[university]

I’m late in the game but read the replies and just wanted to add this thought:

I agree with much of what most of you have said. I still believe that Ordain Woman forced the church (and it’s membership) to reflect more deeply on the role of women in the church by means of being so controversial and bringing in scrutiny from the media. Although, I do think some of you might agree with that. I think some of you are coming from the perspective that too much credit is given to OW. Where I am, and in my circles, they get none–it’s still the same line about the Church not being influenced by protests at all. I get this reaction from TBM and non-mormons alike. However, It’s plain as day to me that OW has caused some movement (as well as major defensiveness) from the Church. They’ve forced some level of introspection. They’ve brought the conversation into the limelight.

In a way, OW has alienated a lot of people. But that’s kind of the point with groups like this. It makes the less “extreme” views more tolerable. And I don’t believe these kinds of conversations would have happened without OW calling attention to women’s issues.

However, with that said, when it comes to OW, it’s kind of a chicken or the egg situation for me. I think with the way women are advancing in American society, in which we are coming closer to equality and respect in the workplace, and succeed quite well in higher education, contrasted with the way the Church talks about and views women, there was bound to be something like this. And it’s been long enough since the September Six for there need to be a release.

[university]

Unknown wrote:

FaithfulSkeptic wrote:

Can anyone post the photo or a link to it?

Seriously, what was so bad about it?

I think that’s the point. AP is surprised and shocked by the reaction.

I’ve had a similar experience when I was going through an Ensign Magazine and looked at the photos of the 70.

It was a moment when I had to take a step back, calm down, and reflect on what was happening. It helped me come to a greater self-awareness of the frustrations I was having with the Church. Amateurparent, you’re probably aware of some of the reasons why you felt the way you did.

I don’t think it’s necessarily bad. I think it might help to try and humanize these three by whatever way you choose. Perhaps do something to help you try to help you see them as individuals, not as the administrative face of the Church. I don’t know how, but just a thought.

[university]

When I was young, I was taught in class that there is an “order” of keeping the commandments:

1. Doing it because you’re afraid of being punished by God if you don’t.

2. Doing it because you love God.

3. Doing it because you want to.

Then it was clarified that we work through these, with the goal of making it into the final level.

I no longer believe in following everything the Church says I should, but I would like to think that when it comes to the major commandments, the ones at the core of the Gospel, I’m on level 3. And in spite of how hard of a journey this faith crisis has been, I’m pretty proud of that :thumbup:

[university]

Roy wrote:

There are individuals that have been excommunicated for political or doctrinal reasons (disagreements over doctrine) that have posthumously had all their blessings restored. If they really deserved excommunication then what changed? Funny what a difference a decade (or a century) of changing perspectives can make. Yesterday’s heresy can be today’s orthodoxy and vice versa.

I am reminded of a German member who was excommunicated for going against the Nazi’s during Hitler’s Era. I don’t remember the details, but I remember being very impressed with the man when I learned of his story. The person who told me what had happened was TBM and was verbally trying to find a way to justify the Church’s actions in excommunicating him, I was just impressed with his courage.

[university]

I really appreciate your thoughts on this forum, Mom3 and AP, you’ve helped me a lot, but I think I respectfully disagree about OW. I hope you’ll show restraint with me as well. Let me say I’m not a member of it or anything like that. But I think their influence on what’s happened in the Church has actually been understated, at least in my circles.

I am reminded of a feed on my social media not so long ago. It was the story that broke the news that the Church had added a few women to some upper leadership committees. I was floored that these committees already didn’t have any female representation at all, but I digress. The point is, I remember reading the comments on the news story from faithful TBM’s celebrating the appointment. They were excited to see women added. However, time and time again, I read something along the lines of, “I’m so grateful that the Lord does things on his own time. This proves that the Lord is not influenced by protests or the aggravations of groups.” I remember thinking to myself, “Thou Doth Protest too much.” Nearly every-other comment had some passive-aggressive, non-specific mention of OW.

I absolutely agree in some ways there has been a retrenchment reaction to OW. However, I also believe that these conversations that you, Mom3, mentioned us needing, have been happening. They’ve been happening for years. With no change or impact. These conversations have fallen on deaf years, if fallen on any ears in the church leadership at all. Before OW, I didn’t see any movement in regards to giving women more influence in the Church or correcting some of our more overt sexist policies. From my perspective, it was only getting worse.

