowledge or experience on the part of those in leadership. But it is usually because they are simply human.

And yes, I am aware of all that you speak of...

Sister Mary Lisa

Thank you SO much for your story,
and
for your anger.

It is truly RIGHTEOUS ANGER
against
UNrigheous Dominion.

Many active Mormons think that ex mormons like me are "just acting out of anger."
Women who stood up for their rights have long been dismissed as "just angry women."

Anger against injustice is the MORAL, human response.

Jesus was angry at the money changers in the temple.

Joseph Welch was angry at Senator Joseph McCarthy.

I truly admire your spunk to stand up for yourself and clearly identify unfair practices.

(thanks Emily as well for adding your wisdom)

And to clarify and amplify a bit myself -- it is a culture that hamstrings even decent guys -- your bishop was probably a pretty good guy, as is mine. My bishop is as good and guileless man as you'll want to find, and on my last visit to his office, he listened to my concerns sympathetically, admitted that he had no answers for me, and he wished that I could write a letter to a GA to get some answers. But he told me not to because writing letters to GAs is not allowed. He seemed genuinely sad about it. But what's he gonna do? The right thing? Not in the manual.

My mistake -- I think we're on the same page though. It is an Unrighteous Dominion culture, with problems from top to bottom, and I came to the same conclusion a year or two ago and walked.

Emily Carr,

I should clarify...it wasn't my BISHOP exercising unrighteous dominion, it was the church leadership at the very top. The ones who made the rules. My bishop was just following their directive.

Women have no choice in the church but to take it or walk away. That is the point.

Emily Carr,

No, my bishop wasn't exercising unrighteous dominion. He was adhering to the rule that the First Presidency dictated. It is a rule. Women married to non-member men must have his permission in writing to take out her endowment. The LDS.org article I read (see my previous comment above) stated: "A wife whose husband is not endowed may be given a recommend to receive her own endowment if she is worthy and the bishop receives the written consent of the husband. The bishop and stake president should be satisfied that the responsibility the woman assumes with the endowment will not impair the harmony of her marriage." But if the marital harmony reason was valid, then why don't they require this of men as well?

Had I been clever enough to have been born a man, I would have not been required to get permission in writing from my non-member wife to attend the temple to take out my endowment.

This is sexist and wrong. And their reason for the rule doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

Hershey's Mama,

Thanks for your thoughtful answer to my question. It is fascinating to me to discuss this. I have a couple of concerns that this issue never fails to raise within me.

First, note how you felt impressed or prompted to attend the temple and take out your endowment at age 20. That is the exact same prompting and impression I got when I was 28 and married and took the temple prep class. Why didn't the Lord see fit to not give me my prompting then, like you assume would have happened to you if the rule was that way when you were 20? Why did the Lord prompt my bishop to encourage my temple preparation as strongly as he did? So imagine if the rule had been as it now stands (I hadn't heard of this new change) and you felt the spirit prompting you to attend the temple...but you couldn't because of a directive that only applies to women. It is not a good feeling. And there is absolutely no real reason for this rule. I don't accept that it's part of "God's Plan" for me.

Second, I must ask you why you don't question the fact that any man, young or old, can get his endowment regardless of marital plans or mission plans, once he's an adult? Does this not bother you?

You wrote about your bishop, when you told him you'd like your endowment: "He was kind and respectful and admitted he had not had any similar situation to mine brought to him before and was therefore uninformed on how to proceed in my case and said he would run it by the stake president and we both agreed to pray about it before and meet again. There were no questions asked as to my worthiness or to assess my maturity by this man who had never met me prior to this."

The fact that he went to the stake president at all was him "questioning your worthiness and maturity." Had you been a MAN, there would have been absolutely no "how to proceed" questions. It wouldn't have been a "case" at all. You would have been given your temple recommend interview right then and there, and you would have proceeded without one second thought by him as to whether or not you were ready or able or if it was within protocol to grant you this request. A woman in the church doesn't enjoy that same right. I ask WHY NOT?

This is the inequality that I rail against. It's not right. There is no basis for needing such a directive. If there is basis for this directive, then I'd love the church to spell it out for me clearly.

Just as you wonder how I reconcile, I wonder the same for all women in the church. How do you reconcile the inequality? You experienced the exact same inequality I did, when your "case" got reviewed by your bishop and stake president. Why do we as women accept it as our due?

What purpose does such inequality serve do you think?

Hershey's Mama, thanks for jumping in and responding. I appreciate your willingness to engage. I tend to think that the "policy" that caused such heartache for sister Mary Lisa is the result of one bishop exercising "unrighteous dominion," but it is an unrighteous dominion that springs from a culture that supports just that.

There was a time when I would have agreed with your suggestion to write a letter to one of the "brethern" or otherwise appeal to a general authority. but guess what? That is expressly forbidden in the church today. There was a First Presidency letter read over the pulpit a few years back asking members not to write the GAs, and informing them that any letter written to a GA will be returned to your stake president and/or bishop to be dealt with on a local level. No bothering the leadership, and no dialogue allowed.

Hersey's Mama: concerned and compassionate response to Sister Mary Lisa.

SML my sympathies and congratulations to you for sharing your experience and questions, and for your moral reasoning.

RTC
It seems Belaja rubbed you the wrong way.
I think it is fine and natural for all of us on these forums to both
Tell our experiences, and then
Tell what we think it "means."

"What it means" usually involves some sort of generalizations, some sort of system wide analysis.

for example, i think this happened to me because I thought the world worked one way, and it really works in another.

That DOES NOT mean we need to accept other people's generalizations as valid.

But it is natural and helpful i think to make them. it is part of what interests me on this site.

It is the central spiritual question:
:What Does it ALL Mean?:

Sister Mary Lisa,

I read your post and my heart goes out to you. It did raise my concern and awareness - I myself was not aware of this policy as you predicted. I'm wondering now if you have ever shared this expreience along with your thoughts, previously with those who hold stewardship in the church to review and receive revelation on church policy (First presidency and qourom of the 12 for those who may not know, not a bishop). If so, I would be very curiuous as to the response you recieved. If not, I invite and encourage you to do so.

I want to speak to your comment "Note how A MAN gets to decide if THE UNMARRIED WOMAN is "worthy and sufficiently mature to understand"...she has no way of officially deciding this for herself. "

I too prepared to receive my endowments outside the norms of Mormonism. While reading a general conference talk by Elder Richard G. Scott, I felt impressed by the Spirit an invitation to come to the Lord's House and receive my endowments. Though I had not read church policy on the matter, I did know that at 20 yrs old, not headed for marriage any time in the forseeable future and having already pondered and prayed and ruled out serving a mission, I fell outside the typical of what I saw around me. I had two weeks left in my semester at college at the time and decided to focus on finals and wait until I went home for the summer to make an appointment with a bishop.
Once back at home, I met with a newly called bishop of my singles ward to whom I explained my impression and desire to follow it and was open that I was not planning to serve a mission or getting married. He was kind and respectful and admited he had not had any similar situation to mine brought to him before and was therefore uninformed on how to proceed in my case and said he would run it by the stake president and we both agreed to pray about it before and meet again. There were no questions asked as to my worthiness or to assess my maturity by this man who had never met me prior to this.

I don't remember much of the specifics of our next meeting other than an exhange that we had each had a "green light" from the spirit. The rest was pretty much a formality of - this is when temple prep classes start and agreeing when to met again. When we did, again there was no probbing, just the standard temple questions. My experience was similar in my second temple reccomend interview with the
stake president before I finally went to the temple a few days after my 21st birthday.

I do not share this to pour salt in your wounds but to highlight some other points I'll now make and hope YOU hear.

I am now 26 and in the last year or so two policies that would have greatly impacted my life and decisions when I was 20, have recently CHANGED. I'm not going to look them up and qoute them verbatem so others please forgive me and correct me if you like.

