Conference tecrus::mormonism

                     -< The Glory of God is Intelligence >-
================================================================================
Note 229.3                    Ok, so what is Truth?                      3 of 13
EMASS::BARNETTE "One World, one Love, one People"    32 lines  13-APR-1989 08:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[parts omitted that are not related to women]
    
    BTW, pardon me for bringing it up, but why is it that no Mormon
    women ever seem to join these discussions? Is there some ordinance,
    like not being able to hold the priesthood, that restricts them
    from giving an opinion? 
    
    (I only bring it up because I noticed that whenever I have discussions
    with members of the Born-Again Christian church, they always herd
    the women off to another room, making some lame excuse. I pointed
    out to them that I could never join a church that didn't believe
    in complete equality, and denied me an opportunity to learn from
    someone just on the basis of their gender. This issue has never
    been explained to my satisfaction.)
    
    
    Neal/B

                     -< The Glory of God is Intelligence >-
================================================================================
Note 229.5                    Ok, so what is Truth?                      5 of 13
CACHE::LEIGH "Blessed are the pure in heart:"        12 lines  13-APR-1989 09:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[part omitted that was not related to women]
Neal,


There is nothing in either this conference or in the LDS church that should
discourage women from participating in these notes; I hope we haven't done
something to discourage them from being more vocal.  Perhaps they are busy
getting real work done....

Allen

                     -< The Glory of God is Intelligence >-
================================================================================
Note 229.7                    Ok, so what is Truth?                      7 of 13
NEXUS::S_JOHNSON                                     23 lines  13-APR-1989 09:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  >  BTW, pardon me for bringing it up, but why is it that no Mormon
  >  women ever seem to join these discussions? Is there some ordinance,
  >  like not being able to hold the priesthood, that restricts them
  >  from giving an opinion? 
   
    There is nothing to prevent women from participating in this
    conference.  I do have some thoughts on this matter.  On the team
    I work on, there are two other LDS men and no LDS women.  One member
    has 5 kids and the other has 3 kids and I have 1 3/4 kids.  Our
    wives work at home raising our families.  With my wife and I, we
    have agreed to have me come to work and support our family.  Our
    reasoning was because I have higher earning power than she does.
    I might also have to do with many members following the prophet's
    counsel to have one parent stay at home.
    
    At a recent stake conference, when our new stake presidency was
    installed, the new stake president told us what Elder Wirthlin told
    him.  He said that we have a problem in the church.  The problem
    is this, the men are going home, studying the gospel and becoming
    great scriptorians while the women are going out and being good
    christians.  He admonished us to become good christians.
                            
    scott

                     -< The Glory of God is Intelligence >-
================================================================================
Note 229.13                   Ok, so what is Truth?                     13 of 13
FEISTY::QUAYLE                                       31 lines  13-APR-1989 15:23
                    -< Mormon and female, if not intuitive >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I haven't used notes very often and am not sure how to perform some
    basic operations.  For example, I don't know how to pull part of
    a note in order to respond specifically to that part.  That's one
    reason I, Mormon woman, haven't [yet] participated more.  Another
    reason: quite often as I read I find that someone else has already
    entered the answers, interpretations, etc., that I feel and I hate
    to belabor the point.  Alan's answer sounded pretty good too!
    
[parts omitted that did not concern women]

    Re: Note 230.0 by MUTHA::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
    You've raised some good questions!
    
>   From what I understand of Mormon doctrine and how that has affected
>   the organizational structure of the church, the roles of men and
>   women in the LDS are pretty clearly defined. For example, women
>   stay home and raise the children and the men go out and earn the
>   daily bread. This also seems to be reflected in the structure as
>   well; the men seem to fill "policy-making" positions and the women
>   appear to fill "social" type positions.
    
    In the church organization, there are some positions that require
    that the person holding the position be a member of the priesthood.
    At present, only worthy men may be ordained to offices in the
    priesthood, however, women share the priesthood with their husbands
    through the ceremonies of the temple. Even so, they are not ordained
    to offices in the priesthood.
    
    Some leadership positions do not require the priesthood. For example,
    the oldest women's organization in the world (I believe) is the Relief
    Society, which is the organization of LDS women. It's leadership is
    entirely women. The Primary organization is the LDS children's
    organization, and the presidency of the Primary must also be women.
    Likewise with the Young Women organization. Women may be teachers in
    the other organizations, run the activities of the church, preach
    sermons, and do many other things. Women are encouraged to study the
    scriptures and to participate in all meetings. Women may be called on
    full time missions to preach the gospel in other lands.
    
    The prophets of our dispensation have said that the *most* important
    work any of us do (mothers *and* fathers) will be within the walls of
    our own homes. They have clearly taught that it is not desireable for
    both parents to work full time, because it puts additional stress on
    the family. Sometimes it is necessary, and each family is free to make
    that choice, however.
    
>   My question is: since the LDS leadership has changed it's view recently
>   on the standing of black people in the LDS via "revelation", is
>   it possible that with time a similar "revelation" could give Mormon
>   women more opportunities as well?
                            
    Good question. I don't know the answer. I guess it is up to God to
    reveal it, if He deems it appropriate. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

		People not of the LDS faith would indeed consider that the 
	"LDS leadership" changed their position of all worthy men holding the
	priesthood.  Those members of the LDS faith who really believe that 
	the LDS Church is guided and directed by Jesus Christ, do not believe 
	that.  Christ changed His mind and permitted all worthy male members 
	of the Church to now hold and obtain all the blessings of the 
	priesthood.  

		The thing to remember is that the people in the LDS faith 
	believe that Christ directs His Church and that it is patterned after 
	that taught by His Father.  Now, Christ is the great High Priest, and 
	the affairs of His people have always been directed through the 
	priesthood.  Women have NEVER been authorized to directly hold the 
	priesthood, or to direct the affairs of His people, and they never
	will.  That is just not how it is done, and there will be no new
	"revelation" saying that they will.

		Scripturally, I refer to the condition of Mose's sister Miriam
	in chapter 12 of Numbers.   The Levitical priesthood,  with Moses at 
	the head, were the only ones authorized to lead the people.  The only
	other scripture I know of that directly forbids women to lead in
	church is 1 Corinthians 14:34

		"Let your women keep quiet in the churches: for it is not 
		 permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to
		 be under obedience, as also saith the law."

		Now, before anyone gets in a tizzy, let me point out that what
	I am saying is that the ONLY thing women can not do is direct the 
	affairs of the church.  As was pointed out, the auxiliary organizations
	of Primary and Relief Society are women.  There are General Authority
	positions for these organizations, which women fill.  The only 
	position a women can not hold in the LDS church is that of priesthood 
	authority.  They are not authorized by the Lord to do this because 
	that is not their calling.

		Also, do not get the idea that women are looked down upon by 
	the males of the LDS church.  If it were not for the stalwart women 
	of this church, I do not think we would have come so far in so short 
	a time.  To sum up, what I believe is the proper feeling toward women
	in the church, let me paraphrase the following:

		"A woman was not made from the head bone of man, to lord over
		 him, nor from his feet bone to serve under him; but from his
		 side - under the arm - to be beside him and sheltered by him."

RE: < Note 230.6 by BSS::RONEY >

Hi,

I find this subject intriguing. For a lot of reasons. The main reason being 
that I always used to be an 'Alex Keaton' type of conservative Republican.
However, upon reflecting of late on some of the entries I've made in this
notesfile, and some of the comments I've made elsewhere, it seems that on
social issues concerning women, minorities, tolerance, and compassion, I've
undergone some kind of transformation over the past couple of years. I'm a
lot more 'liberal' than I thought. Funny. I've only been a member of the
Church over the past couple of years, too. Hmmmm. 

Anyway, back to the topic.

I too have a testimony that Jesus Christ leads and directs this Church. So 
it's up to Him to say whether women will ever hold the priesthood or not. 
If He said 'yes' that's OK with me. If He said 'no' that's OK with me too.

But in the absence of any such revelation on the subject either way, there 
is no way anyone can say for certain that it will ever happen. Just because 
it's never been that way doesn't mean it won't ever be so. The Pharisees
believed that only the Jews were 'chosen,' and that it would always be
thus, no doubt because it had always been that way. One of the more
difficult lessons the early Church had to teach was that that wasn't so;
the gospel was for the gentiles, too. 

I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "Christ changed his mind" about all 
worthy males holding the priesthood. I'm sure it's vastly more complicated 
than that, but all we know is that prior to 1978 it wasn't yet time, and 
after 1978 it was. Whatever the divine reasoning involved, we don't know 
for sure what was so important about 1978.

Even though there were many, many Saints who prayerfully pleaded with the 
Lord that that day would come, there were also many faithful Saints who
believed that day could not possibly come. It turned their understanding of
Scripture upside down, since all the reasons they came up with to exclude
blacks because of *black* unworthiness, or because it had never been done
that way, suddenly were all thrown out the window. 

In the same way, one could argue that a revelation could come one day that 
extended the responsibilities of the priesthood to women, *despite* the 
fact that some believe that it isn't a women's role, or that it can't 
happen because it's never been done that way.

Of course, such an argument doesn't prove anything either, since the two 
issues turn on separate sets of facts. 

On the one hand, the differences between the races do not exist in 
reality - they only exist in the delusions of some tragically unenlightened 
persons. So it would seem that when those delusions were sufficiently 
overcome, it was inevitable that the priesthood would one day be extended 
to blacks.

On the other hand, women and men serve different biological functions; some
say they serve different spiritual functions as well. It could possibly be
derived from that statement that while men hold a priesthood function,
women hold another, different function for which ordinations and other 
formalities are not necessary. If so, I would be of the opinion that the 
calling of womanhood is superior, not inferior, to manhood.

>		Also, do not get the idea that women are looked down upon by 
>	the males of the LDS church.  If it were not for the stalwart women 
>	of this church, I do not think we would have come so far in so short 
>	a time.  

I would go further. I would say that without the stalwart women of the 
Church, we would never have gotten anywhere at all.

Some thoughts on a Friday afternoon, 
/kevin

    My 2 cents worth.  I am an LDS woman.  I work full time at DEC; I have 
    5 children, and 4 grandchildren;  I am currently a Primary teacher 
    for the 6-7 year olds; I also home visit, and am Cooking Coordinator 
    for the Relief Society; I support my husband in his callings.
      
    The reason I point all this out to you is I am content to do the
    Lords work as he sees fit.  Myself, I have never been overly concerned
    about my lack of holding the priesthood.  In my home, we receive
    the blessings of the priesthood through my husband.  I admit that
    I am a  "Womens Libber" when it comes to womens issues at
    DEC, and I am very outspoken when people rattle me regarding womens
    rights.  However, I believe that the Lord will decide when and if
    women will receive the power of the priesthood.  Until then, I feel 
    I have my own very important mission here on earth.
                 
    Louise

    I agree with what has been mentioned earlier.  I too, am uncomfortable
    with the phrase "Christ changed his mind".  I think it is a question
    of the time being right after that day in 1978 and not right before.
    
