I worry for my daughter

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Why do you bother having her involved with the church at all?

Sounds like you are trying to "force" your daughter to be the way you want her to be rather than allow her the choice to do what she wants.

Seems like I've heard the saying that you teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

Why all the animosity towards something you supposedly believe in?

I think his point was, his children are being taught somethings he doesn't believe in. A lot of us face this at some point in time. I know I have on occasion had to explain something taught at church wasn't exactly right.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Solon

She's got some time before she'd be the right age, but I'm not so sure I want her hearing some of the lessons written for LDS young women.

Compare, for instance, these two lessons on marriage.

This one, directed towards Young Men, talks about choosing an Eternal Companion. (active voice, implies agency)

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...ontentLocale=0

The most comparable YW lesson is entitled Preparing to become an eternal companion. (passive voice, limited agency)

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...ontentLocale=0

There are lots of interesting comparisons to be made. I offer just a couple of points:

For the males, one of the things they can do to become a good marriage partner is, "Becoming educated or trained in order to be a good provider."

For the females, it's almost all about homemaking. There are a couple of allusions to higher education, but the allusions encourage females to gain knowledge, training, and skills that will help them with mothering and homemaking. Even the introductory story about the girl who comes home to spend Christmas vacation fails to say "she was at college."

There's nothing wrong with being a good homemaker or having child psychology skills (I wish I had them). There is something wrong with not encouraging our young women to seek educational and professional fulfillment, should they so desire.

I know there are quotes aplenty, especially from Golden Boy Hinckley about women getting educations - and I applaud them - but as long as this type of bias permeates the instruction manuals (which many say are next to scripture in import and inspiration) I'm going to be leery.

My friends with girls this age say they often come home from church and "undo" what's been taught, using the opportunity to teach the girls to think for themselves and not believe everything they hear. Great, but that's a silver lining in a really dark cloud (IMO).

Those of you with daughters, is this an issue? How have you dealt with it?

[This is my 1,000th post. Hooray for me.]

Yes it is an issue. I have two teenage girls now and I try to point out inconsistancies when they come up (my latest, and I know this is small potatoes, but our stake limited YW basketball to six minute quarters while the YM got eight). I think SiEQ is spot on in saying that his primary gospel teaching happens in the home, and I believe that is how it should be.

On education and marriage, my wife, Sainted Molly Mormon Mullah that she is, is very nazi on this issue. She tells the girls that getting their education should be a priority and to make that clear to any suitors. She also abhors the Mormon cultural practice of YW getting married at 19-21; 24 makes much more sense to her. She applied all of the above to me and I buckled like Steve Tate against BYU.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Your usually thoughtful posts are marred by such an unfounded and sweeping generalization.

Give me a break.

FWIW, I did say it was my opinion. And thanks for the backhanded compliment, Tex (seriously).

Originally Posted by Spaz

-Care to give some examples of "really messed up LDS girls"?

Seriously?

Originally Posted by T Blue

Why do you bother having her involved with the church at all?

Sounds like you are trying to "force" your daughter to be the way you want her to be rather than allow her the choice to do what she wants.

Seems like I've heard the saying that you teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

Why all the animosity towards something you supposedly believe in?

Who the hell are you to suggest what I believe/don't believe? Has it occurred to you that my kid goes to church with her mom? I only have animosity towards stuff I don't believe in - like subjugation of women.


There is a considerable degree of cognitive dissonance when assessing the LDS views of women. On the one hand, there are multiple GA quotes that stress couples be "equally yoked," emphasize the importance/equality of women, etc. On the other hand, the temple teaches LDS that women can access God only through their husbands and their marriage vows are different from men's, placing them in an inferior position (no sex jokes intended). There are different protocols for calling and sustaining Melchezidek priesthood offices in the ward than for comparable Relief Society callings (the entire ward "votes" on female officers; only male priesthood holders "vote" on EQ officers). And, before you trot out the GA quotes or Family Proclamation, consider that these different-but-equal identities have been formulated almost exclusively by male LDS leadership.

Need more? http://www.margarettoscano.com/?p=8

The LDS church emphasizes the importance of both priesthood authority and obedience to this authority. Since priesthood is an exclusively male office, this effectively becomes obedience to male authority. I understand there are provisions that women should only obey their husbands/priesthood authority as long as he/they are righteous, but those are fairly recent qualifications. De facto, the word of the priesthood (male) is law.

While I recognize there are exceptions, the issues besetting female roles and identity in the LDS church continue to be a disturbing topic for me.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Solon

Seriously?

No - it was rhetorical. My point was that it's hard to tell what affect 'LDS teachings' had with the 'messed up girls'.

Overall, I'm happy my kids are learning the precepts of the gospel. All the little things like whether they should go to college or not are things I hope I ingrain on them myself.

