- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I really enjoyed this post on BCC: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/04/25/patriarchal-innocence-and-the-church/ I particularly liked Ardis’ comment: “Doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to their obliviousness, though.”
Spot-on and awesome. It reminded me of when the Young Women’s president told me during a temple baptism trip that she had just been asked to stop bringing towels to the youth leaving the font. I could only stare, dumbfounded, and say, “I – I don’t understand.” Honestly, I still barely do, but I think it has something to do with this patriarchal innocence idea. The man who told her to stop probably had no idea how much that hurt her. (Also, he was being kind of an idiot and was ignorant of how things are done at other baptistries.)
Are women afflicted with patriarchal innocence as well?
Inspired by the topic I fired off an email to my high council team member and Stake Presidency member. Last summer I was extended a Stake calling and told I was in charge. I even asked who I reported to and I was told people reported to me. Now six months later all the meetings are conducted and handled by the Stake Presidency member. When I asked about it I was told he is the one who has to report to Salt Lake on our efforts. After a couple of months I sent an email to the entire Stake Presidency kindly wondering if my particular calling was needed anymore since as far as I could see I was just a potted plant ( I didn’t word it that crassly). The Stake President got back immediately and assured me I was needed and highly recommended. Still nothing. I have even had Bishopric members complain that the meetings are boring so they don’t come. After reading this I stood tall and asked if I could conduct the next meeting, send out the reminder, and gave a clear statement of what and how I would like to accomplish my calling.
8 hours later – crickets.
All is well in Zion.
I read the post on BCC and slept on it. This morning, four disparate thoughts are knocking at the door, so to speak as well as a reflection on my son’s ADHD struggles: 1) What would Laurel Ulrich say about the post with regard to
A House Full Of Females2) How would Hugh Nibley comment on it in the context of his remarks about the war between men and women,
3) What comments would Robert Graves make about the post vis a vis his writings on the white goddess and the coming of the Greeks,
4) What has the uncivility of the so called “snowflakes” got to do with projected possible progressive developments in this area?
With regard to the ADHD – perhaps my son gets it from me and not his mom’s side of his families!
Willhewonder, I am not familiar with what you are referencing. House full of females, war between men and women, white goddess, Uncivility of snowflakes?
Please post some links or add some explanations in parentheses as I would like to try to follow the threads of thought.
:thumbup: I myself was pondering the thought about how we males might respond to an environment as female as our church is male. i.e. wives preside over their husbands and families, women may lead their own organizations but always at the direction and oversight of the men, a woman or two must come to father and son’s campouts and Elder’s Q activities for reasons that are not well known or understood, a man not married is seen as not fully adult, a husband promises to hearken/obey his wife but the wife does not make the same promise. Can anyone think of a movie with this type of premise?
mom3 wrote:
Inspired by the topic I fired off an email to my high council team member and Stake Presidency member. Last summer I was extended a Stake calling and told I was in charge. I even asked who I reported to and I was told people reported to me. Now six months later all the meetings are conducted and handled by the Stake Presidency member. When I asked about it I was told he is the one who has to report to Salt Lake on our efforts. After a couple of months I sent an email to the entire Stake Presidency kindly wondering if my particular calling was needed anymore since as far as I could see I was just a potted plant ( I didn’t word it that crassly). The Stake President got back immediately and assured me I was needed and highly recommended. Still nothing. I have even had Bishopric members complain that the meetings are boring so they don’t come.After reading this I stood tall and asked if I could conduct the next meeting, send out the reminder, and gave a clear statement of what and how I would like to accomplish my calling.
8 hours later – crickets.
All is well in Zion.
That has to be so frustrating!! What a waste of resources in that stake…when you have so much you could offer.…and they are focused on pounding “Keep the Sabbath Day Holy” as the answer for why members become less engaged????
Reading this, which was linked to from the BCC post: Interesting so far.
If only Fair counted for anything. Sister McBaine has tried hard to find positive middle ground. Sadly it’s a voice in the wind. For me today – my frustration from earlier in this thread just grows. I am not in a place to publicly discuss it. Thankfully Heber is letting me vent to him. All I will say on the entire matter, is that while I was visiting family for Easter, I felt a distinct impression to study the women of the bible. By the end of the trip the whisper of the spirit sounded more like a command given through a megaphone. I have begun to read. I have no idea what it will do in my life, at present the sense in my heart is that the women before me deserve honor and that it’s my turn to shine their light.
Everything else related to gender connections in church stinks right now to me.
Getting off before I go too far.