    Regarding the women holding the the priesthood, it reminds me of
    when I was at BYU one of our bishops said "if the men did not
    have the priesthood, we would have nothing to do.  We only bring
    home the bacon and take out the garbage".  In some cases, it's the
    women that raise and influence the family.

    Thanks for all the responses.
    
    From what I've read in the responses, I get the sense that my statement
    about the Mormon priesthood (i.e., males) being the "policy makers" and
    the Mormon women's organizations taking care of "social" duties
    is fairly accurate.
    
    A further question: if Mormon women can't be admitted to the priesthood
    and since the priesthood establishes "policy", then how can Mormon
    women have a real role in the church, unless they're in some sort
    of "power behind the throne" role (influencing policy indirectly
    through their husbands)?
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark 

    Careful about accusing Mormon women of not having much role in the
    Church ... My wife would rake me over the coals if she thought I
    felt that way.  I work with several women in our Ward who hold
    leadership positions.  They certainly *do* have strong influence
    on how things are run.  The visiting teachers for the women that
    I home teach typically have profound influence.  
    
    Basically, Priesthood authority gives men the privilege of acting in 
    the name of God.  But, there are conditions attached to that authority 
    (D. & C. 121:36-37):
    
    	That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected
    	with the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled
    	only upon the principles of righteousness.
    
    	That they may be conferred upon us, it is true;  but when we
    	undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain
    	ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon
    	the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness,
    	behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord
    	is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood
    	or the authority of that man.
    
    I think that when some see the corruption that results from misuse
    of authority, they shudder at the thought that anyone should be
    given authority to act in the name of God.  But, it is clear that
    misuse of Priesthood authority results in the termination of that 
    authority.  This misuse includes using Priesthood authority to exercise
    unrighteous dominion over the women of the Church.
    
    In other words, if I were to improperly use the fact that I have 
    Priesthood authority to compel my wife to obey me, I could well find that 
    authority taken away.  The policy making in our home is definitely
    a responsibility shared with my wife.  I have final say, but only
    after we have decided policy together (D. & C. 121:39-44).

    As to policy making in the Church, some of it is by revelation.
    In other words, even the men don't have a say because it comes from
    the Lord.  Other policies as found in lesson manuals and such may
    be penned by women and approved by Priesthood leadership.  I know
    for a fact that policies at the Ward level are often determined
    by men and by women, with final approval by Priesthood leadership.

    As an example of a woman who set Church policy which was then given
    approval by Priesthood leadership, I offer D. & C. 25:11 where Emma
    Smith was given the responsibility of compiling the first official
    Church hymnal.
    

    Steve

    	There are a couple of sayings regarding the power exerted by
    	women in the home and the world. I can't give author or date
    	of origin but they are very, very true nonetheless.
    
    	1) The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world!!
    	2) The man may be the head of the home but the wife is the
    	   heart & soul of it.
    
    	Here's a humorous story for all of you. It goes like this:
    
    	One fine saturday morning a man was working on his car. He had the
    	hood up and was working on the engine. He had been working on the
    	car for some time when he reached a point where addiitonal help 
    	was required so he called his wife out of the house to help him.
        When she came out he requested that she get behind the wheel and
    	turn the engine over when he gave her the signal. As she was
    	getting in the car she accidently bumped the horn. When the horn
    	sounded the sound startled him so much that he hit his head on the
    	car's hood. As he came out from under the hood rubbing his head
    	he turned to his wife and asked her "How could one so beautiful
    	be so dumb?" to which she replied "I was beautiful so that you
    	would marry me & dumb so that I would marry you!"
    
    	I think there's a lesson in that story somewhere gentlemen.
    	
    	David Pyle
    	TFO

    Re .11 & .12:
    
    I hear what you're saying but how can such a concept be applied
    in today's world unless you completely insulate Mormon families
    from the "Gentile" world? Is it an achievable goal or just an ideal?
    
    In other words, I presume when discussing future careers around
    a Mormon family dinner table, the boys are told they can be the doctors,
    lawyers, and business executives (and participate in the Mormon
    priesthood) and the girls are told they'll be rocking the cradle for
    the rest of their lives? How would a Mormon family (or the LDS church
    for that matter) deal with a young woman who decided to pursue a
    profession first and then a family? And what if that Mormon woman
    went back to work with school age children? Are there Mormon day
    care centers?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Mark

    re: .13
    
    I am a mother of 5 daughters.  "Around the family dinner table"
    we emphasize the value of finding what is truely right for the
    individual.  While it is true, we encourage finding a worthy man
    and pursuing temple marriage, we also encourage our daughters to be
    worthy themselves and to consider other important factors of their
    futures.  We have set four goals:
                                       
    First, to be morally clean and to what they know the Lord would
    want them to do.
    
    Second, we want our daughters to gain their own personal testimony
    of the gospel.  This is accomplished by reading the scriptures and
    praying, which should be done daily.
    
    Third, we have encouraged all of our daughters to get a good
    education, including college.  We want them to be the best that
    they can be.  
    
    Fourth, we would like our daughters, if they feel the desire, to
    go on missions, to bring the gospel into others lives.
    
    All of the above are things we encourage from our daughters but
    each one is an individual and able to decide for herself.  Each
    of them is different so all goals are set accordingly.  
    
    One last note.  We show our love for our daughters by setting a
    good example for them.  I am a "Working Mother" but I have tried
    to instill the value of being a good mother and wife in addition
    to pursuing my career.  I think my daughters find strength in my
    commitment to do both.
    
    Louise                               

    Re .14:
    
    Thanks very much for your response, Louise.
    
    I find your third point interesting but the fact that you are a
    working Mormon mother is very interesting indeed. I thought such
    a status was an LDS no-no but then I learn something new every
    day (or try to).
    
    Now here's a curve ball for you:
    
    For the sake of discussion, what if one of your daughters meets and
    wants to marry a "Gentile" who isn't willing to convert. Is that
    a standard precondition among Mormons? If it isn't and they get
    married, can he still attend services (it is my understanding that
    "Gentiles" cannot attend unless they've converted but feel free
    to correct me if I am in error)? Maybe all of this is moot - if
    she marries a "Gentile" who won't convert, she might be down the
    tubes so to speak anyway!
    
    Thanks again.
    
    Mark
    
    P.S. Please excuse my somewhat irreverant sense of humor.

    Re. 13.
    
    There are no Mormon day care centers if by that you mean day care
    centers that are operated out of the church as a church sponsored
    business.  The reason for this is that the church is a non-profit
    organization and if a business were operated out of the chapel,
    we would be subject to taxes like a business.  However, there are
    several people who are Mormon who run day care centers as a business
    out of there home.
    
    >   For the sake of discussion, what if one of your daughters meets and
 >   wants to marry a "Gentile" who isn't willing to convert. Is that
 >   a standard precondition among Mormons? If it isn't and they get
 >   married, can he still attend services (it is my understanding that
 >   "Gentiles" cannot attend unless they've converted but feel free
 >   to correct me if I am in error)?
    
    People who marry non-members are more than welcome to attend services.
    Non-members are also welcome to attend our services.  I've talked
    with several people who when they attended our church for the first
    time, felt like they were in a business mtg because of the way the meetings
    are conducted.  When missionaries teach people who are investigating
    the church, they encourage them to attend our services.
    
 >   Maybe all of this is moot - if
 >   she marries a "Gentile" who won't convert, she might be down the
 >   tubes so to speak anyway!
    
    It's not moot.  A person has their agency to marry who they want.  Some
    people become faced with a decision of marrying a non-member vs.
    not being married at all.  My own opinion is that marrying someone
    who has the same values as I do makes it one less thing to cause
    contention in the home.  Being married and getting along with some
    one else is difficult enough.
    
    scott

    (This is actually some pretty good discussion.  But, I hope that there
    aren't any feelings being hurt ...)
    
    As far as careers go, my sister is an excellent engineer and is
    as yet unmarried.  We would like her to marry another Mormon, but
    most of all we want her to be happy.  She is faithful, young, 
    attractive and just hasn't found the right guy, yet.
    
    The Church is (especially nowadays) focusing on the needs of single
    parents.  There are some articles along these lines in a recent
    Ensign.  The counsel of the Church tends to be that 'if you do this,
    you risk having this happen'.  The Church tends to be very practical
    about what our actions can lead to and advises us accordingly. 
    And when we screw up even because we don't follow counsel, the Church 
    still tries to help out as much as possible.  It isn't so important
    where you are as where you are going.
    

    Steve

    
    	I think that .15 was referring to Temple services, wherein
    	no one is allowed to attend but LDS. In the case of a "mixed"
    	marriage between an LDS and non-LDS, I guess being sealed for
    	eternity in the Temple would be out.
    
    Neal/B

    Re .18:
    
    Thanks for the response - it answered an important question for
    me.
    
    Since the LDS and the Roman Catholic Church are similar in that
    they place heavy emphasis on creed/doctrine, I was also wondering
    if the LDS church is experiencing another situation that presently
    faces the Catholics. That is, the Pope is not a "happy camper" right
    now concerning how American Catholics are basically ignoring his
    pronouncements on birth control, abortion, and the role of women
    in the church. Is Spencer Kimball's successor in a similar position?
    In other words, is the adherence to LDS creed/doctrine proportional
    to one's distance from Salt Lake City?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Mark

    In response to your questions.
    
    I will use for an example my daughter Leslie.  She has set her
    standards quite high.  She is holding out for a temple marriage
    and will only accept dates with guys who are LDS.  This avoids possible
    problems later.
    
    But what if...
    
    If she were to fall in love and choose to marry a non-member who would 
    not join the church, I would try to support her decision.  I believe
    that we have instilled enough values in our daughter that she
    will make the right choice for her.  I believe that the Lord knows
    what is in all of our hearts and I would hope and pray that she
    would pray and ask for guidance.  The final decision would be hers.
    We are all down here to make choices and we love and trust our daughter
    enough to support her.  At any rate, we would welcome into our family 
    with open arms.
    
    By the way, a rosy a picture as all this may paint, life does not
    always turn out the way we hope.  Our eldest daughter, Denise,has chosen
    a different path to follow.  While she has not joined another church,
    she has fallen away from the teachings of our church.  I hope that
    somewhere down the line she will come back into the fold.  But we
    love and support her decision to do what she feels she must do.
    We all must decide for ourselves.  
    
    Louise

    Re: Note 230.18 by EMASS::BARNETTE

    Hi Neal,
    
>       In the case of a "mixed"
>   	marriage between an LDS and non-LDS, I guess being sealed for
>   	eternity in the Temple would be out.

    True.    

    Re .20:
    
    Thanks again, Louise.
    
    Since it seems fairly typical for young people between the ages
    of 16 and 25 to "drift away", if you will, from organized religion,
    this fact makes early positive exposure to a church very important.
    It also seems fairly typical that once young people are married
    and raising a family, there is usually a renewed interest in going
    to church and if they have a frame of reference for when that time comes,
    all the better.
    
