What was up with the LDS Church and the ERA?

[_bcspace]

In essence, the Church opposed the ERA because it opposed women having certain freedoms. The Brethren felt---and continue to feel--that a women's identity should conform to a certain "ideal.

Doesn't seem to be the case according to the Church's own statements which I referenced above.

I'm not so sure about that:

Quote:
Morals have to do with standards of right and wrong. We believe that, for many social issues in contemporary society, God has given applicable moral standards of right and wrong. These time-proven principles are important to us as a religious people. Previous First Presidency statements have identified some of the areas where issues of morality are involved, such as failure of fathers to care for their families, elimination of statutory protection for women and children, problems resulting from women in the military, homosexual and lesbian activities, abortion, and similar concerns
(italics ibid)

What, I'm wondering, is meant by this rather vague and Orwellian "similar concerns"? Here's another passage which appears to support my interpretation:

Quote:
When God created male and female, he gave each important differences in physical attributes and family responsibilities. Though imperfect, our country’s laws have generally supported those differences.

Many women, wives and mothers included, must've necessity work outside the home. The inequalities they encounter can be dealt with under existing law. For those, however, who choose to remain in the home and maintain a traditional family, passage of the ERA may make their choice more difficult.

The Brethren seem to have wanted to maintain this image of women being stay-at-home mothers who focus principally on child-rearing. For whatever reason, they felt that the ERA threatened this (and, let's face it, they probably worried very much that this would lead to demands that the priesthood be given to women), hence their opposition.

Oh I certainly agree on proper roles, but I highly disagree on freedoms (there being only one real exception, the military). The bretheren appear to more protective of women in their divine roles than in any curtailing of freedoms which women already have.

It doesn't take an ERA to fix the military problem (which may not be a problem at all) or any other nit picks one might have.

You know Bond, it still makes me sick to remember that day.

A beautiful day in the neighborhood that was.

[_Bond...James Bond]

The topic is well covered in Ed Kimball's recent bio of Spencer W. Kimball. You should definitely check it out if you can.

I will if I get the chance. (It goes on a reading list a mile long :>P)

(Also: does anyone else know that cinepro rules?)

[_moksha]

I remember it well, Bond. I was there in the Capitol during the vote (I was covering it for the University of Utah student newspaper, The Utah Daily Chronicle). What a travesty.

I was down at the Salt Palace when the women from the Relief Society and their Priesthood handlers hijacked the Women's Conference electing delegates to the National Women's Convention. That was truly something. The Relief Society women had no inkling what they were voting against or for, they just voted yes or no depending on what signs their Priesthood handlers held up. When the National Convention women got wind of this, they refused to credential the slate of Utah Relief Society delegates. Wouldn't have mattered anyway, since their handlers holding up the signs would not have been allowed down front in the convention hall.

[_Blixa]

I remember it well, Bond. I was there in the Capitol during the vote (I was covering it for the University of Utah student newspaper, The Utah Daily Chronicle). What a travesty.

I was down at the Salt Palace when the women from the Relief Society and their Priesthood handlers hijacked the Women's Conference electing delegates to the National Women's Convention. That was truly something. The Relief Society women had no inkling what they were voting against or for, they just voted yes or no depending on what signs their Priesthood handlers held up. When the National Convention women got wind of this, they refused to credential the slate of Utah Relief Society delegates. Wouldn't have mattered anyway, since their handlers holding up the signs would not have been allowed down front in the convention hall.

It really was something wasn't it? Do you remember the votes against things like tougher laws for child pornography? Just vote no on everything!

[_TAK]

BCspace
The bretheren appear to more protective of women in their divine roles than in any curtailing of freedoms which women already have.

Frankly your statement above creeps me out ..
Protective ? More like puritanical.. Why do women need old white men to protect their "divine roles" which we know the brethern meant is to be baby making/raising machines ?? What a pile of bullsh*t ..

[_beastie]

I remember those days well. I was in a state targeted by the LDS church, so we women were "organized" in various ways. We had meetings (I think they were evening homemaking meetings, can't recall for certain) where we were all supposed to sit down and write our own letters to legislators. They gave us a general suggestion on what to say, of course, but they wanted us to sound like we were coming up with these thoughts on our own. They also organized a bus trip to DC for a protest.

I had very conflicted feelings on the whole issue. I just didn't understand their adamant opposition to it. I had joined the church at 19, and had always considered myself a natural feminist (ie, no one had to teach me to be a feminist, it came naturally). So I really struggled to adapt to The Brethren's view on this one, and could never fully do it. I read the booklet one of the GA's wrote (believe it was Dallin Oaks), but it just didn't make a lot of sense to me. They were worried about unisex bathrooms, for god's sake. I even attended a speech by Sonja Johnson in Utah (either Provo or SLC), but was offended by her dismissive references to The Brethren (bunch of white haired old coots, lol). I wasn't fully on board with the brethren on this, but, as a believer, did think it was my moral responsibility to think and pray about what they said. It was a real conundrum to me.

But there is no doubt that the LDS church inserted itself very aggressively into this issue, and I believe the ERA would have passed had it not been for their aggressive actions in certain targeted states. Of course now, as a believer, I just view this as one more example of the patronizing patriarchy of the LDS church. Yes, dear, you ARE more spiritual, you ARE fulfilling the "most important calling of all", but please, stay on your pedestal. Or your cage.

[_harmony]

I was there for the International Women's Year gatherings in 1975. Very few things can bring me to tears about my past; that is one of the few. We were so idealistic, so pathetically uninformed. We followed so completely. I can still hear the sound of thousands of feet hitting the bleachers as we'd stand for the votes. We thought we were fighting godlessness. How incredibly lowering to find out much later that we actually were abetting it.

[_Scottie]

(Also: does anyone else know that cinepro rules?)

(Yes, I've thought that for a very long time. If I ever meet him in real life, I will be star struck!)

[_Blixa]

I was there for the International Women's Year gatherings in 1975. Very few things can bring me to tears about my past; that is one of the few. We were so idealistic, so pathetically uninformed. We followed so completely. I can still hear the sound of thousands of feet hitting the bleachers as we'd stand for the votes. We thought we were fighting godlessness. How incredibly lowering to find out much later that we actually were abetting it.

Good lord. I wonder if we spoke, harmony. I interviewed a lot of the LDS women there, talked to a lot of people. I was completely frightened by the spectacle---the ease with which this single-minded and obedient army had been generated.

If you were at any of the international workshops we more than surely met.

[_bcspace]

The bretheren appear to more protective of women in their divine roles than in any curtailing of freedoms which women already have.

Frankly your statement above creeps me out ..
Protective ? More like puritanical.. Why do women need old white men to protect their "divine roles" which we know the brethern meant is to be baby making/raising machines ?? What a pile of bullsh*t ..

There are a whole lot of independent thinking LDS women who don't see it that way. I guess you're just not a mother who knows....

;)