We have a hierarchal church system that rewards yes-men and yes-women. This makes it very hard to change anything from the ground at all, especially if it’s about issues that the leaders of the Church don’t see or are personally affected by (as is the case with women’s roles in the Church). I honestly do believe that much of the movement we’ve seen in regards to women’s roles recently (as minimal as it’s been) is a direct response to OW. It took external pressure (in the form of OW), bringing in the media and scrutiny of ‘the outside world’ for the Church to be put in a defensive position about its treatment of women, and thus, quietly correct some of its “policies” while roaring from the pulpit that it will not change its doctrine. Naturally, there’s been a lot of retrenchment. But some things-that are the most overtly sexist and have no direct tie to Ordination—have been corrected a bit. The Church will swear up and down that this is not a reaction to OW. To me, it feels like an obvious reaction. Also, with all this uproar, more people have come out of the woodwork to talk about smaller issues about sexism in the church that isn’t doctrinal and can be “fixed” without going directly against Church Leadership. It also sounds less “apostate-like” when you’ve got OW to compare it to. So I think OW has helped to create more of these conversations, while at the same time, causing some retrenchment.

Of course, I come from a YSA Ward perspective, and I think YSA Wards are often quite different from traditional wards. They tend to be more liberal and I honestly do think YSA Wards are reflective of the future membership of the Church.

With that said, I don’t think OW will have a major impact on the advancement of women’s roles in the Church. I’m reminded of the Suffrage movement of American and English women as they attempted to secure the vote for women. I specifically think back to women in England. They fought for decades for the right to vote. They organized peaceful protests, went to prison, lost their jobs, lost their husbands and children, and to no avail. Women lived their whole lives doing everything they could to try and secure the right to vote and then died before any traction could be made. Leadership simply refused to move. I honestly see a lot of similarities. Some women said that they sympathized but didn’t see the need for the vote—they wanted more protections in the workplace from sexual assault, etc. Then some of the suffragists became radicalized in England, dividing the movement between suffragists and sufferagettes. Sufferagettes bombed buildings. Resorting to violence—anything to get the attention of the men in power. It still didn’t work.

I argue that it took WWI—when most of the men were gone and women had to step up to take their leadership roles—that women were able to secure the right to vote and the rights of women improved significantly in England. Sometimes I think God works in mysterious ways. Maybe this phenomenon of women outnumbering men in the church—and likely to continue to outnumber men in larger numbers, will bring some change. The fact that we can anticipate a larger generation of bright, single, adult women who are active participants in the church as a bigger percentage of church participants than ever before might help make some traction about the role of women in the church. You can only tell a congregation that a women’s role is “motherhood” so many times when a sizable portion of it is made up of single women and there aren’t enough men to fill all the callings traditionally reserved for men. But I suppose that’s wishful thinking on my part.

[university]

amateurparent wrote:

First things first. Recognize that your parents are more durable than you think. Even your mom.

Try telling her that you are trying to figure out what you want in life. You don’t plan to make any stupid or rash choices, but you need to figure out your path for your life.. Marriage isn’t what feels right to pursue right now. You are trying to figure out where and what you are being led to.

Thanks, AP. I think it is wise advice for me to give my mom more credit for her strength than I have. It’s just her. She’s been through some awful things. Unfortunately, this puts more pressure on me because I feel like I’m that one more, devastating trial for her. But she has survived a lot in the past and is still battling horrible trials today. I know I should be hopeful that she can endure this as well.

Thanks for the advice about marriage and conveying that it doesn’t feel right to pursue right now…that’s been what I’ve been telling her for a few years now. 😆 Maybe she can hold off on pressing me for a little while longer…

mom3 wrote:

Ann posted a book called Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis, reading it might be good for both sides of your family.

You might check out Kristy Money’s article in Mormon Transitions, it gives some suggestions on how to tell a loved one about your experience.

Another thought is Patrick Mason http://www.ldsliving.com/Surviving-a-Faith-Crisis-with-the-Help-of-Church-Members/s/80563” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.ldsliving.com/Surviving-a-Faith-Crisis-with-the-Help-of-Church-Members/s/80563

Thank you for these recommendations! I checked out Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis and was considering purchasing it for myself. Maybe I’ll hand it off to her if the time feels right.

