Why does God think so little of women?

[_solomarineris]

Be careful that you are not belittling the choices women make. There is significantly more agency involved in the choice to work as a full time mother now as compared to 30 years ago.

I'll be careful Quaker, so careful, I tell them to get marry as soon as they can be mothers. They will have few kids and the man will run away, leave the woman with no money, no career to look after kids.
No, it is now, I have to lay the consequences to my daughters, not to rely on any men but to themselves.

[_Morrissey]

Be careful that you are not belittling the choices women make. There is significantly more agency involved in the choice to work as a full time mother now as compared to 30 years ago. Along with that the ideal housewife image is, or has been, shattered to a great extent as couples tend to be more equally yoked thanks mostly to the encouragement to seek partners with similar education levels.

Please avoid doing disservice to all the women who choose to be full time mothers, despite completing graduate degrees, or having a professional background, by telling them that the role they have chosen makes them subordinate or possibly equivalent with garbage. Many have been taught that women have the primary responsibility for raising children at Church. They've also had completely healthy dosages of encouragement to forgo having children in favour of pursuing careers. But yet they have chosen to be mothers and we all need to be aware when we are falsely implicating women of forced or blind obedience to men when that isn't the case.

I'm not accusing any of you of doing this intentionally. Just be careful lest that attitude does start to creep into your thoughts.

All that being said - that in North American society women are now effectively the choosers of their own roles, so if they choose something you might regard as subordinate and less important then you should not degrade them for it - the offices and responsibilities of the priesthood in the Church are not free for them to choose. I don't know what to say about that besides to talk to the local Relief Society members to find their opinions and understanding. Ask them if they think their talents are being wasted in the Church.

One thing I have noticed is that the best and most organized conferences, shows, meals and activities of large scales are directed and organized by the women. I think that men directing the Church is along the same lines as 19 year old missionaries conducting most of the proselyting - that it's pretty much a miracle the Church hasn't failed due to their general incompetence.

Oh puleease! If you read my OP, it referred to increased opportunities for women. Nowhere do I imply that women need to choose one thing or another, neither do I in the least degrade motherhood, apple pie, or the American way.

It is self-evident that women's talents are being wasted in the LDS Church, or do you suggest that women, for some inherent reason, are not capable of ministering spiritually to men or of running a ward or stake or of presiding in a high Church position? Not every woman's comparative advantage lies within the narrow roles prescribed for them by LDS Inc. Unless you want to make this argument, I do not see how you can claim that women's talents are not being wasted.

There are, amazingly enough, some of us who believe that women ought to have opportunities like men do, but who still extol the virtues of family and who admire the women who make choices to stay at home, as we admire the women who make other choices.

There are women who are content to be placed on some neo-Leave-It-to-Beaver pedestal, but there are also many women who are not content with this, yet LDS Inc.'s one-size-fits-all approach to women and their needs is sorely mistaken and indicative of an organization run by unenlightened men, not enlightened deity.

[_beastie]

I'm going to quote Gaz,with some minor alterations.

It is a well established doctrine in the Church that no amount of success can compensate for failure in the home. It is a father who makes a house a home. In the church the title of father carries as much if not more weight than any priesthood office. It is more important and carries more lasting influence than any church calling.

Is Joseph the step-father of our Savior less significant than John the Baptist? It was not John that taught Christ throughout his childhood years how to act and behave. It was not Zacharias who was honored by God to raise his son and nurture the Messiah.

Fatherhood is a burden to be born by men. It trains us to be nurturing and less selfish, as the only way for fatherhood to bless the lives of its bearers is in service to others. It is in this way Fatherhood and Motherhood are a perfect partnership. As a father counsels with his divine partner on his struggles in sanctifying those he is appointed over, a mother counsels with her divine partner on her struggles in sanctifying their children.

"We men know the me of God as husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, associates, and friends. You seem to tame us and to gentle us, and, yes, to teach and to inspire us. For you, we have admiration as well as affection, because righteousness is not a matter of role, nor goodness a matter of gender. In the work of the Kingdom, men and women are not without each other, but do not envy each other, lest by reversals and renunciations of role we make a wasteland of both womanhood and manhood.' (Ensign, May 1978, p.10)

It is one of Satan's great victories in these adulterous last days that he has lured so many away from the understanding of the divine roles of gender. When the Spirit of the Lord is taken in and listened to, he whispers to us within our hearts and minds, he tells us what our divine potential is and what we need to do to get there. No person who is in position of this influence will ever seek the duties and responsibilities of the opposite gender. Gender has its eternal and divine role, they compliment their opposite and work together. When a husband and wife enter heaven, they do so side by side as eternal companions.

To assert that women shouldn't have the priesthood because they have the more important job of being a mother belittles fatherhood. Fatherhood is far more important than the priesthood, too. The father is as crucial in the home as the mother.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if the above post was addressed to me or not, but I was not belittling people taking on traditional housewife roles. I think calling that being a "full-time mother" is somewhat belittling to what it means to be a mother.

That said, I think people should be free to choose what roles they take on in a relationship as each partner's desires and talents allow for. What I was pointing out and condemning is cultural norms that place pressure on women to learn and grow up to desire limiting roles - cultures that encourage women to limit their talents and desires to a narrow range of gender roles.