    In my own case, my son and two daughters have been Congregationalists
    since day one. Since we live in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood
    (West Manchester, NH), a strong attachment to Congregational
    principles is important because of the influence of the Catholic
    church in that area. For example, Daisy Scouts, Brownies, and Cub/Boy
    Scout activities are generally sponsored by local Catholic Churches
    (there is only one Congregational Church on the West side and it
    does not sponsor any Scouts at the present time) and at
    least once a year the Scouts go to Mass. It was only recently that
    my wife and I felt comfortable about letting our children attend
    a Catholic Mass. We felt at that time they had a strong committment to the
    Congregational church and that they would be able to attend other
    Christian churches without losing their religous "direction" if
    you will.
    
    So, I can to some extent identify with your situation.
    
    Mark

    Re: Note 230.19 by MUTHA::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>   is the adherence to LDS creed/doctrine proportional
>   to one's distance from Salt Lake City?
    
    I don't think so. Actually, there are some who are of the opinion that
    some "Utah Mormons" are more complacent about their membership in the
    church than those who are more remote. The idea is that it is easier to
    take the church for granted when most of your neighbors are also
    members. Having spent a good deal of my life as a "Utah Mormon", I am
    as yet undecided about whether it is more so in Utah than elsewhere. 
    
    There are many "less active" Mormons whereever you go: those who have
    fallen away, or disregard the teachings of the church, or have a low
    degree of commitment to the church. But of those who are pretty
    "active", there is not a significant percentage that are in "protest
    mode" about the teachings of the church. At least, not in my
    experience. 
    
    The leadership of the church in the local wards and stakes is also
    strong in their support of church teachings. I don't believe there
    exists a faction of leaders that are "promoting change" in the
    teachings of the church, as you see in the American Catholic church. 
    
    It actually takes quite a commitment to be an "active" Mormon. One must
    be willing to be morally clean, abstain from alchohol, tobacco, coffee,
    and tea, serve in positions when called, attend various church
    meetings, and pay 10+ percent of your income in tithes and offerings.
    You are also encouraged to serve (at your own expense) for 1-2 years as
    a full time missionary in another land, as well as many other things.
    Members of the church vary in their commitments to some of these
    standards, of course, and they have their free choice, but the level of
    commitment required tends to be a striking contrast to that of many
    other faiths. 
    
    In Christ's love,
    Rich

    Re .23:
    
    Thanks, Rich.....
    
    That reminds me of a joke I heard the other day......
    
    The Pope convenes his College of Cardinals and tells them he has
    good new and bad news.
    
    The good news is that he spoke to God on the telephone today.
    
    The bad news is the call was from Salt Lake City!
    
    Humorous Regards,
    
    Mark

    Re: Note 230.24 by MUTHA::STARIN

>                -< Don't Stop Me If You've Heard This One... >-

    That's a good one!

    
    
    	Well, if we don't meet again in another note!  
    
    	I'm a Mormon woman.  I work full-time.  I have 3 kids and 2
    dogs, and a non-member husband who despite himself and his committment
    to not be interested in the Church, appears to be getting interested
    anyway.  He seems to be amazed that I've been getting progressively
    calmer and happier over the past couple of years since I converted
    rather than tenser and more unhappy.  (That might not sound like
    much, but we've added another baby in the last 6 months, which usually
    makes people *more* tense!)
    
    	Frankly, if if weren't for severe financial pressures, I wouldn't
    be working.  My oldest was in daycare during his first 4 years,
    and he's picked up some very disturbed behavior and poor attitudes
    because of it.  We have reason to believe that he was sexually abused
    when he was 2 years old.  This suspicion was confirmed by a
    psychologist.  The abuse occured at the day care center.  I didn't
    want to work anyway, but that just made it worse.  Now we have LDS
    nannies.
    
    	We Mormon women believe (and most of the men, too), that the
    most important thing you can give your children is time.  I don't
    mean quality time!  I have some issues with people who say that
    quality time can replace quantity time...could you say to your boss,
    "Gee, I'm only going to be here 2 hours a day, but I can assure
    you, it will be more than adequate because it will be *quality*
    time!"   It takes quantities of time to teach your children by example
    how to be honest, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and to do good to
    all men.  It also takes quantities of time to help your kids learn
    more temporal attributes also - like how to study, and play the
    piano, and do his chores.
    
    	If it wasn't for the opportunity to spread the gospel, work
    would hold even less interest for me.  My kids are really missing
    out, and I am missing out.  We have our 2-income mortgaged-house
    on the market, and are planning on trading down so I can stay at
    home at least part-time.  I'll sure miss the conference and the
    adult-people contact, but at least I won't miss my children....
    
    			Sheryl
    

    
    	And just so no one gets the wrong idea, I earn almost 2ce what
    my husband does - that's how important it is to us for Mom to be
    home...
    		Sheryl
    

    I realize that this note has been inactive for quite a while, but I am
    new to the Notes file and have been reading topics that interest me.  I
    am a Mormon woman, mother of four, wife of one and gospel doctrine
    teacher.  In reading this note I have been struck as someone else way
    by the lack of response by women!  I got a chuckle from the gentleman
    who responded that maybe we were getting REAL work done.  Actually,
    that is probably true.  I have been awed by how prolific some of you
    are in regards to your responses.  How do you ever find the time.  My
    boss has been out of the office for two weeks and that is my excuse.  
    
    Anyway, I hope to be able to drop in once in a while and see what's
    going on.  
                                                     
    Oh, back to the topic of Mormon women.  I believe that there are many
    sexist practices within the church, however, these are not a function
    of our doctrine, but of our culture.  As our society begins to accept
    women as equals, so will the mormon culture.  It has been my experience
    that the church is about ten years behind the times when it comes to
    granting women equal status.  So..we'll see what happens. 
    
    Barbara 
      

                                                     
>    Oh, back to the topic of Mormon women.  I believe that there are many
>    sexist practices within the church, however, these are not a function
>    of our doctrine, but of our culture.  As our society begins to accept
>    women as equals, so will the mormon culture.  It has been my experience
>    that the church is about ten years behind the times when it comes to
>    granting women equal status.  So..we'll see what happens. 
    
	Maybe you could be more specific.  I would really like to know.

I noticed that church magazines & the Church News seem to make 'frequent'
references to wives supporting their husbands in their Priesthood callings,
but they only make 'infrequent' references to husbands supporting their wives
in their callings.  The general flavor of church articles seems to be centered
around Priesthood holders rather than around both sexes.

I think that in church articles there is a greater emphasis on Home Teaching
than on Visiting Teaching.  Is it a case of one being more important than
the other (is HT really more important than VT?), or is it a case of the
focus of our attention being on the men in the Church?

When I was young, women almost never gave opening prayers in Sacrament
Meeting, and men never taught in Primary.  Fortunately, both of those practices
have changed.

Allen

Another cultural bias that I've noticed, although it isn't related to sex, is
a bias towards leadership activity in ones life.  Church articles that review
the accomplishments of a person almost always emphasize leadership
accomplishments, both in and out of the Church.  Ones accomplishments as a
teacher or as a faithful supporter are usually not mentioned.

Another example for .29 of sexist practices.

As far as I know, handing out printed programs for the Sacrament Meeting
Service isn't an ordinance that requires the Priesthood, but in the past
16 years in my ward, I don't recall it ever being done by young women; it's
always done by the Aaronic Priesthood.

Allen

	RE: 30 & 31

	Allen,
		What are you doing?  Going "worldly" on us.  I would expect
	from your line of reasoning that you would be defending Sonia Johnson
	next :-).  But since I can't get your line of reasoning, I will
	just comment.

		I joined the church in 1974, and the first time I said the
	opening prayer in sacrament meeting I was called by the bishopric
	and issued a "call" to do so.  I thought that was strange.  This
	meeting is directed and conducted by the priesthood, and I seem to
	vaguely remember when a directive from Salt Lake came down and said
	that anyone (man, women, or child) could say the prayers in this
	meeting.  But I do not see this as an elimination of "sexist"
	practices.

>Another example for .29 of sexist practices.

>As far as I know, handing out printed programs for the Sacrament Meeting
>Service isn't an ordinance that requires the Priesthood, but in the past
>16 years in my ward, I don't recall it ever being done by young women; it's
>always done by the Aaronic Priesthood.

	Tisk, tisk.  I am at a loss for your attitude here.

	Any male that does not properly recognize the importance of women is
	a fool (IMHO).  But to characterize as sexist practices the role of
	the priesthood is also foolish.  If the males holding the priesthood
	were to properly honor it and magnify their calling, there would be
	no need for anything like the Relief Society or visiting teaching.
	I firmly believe Heavenly Father is 100% on his home teaching, as is
	Adam, Abraham, Jacob, etc..  One must always remember that God 
	operates in a patriarch order under the priesthood, which has no
	beginning and no ending.  We might lose sight of that if the worldly
	view of "sexist practices" is imposed.

	I think there is a greater emphasis on home teaching because it is 
	being done so poorly across the church.  This is not a "program" of
	the church, but an inherent responsibility of priesthood calling.
	I think men will be held more accountable for not home teaching than
	women will be for not visit teaching.

	As for the magazine article emphasis on the priesthood over the women,
	I say again it is because the women are doing more of what they are
	supposed to do than the men.  Each and every church president had to
	have their wives supporting them in their Priesthood callings or they
	would not have otherwise been able to gather the experience needed
	to properly fulfill their callings.

	There are many scriptural references to honor women.  The 2000 young
	straplings were "taught by their mothers" and they doubted them not.
	Not one mention about their fathers.  The first persons to see the
	resurrected Christ were women.  Why not the church president?  Because
	the nature of women gives them belief easier.  They are more naturally
	sympathetic.  Why do you think a bishop MUST be married?  Why do you
	think a God MUST have a Goddess?  My feeling is that there is a plan 
	and order to everything, and "sexist practices" are perceived.  If 
	these practices are outright done, then the man doing them is wrong.

>Another cultural bias that I've noticed, although it isn't related to sex, is
>a bias towards leadership activity in ones life.  Church articles that review
>the accomplishments of a person almost always emphasize leadership
>accomplishments, both in and out of the Church.  Ones accomplishments as a
>teacher or as a faithful supporter are usually not mentioned.

	I remember the story President Kimball told about the time he
	performed a temple marriage.  The father of the bride was a farmer
	with rough hands, and held no church leadership position.  This was
	the last of his children to be married in the temple (all previous
	children were also married in the temple, and all his boys went on 
	missions).  President Kimball said that this man was doing what the 
	Lord wanted him to do and he would in no wise lose his inheritance.  

	One does not have to hold a church leadership position to obtain 
	exaltation, but to do the will of the Lord.  Where much is given, 
	much is expected.  Leadership positions are where much is expected 
	over and beyond the normal.  Even a man in the bishopric can be 
	released so he can do his home teaching.  Home teaching is more 
	important than any position in the church!  The Lord will look at 
	how well we have done in whatever calling we have had, not at 
	which callings we have had.

	Charles

Hi Charles,

>	Allen,
>		What are you doing?  Going "worldly" on us.

Oh no.  Just answering your reply in .29.  In .28, Barbara said she thought
there were many sexist practices in the Church.  In .29, you asked her for
specifics.  She chose to not give any, so I thought I'd throw a few in.