The first is the "worthy and sufficiently mature to understand" policy regarding YOUNG single women receiveing thier endowments in the temple. It has now been changed to only before a mission or marriage.

The second is probably notin any manuels as it was only recently offered by Elder Scott in conference which essentially said (in my words) - If a young woman is not married or in a relationship that may head in that direction when she is 21, would she please, please strongly consider serving a mission.

As these policies have recently been reviewed and changed by those I do have a testimony are prophets seers and revelators, I trust they are my Heaavenly Father's will and wisdom at this time to furhter His purposes.

I also beleive that had such policies been in place when I was 20, I would not have recieved an impression to go to the temple that contradicted them unless it was his will that an acception or a policy change be made.

I do question the policy that you have shared which prevents you and others in like circumstance from enjoyment of the blessings I experience as a result of temple worship. I would also like a much better understanding/explaination than the one stated by your bishop. Further, I wonder when this policy was instituted and if it has recently been reviewed? I beleive inspired policy changes take place according to the needs of the church as a whole as well as the needs of the individual within the context of God's wisdom in furthering His kingdom. I do not think petition in your case should end with the bishop who has no authortity to (under inspiration) change this policy. I noticed you do not mention your current "activity" in the church but if not for yourself, I again encourage you to write or even print your post and send it to any one of "the brethren."

I think what you've shared should be of concern for all and am glad it's been brougt to the attention of this forum.

I am struck and saddened when I contrast your experience with mine and I guess as a still practicing mormon, I wonder how you reconcile

Betty - I am specifically responding to this post and the comments made regarding the community in which I belong. Also, I do not consider this particular poster a valid source for making these types of suggested or authoritative reports. This is not based on data of any kind... only emotional opinion? It is not my intention to offend, only to make the point that we have here a forum in which individuals may speak for themselves and do not need another to conclude on their behalf.

I am perfectly willing to accept credible sources of general and specific data from either side of the coin, but again, let it stand with as much integrity as possible.

RTC (and any other faithful, happy, LDS women here),

What do you think of the situation I wrote of above, about being required to get written permission from my non-member husband in order to take out my endowment, and the fact that men married to non-member women have no such requirement? Had you ever heard of this rule before this, and what do you make of it?

The Generalizing General Authorities

the first presidency generalizes about Mormons all the time. It is their job.

ALL YOU MORMONS should do X. All you mormons should be like Y. You should all obey the word of wisdom. You should all get married in the temple.

Avoiding generalizing is a cop out. Do we want to leave all the Generalizing to the Authorities?

Bad Idea. Germany tried it once.

RTC
I honor your desire to limit your comments to what you think you know.

There is a place in human comment on the world, however, for both specific AND general observation.

If we are to describe the forces that culturally affect Americans, versus Chinese people, for instance, we have to do some generalizing and categorizing.

This is NOT at all a bad thing, as long as it is done intelligently. And we are all free to accept, reject, or critique each other's generalizations.

But it is NOT a bad thing to generalize. we humans do it all the time, and we have to. We can not think at all without categorizing. We should try to do it as smartly as we can, but we SHOULD do it.

And we should keep revising our generalizations based on observiation, evidence, and cultural dialog.

Hershey' Mama - I was pleased to see your above reply. In it I see no fear at all... but more a recognition of the potency of perhaps, the thought of a bit too much candy being handed out? The suprising thing was that nobody even had a stomach ache? Except for the fearless Hershey's Mama. Thank you.

I too am sorry for the pain that was expressed in the post, but feel it best to speak, for the most part, of our own intimate lives and interpretations. I realize that when we put ourselves out there it is hard to stand alone. Nonetheless, it is imperative that we avoid the dramatic, sweeping generalizations with the assumption that these also reflect the experiences of others and, in this case, what I believe inflated implications.

As much I would love to see more LDS women who are active and happy with their lives post on this blog, I will not speak for them in this manner. I would love to hear their individual experiences, for I value them as separate.

Wry Catcher,

You are spot on. Hopefully the LDS Church can find a solution that works without too much "bloodshed". These processes are painful, to be sure, and they take time, often generations. If it were up to my grandparents ("perfectly nice people"), we'd still be living under a Jim Crow regime. It's a topic we just don't discuss.

The LDS Church has historically been influenced by external factors (with respect to Polygamy, for example) and internal machinations, which tend to move much more slowly (with respect to racial equality, for example). External factors will push hard for the LDS Church to drift toward gender equality. Internal voices need to be equally as vocal.

We know that everything won't ever be truly equal. Physiological differences assure women that they will always have certain rights and abilities that men will never enjoy. That said, we are not doing enough to find and establish parity.

The Reverend.

Hershey's Mom, I appreciate your comments and your desire to listen and relate, but your statement to Belaja that "you have certainly made it a more skeptical place for other Mormon women to speak their own truths and/or be heard" nicely illustrates one of Belaja's points about the terror that open debate seems to strike into the hearts of so many members of the church.

I just find it interesting that Belaja's persuasive and reasoned explanation for why mormon women may not be as happy male mormon leadership insists elicits a fairly defensive response, (" will I be seen as an evil perpetuator of "the machine" or a woman living a life of fear, constantly ducking and avoiding her suppressed feelings and real desires?") and the insinuation that this forum is not a safe place for happy mormon wome to speak their truth.

You may not have had Belaja's experience, or mine either, but just because she makes a case and many agree with her does not invalidate your experience or insights -- bring them on! Share them, provide an alternate view! Engage in dialogue. (Which does seem to be your intent, and I apreciate that.) Address the issues raised by Belaja and many other women in this forum.

I suspect that's an uncomfortable place for lots of mormons to be, because there is no model for open debate in the church (if I can jump on the analysis wagon for a moment myself). But I would like to hear from happy autonomous mormon women. I'd like to hear their experiences and hear how they respond to Sister Mary Lisa's experience, or Belaja's, or Wry Catcher's points in her post just above this.

Voodew makes a very good point - and one that I often wonder about myself. Why is that an intellectual and questioning approach to mormonism (and to other religions, not unique to mormons, certainly) is seen as hateful or vitriolic?

In that vein, there have been many good points brought out here that haven't really been addressed. They are largely to do with systematic discrimination and second-class status for women in the mormon church.

Many posters on this forum have made good points about where and how women are relegated to a secondary status, both organisationally and doctrinally, in this life and the next. So, it's possible one can say that they accept this and love the church and their role as women in that church despite those limitations. But one can not reasonably argue that those limitations do not exist. For some, it's okay and acceptable; for others, it is not. And for many, it's likely on a back burner somewhere and may or may not eventually become a problem.

"Separate but equal" has long been acknowledged by civil societies as being invalid. Think Civil Rights in the US in the '50s and '60s, think Apartheid in South Africa as recently as the early '90s. Racial discrimination was long held up through the false assertions of "separate but equal." I live in a wealthy western country where women were not given the right to vote until 1971, with the justification that they were "happy" not to vote (despite a century of suffrage movements prior to this), with the notion that their husbands represented their family in the voting process.

In practice, in human systems, there is really no such thing as separate AND equal. The mormon church is not an exception to this, and their separate but equal roles for men and women do not hold up under scrutiny any more than race- and sex-based separations have in the past. The mormon church could put their money where their mouth is about how much they value women, simply by treating them as equals. If they choose not to, fine - but to continue disingenuously claiming how much they love women and value them is, as Todd O pointed out, just too much to take.

