The Nature of Men in the LDS Church

I think that is an excellent description of a common type of Mormon man. I wouldn’t use the word “emasculated”, given its negative connotations (which is ironic, I know, given the other conversation). I would say Mormon men often are more balanced when it comes to sex and gender stereotypes than many other men, even many leaders who perpetuate the sex/gender-based power differential in the Church. I love that about the LDS Church, even if it is nowhere close to universal among the membership. It is a stark, good, positive, notable difference. Generally speaking, Mormon men really are nice, kind, sensitive people – and that is visible to others.

That dichotomy (men who support, at least tacitly, a strong patriarchal hierarchy while having stereotypically female characteristics) is a huge part of why any discussions about sex/gender-based issues are difficult for many Mormon men with whom I have spoken. They don’t fit the general cultural stereotype, and neither do a large percentage of other Mormon men they know personally. There is relatively little blatant, virulent, extreme sexism among the membership, so it can be very hard to see and recognize “benevolent sexism” (like putting women on a moral and spiritual pedestal but allowing that pedestal to limit female input and involvement in leadership decisions). The common horizontal equality in so many homes makes it difficult to recognize the issues inherent in an unequal, vertical hierarchy.

Thanks for sharing the post. It is an excellent partner with the other post.

We say that motherhood is a most important job in the world and that we as men would not be able to do it justice and we use that to justify limiting the choices of women.

I definitely agree that this happens, and as a woman who doesn’t have whatever these qualities are that supposedly come so naturally to all women, it’s hard to listen to the majority of church rhetoric to women because it’s (to me) so obviously BS and doesn’t really apply to me.

But, to the point of this post, the church does something really well in taking fatherhood seriously.

I feel that the chruch disdains and estranges a man’s man. Working class men that are rough around the edges are not accepted in Mormon culture. At times I would like to deck half of the Elders quorum with their weak pithy responses and attitudes. I get sick and tired of hearing men say how much better their spouse is than them, and they don’t know where they would be without them. My ex-wife is in hell (figuratively speaking) and lost custody of all of her children, even the one’s she had out of wedlock with partners after me. How could I relate to such a pathetic comment. Some people are more spiritual than others, and more righteous irregardless of their gender. The whole political correctness of gender outside the church has tainted the church as a whole. Evangelicals have better books on men being men of Christ than the True Church. Men are just told to love their wives and honor their Priesthood. I see women in Utah enabled to the point that when their spouse dies, they are unable to do hardly anything. What did these women do all day? Pathetic. D. Todd Christofferson gave a talk about men in the church. I think it came 5 years too late. I do not think it is a great topic to discuss since we are in a society that is more gender neutral. I can change diapers, do laundry, cook, and clean, do crafts just as good as women I know, if not better than some. Be a great person, and strive to excel at all things irregardless of gender stereotypes. I told the relief society recently when my wife was hospitalized. I appreciate the meals because it allows me time to visit my wife without having to stress out over another thing to do. I told the RS president. I can cook just fine, but I just do not have the time when I am working hours of overtime, and need to attend to other duties. I think the RS President thought I could not cook at all, and what men cook? Once again a gender stereotype entered the equation.

I feel that the chruch disdains and estranges a man’s man. Working class men that are rough around the edges are not accepted in Mormon culture.

I hadn’t thought about this but I think I have to agree. I live in a ward (and have lived in wards) with a number of men “rough around the edges.” Their discomfort in Sunday School and Priesthood meetings is often palpable. I can see why some men may have a hard time connecting with the Church when leaders tend towards the “warm-nurturing” end of the spectrum. Our bishopric is composed of two men who definitely fit that Mormon stereotype and one who is “rough around the edges.” It’s actually refreshing to have someone conduct meetings who is a bit out of the “Mormon” mold.

Of course, I think men in general can struggle to connect with one another in any context.

I feel that the chruch disdains and estranges a man’s man. Working class men that are rough around the edges are not accepted in Mormon culture.

I hadn’t thought about this but I think I have to agree. I live in a ward (and have lived in wards) with a number of men “rough around the edges.” Their discomfort in Sunday School and Priesthood meetings is often palpable. I can see why some men may have a hard time connecting with the Church when leaders tend towards the “warm-nurturing” end of the spectrum. Our bishopric is composed of two men who definitely fit that Mormon stereotype and one who is “rough around the edges.” It’s actually refreshing to have someone conduct meetings who is a bit out of the “Mormon” mold.

Of course, I think men in general can struggle to connect with one another in any context.

I think this is one of those cases where we need to be careful to distinguish between what “the church teaches” and what people in the church teach. Just saying.

I think the church leaders absolutely teach that men need to be exactly what men tend to be in the church. Watch any conference talk and that is what most men tend to copy. Goofy humor, soft spoken, emotional. I do not even think those things are bad. They are good qualities for some men. My problem is in the church we tend to elevate those qualities above say the opposite. Tough, resilient someone with a hard edge is more belittled.

Probably why I never fit in well. Not emotional at all. Distain hand wringing exercises about how we just could not exist without our wives. More of a mans man who loves women and think they are just great.

I sometimes wonder what those early pioneer men and even women would think about todays man in the church? Being emotional and touch feely did not get your wagon out of the mud.

I sometimes wonder what those early pioneer men and even women would think about todays man in the church? Being emotional and touch feely did not get your wagon out of the mud.

I have great great grandparents were on the “Hole in the Rock” expedition, written about by Gerold Lund in the book The Undaunted and great great grandparents who were called to the Muddy Mission in Nevada, written about by Dean Hughes in his new book Muddy. They were tough people.

There are “manly men” who are aloof, cold, stern, aggressive, hardline, etc. and “wimpy men” who have no spine, are lazy, get pushed around easily, have no ambition or drive, etc. There also are men who are at every point between those two extremes.

The LDS Church teaches neither of the extremes. The general standard taught most is a balanced, middle way man – not the stereotype in many parts of society (“I am the boss. Do what I say without questioning me.”) but not the other extreme (so commonly depicted in TV shows).

We had the ultra-stern model (e.g. Joseph F. Smith and Ezra Taft Benson), and we have those who appear to be closer to the other end (but actually aren’t) just because they cry (e.g., Henry B. Eyring) – and we have many more who are somewhere in the middle (e.g., Deiter F. Uchtdorf and Jeffrey R. Holland).

I like the middle way approach MUCH more than either extreme.