>		I joined the church in 1974, and the first time I said the
>	opening prayer in sacrament meeting I was called by the bishopric
>	and issued a "call" to do so.  I thought that was strange.  This
>	meeting is directed and conducted by the priesthood, and I seem to
>	vaguely remember when a directive from Salt Lake came down and said
>	that anyone (man, women, or child) could say the prayers in this
>	meeting.  But I do not see this as an elimination of "sexist"
>	practices.

Perhaps we should define our terms.  In our society, the term "sexist" is
used to refer to a procedure or practice that favors one sex over the other.
I gave an example of only men offering prayers in Sacrament
Meeting and then a change to allow women to give the prayers.  You don't
see that was an elimination of a sexist practice, Charles, but I think that
from the viewpoint of the world and the common use of the term "sexist", it
was the removal of a sexist practice, because it removed a decision that was
based on sex.  Perhaps you have a different definition to "sexist"?  If so,
it would be helpful if you would define it so I will understand you better.

I should add that my personal opinion is that not all sexist practices are
bad.  The best example of this is that only men hold the Priesthood.  From
the viewpoint of the world, and within the common use of the term "sexist",
this is a sexist practice, but I don't consider it bad; it is the will of
Deity.  I do recognize it as a sexist practice, however, as that term is
used in our society.


>>Another example for .29 of sexist practices.
>
>>As far as I know, handing out printed programs for the Sacrament Meeting
>>Service isn't an ordinance that requires the Priesthood, but in the past
>>16 years in my ward, I don't recall it ever being done by young women; it's
>>always done by the Aaronic Priesthood.
>
>	Tisk, tisk.  I am at a loss for your attitude here.

I realize, Charles, that Bishops have the Aaronic Priesthood boys give out
programs as a Priesthood assignment, and that is a fine thing to do.  It
would also be a fine thing to have the young women do it as a service some
of the time, but the Bishops don't allow them, and that is a sexist practice,
meaning, Charles, that it is a practice based on sex when there is no 
particular reason for using sex as a criterion.


>	Any male that does not properly recognize the importance of women is
>	a fool (IMHO).  But to characterize as sexist practices the role of
>	the priesthood is also foolish. 

Whether women are important or not is not germane to a discussion of
sexist practices.  The germane point is whether decisions and policies are
based on sex or not.


>	I think there is a greater emphasis on home teaching because it is 
>	being done so poorly across the church.  This is not a "program" of
>	the church, but an inherent responsibility of priesthood calling.
>	I think men will be held more accountable for not home teaching than
>	women will be for not visit teaching.

I agree that there is a great need for emphasis on home teaching in Church
literature, and there is a need for encouraging wives to support their
husbands.  That these needs do exist is not germane to a discussion of
sexist practices.  The "fact" that the Church "seems" (I put those words in
quotes because it is just my observation over time and may not be accurate) to
emphasis the role of men more than the role of women is a sexist practice as the
term "sexist" is used in our society.  Is this bad?  To a degree I think it is,
because it sends a hidden message that men are more important in the Church
than women.  I don't think the Church intends to send such a message, but the
message is there nonetheless.  I think it is a secondary result of the Church
being a Priesthood church in which only men hold the Priesthood.  

I personally think that the Church needs to emphasis the role of women more
than they have in the past, and I think that in the future the Church will
change and do this, but of course this is just my own feelings about the
matter.  I'm not referring to the role of women as mothers; that has had and
will continue to have great emphasis.  I'm referring to women as individuals
who need support from their husbands, who teach classes, who perform service
projects, who perform leadership roles.  I was pleased that when the new budget
program came out, the Church specifically stated that the Young Women should
get their fair share of the budget money used for youth activities.


>>Another cultural bias that I've noticed, although it isn't related to sex, is
>>a bias towards leadership activity in ones life.  Church articles that review
>>the accomplishments of a person almost always emphasize leadership
>>accomplishments, both in and out of the Church.  Ones accomplishments as a
>>teacher or as a faithful supporter are usually not mentioned.
>
>	I remember the story President Kimball told about the time he
>	performed a temple marriage.  The father of the bride was a farmer
>	with rough hands, and held no church leadership position.  This was
>	the last of his children to be married in the temple (all previous
>	children were also married in the temple, and all his boys went on 
>	missions).  President Kimball said that this man was doing what the 
>	Lord wanted him to do and he would in no wise lose his inheritance.  

That's a good example of an emphasis on non-teaching.  However, look in the
church publications and read the thumb-nail sketches of the authors of the
articles.  The sketches usually emphasis the leadership roles of the authors
even though his or her expertise used in writing the articles may have little
to do with those leadership positions.  

Allen

Here is a note I got from usenet about six months ago.  It gives further
examples of "racist" practices in Mormon culture, and if you are senstitive
to human feelings, you will realize that it expresses some sincere concerns
of some LDS.  I've edited it to remove names.

******************************************************************************
> Excerpts from lds: 25-Jan-91 Women in the Church

> "Dad says when we get the Priesthood we no longer have to help with the
> housework because that's for women to do."

> My Mother-in-law turned to me and asked, "Is that what they teach in
> Priesthood meeting."  Of course I wanted to answer, "Absolutely not."
> But I got to thinking, do we give this idea any credence?

Absolutely chilling story, there! But *of course* this idea is
given credence in the lds culture. One evidence is that "Fascinating
Womanhood" is still sold (and sells well) at lds bookstores: this is the
archetypal woman-as-manipulator, man-as-supreme-king tome. I suspect the
women in your brother-in-law's formative years practiced what is
preached therein. (It's truly awful. Someday I'll have to post excerpts.)

When a girl turns 12, what happens? The boys around her become deacons.
She, assuming nature's on time, experiences menarche. (Not much of a
consolation, BTW. :-) If she's in a ward with sensitive leaders, she may
get a moment of glory and be congratulated on graduating from Primary.
But week after week thereafter she will see her male counterparts
performing a sacred ordinance. They are deacons, teachers, and priests.
She is a Beehive, Miamaid (why we retain *that*, I don't know) and
Laurel. Those names, of course, beat the heck out of Merrie Miss, but
mean nothing: there is no difference in between any of those classes
except age. Unlike the young men, she is not entitled to an increase in
responsibility in relation to her attendance at church.

While a Young Woman, she is taught that she can "support" missionaries.
There is (last I checked) only one lesson that suggests that she herself
can prepare to be a missionary. She can still shine her deacon brother's
shoes to be supportive of the priesthood. She can listen to talks at
youth firesides which are directed at young men to tell them what an
honor it is for them to hold the Aaronic Priesthood and how important
that priesthood is--all the while NEVER receiving any kind of
explanation of why she is not worthy or able to hold it. She is supposed
to (and generally does) accept the crumbs of "girls as as important/as
loved by God as boys," but the discourses and practices belie that. The
stories of courageous lds women are fast disappearing in the correlated
curriculum. Even in the manuals, the examples and quotations are
overwhelmingly masculine.

Our stake is having a Laurels conference which will go from Friday
through Sunday (over the *strenuous* objections of a local bishop that
it's "inappropriate" for girls to have special Sabbath services--never
mind what goes on at Scout Camp...)--and the leadership is putting on an
approved play from Salt Lake about womanhood. They had to change a
couple of things here, though: Out of the 6 main characters, only 1 had
a college education (rather than the more accurate 50% of US lds women
who have some college education). This educated one was the *only* one
of the six that did not get married (she's a manager at Dow). The
implication is clear: having a meaningful career means sacrificing one's
chances to be married. Even the educated one (while attending college)
was to have sung a song that went, "Use your brains, use your brains,
use your brains to....catch a man!" (They changed the words to *that*.)
And this, written by a man (though there are women who'd've written the
same thing, no doubt), was APPROVED by the YW. Incredible.

This is what an lds girl experiences currently.

On another front, my husband and I looked at the lesson on modesty in the new
priesthood manual. We were essentially marvelling that most of the
quotes from GAs included therein had *absolutely no bearing* on the
topic. (Having had some experience with Curriculum, I'm not so
surprised.) That was kind of bizarre, but we were both quite appalled at
the inclusion of a quote from an address Boyd K Packer gave in 1958. The
first part actually dealt with modesty(!). But the bulk of the quote was
a diatribe against women working outside the home. Perhaps his reasoning
was apropos for 1958, but to include the thing in a 1990s manual
overlooks the fact that most women, including lds women in the
workforce, are working out of SHEER ECONOMIC NECESSITY, not for the
luxuries that Bro. Packer's address lashes out against. This ignoring of
the realities of women's lives is found again and again in current lds
manuals and discourse.

Lessons directed at young men pertaining to young women and honoring
motherhood and womanhood are pretty pathetic; I will save specifics for
another time.

Then (gasp) there's the matter of what's included and excluded in the
1985 ed. scriptures' Bible dictionary. Unlike the previous Bible
dictionary, Huldah the prophetess is entirely excluded. Deborah is
mentioned, but not a word is said about her having been a prophetess.
(Such things don't fit into the popular lds view of women, I guess.) I
can only imagine what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is going to have to
say on women's issues. :-0!

And, of course, if one points out these things, or complains about them,
one is accused of being a whiner, an ark-steadier, an apostate, or
(worse yet!) a (shudder) *feminist*. :-) :-) At least there's some
precedent for same in the lives of 19th century lds women.

>Perhaps we should define our terms.  In our society, the term "sexist" is
>used to refer to a procedure or practice that favors one sex over the other,
>and the person using the term usually believes that such partiality should
>not exist.  

	If we were to go on the first sentence, then, yep, God is sexist as
	defined by this worldly society, but then God's ways are not man's
	ways.  Whether or not the person using the term believes that such 
	partiality should not exist has no real bearing on the actual term 
	"sexist" when it is just defined as a procedure or practice that 
	favors one sex over the other.  If we would include this attitude in
	with our definition, then I think all the statements of my previous
	note that you consider as not germane to the discussion are very
	germane because attitude is an important concept when we determine
	how we treat one sex over the other.

	Adam and Eve were two separate people who were given two separate
	responsibilities, or roles if you will, and God expected them to
	obey.  Down through the ages, the devil has perverted man's thinking
	to where we are today, but the original charge to the man and the
	woman remain.  No matter what we have to do in our society is in this 
	day and age, those original charges are still in force.  Whether you 
	or I happen to agree with them is of no consequence.  Our job is to
	learn our particular roles as God has outlined them, and do the best
	we can to obey.  Obedience is greater than sacrifice.  What the
	world does and thinks affects us, but we must judge against what God
	has given and not what the world has determined.

	Charles

>	If we were to go on the first sentence, then, yep, God is sexist as
>	defined by this worldly society, but then God's ways are not man's
>	ways.

You're right, Charles; from the viewpoint of the world, and as the world
uses the term "sexist", God is a sexist.  As I indicated in my earlier reply,
being a sexist in some things isn't necessarily bad.  God has defined separate
roles for men and women, and those roles are clearly spelled out in the
scriptures.  However, the fact that those separate roles exist does not
justify our culture having additional differences between men and women that
imply that women are inferior.

