Women, LDS Church, and "Chivalrous Contempt"

[_subgenius]

The evidence lies in how the Relief Society organized by Joseph Smith differs from the Relief Society organization of today.

is there a short list that accents these "differences" which epitomizes this?

[_just me]

The evidence lies in how the Relief Society organized by Joseph Smith differs from the Relief Society organization of today.

is there a short list that accents these "differences" which epitomizes this?

They collected and controlled their own dues.
They were to be patterned after the ancient priesthood.
They were not under the priesthood...they were not an auxilery.
They called their own officers.
They were ORDAINED to their offices.

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

...

[_Yoda]

Sorry ... let me rephrase that ... You 2 are better than this.

Better than?

[Guest]

...

[_Yoda]

I don't really understand what drama I have brought to this thread. Just Me and I correctly pointed out that historically, the Relief Society organization is in a much different place than it was in during the days of the originally established Church by Joseph Smith. Read History of the Church and you will learn a little bit.

The Relief Society was to be a parallel organization to the Priesthood, not an auxiliary.

It was also common for women to give blessings for the sick.

[_Bazooka]

This gave birth to Mormonism's oppressively domestic and popularly conceived model of woman-hood -- the "domestic goddess" known as "Molly Mormon" and "Patti Perfect."

There is no evidence of this.

However (and sadly!), after Joseph died, his generous descriptions of what women *had* -- as "Queens and Priestesses" in the Kingdom of God -- were replaced by limiting pedestals labelled "wife and mother" -- or "Molly Mormon" and "Patti Perfect".

Or this.

What would you find acceptable as 'evidence'?

[Guest]

...

[_Yoda]

But anyways back to the subject ... and that was that I was telling you , you were over dramatic. First let me say ... there is nothing wrong with that , infact it is required for the spark of life that keeps it interesting. But maybe .... just maybe ... you might need to watch your tendency in the direction that involves a lot of people. But otherwise just do what you do ... you are a wonderful person as far as I can tell. And Im sorry for any animosity my previous blunt statement might have caused. Im sorry .... I was jaded

I appreciate your kind words and your apology. However, I am still confused as to your proclamation of my being over dramatic. I did not create this thread. I only commented on what I knew regarding prior LDS history. I have been a member of the LDS Church in good standing for 48 years, and have a pretty good handle on its origins. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster, or simply "lumping me in" with the other female posters on this thread.

When I make reference to the LDS Church as being a patriarchy, I don't see that as automatically denigrating the Church; I am merely stating fact.

I am also stating fact regarding how, unfortunately, the Relief Society as an organization has changed in LDS Church status from how it was originally organized by Joseph Smith.

I have noticed that the Church is taking baby steps in the direction of restoring the Relief Society to its proper status, which I think is commendable. The baby steps I am referring to are the following:

1. The recent Relief Society publication focusing on the importance of Daughters of the Kingdom.

2. The lowering in age of female missionaries from 21 to 19. In conjunction with this, there is talk of female missionaries having the opportunity to serve as Zone Leaders, District Leaders, etc., which callings in the past, could only be held by male missionaries.

I would enjoy continuing to carry on a civil discussion involving some of these changes as a positive rather than a negative direction of the Church.