I just wish I could find a community for her. She’s alone and isolated and with the way the church is pushing families so hard lately, it worries me.

[university]

Unknown wrote:

I guess I just don’t get why they would want to go to an all males meeting in the first place. Is there actually anything wrong with splitting up men and women from time to time?

Hi Unknown :wave:

I could say a lot of things in response to your post but I think I’ll just say this: Women at the time of the first demonstration were completely banned from entering the Priesthood Session. I believe this is still the case.

Men both today and then are not only allowed to attend the Relief Society’s Session–they can enter with their wives, daughters, or by themselves—but some even “preside” over it and take an active role in speaking in it. Even though it’s the “General Women”s Session” men still have a very powerful presence and influence in the meeting. Beyond this, the attendance policies are different. A husband wants to come see his wife speak? No problem. A wife wants to come see her husband speak? No, she’s not allowed. She’s a woman. And women aren’t allowed at the Priesthood Session.

Also: at the time of the first demonstration, it was thought by most (or some, depending on who you ask) members that the women’s session wasn’t even official part of conference—that debate was starting. Elder Uchtdorf then referred to it as the first session of conference and then there was this big confusion about if the Women’s Session was the first session of conference.

Also interesting to note that while church leaders have clarified that men are not the Priesthood but hold the priesthood, and that women can have access to Priesthood Power, the men’s session is not referred to as the “General Men’s” Session like how the women’s session is. It is referred to as the “Priesthood Session.”

And Ordain Women was pushing for female ordination.

You can have your own opinions and beliefs about why things are the way things are in this church in regards to gender roles, but do you now see why to some this session is representative of gender inequality and power discrepancies between the genders? And why the supporters of Ordain Women would be compelled to try and attend it?

[university]

For me, ideally, the Church would start acting like the global church it claims to be and stop being so obsessively involved in Utah/American politics. For a church that claims to be a church for all of God’s children, it’s rhetoric is disproportionately influenced by American culture and politics. I hope as the Church goes through the growing pains of being a minority global religion but a majority religion in Utah (where its headquarters are located), it will develop more maturity and speak from a more global perspective.

I don’t think that will happen anytime soon–especially with church leadership unquestioningly coming from a common demographic.

Although, with that said, when a Presidential candidate who is leading in the polls for his party calls for banning an entire religious group from entering the country, that’s something I think every church should have the prerogative to condemn. As things stand with the Church frequently getting involved in matters of Utah politics and occasionally national politics, I’m happy when they make statements like this that truly, in my opinion, are in line with Christ’s view. I also appreciated when they made a statement about helping refugees. I do know people whose hearts were softened after the Church published a stance about helping refugees.

Naturally, being a democrat, it’s nice when the Church makes statements that are more in line with that side of the aisle…it pokes some holes in the narrative of a lot of die-hard Republicans I know who are convinced, that despite the Church saying you can belong to any party, the liberals really are ideologically aligned with the devil.

[university]

Welcome to the site!

[university]

Mormonism does have a lot of successes. To name just one: compared to other Christian denominations in the United States, Mormon teenagers tend to abstain from sex longer, even though Evangelical Christians teach very similar stances about pre-marital sex, and in some cases, are even more extreme in the dogma.

I saw data the other day that indicated Christians were more likely to have abortions than Atheists (gasp!) but it didn’t include Mormons with the Christian category. Mormons were even lower in likelihood (this is all supposing the numbers are accurate).

However, in reality, we’re just a tiny, tiny religious group. Compare Mormonism to the vast religion of Islam–ever growing and inspiring religious devotion. We’re a little blip on the radar compared to Roman Catholicism. In my experience, Utah Mormons often tend to overgeneralize Catholics as not being as devoted to their own religion—wrongfully so. Roman Catholicism is a MASSIVE religion and they certainly have massive numbers of devoted worshipers around the world.

[university]

Hi Rob4Hope. I just want to say before I start this response that I don’t want to be misinterpreted as being disrespectful or tearing down your concerns or questions. I’ve read a lot of your posts and gained a lot from them. It’s not my intention at all to pick them apart and I hope that I don’t come off that way.

Now that that’s been said, I was taught in seminary that when we are resurrected, we will NOT have bodies of flesh and blood, but will have bodies of flesh and bone. This was pulled from Doctrine and Covenants. I don’t remember the verses but I can pull them up later. Anyway, this teaching that we will not have bodies of flesh and blood was in the manual. This said to me that there wouldn’t be sex in heaven, at least, not the way we have sex in this life. After all…without going into specifics, well, without blood, it just wouldn’t work. Joseph Fielding Smith also taught that resurrected bodies will not have blood.