Just one example of this is how the church has proclaimed (literally, a Proclamation) that men are to "preside" over their wives and children. "Preside" is a pretty normal English word, and has clear and unambiguous definitions, all having to do with being the head, the decision-maker, the leader, etc. But the mormon leadership, apologists, and members themselves, will go to great lengths to explain how "preside" doesn't actually mean "preside." It means something like "nurture and support." Which is just silly, and causes people to have to somehow resolve in their own minds and hearts how being the one who presides, or the one who is presided over, actually doesn't mean what the word explicitly means. (Or, perhaps more often, it just creates family systems where the man is fully in charge.) It causes no end of debates amongst mormon men and women themselves about what "preside" really means. Well. Rather than having mormon leadership use an existing word that has long-accepted definitions, and then trying to claim that's not what they meant, why not use a different word? Change the language of how one "orders" the mormon family, or simply don't order it at all, ideally. If the husband is not to preside, but to nurture and support, then say so. To put "preside" out there as the standard, and then say, well, we don't *really* mean PRESIDE preside, is the height of disingenuousness and plausible deniability.

And in the final analysis, whether people, including women, are personally "happy" with the status quo is not the standard by which civil society should determine whether something is moral or ethical, or not. The fact is, personal and societal growth and change are painful, and often cause at least temporary "unhappiness."

“In responding to you, however, will I be seen as an evil perpetuator of "the machine" or a woman living a life of fear, constantly ducking and avoiding her suppressed feelings and real desires?”

The fact that you respond doesn’t determine any of this, but what you say might. Even if people did conclude, by what you write, that you are living a life of fear (not a sophisticated way of describing you I should think), I can’t imagine reasonable people using the word “evil” to describe your support of the church.

“Is there any possibility now to be accepted by the wider audience as simply a sincere and autonomous me?”

I think there is that possibility.

“This especially in light of so many who seem to embrace your generalizations of an entire group of people unquestioned?”

My suggestion is that you come to the discussion with your sincere and autonomous ‘you’ and not worry about the “so many” that found belaja’s post compelling.

“Belaja, you have certainly made it a more skeptical place for other Mormon women to speak their own truths and/or be heard.”

Hershey's Moma, perhaps “assumptions of others feelings and experiences [ought to be] more clearly and consistently owned by you. For I think that is all any of us have a right to claim when we are speaking as one.”

The “skeptical place” place is an interesting way to describe your reaction. In my opinion, this skeptical place was challenging for believers long before belaja’s post.

It is fascinating to see people’s reactions from other faiths when confronted about their beliefs. The language is often identical to what I have read on this thread. Christians react with the same metaphorical punch in the gut when you suggest that the bible has not been translated correctly (imagine how the Mormon Church is perceived by other faiths as “evil”, it really is eye-opening if you can use your imagination and see what they see). For example, I find little difference between Mormons and born-again Baptist’s when it comes to their perception of what’s not safe (the skeptical places). Both groups believe they have the truth (a truth at odds with each other) and yet many from both groups come away feeling as though they are hated when their claims are challenged by others. Surely there are some people that actually hate Mormons and Baptist’s. But those that always conclude that an intellectual challenge is just motivated by hate – that to me appears needlessly defensive, and in my opinion displays a weakness in their faith. The believers that don’t get their panties in a bunch, when you tell them that there is no God, these folks have real faith in my opinion. When these believers remain feeling good and positive about you as one of God’s children (I am acknowledging their perspective) even though you have just declared your atheism, well then, you know they are honest-to-God believers and not wannabe’s (they have actualized the message of Jesus). Clearly the non-defensive believers are more enjoyable to debate with because their locus of control is clear to them (internalized) and they are free to be themselves in the face of dissent (without defensiveness). All the noise and meta-narrative around the debate is also 100% classically consistent from my tiny experience (even so, it gets tiring surrendering to that all the time). What I would enjoy influencing is people coming to understand that they are not as “peculiar” as they might think. The whole “peculiar people” idea is dangerous in my opinion. The commonality of humans is what I hear you being attracted to and I must agree - there is something hopeful in appreciating our commonality.

“I also think everyone has some searing wounds not necessarily inflicted by priesthood”

I wouldn’t generalize to “everyone” having some searing wounds. I would agree that people in the church get wounded by other means and that the priesthood is not the only perpetrator. I think I can appreciate why you prefer to relate vs. debate. Relating is safer and often more fulfilling because it brings us together and provides support.

“What I also believe is that asserting sweeping generalizations and conclusions that Mormon men and women are largely suppressing tremendous anger and fear regarding gender and power dynamics in the church is at the least "mind reading" if not projection similar to what you condemn in your post.”

I think it is a reasonable assumption that many women in the church are happy and generally not fearful or angry with regards to the organization. In my opinion Belaja’s post doesn’t contradict this reasonable assumption.

Belaja:

I am an active, believing, LDS woman. I have no qualms in agreeing that yours and others that have since posted, offer valid experiences of women in Mormonism. In responding to you, however, will I be seen as an evil perpetuator of "the machine" or a woman living a life of fear, constantly ducking and avoiding her suppressed feelings and real desires? Is there any possibility now to be accepted by the wider audience as simply a sincere and autonomous me? This especially in light of so many who seem to embrace your generalizations of an entire group of people unquestioned? Belaja, you have certainly made it a more skeptical place for other Mormon women to speak their own truths and/or be heard.

With a background in cognitive therapy , I confess, I began to critique your experiences, assumptions, explanations, and generalizations and spent some good time examining you under an admittedly limited microscope (perhaps you are editing my writing). You masterfully intertwine experience with interpretation and then generalization, sometimes so subtly it's as though a psychological exposé of Mormon Women has been offered the forum and not just to a novice reader. I know that probably sounds like a backhanded compliment but that is really what I thought others would think if they only read it once and were already biased towards it. So I started writing my response to you of what I thought were good psychological critiques based primarly on Christine Pedasky 's "Mood Over Mood." It seemed a most natural thing to do - you analyze me, I analyze you.

I have decided however that my primary goal in coming to this forum is not to debate but to relate, and listen, and try to be more open and hopefully increase my understanding and the understanding of others because I am intrigued and do value different experiences. Also, I feel that no one appreciates being "psychoanalyzed" when they first meet someone. That is in part my reasoning for reviewing your post several times - I attempted to overlook your generalized assumptions and focus on your own personal experiences. For I think that is all any of us have a right to claim when we are speaking as one...

As I reread your words, I could relate to your inner battles to live truer and closer to a more genuine self. I think that idea speaks to everyone no matter how you come at this. I also think everyone has some searing wounds not necessarily inflicted by priesthood and the like but that most can agree that at some level, defining oneself amidst competing options and pressures of varying degrees is at many points a most painful experience. It is from these human experiences I hope we can continue to relate even if others wish to debate which I don't think is irrelevant, just not my favorite cup of tea.

Though my experiences and thoughts are more closely aligned with positive posts of Mormonism offered by both RTC and JOY , I think my experience overlaps with yours in having natural questions and concerns regarding polygamy, priesthood, motherhood, career, the hereafter, etc. In my own ongoing journey to define myself these are not case closed issues and I hope this forum continues to offer new light.

Finally, I do want to reiterate that I think your critiques, which offer an important voice, would be better received and pondered if assumptions of others feelings and experiences were more clearly and consistently owned by you. What I also believe is that asserting sweeping generalizations and conclusions that Mormon men and women are largely suppressing tremendous anger and fear regarding gender and power dynamics in the church is at the least "mind reading" if not projection similar to what you condemn in your post.

Anonymous, I cannot claim that I ride much in the back of the bus...I ride in the front, which is a copout, admittedly. I bust my boldest moves right here on the web, shrouded in anonymity...

I'm not sure I understand your message entirely. I'm just reluctant to take anonymous posts at face value...i always suspect that i'm reading Ted Haggert's book of virtues...

My sister speaks correctly. I believe she reads me well.