It's easy to forget, but at the turn of the century, a very substantial portion of women opposed women's suffrage. They didn't do so because they were forced into blind obedience. They did so because they grew up with and internalized cultural mores that taught them politics was the domain of men. The lesson is that such pressures can develop a culture of unfair inequality that privileges one sex over the other even when people within that culture desire their roles and report being happy with them. A culture that does what I described above would be an example of that.

To take another example, a culture that defines a woman's worth in terms of sex appeal to a much greater extent than it does men's doesn't require men to impose this on helpless women. While it is a form of subjugation, all it requires is socialization, not fascist oppression. Many woman can be active participants in reinforcing this attitude, judging women's worth in their attractiveness to a greater extent than men, and personally desiring sex appeal to feel worthwhile. It doesn't mean the culture isn't sexist. It is.

[_JohnStuartMill]

http://books.google.com/books?id=PK_BGG ... t&resnum=3

[_Gazelam]

Beastie,

To assert that women shouldn't have the priesthood because they have the more important job of being a mother belittles fatherhood. Fatherhood is far more important than the priesthood, too. The father is as crucial in the home as the mother.

What is your opinion on the idea that it is a fathers duty to provide an enviorment where a mother can be a nurturer. This duty is expanded by their priesthood duty of assisting those under their care in arranging their lives to be in alignment with the Light of Christ.

[_Yoda]

Beastie,

To assert that women shouldn't have the priesthood because they have the more important job of being a mother belittles fatherhood. Fatherhood is far more important than the priesthood, too. The father is as crucial in the home as the mother.

What is your opinion on the idea that it is a fathers duty to provide an enviorment where a mother can be a nurturer. This duty is expanded by their priesthood duty of assisting those under their care in arranging their lives to be in alignment with the Light of Christ.

What I don't understand, though, Gaz, is why women couldn't also hold the same priesthood, and utilize it as a companion, in a nurturing fashion? What makes women less worthy to administer blessings to the sick, particularly her own children...or her husband who is ill, for that matter? In the early days of the Church, when Joseph Smith organized the Relief Society, women DID this, Gaz. When Brigham Young reorganized the Church in the West, women were given a more subservient role. The temple ceremony STILL maintains portions where women lay hands upon heads and give blessings.

This is why I feel that there is a huge piece to the puzzle that is missing...and is, unfortunately missing based on culture.

I think there is a lot that has not yet been revealed that we have yet to understand.

[_Brackite]

I just talked to the wife. Turns out women are PEOPLE! Not any smarter or more spiritually in tune than men! I was shocked.

Pedestals are for objects, not for people. Sex is biological, gender is cultural. A woman's place is where humans dwell, not just in the home.

Here is what LDS Bishop Bob wrote:

Plural marriage is an eternal principle. It is founded on the notion that there will be far fewer men who will accept the atoning sacrifice than women. It has to do, somehow, with the struggle in the Garden of Eden, the choice Eve made, and the promise that she would be saved in childbearing. I don't get it all, but the fact that women are more spiritual and willing to accept the spirit is a fact.

( Post: )



Males and Females are equal within the sight of the Lord God. Here is Second Nephi Chapter 26, Verse 33, within the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 26:33:

[33] For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Men throughout the History of this Planet, has at many times, thought so little of Women.
The Lord God has Never thought so little of Women.

[_beastie]

What is your opinion on the idea that it is a fathers duty to provide an enviorment where a mother can be a nurturer. This duty is expanded by their priesthood duty of assisting those under their care in arranging their lives to be in alignment with the Light of Christ.

I think it's unrealistic. Throughout much of history, both mothers and fathers have had to play dual roles - each doing their part to provide an environment in which the children can be nurtured by both parents.

To me, it's kind of like the Mormon church became enamored of a sort of Leave it To Beaver fifties fantasy. That fantasy was very short lived in the overall history of marriage, and often didn't live up to its image (mother's little helper and all that).

Think about human beings in the ancestral environment, or even pre-industrialization. The idea of the little woman staying at home, nurturing, while the big strong husband went out into the world wasn't reality in the ancestral environment, with the exception of hunting expeditions. Both mothers and fathers worked to provide for the family. And, in the days before fathers actually left the family unit to earn a living, fathers probably spent more time with the children, too.

But my point is that emphasizing motherhood as the complement to the priesthood totally ignores fatherhood -which is ironic in such a family-oriented church.

[_Phouchg]

fatherhood is a non-issue in the church. Missionaries can call home on Mother's day, but not Father's day. My wife's SM on Mother's day was the typical Mother's Day SM with lots of flowery praise for mother and having all the women in the congregation stand up and be recognized. Father's day was dry-council Sunday with the talks on Obedience and finding happiness in service in the church (really).

Fatherhood isn't important - priesthood duties are more important in the eyes of the church. Motherhood is the consolation prize that God threw out once he ran out of the good stuff. But like William H. Macy's character in "Pleasantville", the man is utterly helpless without the woman doing everything for him. You don't notice the doormat you have been wiping your feet on for years until it is gone and your floor is now all muddy.


fook