So there’s that.

Of course, as I got older I learned about Brigham Young’s forsaken teachings of women being eternally pregnant and men having a wife for each planet and while that doesn’t necessarily imply sex it felt very wrong :sick:

Personally, if there is a heaven the way we construe it to be, and we have no sex drive, I don’t think we’ll miss it that much. Maybe there’s something greater. The point is, if it’s heaven we’re talking about, well, I think we’re going to be pretty happy with what we have. If sex isn’t an option, then I doubt there will be a sex drive in people, although my idea of heaven is extremely limited. It’s similar to how some people imagine heaven being a place where they can continuously eat delicious food without feeling full whereas others don’t want to have to eat ever again and hope that need is taken from them in heaven. Maybe we won’t have the need or desire to eat in heaven and will look back at all of our revelings in food as ridiculous and unnecessary. Maybe we will get that feast. I don’t know.

Now, on to some things you’ve said:

Rob4Hope wrote:

Basically, the idea is: “There is no sex in heaven, we are not the children of God, and he just formed us. He likes us to call him father because that is better and more personal than being called ‘creator’ or ‘organizer’, and all that. But, other than him forming us, we have no personal relationship to him other than we were all scooped out of the same celestial sludge.”

Interesting. I don’t see a sex act as a qualifier for being the children of God. I don’t understand why intercourse (the way we understand it and practice it in this mortal world) would be the necessity to distinguish us as children of God versus just being pulled from celestial slush. I don’t see how an act of sex gives him anymore personal connection to us than if he created us through another way, perhaps even a higher form of what “sex” is. For all we know there’s an amazing way where husband and wife touch hands and “Poof!” there’s another child and both the process and outcome of this is fulfilling for both. Perhaps the complexities of how spirit children are created are too complicated for us to understand–I lean towards this belief.

Also, I was told as a young girl on Sunday that a General Authority (no idea who) had once told one of my teachers that sex was the only reason why men get married and stay with their families. Without a sex drive, they wouldn’t be loving fathers and respectful husbands. They’d just up and leave. What a sad thing for an impressionable young girl to think…and does a number on the psychology of women in the church. That the only reason a man would entertain having me as a life partner and raising children with me would be for sex? That basically God had to invent a biological instinct to get men to value us women enough to enter a life union with?

Our church culture is messed up when it comes to gender roles and sexuality, but that’s for another thread.

But anyway, I disagree with sex being the point of getting married, or the reason we get married. Not trying to say that what you implied is the same thing that was taught to me as a young girl.

Again, hope I didn’t come off disrespectful or aggressive.

[university]

That all depends on how you define forgiveness.

I think every culture interprets it differently, and then you have individual interpretations within that context.

I’d be interested to find out more about the translations of the Bible and what “forgiveness” constituted in Hebrew during the time the First Testament was written and how that evolved. My understanding was that this scripture came in as a response to a Jewish religious culture at a time in which Old Testament Law had previously reigned supreme—eye for an eye, strict punishment, etc. We’re talking about “forgiveness” being the difference between a woman being stoned for having an extra-marital affair and being allowed to live.

In modern Anglo-Christian culture, our interpretation of forgiveness is obviously coming from a different place. Even with common cultural points, I still don’t think we all have the same understanding or definition of forgiveness. It highly varies.

[university]

As I just went on a gender rant in the Indeterminate Gender Thread, I thought I’d come here.

As someone sick of seeing liberal, well-meaning non-Mormons say things like, “It’s a sexist religion, what do you expect?” And “Religious wackos are always going to be wackos” and “I don’t get it. Why try to change things? If you don’t like the religion, just leave.” I really appreciated this talk and will be saving some lines from it, especially the part about finding a way to respect religions while also having conversations about the negative impacts of some of their policies/teachings (paraphrasing).

Thanks for sharing :thumbup:

[university]

Forgive me this rant. I’m feeling passionate tonight.

When I was in institute a few years ago, one of my instructors made a big claim that the church would “never support gay marriage.” This was before the Church was using that kind of language (they were preaching it was a sin, but “never” is a pretty absolute word) and it rang some big bells in my head. He then offered us his reason why:

Because gender is central to this church. Gay marriage defies this.