To make matters more complicated, social and economic conditions today are
bringing the two roles together.  Here is an example of this:
I have an LDS friend in Arizona who (16 years ago) was a self-employed
carpenter.  He worked hard but wasn't able to provide very well for his family,
and his wife was very frustrated because her family wasn't being provided for.
His wife wanted to work part-time to help make ends meet, but he refused to
let her because "Mormon wives don't work."  He wasn't fulfilling his role
but wouldn't let his wife help out.  The result was a husband who refused to
recognize that (as far as he was concerned) the scriptural roles for men and
women weren't working and a family with high stress.  If he wanted to follow
the counsel from the prophet about wives not working, then he was responsible
to change his employment (he did have marketable skills that could have been
used to bring in more income).  The end result of this was that he was both
a racist and an autocrat who (IMHO) was exercising unrighteous dominion in
his family per D&C 121.  In effect, his wife was his slave; that sounds
harsh but she was treated that way as far as family income was concerned.

Allen

    Can't let this pass, brethren.  Allen, you mention:
    
    .34>I'm not referring to the role of women as mothers; that has had and
    .34>will continue to have great emphasis.  I'm referring to women as
    .34>individuals who need support from their husbands...
    
    Is it then, your contention ;) that women are individuals only in so 
    far as they have husbands?
    
    You also say, or quote:
    
    .35>Unlike the young men, she is not entitled to an increase in
    .35>responsibility in relation to her attendance at church.
    
    Is advancement in the priesthood correlated only to attendance at
    church?  Do you not consider young women's opportunities to develop
    themselves and give service to others as increased responsibility?  How
    about the opportunities to serve as class president, counselor,
    secretary?            
    
    Concerning leadership positions in general. Oops out of time - back
    soon.
    
    aq
    
    
    

Hi Ann,

>    Can't let this pass, brethren.  Allen, you mention:
>    
>    .34>I'm not referring to the role of women as mothers; that has had and
>    .34>will continue to have great emphasis.  I'm referring to women as
>    .34>individuals who need support from their husbands...
>    
>    Is it then, your contention ;) that women are individuals only in so 
>    far as they have husbands?
    
I'm sorry if I implied that.  In my reply I said I felt the Church would
change and give more emphasis to the roles of women.  Then I qualified that
statement to not include their role as mothers, and then I gave four examples
of roles for women that did not involve being mothers.  One of the examples
was their needing support from their husbands; I included that example
because the matter of wives supporting their husbands had been given earlier
as a sexist thing.  The four examples were not intended to be all inclusive.
I could have (and perhaps should have) given an example that pertained to
single women.


>    You also say, or quote:
>    
>    .35>Unlike the young men, she is not entitled to an increase in
>    .35>responsibility in relation to her attendance at church.
>    
>    Is advancement in the priesthood correlated only to attendance at
>    church?  Do you not consider young women's opportunities to develop
>    themselves and give service to others as increased responsibility?  How
>    about the opportunities to serve as class president, counselor,
>    secretary?            
    
The person I quoted was concerned with the *increase* in responsibility
provided to boys as they progress from Deacon to Teacher to Priest not to
increased responsibility given to particular persons who are called to
leadership positions.  She felt the girls don't have that *increase* since
(in her view) the three YW classes are all the same.  In my Ward, the Laurel
President does have a bit more responsibility than the two younger Presidents,
but the Laurels themselves don't have more responsibility than the younger
girls.  The person I quoted felt this difference between the boys and girls
programs is unfair and suggests that girls are less important than boys.

Does this help clarify my previous thoughts, Ann?

Allen    

    As far as sexist practices go, why then do Primary Presidencies
    usually, and almost always, consist of women?  I know some of the
    primary workers are both men and women, but why is the primary
    presidency women?  If it is ok for a woman to preside in the primary,
    then why not preside in the sunday school organization?  Do the
    scriptures indicate that this is the way the primary and sunday school
    should be run?
    
    I don't know why things are run this way, however, I sometimes wonder
    if us men would participate less if we did not have to attend church
    due to the fact that the positions we are called to serve require us to
    attend.  My gut feeling is that women attend church more willingly for
    some reason or another.  My reason for saying this is because I look
    around and see more women who attend without their family than I do
    men attend without their family.  Anyone want to speculate as to why
    this is the case?
    
    scott

    I believe that the preference is to have a Priesthood holder preside
    over the Sunday School.  But, as is indicated in tha recent Ensign,
    women have presided over the Sunday School.  I don't know why the
    preference exists.  As a Primary teacher it never bothered me that
    my superiors in the Primary organization were women.
    
    Steve

>    As far as sexist practices go, why then do Primary Presidencies
>    usually, and almost always, consist of women?  I know some of the
>    primary workers are both men and women, but why is the primary
>    presidency women?

I commented in an earlier reply that when I was young, the Primary was
completely a woman's organization--I never knew of men teachers until
relatively recently.  My guess is that the Church leaders felt the woman's
role was to teach children and hence the Primary was staffed by women.
Similarly, the Jr. Sunday School was staffed by women.  Apparently, the
leaders have decided that children benefit from having men teachers, and
it is now common for Primary teachers to be of both sexes.  The GA have
apparently felt the Primary should continue to have women leaders.  I don't
know if this is to give women a piece of the leadership-cake, so to speak, or
if it is for historical reasons, or for other reasons.

I see all of this as an example of the Church changing its policies to meet
the times and to better advance the progression of its members.

Allen

>I commented in an earlier reply that when I was young, the Primary was
>completely a woman's organization--I never knew of men teachers until
>relatively recently.  My guess is that the Church leaders felt the woman's
>role was to teach children and hence the Primary was staffed by women.
>Similarly, the Jr. Sunday School was staffed by women.  Apparently, the
>leaders have decided that children benefit from having men teachers, and
>it is now common for Primary teachers to be of both sexes.  The GA have
>apparently felt the Primary should continue to have women leaders.  I don't
>know if this is to give women a piece of the leadership-cake, so to speak, or
>if it is for historical reasons, or for other reasons.
>

	Allen,

		The Primary as well as the Sunday School are auxiliary
	organizations which operate under the direction of the priesthood.
	Jr. Sunday School always had a priesthood holder presiding.  Even
	the greatest women's organization of all, the Relief Society, is
	still under the direction of the priesthood.  There is no church
	organization led by women which is not directed by the priesthood.


>I see all of this as an example of the Church changing its policies to meet
>the times and to better advance the progression of its members.

	The Church will change its policies to meet the times ONLY under
	the direction of the Lord.  It will never change to met the world
	opinion.  Any change is always to better advance the progression 
	of its members.  There is no other reason for the church as an
	organization except to facilitate the exaltation of God's children.


	Charles

    There have been many "currently popular concepts" that are not
    necessarily correct. The issue of "Sexism" is one of those. By this I
    mean, that there are clearly differences between the two genders, and
    to claim that it is inapropriate to make decisions based on gender is
    simply not valid. I do agree that there have been many cases where
    there hasa been discrimination based on gender that has been
    inappropriate, but that does not make all such discrimination bad. Now
    I am sure that there are some who in their own eyes know clearly which
    case is which and so they can say when the church is out of line. But
    as for me, I don't claim that depth of wisdom. I can accept that there
    are practices which come from the culture of the church more than the
    doctrine, and as such perhaps deserve to be modified, however i do not
    feel that that is where I with my limited wisdom should be acting as an
    agent for change. Instead, I believe that I should work dilligently to
    understand and help and support those close to me, my family first then
    then those assigned to me and then.... In this activity I can put great
    deals of energy and be a clear agent for change. Further I can see
    results in the happiness of those I have helped. While it may seem to
    some that it is a greater good to change church policy and thereby help
    people around the world, I think it is much more important to pray that
    the Lord will continue to inspire his designated leaders, and to trust
    that these leaders are genuinely sensitive, caring individuals who are
    responsive to the direction of the Lord. In doing so then I don't need
    to address the issue of what church policy "should" be, and I can put
    that effort into things that I can personally affect. Further I believe
    that questioning the actions (or inactions) of the leaders stirs up
    feelings in my heart that I don't want to have there. On the other hand
    praying for their inspiration and welfare and trusting the mind and
    will of the Lord will be done helps me have feelings that are warm and
    delicious to me.
    
    May the Spirit of the Lord fill our hearts and lives,
    
    your brother, Len
    

>    But, as is indicated in tha recent Ensign,
>    women have presided over the Sunday School.

Steve, I missed that in my reading of the Ensign.  Would you please post
a pointer to the issue involved?

Thanks, 

Allen

	Allen,
		The June issue has a story about a sister from Canada that
	was first made assistant superintendant because of a lack of
	brethern.  She was then made superintendant when there was no
	brethern at all.  It was indicated, however, that she worked
	under the direction of the missionaries when they were there.

	Charles

	I think it should be pointed out that the only "role" a woman
	in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can not hold
	is that requiring the priesthood directly.  There will be no
	woman leading this church or in the Quorum of the Twelve.  There
	will be no woman in any quorum of seventy, or any kind of area
	representative.  There will be no women stake presidents, bishops
	or councilors.  There will be no women elders or high priests.

	This does not mean, in any way, shape or form, that God does not
	value women any more, or any less, than he does the brethren.  Both
	male and female are of equal importance to our Heavenly Father.
	The difference comes in the basic "roles" each has to fill.  It does
	not mean that house work is woman's work.  The brethren can do it 
	just as much as the sisters can (don't see any women taking care of
	male missionaries-the brethren should have these skills before they
	get out into the mission field).

	Excepting the priesthood, any other bias against women in this church 
	should be seen as unrighteous dominion.  If anything, I have seen
	more women put above men than below, but the ideal place is along
	side of men as equals where ever possible.

	Charles

    re: -.2  Yup.  That's the article.
    
    Steve

    Allen, thanks for the clarification in .39.
    
    All, sorry to drop out in mid-thought.  I'm ba-ack!
    
    Concerning leadership positions in general:  I believe teaching is the
    most satisfying calling in the Church.  As far as most important: I
    can't rate home teaching, or any other teaching, or leadership, or
    maintenance, or any calling as most or more important.  All callings
    are important because they allow us to serve and grow.  After all, like
    the sabbath, man (and of course woman and child) was not made for the 
    Church.  Rather the Church is here to aid each of our Heavenly Father's
    children, from the newborn who has not yet received a Church calling to
    the Prophet of the Lord.
    
    aq
     

Here are a couple of my thoughts on the subject.  (Sorry it took so long).

My feelings are that most of the problems with women's rights/feminism,
etc arise from one thing:  A lack of understanding of the true role of
women and their importance.  This lack of understanding has fostered 
unrighteous dominion by some men.  Both men & women are equal in the 
sight of the Lord.  (Didn't the Lord say that He is no respecter of 
persons?)  We are all different, we have different talents, abilities, 
strengths & weaknesses.  Yet, in spite of our individual differences, 
we are equal in the sight of the Lord.  We are therefore equally 
important and have equal blessings.  

Men and women have different roles in this life.  This is natural.  
It does not mean that one is better or worse, superior or inferior 
than the other.  It means that we have different jobs to do and we 
have been given the (natural) abilities to carry out those jobs.