DV-
Thank you for responding to my post. I actually appreciate more than you probably realize the honesty in your remarks. I believe that if we, as (what shall we call ourselves?) active members, could speak about these issues with the ability to acknowledge the discomfort that some of the topics may bring out, we will serve the membership and "The Church" in a much more effective way. I am committed to give it a try and I think these individuals may be just the folks?

And by the way... I rarely use a manual either. I prefer to study the scriptures, research the background and pray for the spirit. It works great.

Mayan - I expect for you to take me the rounds again... but today, you warm my heart.

Great to see you DV,
and a wise compassionate message as usual.

I am not sure RTC disagrees with you much, but we will let her speak for herself.

As far as the rest of the church members' dialog goes, and the process of addressing issues like status of women,

you suggested method and approach seems beyond reproach to me. Thanks for your wisdom and compassion, as usual.

RTC-

Your impassioned "call to arms" has brought me out of the woodwork, again. I am an active mormon. I teach gospel doctrine each week. I am a freethinker, however, so I'm not sure if your "mainstream" mormon label will fit me that well. After discussing many church related issues on other blogs and discussion boards for months I realize that I am not alone in my personal beliefs. I have found many kindred spirits who question things, just as I do. I do not teach out of the manual; neither does Dr. Dan Peterson, for he told me that. Yet he is considered a mainstream mormon. I guess if I want to be heard I have to be a mainstream mormon, otherwise I am just causing dissention. Is that really true? Do my questions about my own religion determine my credentials? Am I a mainstream iron-rod mormon if I do not question our church, but a liahona mormon or worse yet, a heretic, if I do? Am I allowed to think of issues that have no easy answer, and retain my "righteousness" and "purity" before God? Or should I put my church above God? Does my church have a right to dictate the thoughts of my consciousness? Why, isn't it true that Joseph Smith himself questioned religion, and because of that he was given the first vision? Why would it be proper for him to question religion, but not me? Does God love him more than I? I doubt it.

Many members would do well to inform themselves about the issues within their own church, before coming to a public forum such as this and expecting a docile, friendly discussion where everyone agrees about everything. The nature and history of the mormon religion is one of controversy, discussion, debate, and discovery. The early church was founded on these principles. I don't think that you would deny today's membership the same opportunity that those in Preston, England had in the early days of the church. Or what about the days of the early church in Kirtland, maybe say in 1837 and 1838. There were some dicey conversations back then, I imagine, do you think those who questioned were simply ignored and ostracized? I would simply ask you to remember than there are many types of believers in the LDS church, that are way out of the mainstream.

Many members, like myself, believe in God first, above all else. Everything flows from that belief. I do not espouse the belief that a prophet is more than a man, he is just a man. And as such he is fallible. The same with all church leaders right down to our bishops. These men commit errors and mistakes. Should their mistakes be ignored, or covered up. I don't think so, I think they should be addressed and corrected. There are many things the institutional church has done that is damaging to women's self-esteem and personal achievement. These issues should be addressed. Ignoring them, or characterizing their discussion as overly negative, merely allows them to slip away, unresolved. If anything is to be done about these things, in a systematic way, then they need to be discussed openly, before any action can take place, there must be understanding.

-DV

Oh Reverend, Reverend, so eloquently said!

Just happened to bring some thoughts to my head.

Why yes you say right, that it made such a fright, Near led one to

choke at the stories he'd fed.

Hard though some tried to gulp them down... spin - spin - spin,

just too hard to get down.

For the wheels on the bus go Up AnD dOwN... but the back of the

bUs is way more comfy...

But you already know that, no don't cha?

I note that Mayan Elephant states, from his towering soapbox, as it relates to men's privilege of serving in most senior administrative roles, "i would never tell my daughter to work for a place with such rules, i would never tell my daughter to go to a school with such conditions..... because its archaic and harmful."

so would you ever send your daughter to a catholic school? c'mon mayan, come clean...you're just pissed at the mormons. if a man-ruled institution serves your near-term needs, you're happy to participate...apparently the church failed to meet your near-term needs (a shame, to be sure), so it's your whipping boy du jour.

you can't catalyze change if you refuse to sit in the front of the bus; you can't cause a raucus if you refuse to step into the stonewall; stay in government if you want to end the war; sbanthony had to vote to go on trial.

in the meantime, don't go patronizing augusta...

Call To Arms

RTC mentioned the "Call to Arms " comment, which was mine.

Allow me to recontextualize my term for us:

Wes had just posted a passionate and sincere denunciation of Otterson. I think he had used the P word.

I knew his comment would be provocative, esp for practicing Mormons.

So I wrote:
"I am sure wes's comment will be a Call to Arms to active Mormons"

I did not mean that Wes had been trying to start a war. He was trying to honestly express his opinion, heartfelt that it was.

I was attempting to say: "i know you may be upset by what Wes said and how he said it, but let's look at the substance of his story before we all start shooting each other."

that is the challenge here: looking at substance rather than shooting each other to kill.

RTC:

i think you will be a better teacher of those students after participating here. i have learned that writing can be very cathartic, especially when writing about spiritual things.

i am not surprised by the reaction of your friends. not at all. and dont be judgmental of them or their reaction. their spiritual experience has been one that often denies debate or challenges. think about it, in all the years in the church, have you ever seen anyone "opposed" to a calling or change, by the same sign? no. because its not allowed. and here, you can find a debate where opposition cannot be queued, edited or denied. its not safe waters for spiritual things, from their perspective.

its a shame your students are not part of the call to arms you suggest. when they go on missions they will face these topics. unfortunately, they will be told in advance, at the mtc, to not debate these issues. that may be a great sales tactic, but its a loss for those kids/young adults.

if you reread the posts on here, there is much less suggestion about what the church should do or what the right choice or response should be. rather, there is a consistent reminder of facts and experiences. even in the notes of belaja and liseysmom, i dont hear a loud screech declaring that women should hold the priesthood. what i hear is something else - a cry, a plea, a tear, a prayer, a declaration, a vent and jean d'arc style demand for full disclosure, respect and honesty.

people are not demanding that the mormon church turn the joint over to women tomorrow. thats not the point. i for one, want to start with the full acknowledgment of what the experience is really like with respect for those that have those experiences. its not too radical to assume that the temple experience could be awful for any woman, so prepare them all. stop with the secrets and the ambushing.

from there much can be done. women could be given seats on every high council. you certainly dont need the priesthood for that role. women could be given their own budgets, as it was in the beginning, you dont need the priesthood for that. women could do their own temple recommend interviews, again, no priesthood necessery, its a checklist for hells sake. there is much that can be done, if the leaders care to listen.

and finally rtc, you have made the biggest leap of all, and some of it before our very eyes. that is, you show some respect for the feelings of those that have felt the pain and made hard choices and said the obvious where the consequences were huge. dont think for a second that those that posted on here did so out of vengeance. they often do it because somehow, somewhere, they are still hurting, and wish it wasnt so. and in a small way, when they can cast the anxiety and nausea aside, it feels good to share their story.

otterson is despicable to not respond and participate. dont worry. that is not a reflection of you, but of him and his continued to reliance on others to perpetuate his failing effort. i agree, he may never return after this week. to do so would tax good people like you even further, and continue to harm his professional effort of mainstreaming the church.

i have met many of the posters on here. they are amazing people with amazing lives and amazing writing skills. they are quite frankly, exactly what you may wish your students grow to be. the diversity of the posters on here would impress you. they are lawyers, phd-ers, bankers, writers, teachers, mothers, fathers, return missionaries, byu grads, computer folks, tech folks, social workers and all sorts of other stuff. they are not a band of detractors, rather they are many individuals that want to share something - reality.

and reality is a good thing.

What is Productive On Faith Dialog? Is it Fair to Mormonism?

RTC is a model dialoguer, and she honestly and humanely raises central and important issues about this Forum. Thanks again RTC.

The general purpose of this forum is to promote discussion on issues of faith amoung reasonable people.