Roy wrote:
Willhewonder,I am not familiar with what you are referencing. House full of females, war between men and women, white goddess, Uncivility of snowflakes?
Please post some links or add some explanations in parentheses as I would like to try to follow the threads of thought.
I’m sorting through it myself. I found it interesting that Sister McBaine’s (Mom3 attributed authorship to her although I didn’t see her name mentioned on the Fairmormon link) article on Reuben’s Fairmormon link mentioned Laurel Ulrich and discussed a cooperative paradigm for basing discussions of gender based inequality in the Church.
In her book Sister Ulrich talked about women in the priesthood and leadership. She made a case for much more autonomy and leadership in the days of Joseph Smith than later in the day of Brigham Young. Her discussion of women giving blessings and presiding in meetings is powerful and moving. Yet, there is a cooperative sense about it rather than a competitive flavor to it as the world seems to want to frame the discussion. Nibley decried the possible antagonistic competition between patriarchy and matriarchy in struggles for supremacy and advocated the synergistic cooperative approach suggested by Sister McBaine. Nibley argued that cooperative and collaborative division of labors for workability was the only way out of an otherwise internecine warfare.
Robert Graves described a world in which matriarchy had triumphed and males were virtually superfluous, except on one orgiastic night a year. Grave’s matriarchy became vulnerable to a barbarian invasion of Patriarchal proto-Greeks that paved the way for Western Civilization. I think it very possible that the combative language of gender equality and/or competition originated then, and still plagues us.
Finally, there are so many worldly influences inherent in the membership of the Church, that as long as things are seen in a competitive way, why should those who seem to be on top give any ground, especially when contemporary results of such concessions and attempts to “share the wealth” result in outfits like “Black Lives Matter” and “snowflakes” that deny the civility to others that permitted themselves to come about in the first place? The fruit of such concessions seem to be enabling those who do not want to share, but instead want it all. Why would rational folks contribute to their own extinction? The exercise of caution about enabling such a slippery slope may be in order.
Just wondering if all these disparate ideas can be formed into a better picture than the old primary version of why things are the way they are with the priesthood and men. I do like Sister McBaine’s post, and think it may be the approach to follow out of the woods.
Obviously, I’m having difficulty with the quote function on this forum. (Among other things) anyway, more to come after more reflection. Regards. Thank you for the added explanation Willhewonder. Those are interesting thoughts indeed. Reuben wrote:
Reading this, which was linked to from the BCC post:Interesting so far.
I found this interesting as well. The idea that we can have complementary gender roles in reality. I am not sure how this would really work. Unfortunately, I believe that the gender roles in the church are a byproduct of the sexist ideas that existed at the time that much scripture was being created. Does separate but equal really work? What roles would women fulfill that would be roughly equivalent to the male roles in the church?
For me it is summed up by the false equivalence of Priesthood is to men what Motherhood is to women. Priesthood is public leadership, it is God’s power and authority to do His work, Priesthood is presiding (the same root as president). The role of motherhood is largely confined to the home. It is to quietly nurture and care for the children and maintain a pleasant household. In short, one is the
presiderand the other is the presidee. For me, to create a complimentary and cooperative gender roles mindset would involve much more than things like letting YW close the doors during SM or calling primary presidents by their title as “president.” The fact that these are the sorts of suggestions being raised seem to be giving lip service to creating truly complimentary or cooperative gender roles in the church. It brought to my mind that the author might be treading very carefully to not suggest anything that be seen as demanding changes from our leadership.
It was mentioned several times about deacons passing the sacrament. There appears to be nothing doctrinal in this practice. Doctrinally the YW could “pass” the sacrament and walk around the congregation with the same amount of effectiveness as they do when they “pass” the sacrament to the person sitting next to them. Yet it is in the handbook that deacons or priesthood holders pass. This is a policy that could be changed with the stroke of a pen. It would be almost as easy to change this as it was to allow women to pray in GC for the first time. And yet the author does not go there… I imagine because as a lifetime church member and employee of a church business she is wary of making herself a target.
Maybe baby steps are all that can be had. Maybe it is better to work within the system with longsuffering and gentle persuasion. However, I am left to conclude that to create a real and true complimentary or cooperative gender relationship in our church would require new revelation from the top and it would be massive in changing our understanding of how things should work.
In the mean time – the church will continue to be sexist, unequal, and gender discriminatory by definition.
Quote:In the mean time – the church will continue to be sexist, unequal, and gender discriminatory by definition.
It breaks my heart but I agree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.