A very important of the Gospel is the concept of the importance of 
the family.  I look at the roles of men/women in light of this.  


My wife has the (very) important job of raising our children.  This 
is a full-time job and is very, very important.  She has the children 
most of the time, and she has the calling of teaching our children the 
Gospel and to walk uprightly before the Lord.  She is the one who has 
the most influence with them and is the one who shapes their lives the 
most.  This is a very great responisibility.  Almost all women can become 
pregnant.  Few are very good mothers.

My position as father is no less important (nor is it more important).
I see my role as a *supporting* role.  I take care of the worldly things
so that my wife can concentrate on the more important duty of raising
our children correctly.  I provide her with leadership, emotional and 
financial support.  I protect/shield our home from the world outside
and provide the guidance & support she needs so that she can be free 
to fulfill her responsiblity.  If I don't do my job right, then neither 
can she.  If I can't support my family adequately (financially) and my 
wife has to work, then she spends less time with the children, and they 
suffer from it.  Yes, I do have the priesthood, but like the role of 
motherhood, it is a *giving* role.  I can help others, but rely on others 
to give me help.  

BTW, although I am charged with providing my wife with the support she 
needs and I take care of the temporal things, this does NOT relieve me 
of my responsibilities as a father - to teach them the Gospel, and to 
help them walk uprightly.  This means I have to spend time with them
and to be there for them and to be the kind of example & father that
they need and deserve.  Remember, "there is no success that can compensate
for failure in the home" - (David O. McKay).  

Together we as parents have an awesome responsibility.  The Lord has 
placed his spirit children in our care.  My son & daughter are no less
important than I am.  I was just born 30 years earlier.  My job is sort
of like a tour-guide for this world.  They came here, gained a body, and
don't know how to use it (babies are a good example) or how to act in this 
new environment.  My job is to sort of "show them the ropes" & how they 
should act (look both ways before crossing the street, be honest, be kind 
to others, etc).

Our children will learn from us.  How good/bad we are as parents will have
an impact on our children and how they will act as parents.  I read a nice
quote somewhere 

	"We are not raising children, we are raising parents".

Just a thought.

Frank

The following is an excerpt from a book entitled "The Holy Ghost" which
was written by Joseph Fielding McConkie & Robert L. Millet that I think
applies to our discussion.  In any case, their point is well taken &
stated.
    
    
P. 49-50

		The Susceptibility of Women to the Spirit

Because the spirit of revelation is so closely associated with the 
feelings of the heart, because the voice of the Spirit is the voice of
gentleness, because the Spirit is naturally attracted to purity, and
because the Lord delights to honor those who serve him - especially
those with whom he has entrusted the care of innocent and newly born 
children - it stands to reason that women are, by their very nature,
more susceptible to the spirit of revelation than are men.

It is natural for man to acquire - to subdue, to confront, to battle, 
to obtain dominion over things.  It is natural for the woman to give, 
to be gentle and compassionate (though the Master's teachings and 
example make these traits also proper for men).  Obviously those 
latter characteristics are more likely to attract the heaven-sent 
voice.  Keys, power, authority, priesthood - these have been given 
to men.  The miracle of copartnership with God in clothing his spirit 
children with physical bodies has been given to women.  It is for man 
to protect life; it is for women to give life.  As the body of the 
unborn child takes its strength and nourishment from its mother, so 
must the spirit of that child, in like manner, be nourished and 
strengthened by the mortal mother if it too is to grow healthy and 
strong.  Her faith then will tend to become its faith, her strength 
its strength.  The father will preside when the family kneels to pray, 
but it will be the mother who has taught the children how to pray.

"Little children," the scriptures declare, "are holy" (D & C 74:7).  We are
sanctified by their presence.  When the disciples sought to prevent loving 
mothers from bringing their little children to the Savior, he responded, 
"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such 
is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14).  Could it be that Christ is 
suggesting not just that those who inhabit the celestial world will have 
the innocence, submissiveness, and purity of children, as we have 
traditionally said, but that heaven would hardly be heaven without little 
children?  Does not godhood center in the doctrine of fatherhood and 
motherhood?  Is not the doctrine of eternal increase?  (See D & C 131:4).
And if such is the nature of heaven. Perhaps, there is no more perfect 
setting for the outpouring of the Spirit than one in which a loving mother 
takes her little child in her arms to nestle the child and speak of future 
dreams.  And again in future years as that child grows to maturity, who 
more than his mother is entitled to the whisperings of the Spirit - its 
promptings and impulses - to bless and protect the child?  Surely heaven's 
light shines most brightly upon mothers.
    
    
Best Regards,
    
    
Frank

    There was talk along these lines at a Stake leadership meeting I
    attended last night.  One member of the Stake Presidency indicated that
    he thought that childbearing is a Priesthood responsibility that women
    are born with.  This because it involves the bringing of eternal beings
    into this world and is therefore an eternal and spiritual function.
    
    Another member of the Stake Presidency indicated that another of the
    differences between men and women may be illustrated in D&C 121:34-46.
    These are lessons that seem easy for women to learn and hard for men to
    learn and accept.
    
    Steve

    I disagree that childbearing is a Priesthood responsibility that women
    are born with.  Not all women are physically able to bear children on
    earth, and even among those who can, not all have the opportunity to do
    so in this life.  Were childbearing to be equated with Priesthood
    responsibility, we might encourage unmarried women to give birth.
    
    I believe that the Priesthood is an important means of service, but not
    the only one.  I believe that each human being is charged with keeping 
    her/his second estate, and working to assist others in their efforts to
    do the same.  Without Priesthood ordinances, we could not return to our
    Heavenly parents, but the Priesthood alone is not sufficient to enable
    us to do so.
    
    I sorely regret that I don't have the Priesthood in my home, but that
    lack will not keep me from fulfilling my mission.  Makes it tougher, I
    freely confess!
    
    aq
          

>    One member of the Stake Presidency indicated that
>    he thought that childbearing is a Priesthood responsibility that women
>    are born with.  This because it involves the bringing of eternal beings
>    into this world and is therefore an eternal and spiritual function.
    
I think this attitude is another example of "sexist" attitudes in the
Church--that everything revolves around the Priesthood and a strong implication
that things not connected with the Priesthood are not worthwhile.

I'm just going from memory, so if my next comment isn't complete, please
correct me with additional details: the scriptures teach that the Priesthood
(a) is necessary for ordinances, and (b) is necessary for one to preside at
Church meetings.  I don't recall any other requirements for having the
priesthood, and I specifically don't recall anything being said about the
Priesthood being necessary for one to have children....

There are many activities that people can and should do in which the Priesthood
isn't involved.  I think that childbearing is one of these.  To say otherwise
is to send a message to all LDS women married to non-LDS that they are inferior
to LDS women married to Priesthood holders.

Maybe I don't comprehend what the person meant by his statement.  Steve, do you
recall anything that would help us to understand the context to his statement?

Allen

I'm also not sure that child bearing is a responsibility that anyone is
born with.  Women are born (speaking in general terms since many women have
physical problems that prevent childbirth) with the capability for childbirth,
but I think they accept or not accept via their free agency the responsibility
for child bearing.  The Lord wants us to "multiply & replenish the earth", but
he doesn't force that responsibility upon us; rather he provides the commandment
and opportunities and then allows us to voluntarily take the responsibility
upon ourselves.

Allen

    Oh, I don't have much more about it.  I find it an interesting concept,
    though my mind is not made up about whether or not I agree with it. 
    Before that could happen, I'd have to understand it and I'm not sure
    that I do.  
    
    I think that what is being hinted at is that just as all men are 
    foreordained to receive the Priesthood, all women are foreordained to bear 
    children.  Doesn't mean that they will.  Only that they might and are thus 
    promised heavenly support toward this end.  This eternal blessing and 
    promise, if not fulfilled because of extenuating circumstances, then gives 
    men and women claim to blessings they would have received had they been
    successful to this end.
    
    This is also not the limit of foreordination, just a part of it. 
    Coming to this earth was the first step for fulfillment for each of us
    in realizing the potentials given us in our foreordinations, similar to
    what is done with patriarchal blessings.  It is the first part of that
    support promised to us in foreordination.  That being the case, the
    process of bringing us to Earth is critical in the Priesthood function
    of foreordination and inseparably linked.  Foreordination is why, for 
    example, someone who could not hear and accept the Gospel in this life may 
    still be eligible for its full blessings after this life.  Now, I'm going 
    on a limb with all this, so take this all with a hefty grain of salt.
    
    Steve                                      

I hadn't thought about child bearing from the viewpoint of foreordination.
Interesting comment.  If that is true, then child bearing would be a
responsibility that women are born with; whether *every* woman would be
foreordained for child bearing is another matter and something we have
no knowledge of.

The phrase that caught my attention was the statement that child bearing was
a Priesthood function.  I guess that in a very general sense, that would be
true, just as Digital making computers is a Priesthood function, in that  
everything is under control of Heavenly Father and thus a "Priesthood function".
However, that is a very broad generalization, so broad that in my view it
doesn't have much meaning.  

I guess I'm paranoid over the emphasis that we currently give to the
Priesthood, because I think it puts women in an inferior role, always
subordinate to men in everything.  Last night, for example, I attended
Seminary graduation.  Sure enough, the first item on the printed agenda was
that the meeting was presided over by so-and-so counselor in the Stake
Presidency.  I thought to my self, "I wonder why that put that in the program.
It seems that knowing that the meeting was provided by the Stake Mutual would
be sufficient."  I think the presiding role of the Priesthood should be more
of a shadow thing, its there but not in the lime light.  Similar to the use
of audio-visuals in a class, there but they don't draw attention to
themselves.  I also wondered why the Young Men's President and not the
Young Women's President conducted.  Maybe they take turns.  Maybe the powers
that be feel the meeting should be conducted by Priesthood holders.  I don't
know the answer, of course, but I'll be watching next year to see if the
Young Women's President gets her turn.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the
Young Men's President do it again next year, since I think there is a strong
cultural bias towards the men.  I emphasize *cultural* bias so the non-LDS
reading the conference will understand it isn't a matter of doctrine but is
a matter of our western European culture.

Allen

    I would also like to see more conscious efforts to have women run
    meetings when there is no specific need for men to run them.  I think
    that leadership in general are moving toward this where it is
    appropriate.  I suspect, too, that most folks prefer to "play it safe"
    as far as who presides until it's written down somewhere in black and
    white that it's okay for women to preside at certain meetings.  So,
    changes will probably be slow in coming.
    
    BTW, Allen, enjoyed finally getting to meet you and your wife at the
    baptism in Littleton!  :)
    
    Steve

	RE: <<< Note 230.57 by CACHE::LEIGH "Let your light shine" >>>

>I guess I'm paranoid over the emphasis that we currently give to the
>Priesthood, 

	Yes, you are, but its your own feelings.  Why is this bothering you
	so much?  Maybe you should go back and study about authority and
	the difference between presiding and conducting.  Are you going
	out of your way to see this condition in the church?  Will it affect
	you in other ways?