I am in the middle of one of the world's major academic centers. I am aroung pretty reasonable dialog all the time. 98% of the stuff on this thread is mighty reasonable. Todd and Belaja have posted contributions that are world class expressions of thinking and feeling.

most of us ex mormons are not motivated by hate. We are motivated to share with others and the world our experience as members of one particular faith, and the effect that has had on our lives, our psychology, and our values.

Should active Mormons post here? Sure. the more the merrier.
Are they going to get bruised regarding the universal validity of their deeply held beliefs? Most probably.
They should not be insulted. They should be respected. But they, and all the rest of us, should be argued with, presented with different points of view.

There is a very important conversation going on in this country about how Faith Organizations affect our society, our brothers and sisters, and our children. Mormonism is a big part of that picture. It must be examined openly and critically.

Women's rights is a major issue in the world. Major religions like Mormonism are a big part of that picture, whether or not one is a Mormon.

Once again, RTC, an active mormon, raises these dialog issues most eloquently and sincerely. They are good questions. They are hard questions. The world is full of hard questions.
How women are treated is one. Women SHOULD be treated equally and fairly. In many (most?) parts of the world, they are not. It is an extremely vital problem that affects all of us.

I have not read the blog today, so I am coming in somewhat at dusk, by choice, not knowing where the conversation is at this point.

I last posted close to 48 hours ago and have not read anything since after I retired late last night. I have pondered over this experience of conversing with many of you over the weekend as this is the first time I have opened myself up to speaking on a blog ... let alone to those who would oppose and question the very thing I hold most dear to my heart - meaning that which I place my entire foundational belief system upon. Needless to say, it has been a most interesting experience, but for one I have no regrets whatsoever. It has caused me to think deeper and to articulate at my most clear and concise ability in order to be heard appropriately. I have learned a tremendous amount in only a few days from each and everyone of those who have contributed to this post, for which I thank you. I thank those who made me aware of this blog and knew that my passions would be stirred because they know my heart.

Since I last posted I have endeavored to speak with quite a few of my associates within the church and encouraged them to read and post on this blog so that more active LDS voices might be heard. I do believe I heard a "call to arms" and I believe their should be one. I felt that if they read the post they would feel as I did and be compelled to share their positive feelings of membership.

A few of them took the time and did read the blog. I was rather surprised at one very good friend of mine and her reaction to what I was involved with. Basically she feels like I am nuts! She wonders why I would want to involve myself with those (from her perspective) who are only interested in attacking and that have absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about the church or who we are or why we believe that which we do? It was also discussed that many of those who post are those who are disaffected from the church and therefore they have no interest but to do damage to the church. I myself realize that this may be and probably is true for some who post, but do not believe that it is the general rule for all who have left the church. In fact I believe that leaving the church is a very difficult decision to make and that perhaps coming to this blog and discussing some of the issues, particularly those of the topic at hand, might help in some ways... perhaps? It was very difficult for some who read the blog to see what some in the spirit of just plain evil had posted in response to an LDS post on occasion. I must admit, that can take one's breath away momentarily. Again, thank you for those of you who stood by us and proclaimed it not okay.

Do you have a right to challenge us regarding what we post? Absolutely. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints on trial here? No. As I understand the purpose for the creation of this forum, as stated on this site... a portion as follows,

About On Faith

"..how can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat? At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk, drawing on a remarkable panel of distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism. Members of the group will weigh in on a question posed at least once a week, perhaps sometimes more often, depending on the flow of the news. We encourage readers to join the conversation by commenting on what our panelists have to say, offering their own opinions and suggesting topics for future discussions.

From the nature of evil to religious reformation, from the morality of fetal stem-cell research to the history of scripture, from how to raise kids in multi-faith households to the place of gays in traditional churches -- of the asking of questions, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there shall be no end. We think that the online world, with its limitless space, offers us a unique opportunity to carry on a fruitful, intriguing, and above all constructive conversation about the things that matter most."

There are many unofficial forums already available for those who want to engage in destructive conversation regarding the Mormon Church. I feel that this is a milestone decision that the LDS Church has made to become involved with such a prestigious forum. I believe that the decision was not made lightly and that the hope would be that there would be opportunity for intelligent and congenial exchange between all parties.

My concern is that this opportunity, if only destructive, will not exist long on this forum. As it now stands, there are only a handful of what I will call "active mainstream mormons" who are posting on this blog. After speaking with even only a few associates, I honestly believe it represents many. This blog is much too contentious IF what is supposed to be happening is a search for truth. I feel confident that if the tone reflected the intent of this forum the "call to arms" of the "active mainstream mormons" would more readily be heard on this forum.

If this ON FAITH forum is to survive as intended and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is to be honestly heard by the "active mainstream members", it will be up to those who post as to the tone that will facilitate this happening. I myself would love to hear from more of them as well.

I have honestly enjoyed conversing with many of you. I must admit... you have made me work, but I feel an affinity for you because of it. And even though we are not going to change our belief systems as a result... I do believe one or two of us have earned each others respect and gained wisdom in this process. Is not this an accomplishment to celebrate?

To understanding...

I was born and raised in the Mormon church, by parents whe were born and raised in the church and sealed together in the temple. I married a non-LDS man over 13 years ago. About four years ago, I took the temple preparation class at the urging of my bishop, and I was so excited to be able to finally take out my endowment and perform this special ordinance that is (according to LDS teachings) necessary for my eternal salvation. When it came time for my interview with the bishop for my temple recommend, he asked that I bring my non-member husband.

I assumed this was because my bishop was also my home teacher and my good friend. I assumed he wanted my husband there because he wanted to explain to him more about the temple and the endowment - sort of a teaching opportunity.

Instead, I was completely blindsided by my bishop telling me that in order for me to be allowed by the church to attend the temple to take out my endowment, I'd need my non-member husband's permission in writing first. I was shocked, and then I was even more shocked when he refused to give permission. As I sat there sobbing, my bishop explained to me that the church requires this because they have no interest in "breaking up family harmony."

Yet, upon closer evaluation, I discovered the church has no written permission requirement for Mormon men married to non-member women. So much for the family harmony theory.

This is sexist in the extreme. It basically tells us the church supports the idea that a non-member husband has more control over his wife's spiritual journey choices than she does as a lifelong member. And it's only because he's a man and she's a woman. And a woman is powerless to change this, since only MEN have the ability to "receive revelation" about how the church will be run, because they have the "proper priesthood authority from God to act in his name," and we as women do not.

Single women are also discouraged from taking out their endowment unless they are about to be married (already engaged to a member) or about to go on a mission. Any single woman trying to take out her endowment outside of these two experiences must first get the permission of her bishop, who will decide if she's going to be able to do so or not. If he feels she's not old enough or ready, or if she has the possibility of being married soon, he can refuse to allow her to take out her endowment. I found this on the LDS.org website, from a lesson taught in Young Womens:

"Can a married female member go to the temple for her own endowment without her husband? Can a single female member receive her own endowment?

A wife whose husband is not endowed may be given a recommend to receive her own endowment if she is worthy and the bishop receives the written consent of the husband. The bishop and stake president should be satisfied that the responsibility the woman assumes with the endowment will not impair the harmony of her marriage.

An unmarried member may receive her own endowment if she is worthy and sufficiently mature to understand and keep the covenants made in the temple. Single members who desire to receive the endowment should counsel with their bishop and stake president.

Single women may go to the temple for their own endowments if they are preparing for a mission." (34825, YW 3, Learning about Family History and Temple Work, 17: Preparing to Attend the Temple, Objective, 60)

Note how A MAN gets to decide if THE UNMARRIED WOMAN is "worthy and sufficiently mature to understand"...she has no way of officially deciding this for herself. Can any LDS man here actually tell me if the rule was reversed he'd accept this sexist treatment (that he will never receive in the LDS church)? I am sure there's no man here who would accept such treatment, yet we as women in the church have no choice but to accept it or walk away.