[Solon]

eom

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

On education and marriage, my wife, Sainted Molly Mormon Mullah that she is, is very nazi on this issue. She tells the girls that getting their education should be a priority and to make that clear to any suitors. She also abhors the Mormon cultural practice of YW getting married at 19-21; 24 makes much more sense to her. She applied all of the above to me and I buckled like Steve Tate against BYU.

She applied it to you and you buckled like Steve Tate? If my memory recalls the proper memories of Stevie Wonder, didn't Michael Reed put him the Missionary Position? Complete with ankles way up high?

You devil, you.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Solon

eom

I am a lesbian, does that count?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

There is a considerable degree of cognitive dissonance when assessing the LDS views of women. On the one hand, there are multiple GA quotes that stress couples be "equally yoked," emphasize the importance/equality of women, etc. On the other hand, the temple teaches LDS that women can access God only through their husbands and their marriage vows are different from men's, placing them in an inferior position (no sex jokes intended). There are different protocols for calling and sustaining Melchezidek priesthood offices in the ward than for comparable Relief Society callings (the entire ward "votes" on female officers; only male priesthood holders "vote" on EQ officers). And, before you trot out the GA quotes or Family Proclamation, consider that these different-but-equal identities have been formulated almost exclusively by male LDS leadership.

Need more? http://www.margarettoscano.com/?p=8

The LDS church emphasizes the importance of both priesthood authority and obedience to this authority. Since priesthood is an exclusively male office, this effectively becomes obedience to male authority. I understand there are provisions that women should only obey their husbands/priesthood authority as long as he/they are righteous, but those are fairly recent qualifications. De facto, the word of the priesthood (male) is law.

While I recognize there are exceptions, the issues besetting female roles and identity in the LDS church continue to be a disturbing topic for me.

For what it's worthy, quoting Margaret Toscano isn't going to sell me on much. While I appreciate she might have some interesting insights, her description of her disciplinary council as "violent" indicates to me she lacks the same sense of proportion many apostates struggle with. In short, I question her ability to be even slightly objective on the topic.

As for the sustaining processes, yes they are somewhat different, though you'll note the entire ward sustains the Bishopric together, as does the entire stake the Stake Presidency. Ditto other prominent positions, such as Ward Mission Leader, High Council member, etc. Also note that Elders do not sustain High Priests, and vice versa. In other words, it's not strictly a male vs. female thing. It's more a priesthood quorum thing.

You seem to fail to recognize some of the major strides that have been made in giving women more participation in church government. I know for a fact that, though the signatures are all men, leading women in the church were consulted for the Family Proclamation. Also note that the forum chosen to introduce the Proclamation was a general women's meeting.

The roundtable during the Worldwide broadcast a few weeks ago feature 2 apostles, the presidents of the 2 women's organizations (RS and YW), and the female president of the Primary. Their opinions were clearly solicited and valued.

One of the first things President Hinckley did was change the procedure for a solemn assembly which is held to sustain a new prophet. Formerly the process was to have the men stand each in turn by priesthood quorum/classification, then the church as a whole (including the women). He inserted two new groups: RS and YW. I'm trying to remember when the first General RS and General YW meetings were, and I don't think they existed much before his presidency, if at all.

Does this mean we are not a priesthood-goverend church? No. For those who have ulterior motives in besmirching the church, they can always fall back on, "Yeah, but the REAL power is in the priesthood and the priesthood is held by men only." And you're right, under this system a women can never become a bishop, an apostle, or prophet.

But to pretend that women are habitually taught to just bow down before the men around them is as uniformed as your previous statement. And if you've ever dealt with some of the stronger-willed women in the church (my mother among them), you'll realize how stupid a sentiment it really is. Men who understand the proper role of the priesthood per D&C 121 (and not all do), understand the proper role of women in the church, and the bounds on their authority.

I could, but for lack of time, go over the parallels between priesthood and motherhood. But I'll save that for another discussion.

[BYU71]

Based on my observation over many many years, it is my opinion that without the Priesthood, men in the church would be completely run over by the women.

As a kid I was always baffled. Back in my day Patriarchal order was a big deal. Women did not pray in Sacrament meeting. I don't think they talked in conference. They definitely were to be subservient to the husband.

Yet, in home after home I went to and hung out with friends, the mom ran the show.

I tried to use my priesthood authority with my wife vs her mother. The result is she is my ex-wife.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

She applied it to you and you buckled like Steve Tate? If my memory recalls the proper memories of Stevie Wonder, didn't Michael Reed put him the Missionary Position? Complete with ankles way up high?

You devil, you.

The problem with SOME Mormons is that they are too literal. I had a mission president like that once.

Bottom line: Tate ended up on his back; that his ankles went skyward speaks volumes and is the point at which this little analogy diverges from reality.