	Even thought Jesus Christ made this earth (he conducted), Heavenly
	Father can take credit (he presided).  Go back to the temple and pay
	close attention to the begining.  

	The "presiding authority" is a term used a lot.  Why does it bother 
	people to have the priesthood authority stated on meetings?  Do you 
	realize that the stake presides over the wards?  This goes on to the 
	prophet being presided over by Jesus Christ whose church this is.

>because I think it puts women in an inferior role, always
>subordinate to men in everything.  

	Only if the men proceed in that manner.  This is absolutly the wrong
	idea or concept concerning the priesthood.

>I think the presiding role of the Priesthood should be more
>of a shadow thing, its there but not in the lime light.  

	No, this is the main thing which sets this church apart from others
	in that we have the *authority* from Jesus Christ to conduct ourselves
	under his direction.  Without the presiding role of the priesthood, we
	might just as well be like any other church on the earth today.


	It seems to me that this discussion is taking a turn toward a worldly
	opinion on the basic precepts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
	Day Saints.  The role of women as defined by the world has no place
	in this church.  Why are you trying to make it so?  Everything should
	be taken in the context of how and why this church was re-established
	on the earth in the latter days.  Re-examine what Christ told Joseph
	Smith about which church to join and why.  God's house is a house of 
	order, and there is indeed order in the priesthood.  It is the single
	thread which makes everything work with order and consistency.  If
	the role of the priesthood is misunderstood, then this whole church
	will be misunderstood.

	Charles

I wonder, Charles, if we are talking about two different aspects of the
Priesthood.  I'm not talking about, nor questioning, the necessity of the
Priesthood as authority nor the importance of it.  If I understand your
comments, you seem to be directing your thoughts to those aspects.

I'm talking about social and cultural customs in which we emphasize the role
of men via their holding the Priesthood above the roles of women who don't
hold the Priesthood, and in doing this we send a message to the women that
their roles are inferior to those of the men.

Allen

>I wonder, Charles, if we are talking about two different aspects of the
>Priesthood.  I'm not talking about, nor questioning, the necessity of the
>Priesthood as authority nor the importance of it.  If I understand your
>comments, you seem to be directing your thoughts to those aspects.

	When you question the necessity of documenting the presiding
	authority of a funtion, I tend to wonder where you are coming from.
	When you state that this documenting of the presiding authority 
	should be kept in the background or just be understood, I tend to 
	wonder if it is important to you.  Lets not contridict ourselves
	when emphasizing the social and cultural differences.

>I'm talking about social and cultural customs in which we emphasize the role
>of men via their holding the Priesthood above the roles of women who don't
>hold the Priesthood, and in doing this we send a message to the women that
>their roles are inferior to those of the men.

	Maybe I am totally confused upon this aspect because I do not tend
	to see things as clear as others.  I have a good understanding of
	how it should work, and I do not see problems in my limited sphere.
	The YW and YM presidencies have always alternated conducting meetings.
	In fact, if it were not for passing the sacrament, I would not see
	much difference between men and women in saying prayers, giving talks,
	or conducting in their respective spheres.  Is this thing an area 
	problem?  Maybe the men out East are different than those out West.
	I have also not heard any women lamenting about this downgrading
	message you perceive.  Are the women more vocal back East?

	I am under the impression that the leaders since Joseph Smith have
	never emphasized the role of men via their holding the Priesthood 
	above the roles of women who don't hold the Priesthood.  Like I said
	before, any man doing so is guilty of unrighteous dominion.

	Charles

    Allen, Charles,
    
    
    I think we all agree, but are saying the same thing different ways.
    
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is safe to say that we all 
    agree on the following:
    
    1)  The Priesthood is important and it is necessary for our salvation.
        (Without it, the saving ordinances can't be performed).
        As Charles stated, this is one of the things that separates our 
        Church from the others.  
    
    2)  The Priesthood is a role of leadership, not superiority.  If two 
        people lead (or no one leads, then very little is accomplished).  
        One person _has_ to lead (although this should be done gently and 
        by example).  
    
    3)  Women also have the primary role of raising children.  
        This is an important role that is often overlooked - by those of
        both sexes.
    
    4)  Men are not superior to women & vice-versa.  We each have different
        callings, duties and responsibilities.  Priesthood & motherhood
        are both important to our Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation.  
    
    I tried to say this in .50 & .51, but somehow it didn't come out that
    way.
    
    
    Best Regards,
    
    
    Frank

>	When you question the necessity of documenting the presiding
>	authority of a funtion, I tend to wonder where you are coming from.

Ops, please be a little careful; personal criticism of other employees isn't
allowed.

>	When you state that this documenting of the presiding authority 
>	should be kept in the background or just be understood, I tend to 
>	wonder if it is important to you.  Lets not contridict ourselves
>	when emphasizing the social and cultural differences.

Well, Charles, we need to remember that we're talking about something which
is purely personal opinion.  By this I mean that we're not talking about
Gospel principles or commandments of Diety.  We're not talking about the
organization of the Church from a theological viewpoint.  We're talking about
social and cultural aspects of the church, and we need to remember that there
is no "right" or "wrong" in this discussion.  You have your opinion and I
have mine, and that is fine.  We talk about it and exchange ideas and hopefully
come to understand the other a bit more.

One thing that concerns me is that the Church has become highly
"institutionalized" (remember, I'm talking about the cultural and social
view of the Church not the theological).  It is just like a Corporation.  It
has a CEO, a Board of Directors, an executive staff, regional middle managers,
and many local managers.  I'm not concerned about this hierarchical 
organization, because that type of structure is scriptural, but I am concerned
that a strong protocol of how we interface with the Corporate officers has
developed, and I think this protocol is both unnecessary and detracts from
the religious goals of the Church.

Now, in order to understand my viewpoint, you need to realize that I'm a
person who doesn't like centralized governments. I favor local control in
which we have a maximum of free agency.  Again,  remember that I'm talking
about social and cultural issues; I accept and don't fight the strong central
organization of the Church as far as doctrine and policy are concerned,
because that organization is scriptural and the will of God.

I realize that many people prefer central social organizations and feel 
comfortable with the protocol that exists between us and our Church leaders.
I also realize that many if not most of the GA over the years have come from
Corporations that have strong central governments, so the evolution of a
central social organization in the Church hasn't surprised me.  One of the
reasons I enjoy reading LDS Church history is because the Church in Joseph
Smith's time seemed to be more informal and unstructured as far as social
and cultural issues were concerned.  People knew Joseph as "Brother Joseph".
If I were to refer to "Brother Ezra" people would think I was being irreverent.

There is a formal relationship between us and the GA and between us and our
Stake leaders, and even between us and our Bishop; this is the social protocol
I referred to.  Because of this protocol, these men are no longer "Brother
Joseph" but are "President" or "Bishop".  Is this bad?  No.  Is this good? No.
It just exists as the evolutionary product over time as the Church has become
"institutionalized".  

People claim that this formalism contributes to our having respect for the
Priesthood.  Maybe.  I guess that if there are people who don't have a
personal relationship with God, they might be strengthened by this
formalism.  But, if I think (and its only my opinion) that this formalism
sets up a barrier between us and our leaders and makes it more difficult for
us to have a close relationship with them.  They are always a little bit
distant from us.

I've already given the example of printed programs listing the name and
frequently the position of the person presiding.  I see no reason for having
that entry on the program, other than social protocol.  Everyone in the
congregation already knows that he is presiding, so the entry doesn't convey
new information.  The entry doesn't contribute to the purpose of Sacrament
meeting.  All it does is reinforce the formalism of the Church; it is there
because social protocol demands it.

Another example that I've seen concerns a ward member who is a High Councilor,
a common situation in many wards.  The man attends the Ward as an individual
member (meaning he isn't there on Church business) and sits with his family
in the congregation.  The Bishopric member conducting will still acknowledge
him as a member of the High Council.  Why is this recognition given?  He isn't
there on Church business.  He is there to renew his covenants and to worship
God.  The recognition is given because social protocol demands it.  Is this
bad?  No, although I think it hinders the purpose of Sacrament meeting 
because it contributes to the "business meeting" aspect of Sacrament meeting.
Is this good?  No, it is just done because tradition and protocol demand it.

Now, getting back to the topic of this note--LDS women.  I think that one
undesirable effect of this social protocol, this strong emphasis on the
hierarchical organization of the Church in our social lives, is that it
places an emphasis on the men of the Church that in turn tends to reduce
the importance of the role of women in the Church.  This is a "side effect"
effect, but is real.  Why do Bishops always have Aaronic Priesthood holders
pass out printed programs?  Probably because "its the way things are done",
or because "its a Priesthood assignment".  It probably never occurred to
Bishops that girls could also do that, as could unordained boys.  Bishops are
conditioned to think in terms of "priesthood" and they give assignments
accordingly.

The thing that worries me is that this strong emphasis on priesthood in our
social relationships with each other is interpreted by many as an indication
that persons not having the priesthood are inferior.  Of course, not everyone
interprets things this way, but many do, and to them this is a real problem.
I hope that our Church leaders will become more aware of this problem and
will try to balance the situation, so to speak.  When the new budget 
program was announced, the Church specifically said the young women should
get their fair share of the funds for youth activities; this announcement
shows the GA are aware that young men are sometimes emphasized more than
young women, and they wanted to insure that this wouldn't happen with the
budget funds.  Another indication that the GA are aware of this problem is
the announcement of a new training video for the young women; this was
significant in terms of the context of this note, because no such video
exists for the young men--the women got it first this time!


>	Is this thing an area 
>	problem?  Maybe the men out East are different than those out West.
>	I have also not heard any women lamenting about this downgrading
>	message you perceive.  Are the women more vocal back East?

I would be surprised if it were an area problem.  I'm from Utah and have
lived there and in Arizona for 2/3 of my 56 years, so my attitudes don't
necessarily reflect an "eastern" view.


>	I am under the impression that the leaders since Joseph Smith have
>	never emphasized the role of men via their holding the Priesthood 
>	above the roles of women who don't hold the Priesthood.  Like I said
>	before, any man doing so is guilty of unrighteous dominion.

Well said, Charles!  So, if you become Bishop sometime, I hope you will
consider having the Young women, or even Primary children pass out
Sacrament meeting programs once in a while.

Allen

    Let me expand on something I mentioned before.  There are women who
    long to have children, who long to fill that primary role of raising
    children, but who are not blessed with the opportunity to do so on this
    earth.  Frank, I don't deny there are both men and women, inside and
    outside the Church, who overlook that important role.  But from this
    note seems to totally ignore those women who cannot raise children.
    
    Should you (general, not specific, you) file all women into the slot of 
    filling that primary role, you ignore young women, unmarried women and
    ultimately all women, or at least all who continue to live after their 
    children are raised.  As one who is approaching that empty nest stage,
    I would be appalled at the ignorance of those who would feel that I
    have fulfilled my role, and have no more to offer.
    