I'd bet money that the women on this comment thread who have stated perfect contentment with the way the church treats women had no prior clue that Mormon women have to get permission in writing from their non-member husbands to attend the temple. I'd be curious to see how members defend this sexist stipulation.

I agree fully with everything that was stated here by Belaja, Todd O., Mayan Elephant, and Liseysmom. The church does not uphold women as equals. The sexist aspects of the church are overwhelmingly obvious, and the need for change is huge.

Why Debate Mormon Church Here...

Jordan asks.

Jordon, think this through.

What is Mr Otterson's title on this column.? Hint: it is listed at the top:
Director of media relations for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You expect the world to believe that the Director of Media Relations does not want his views to reflect well on the church that pays his salary? Or that he is writing to earn his salary?

The question of the day is:
How has religion treated women over the centuries? Well or badly?

Mr Otterson explicitly and implicitly says:
Feminine qualities are wonderful. Jesus taught them.
We mormons follow Jesus. So we honor women in our church, and want everyone to be more like them.

This Public Fourm is here to examine such claims. This one is not just a little wrong. It is 180 degrees at variance with the church practices.

One of the ways Religions, including Mormons, have treated women very badly has been to lie to them about their true position: to say, you are just as important as men.

And we admire your meekness in accepting this lie.

That is why we are all addressing EXACTLY the question of the hour, and examining how MOrmon Church Actual practice matches (or does not match) with the statements of their director of Media Relatikons.

Jordan,

You jest, no? Otterson is the spokesMAN for the LDS Church. The topic of the On Faith bloggers this week is how women have fared in religion. Otterson chose to post a bland platitude about how moved he is by the story of a woman being the first to see Jesus resurrected, rather than address the topic at hand directly. What Mormons think about women may be irrelevant to you but it is obviously relevant to many. And Otterson himself has failed to make even a peep since the OP. If he is concerned about the conversation getting derailed, certainly he could speak up, don't you think?

jordan,

you are a bit late to this one.

the question posed was how women have fared in the worlds religions. the answer by otterson, as a pr director for the mormon church was: "Indeed, it seems that such women, who choose to accept a religious life, draw great strength and value from it." with that, he added his little new testament pieces.

the discussion from there was opened up to all people to discuss how women have fared in the worlds religions. it just so happens, that we have been discussing how women have fared in the mormon religion. along with that, came a lot of color on the origins and current practices within mormonism.

seems to me that it is straight down the fairway for the question at hand. right?

I do not understand how this has become such a heated debate about the LDS Church. It seemed to me a post about one man's view on women as inspired by the New Testament, not an LDS commentary on women. Thus, what other LDS say or do not say about women is irrelevant.

yo jd1,

feel free to leave. but again, you got it wrong.

there was recently an article in the ensign about a mormon woman who visited her lesbian daughter. the point of it was that this woman was embarrassed by her daughters lifestyle, she apologized to the daughters mormon congregation and how sad, but hopeful, she was for her daughter to come back to the fold.

not only did she cry about it, but she even wrote the story for the ensign. given the editing and embellishing history of the ensign, we have no clue how close it is to reality.

so, the point is not whether this woman is allowed to be sad, its the why of it all? because her daugher is gay? as if thats a choice on either the mothers part and arguably whether or not its a choice for the daughter. who cares. the mother should be welcome and encouraged to have a meaningful relationship without being so judgmental of her own adult child. and, that judgmental attitude comes directly, yes, DIRECTLY, from michael otterson with help from his band of merrymen. otterson, in this case, is not embracing womanhood or women, quite the contrary, he encourages the very separation that is causing the mother and child to seperate further.

so, sadness is ok. if its for the right reasons. and sadness is ok, if you agree to endure for the reasons pointed out by president mcgruff.

I can't help it...

You haven't addressed the extraneous variables I outlined, and these conclusions are not just mine, I quoted a lit review verbatim- the link is provided.

Like most studies concerning humans, there is room for doubt concerning the meaning of the data, the measurement instruments are not precise.

I provided numerous studies, supported by objective and subjective measures e.g. hospitalization, suicide.

There is always a possibility of extraneous variables in objective measure such as prozak use and self reported measures.

You are right; the church does have some boundaries for regulating individuals who are perceived to threaten the organization. There have been some high profile cases of excommunication.

But, I think your assertion that in Mormon culture it is "unacceptable to admit personal inadequacies" is a gross overstatement. There are various cultural currents in Mormonism and to make such a sweeping statement is to invoke widespread, inaccurate prejudices.

I hear about my brothers and sisters inadequacies all the time during church talks, testimony meetings, Sunday school etc.

Not to deny perfectionism as an element at work, but come on! One element in a culture cannot be isolated and applied uniformly throughout the subjective experience of its adherents. There is also precedent for admitting one's own weaknesses in the church's emphasis on humility. I know many sloppy, weak, sometimes happy, sometimes stressed, sometimes sad, for the most part trying, Latter Day Saints. They are not afraid to admit any of it!

In the survey on happiness I cited in my first treatment of this issue, women who reported happiness also were slightly bellow the average on self esteem. The researcher concluded that the emphasis on humility made respondents less likely to respond positively to questions like “I do things better than most people”.

Not willing to admit inadequacies?

There is something that does not add up.

If women are not willing to admit to depression in a confidential survey, why would they admit it to a doctor? They are both equally confidential and unlikely to result in the kind of rejection you wrongly imply would occur.

You point out a possible extraneous variable for the numerous surveys I provide, and you ignore the obvious one for the Prozac data- the likelihood of seeing a doctor for depression due to socio-economic status, and the failure to self medicate through alcohol consumption.

That is natural, as it does not support your assumption about Mormon culture.

We may still call the data inconclusive. Though the numerous data we have seems to be pointing in a general direction.

You think the few times people were "punished for their opinions" (which largely had to do with publications and forming a following) has any bearing on willingness to report depression? Even if people are isolated for, say, questioning the Joseph Smith story, that has nothing whatever to do with depression.

What Mormonism do you speak of?

Is anyone punished for admitting sadness? Is crying over a loss during testimony meeting a sin? Is admitting a battle with depression grounds for exclusion? That is not the Latter Day Saint community I am familiar with.

It is one thing to point out isolated cases and criticize them, but to make sweeping generalizations based on isolated cases is, I think, not only invalid, it is sad.

It makes me sad because it is acceptable to do something like this to the Latter Day Saint community, where it is not for the majority of others.

I hope no one's buying these generalizations. (though, sadly, I know many of you are).

Now I am going to try my best to leave this discussion.

Desperate Tactics by Mormon Apologists.

Mormon Apologists have a quiver of tactics to attach those who have criticisms of their religion. They are all odious, and often just plain ridiculous.

Recent example.
apologist says:
"I am shocked to see all the people SPEWING HATE against us poor Mormons."

Then you read Yockel's response to John d above,
and you should be stunned by
his clearly penetrating intelligence.
his measured tone.
his civility while not mincing words,

and you have to ask
do the apologists not realize how transparent and ridiculous their tactics are.

As someone, I believe Todd, noted: this is customary behavior for people in closed social systems (like cults).

My brother is a Mormon. I don't hate him. 600 of my relatives are mormons. i don't hate one of them.

Otterson Hypocrasy in Mormon Women Column

Todd writes:
I think that what many of us outsiders and former members are responding to is the profound irony of a representative of the LDS Church pointing out this sexism. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth to read the spokesman of the Mormon institution making such an anti-sexist critique, all the while representing an oppressive patriarchy that perpetrates the very sexism he decries. It's almost too much to bear.