I have never understood this sentiment about gender being essential to Christ’s gospel and increasingly the Church has taught this message. As much as the leaders at the pulpit preach about gender (roles) being important, that’s not what our doctrine actually shows. It’s about Christ. It’s about returning to him. People make the “being cealed” argument but at its core, that has nothing to do with gender. At least, the way we talk about marriage, we treat it like it’s the same covenant for men and women (except-that-it’s-not-but-whatever-no-one-wants-to-talk-about-this-stuff-so-we-might-as-well-just-throw-it-out-because-parts-of-the-temple-are-totally-sexist-and-it-breaks-hearts-and-some-men-use-it-to-control-their-wives-but-whatever).

If gender is so important, than why do I, as a woman, have no one to look to as an example of what I “get” in the eternities? Or even to what I should aspire to be? If my gender is so important, the doctrine should probably demonstrate how it would be different for me in the eternities. Fact is, as a woman, I have no one to look to to show me how my gender is important to my destiny in the eternities. Members can’t even agree if there are multiple heavenly mothers or just one–we seem to agree that there is at least one, but we have no clue what she does–clearly she’s more hands off than her husband—we’re forbidden to pray to her, for no apparent reason.

So, as an LDS woman, I am forced to choose between the two options here:

1). Accept the sexist teachings of past polygamous leaders and the blatantly sexist rhetoric of the temple, which I won’t get into here

OR

2). Accept that in spite of having no female figure to look to—which to me, seems to indicate that my place in the eternities will be the shadows—my gender will fundamentally alter my eternal destiny. I will have a different “role” than my husband, even though I have no way of really knowing what that role is going to be (which most women these days lean towards).

Obviously I reject both of these options.

My point is, our society is messed up, our gender roles are crazy, and I’m tried of being told how important gender is–especially because of these black-and-white policies that hurt men, women, and our spiritual siblings who are transgender, intersex, or even people that have a hard time identifying with either gender (I do interact and work with people of this nature–their struggles are often overlooked).

[university]

Being someone who knows of too many instances where a person in church leadership was engaging in sexually abusive activities, and could have been stopped, but was still allowed to maintain their position of power because people gave said individual “the benefit of the doubt” and thought “innocent until proven guilty” I feel I’m leaning the other way than other people on this board, especially with the family connection probably being what is keeping him in his leadership role. I feel the situation is inappropriate and more action to be taken to insure this person is not in a position of power over youth until this is resolved. However, as you specified that’s not the kind of feedback you’re looking for, ARTEST4ECHO, I’ll move on.

Unfortunately, these kinds of situations occur often–what I’m trying to say is, people often behave badly in the church. If your son, who sounds like a great kid, didn’t have to confront this now, he’d have to confront this later in life–this I’m sure of. See this as a natural evolution of his testimony. His testimony is not always going to be the same. It is going to change, and that is the way things should be.

Try to think of this situation not “damaging” his testimony but molding it–put it through the ‘refiner’s” fire. Try not to let worry and fear influence your interactions with him in the church. Try not to let yourself get wrapped up in everything that could happen down the road–will he serve a mission–will he leave the church–will he not get married in the temple, etc. That’s projecting big fears. At the core, this church is about God’s teachings of returning to him. Things happen on God’s own time, and for each child of God, that might be different. You son is experiencing a situation which is causing him to question the Church and the gospel young, when easily the same feelings could have hit him on his mission (with a terrible mission branch president), or right after getting married, or even 30 years down the line.

Tough situation. I don’t have the answers. I say, try to help your son find appreciation for the basics of the gospel (the focus on the saving aspects of the gospel versus the laundry list of things we do in the Church) and show him that you love him no matter what.

Also, curious question, why won’t you tell your son that you agree with him about the mistake? I ask this in sincerity, what is your reasoning? Growing up, my mother was very open with me about the misteps she felt church leaders made (not to say she was overly negative, here). This helped me separate the gospel vs. people in the Church. Because of it, when a Bishop or Stake Leader was a jerk, that never impacted my testimony. And we know there are a lot of mistakes made by local leaders in this church. I’m not saying you have to do this, but why do you feel it necessary to defend the situation to your son if you actually agree that somethings wrong with it?

[Author]

Posts