As a woman, let me underscore Todd's point.

What Otterson's essential messge is:

Jesus wanted us to be feminine. We love our Mormon women, we try to be more like them. We are very nice to them.

AT the same time, rhe underlying reality is
Formal Discrimination. Under church rules a woman can not be church President or hold the priesthood, as blacks used not to be able. It was discrimination with Blacks, it is discrimination now with women.

And as Belaja, and the woman who was shocked when her temple marriage revealed the full extent of her submissive role, show most eloquently, the day to day lives reflect the benign and not so benign inequality of the culture.

Again, it is the hypocrasy of Otterson's professions of
Respect for Women, who are happily "separate but equal"
and
Respect for Truth

that is the sin here.
I fully understand why it drives Todd crazy.

John D. the first,

Though it is frustrating that you talk past the issues that my post has raised, I am sorry to say that I am not surprised. Denial is what social psychology predicts when members of a closed organization confront troubling evidence.

1. The Beck Depression inventory is a survey that relies on respondents to self-report the state of their feelings. As such, the Beck Depression inventory relies on the openness of the patients. This method is subject to the standard problems of surveys.

2. Surveys such as the Beck Depression inventory are routinely compromised by respondents that have to satisfy their need to project desirable images of themselves. Respondents might feel, for example, that they need to satisfy their group's image or please interviewers. These effects are universally accepted in the social sciences.

3. Admitting personal inadequacies is a challenge for everyone. Mormon theology emphasizes the importance of perfection, a marker of closed organizations. In closed organizations such as Mormonism, it is unacceptable to admit personal inadequcies.

4. There is a living tradition in Mormonism to punish people for their opinions. Formally, the punishment is excommunication, informally social isolation. Therefore one would expect that Mormons will be more guarded when sharing their opinions than non-Mormons.

Conclusion: If one applies a survey to identify personal issues among Mormons, social scientists will predict that depression will be underreported to a greater degree than among the general population.

Finally, the data of anti-depressant consumption in Utah does not contradict the expectation that Mormons will underreport depression. It does pose considerable problems for your hypotesis, however, that Mormons are just as happy as the average American.

"Mayan pointed out that she recieved ridicule and rejection from her freinds as a result of her Marriage, she was unable to participate in the same activities as before. That to me, sounds like more than a ceremony, no sex needed."

i do not know what this means. the sex debate is meaningful if you consider having sex, with a spouse, wrong. or, if you consider witholding sex, from a spouse, wholesome.

they were married. they are supposed to have sex according to the standards of their time. so intercourse is really not an issue.

she was robbed of activities she wanted, loved and missed. being robbed and denied is not a feminine quality. she was victimized. and its ridiculous to consider her any less of a victim if she did or did not have sex with smith.

regarding bushman, he wrote a 700+ page book about joseph smith, and as far as i know, there is no mention of helen mar kimball in that book.

also, bushman makes it very clear in the beginning of his book, that his is a faithful history of smith. he even contends that it is a lack of faith on the part of detractors that would fail to appreciate the prophetic calling and history of smith. im sure that made columbia proud.

Thunderchops:

I played no anti-card, from what I am aware. But yes there are positives and negatives in church history.

It is not accusing anyone of anti-anything to point out that most here are primarily pointing out negatives, rather than attempting to show a full picture.

"He speaks of forming kinship bonds, but when a 14 year old bride writes in her journal that she would not have married Joseph Smith if she knew it was to be "anything more than a ceremony", how is one supposed to read into that?"

Obviously Todd Compton, not an apologist, thought there was more one could read into that statement by Helen Mar (see his statement I quote).

Mayan pointed out that she recieved ridicule and rejection from her freinds as a result of her Marriage, she was unable to participate in the same activities as before. That to me, sounds like more than a ceremony, no sex needed.

Anyways, I find this forum way too addicting. I must bid you all farewell for now (though I probably will not be able to for good).

John D. The First wrote: " I know of only two cases where men returned from missions to find their wives married to a church leader. Do you have any more you could educate me on? What about “chased out of the church”? I don’t know of any such cases. Perhaps you could educate me. If it is true I am sure there is someone here who knows."

I am currently at the office and do not have all of my resources at hand, but would be more than happy to follow up with examples of men having their wives taken from them after an initial refusal.

In regards to being chased out of the church there are journal entries that detail what men who were not in leadership positions had to contend with if they did not toe the party line when it came to affairs of polygyny. One such example that stands out in my mind is the case of Bishop Snow of Manti. Bishop Snow requested a member's fiancee for his own. When the young man refused and voiced his displeasure Snow invited the young man to a meeting where he was summarily castrated. Brigham Young got wind of this and did not object. That is the mindset church leaders had towards dissidents and the attitudes that were copped when they did not get what they desired. If this mindset was not pervasive the would not have been feared in their day.

In regards to even-handed research I am more than familiar with it. I studied my way out of the church through the writings of those that were present and active during the early days of the church. I read official material. I was told to ignore that which flew directly in the face of modern teachings, and I simply couldn't compartmentalize. It's either all true, or it's not. Gordon Hinckley stated as much himself. The first vision itself has a litany of logical problems in respect to participants and personages seen, the time it occurred, the message received, and how town-people reacted to it. The catalyzing event that brought about the start of the faith itself is not without revisionist history. Inconsistency and re-writing history to be friendlier towards the church's message at any given piont in time has been par for the course ever since.

Bushman has a habit of omitting facts that would paint a darker worldview than the one he wishes to portray. I do not trust his work to be even-handed. He speaks of forming kinship bonds, but when a 14 year old bride writes in her journal that she would not have married Joseph Smith if she knew it was to be "anything more than a ceremony", how is one supposed to read into that?

If there was no sex involved, what is my wife supposed to make of her ancestor's journal entries (Louisa Beaman) that detail her marriage to Smith beneath a tree in town square, with her dressed as a man to avoid any attention, and their night spent in the home of Joseph Bates Noble consumating the marriage?

As I have stated earlier, LDS historians have the luxury of omitting warts and skewing past events to fit their own world view as they tend to not submit their work for peer review (FARMS is a perfect example). Historians that make a living researching and writing verifiable historic accounts have to answer to the scientific community and would be ridden out of town if they pushed many of the scenarios some pro-LDS historians cultivate.

I am not anti. I am not pro. I am matter of fact. I have no difficulty differentiating between the members and the church. Please do not play that card with me. I also have no difficulty differentiating between good and bad deeds performed by members and the church organization.

The problem is, that the church even refuses to admit to any past deeds that negatively impacted many lives in very real ways. They seemingly opt to create scenarios that invoke joy-joy feelings out of whole cloth in place of verifiable fact and occurances.

The cases of marriages seem much worse if you assume sexual relations were involved. Let me just paste here a post a made in previous thread. With regards to Joseph's sealing to Helen Mar Kimball I said:

"There is no evidence sexual relations were involved in this marriage.

Bushman pointed out that forging kin relations was a large dimension of and motivation for Joseph's polygny. Creating an Eternal kin link to Heber C. Kimball was likely the motivation for Joseph's sealing to Heber's daughter.

Some have concluded from UCLA historian Todd Compton's work that Joseph's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball was a sexual relationship. The Tanners in particular make this charge.

In response to them, Compton has said,

"The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/tanners.html

Something else he says in this response is relevant to the discussion:

"Mormon history is filled with wonderful people who have performed authentically Christlike actions. There are many stories of heroism and sacrifice. While some church leaders have been authoritarian and controlling, others have been warm and inclusive. Anyone who continually hammers on only the negative is guilty of censorship and cover-up, just as is the person who censors out the negative. Both write unrealistic and unbelievable history. Furthermore, the person who includes only the negative can be guilty of sensationalism and the low moral atmosphere of yellow journalism."

Latter marriages to 14 year old girls also largely did not include sexual relations until they were older.

Thundercops:

First I must point out that the first statement was not me, it was another John D.

Concerning your historical account: You make statements like "often times Upon refusal these Saints were often-times chased out of the church or sent on missions abroad only to return home to find their wife married to a church authority." as if these events were common place. I know of only two cases where men returned from missions to find their wives married to a church leader. Do you have any more you could educate me on? There may be a few more, but I doubt it was common practice. What about “chased out of the church”? I don’t know of any such cases. Perhaps you could educate me. If it is true I am sure there is someone here who knows.

Second point:

Everything I have seen posted here is verifiable through the accounts of those that lived during the formation of the church as well as statistical data, personal experience in the church, and the writings of noted non-LDS historians.

I think many academics would disagree with you. Like any forum like this, you cannot trust all that is written here. Anyone who wants to know the truth about these matters ought to go to credible sources and try to get a picture of Mormon history and culture that includes both the positive and the negative. Many of these "facts" have primarily included information that supports the faith of the detractor position.

The claim for high rates of female depression in the LDS fail to mention the various studies which challenge this claim.

Wikipedia, for the most part, offers some of the best, balanced information on LDS issues I have seen.

John D wrote : "Wives were never taken from other men. Yes, 14 year olds might have been married, but it was common for 14 year olds to be married in the 1800s."

Both of these claims are false. There are various journal accounts of early Saints being asked to give up their wives to church leaders. Upon refusal these Saints were often-times chased out of the church or sent on missions abroad only to return home to find their wife married to a church authority.

The median age for marriage in the mid to late 1800's was 19-21 years old.

Tom wrote : ""All this spewing of hate is so unfortunate."

Everything I have seen posted here is verifiable through the accounts of those that lived during the formation of the church as well as statistical data, personal experience in the church, and the writings of noted non-LDS historians.

Unlike LDS historians, those that make a living in the academic field without the church's endorsement are bound to be called on the carpet for historical errors and fallacies. They tell the truth because their livlihood depends on it. On the other hand you have church authorities extolling members to only tell faith-promoting and homogenized historical accounts that bear little to no relation to what occurred in real life.

When one considers logic and factual and verifiable historical accounts to be a threat to their worldview, perhaps it's time they took a step back and re-evaluated just where they stand in life and who they stand with.

I do not see it as an apology, it just points to the reality of Mormon experience.

The conclusions you draw from the so called objective data is not warranted by the evidence. As I meantioned earlier, there are various extraneous variables that account for prozack consumption in Utah, socio-economic status, and failure to self medicate through alcohol consumption. The Beck Depression inventory is highly recognized for its validity in measuring depression, you might want to explain it away, but perhaps you are mistaken in your assumptions about Mormon experience; you wouldn't be the first. I know many Mormon women who are offended by what is projected onto them by those with bad experiences. By the way, the lit review has various what you call "objective measures"--it addresses suicide, and it takes into account rates of hospitilization.

I was raised in an active LDS home. I was raised to believe I was a daughter of God. I was raised to believe that Christ loved women just as much as men. That my potential was just as great. That I would one day be an equal partner to my husband.

Imagine my shock when I attended the temple, the pinnacle of my spiritual journey, and discovered that as a woman, I was and would always be second. Not equal.

I had been taught my whole life that each of us was punished for our own sins. That we did not believe in original sin. Except that doesn't apply to women - we are all subject to our husband's rule because of Eve's transgression.

I had been taught my whole life that I would make it to the highest glory based on my actions and my decisions and my faith. Except that doesn't apply to women - we have to be called forth by our husbands by our secret new names. I have to tell him mine, yet he is prohibited from telling me his. I had to veil my face when praying, while men did not.

I had been taught that marriage was equal. Except that doesn't apply either. When we were sealed, I was given to my husband and he received me. No promise to love or to cherish or to respect. I gave myself and he took me.

So female qualities may be what Jesus taught. And you can sit and site studies all day that say LDS women are just as happy as other women. And Gordon B. Hinckley can say that LDS women are fine, they aren't complaining - ask them.

Well, ask me. I was complaining. I was not happy. And I was told to be more humble and stop complaining and be happy.

Despite all the lip service women are given in the Mormon church, they have no real authority, no power to change, no feminine divine role model to look up to, and a constant reminder that no matter what, they are and will always be a step below men.

And if we complain, we are told the fault is within us - we are proud and sinful.

John D,

You might have noticed that the studies that you are invoking are relying on subjective methods. They measure what people report to survey organizations and mental health professionals.

It is not surprising that members of a religion where social control is tight and where people have been punished for their words would report more positively about themselves than people who are not subject to these pressures.

The same reason contributes to lower divorce rates in the most Mormon counties. An increase in Mormon population may only mean that the social costs to divorce increase. Notice, lower divorce rates are also compatible with female suppression. Women with less freedom are less likely to leave an unhappy marriage.

Objective indicators, however, such as suicide data and the consumption of psychopharmaca indicate that denial plays a role when Mormons report that they are happy.

Belaja's report may be anecdotal. However, her report sheds light on the objective data that is available. Your account, on the other hand, is incompatible with the suicide and medication data.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to dismiss her experience, which is more plausible than the apologia that you are advancing.

It is unfortunate that the quality of the data is not better. That, however, is in the hands of the LDS Church. It controls key data, which leaves me to wonder why it doesn't facilitate research that could answer those questions.

Every once in a while a pair of Mormon missionaries finds their way into the neighborhood.....not a small feat....we live on a mountain in a valley. Maybe it's because ours is the only neighborhood flat enough to walk thru.

As I've talked to them, I've found them naive, extremely sensitive when questioned on particulars of their faith (I've read da book.....) and willing to parse any argument to make sure it proves their version of "the truth".

And, they always seem just a bit lost....

I keep asking them why there are no female missionaries. Never get a straight answer.

Ladies....does anyone else find it particularly annoying that it's been mainly male religious "professionals" responding to this question?

Feels a bit "patronizing", in a defensive kind of way....sort of like Stephen Colbert's "black friend".

Hello everyone,

Before I begin, I want to state that I am going to suspend the question of truth or falsehood with regards to my religion, as must often be done for the sake of discussion. One need only look to the endless debates on this topic in religious studies to know they are often futile and tiring. The question I think relevant to this discussion: is the behavior of the LDS church with regards to women immoral, or moral?

Let me first state clearly my position, lest James think I am claiming that “ignorance is bliss”: To believe in Mormonism is to know something from God, to reject it is to be ignorant concerning its true nature. This is not the point of this thread and we actually discussed this question quite extensively in the last thread. I would prefer just to agree to disagree on this point.

I should now very much like to address the words of our philosopher and sociologist. I liked the points of the philosopher because he illustrated well the dynamic I see at work here: basically a yelling match by detractors of “my values are better than your values!”; this yelling match consists of nothing more than anecdotes, stating the position of secular humanism and attempting to show how Mormonism does not match, and thereby proclaiming it “wrong.” Much like missionaries might proclaim certain traditional African spirit possession ceremonies “of the devil” if they do not match up with their definition of spirituality.

It was very good of the philosopher to point out this dynamic, because it initiated a moral critique of Mormonism by the sociologist that I think was superior to any prior.

This critique was dependant on the moral axiom of not Kant, but Mill: That which results in the greatest cumulative happiness is of the greatest moral worth and, conversely, that which results in the greatest unhappiness is of the least moral worth. His strongest point is, however, contradicted by the facts.

His first point:

He gave vivid descriptions of the socialization of Mormon women (which isn’t necessarily factual) to back up his claim that this socialization prevented “self actualization.” This was not his most powerful claim; it essentially returned to the shouting match. What constitutes self actualization is culturally defined. To say your culture does not provide it, is the same as saying “My culture’s self actualization is better