    I, like all Heavenly Father's (and of course, Heavenly Mother[s])
    children who have or will come to earth, began as intelligence, kept my
    first estate, and came here to keep my second estate with the goal of
    returning home.  Having children, or not having children (unlike
    receiving and honoring the Priesthood) are just some of the choices
    I've made.  Not every woman or man on this earth has that choice on
    this earth.  I appreciate the importance, I more than many, of
    child-rearing, but *that is not why I'm here or all I have to
    learn/offer*
    
    aq
    
    

Hi Frank,

>    3)  Women also have the primary role of raising children.  
>        This is an important role that is often overlooked - by those of
>        both sexes.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.  Your statement could be
interpreted to mean that men should earn the money and women raise the
family, that is, men don't help with the family (the traditional European
view).  I think that men need to help raise the family when they aren't at
work, especially when they come home in the evening and can take over from
their wives and give them a break from the family.

The situation is becoming more complex as economic conditions worsen.  I
think the time will come when the high cost of living will force almost all
women into the workplace, and if this happens then who will have the "primary"
role of raising children?  An undesirable situation but one that I think
will come, and we'll have to adjust to it and still keep our families
together.

Allen

    .64
    
    Ann, I agree with you 100%.  Thanks for bring up the issue. To be
    honest, I forgot all about the unmarried/childless issue.  I have 
    thought some about it (and will think more about it), and I agree 
    with you.  I hope my message didn't carry the message that this 
    is the *only* role of women - because that is not the way I feel.
    
    .65
    
    Allen, 
    
    I agree that fathers should take care of the kids when they get home.
    My 2-year-old daughter, Jennifer, is a bundle of energy (& joy). 
    When I get home from work, my wife is *very* happy to see me - 
    because she loves me and (probably mostly) she gets to take a (much
    needed) break.  
    
    I see this type of attitude *a lot* in Germany (& other countries as
    well) and it bothers me.  I thought I addressed this in .50/51 though.
    
    Best Regards,
    
    Frank

>The situation is becoming more complex as economic conditions worsen.  I
>think the time will come when the high cost of living will force almost all
>women into the workplace, and if this happens then who will have the "primary"
>role of raising children?  An undesirable situation but one that I think
>will come, and we'll have to adjust to it and still keep our families
>together.

 I agree with most of what you say here, Allen, but I don't believe the time
 will ever come when the Lord wants married women with children at home to be
 in the workplace.  I recognize their right to decide, and never question
 them individually as to their prayerful consideration of the matter.  However,
 my personal belief is that the Lord expects us to implement other alternatives
 before such should occur.  [For example, it was not uncommon for multiple
 generations of one family to live together in previous years.  We may need to
 go back to that sort of lifestyle in the future, but I suspect the Lord will
 require it of us.]

 You've hit a sore spot with me.  I used to lean more towards your opinion, but
 my wife has patiently helped me understand what the role of the Christian wife
 and mother should be.  She has very strong feelings on this issue, and they do
 seem to me to be quite consistent with the prophet's teachings.

 People will need to learn to economize, to cut back on entertainment costs, to
 raise gardens, to maintain cars, etc., themselves, to buy second-hand items
 instead of new, but children will need a parent at home.  Of that I feel sure.

	Allen,
		Now we're getting somewhere!  Thanks for the detailed 
	explanation of your views.  Maybe you don't like it, but as the
	moderator of this conference I tend to give your views more
	weight.  This goes back to the social protocol we humans have
	given ourselves.

		One of the biggest problems this church has is that the
	members can not separate the people from the office or position
	they hold.  It is perfectly correct to address President Benson 
	as either Brother Ezra (or Brother Benson) or Elder Benson.  I like
	to always remember what Joseph Smith stated about his office--I am
	a prophet only when I am acting in the office of a prophet (this
	is best from memory and is paraphrased-I can get the exact quote 
	if anyone would like it).  We have an additional problem in my area 
	in that there are a lot of military members.  Talk about the
	centralization issue!  

		Your example of the High Council member is a mistake on both 
	the Bishop and the High Council member.  Firstly, the Bishop should 
	not give him any status when he is not on the stand, and, secondly, 
	that High Council member should remind the Bishop of that fact.  The 
	weight of the office is nil except when it is on the stand. (In this
	particular instance.)  Your example of the printed programs shows
	that you have been a member of the church too long.  I would like to
	think that new converts would like to know the presiding authority
	as they would not know right off like you do.  It is definitely not
	on the program because of social protocol, but because what is recorded
	on earth is recorded in heaven.  I would like my sacrament meeting 
	attendance and ordinances to be acceptable by the Lord.  They will
	not be if not properly presided over by the priesthood.  I do agree
	with you, however, that programs could be handed out by just about 
	anyone.

		Most of the problems you have pointed out are caused by what
	people think or perceive should be done.  If people interpret the 
	strong emphasis on priesthood as an indication that people not having 
	the priesthood are inferior, then those people making that assumption 
	are incorrect and do not understand the purpose of the priesthood.
	I think there is a strong emphasis on the priesthood because those
	holding it are not magnifying their callings.  If the priesthood
	functioned like it should, there would be no need for the many various
	programs and auxiliaries the church now has.  A proper understanding
	of the priesthood and the roles and obligations of church members are 
	laid out in the Scriptures.  A comprehension of these principles can
	only be gotten through diligent reading of that which is available to
	us.  It is the responsibility of each person to learn the duties of
	their office.  That includes the office of member, husband and father,
	and wife and mother besides any additional church priesthood office.

		So I think it all boils down to the people.  Most problems do,
	don't you think.  If we can apply the scriptural principles in our
	lives, then the problems decrease.  They don't go away because not
	all people use the Scriptures for a basis in their daily living.  But
	how we, ourselves, do is the test we are here to pass.

		By the way, I do not really ever want to be a bishop.  I am
	now happily clerking away, and the responsibilities I had for four 
	years as Elder's Quorum President were enough.  Oh, I would accept 
	the calling and try to do my best, but I definitely do not want it.
	In fact, there is only one calling that I do desire to have and that 
	is to be Gospel Doctrine instructor again.  Oh well, can't have 
	everything we want, can we?

	Charles

	If we look at the "role" of women, I think we should go back to
	the basics at the begining.

	First - a woman is the female of the species of man.  When born,
		a woman is a person.  So I think that the primary role
		of a woman should be to herself.

	Second - (following God's way and not the worlds way) a woman is
		a wife.  That would then be her next most important
		responsibility.

	Third - a woman is a mother if it be God's will that she have children
		with her mortal body.  Note that these children will raise up
		and leave, which then goes back to the first two.

	Now, don't get me wrong.  I believe there is a great responsibility to
	have and raise children (becuase we must have long suffering :-).
	The mother is better equiped to do so than the men.  Do you hear any
	thing about the fathers of the 2000 young striplings?  No, only about
	the mothers.  But always remember, women and children are people too.

	Charles

Hi Charles,


>		Your example of the High Council member is a mistake on both 
>	the Bishop and the High Council member.  Firstly, the Bishop should 
>	not give him any status when he is not on the stand, and, secondly, 
>	that High Council member should remind the Bishop of that fact.

That's the way I feel about it.  In fact, I wouldn't even mention at the
beginning why he was on the stand.  I would just introduce him at the
appropriate time and let him conduct his business; the act of doing that
would indicate his status.  Oh well, its good that Bishops do things
differently.  It would be a far worse situation if the Bishops were all clones
of some "ideal" standard.

>	Your example of the printed programs shows
>	that you have been a member of the church too long.  I would like to
>	think that new converts would like to know the presiding authority
>	as they would not know right off like you do.

That's an interesting observation, Charles, and I appreciate you calling
that to my attention!

>         It is definitely not
>	on the program because of social protocol, but because what is recorded
>	on earth is recorded in heaven.

I still think the social protocol is the reason, but who knows.  I'm not a
mind reader and am only voicing my biased view of the matter.

>		Most of the problems you have pointed out are caused by what
>	people think or perceive should be done.  If people interpret the 
>	strong emphasis on priesthood as an indication that people not having 
>	the priesthood are inferior, then those people making that assumption 
>	are incorrect and do not understand the purpose of the priesthood.

That's true, but the leaders are also partly at fault, as for example, if
Bishops continually reinforce the role of Aaronic Priesthood holders and
don't do much in public to make the Young Woman's program seem just as
important.


>	If the priesthood
>	functioned like it should, there would be no need for the many various
>	programs and auxiliaries the church now has.

Exactly!!


>		So I think it all boils down to the people.  Most problems do,
>	don't you think.

Yep, and to communications between people.

Allen

> You've hit a sore spot with me.  I used to lean more towards your opinion, but
> my wife has patiently helped me understand what the role of the Christian wife
> and mother should be.  She has very strong feelings on this issue, and they do
> seem to me to be quite consistent with the prophet's teachings.

I didn't mean to imply that my opinion was that women should leave the home
for the workplace.  My wife and I have the same opinion as you, that mothers
should be in the home.  But, I think the time will come when that will be
very difficult if not nigh impossible.  I was told by my Stake Singles leader
that about 45% of the adults in the Stake are single.  I expect that figure
will rise.  Those folks have no choice but to leave the home & work.  Economic
conditions will worsen, IMHO, such that mothers may not have much choice but
to leave the home.  Some of them will have grandparents or other relatives who
can tend the children, but for many the grandparents will me hundreds or
thousands of miles away.  Perhaps, the Wards will become real families in the
future and take care of each other.

Ann,

Thanks for your reminders that our "ideal" stereotypes of homes aren't the real
world for many of us.

Allen

Hi Allen,

>That's true, but the leaders are also partly at fault, as for example, if
>Bishops continually reinforce the role of Aaronic Priesthood holders and
>don't do much in public to make the Young Woman's program seem just as
>important.

The leaders should compliment those who are doing right, but I think as 
humans we tend to harp on what is wrong.  I do not think it wrong for any 
member to let the bishop know that it appears the YM are getting all the 
attention and the YW seem to be left out.  The biggest problem is it seems 
that the YW do better in their "callings" than the YM.  Same for the older 
folk.  Too bad, but I look forward to it improving.

Charles

    I sense a bit of a problem here in giving too much respect to any
    person or calling.  Even though the Church is structured as a
    hierarchy, I've always regarded most positions as pretty much even in
    importance.  I'm on the High Council and have respect for everyone I
    work with.  But, I don't regard someone as "only" a Sunday School
    teacher or "only" a Visiting or Home Teacher.  Can I say to any of
    them, "I have no need of thee?"  Of course not!  
    
    Same goes for "positions" of woman and man.  These are such important 
    roles that it seems a bit silly to be calling one more important than the 
    other.  Take away one of them and the other is pretty much stuck.  What I 
    fear are movements that currently exist to diminish or destroy such roles,
    usually to forward selfish or vain causes.
    
    I think that one thing that is of concern to Allen and to me is that
    for many years there have been social forces that have caused women to
    be subordinate.  This is not the Lord's intent, IMHO.  I think it stems 
    from confusion about what the Church is.  In the Gospel, men hold 
    Priesthood and women do not.  This means that men can administer in some 
    ordinances and women cannot.  This is appropriate within its limits.  It 
    is inappropriate when extended beyond the limits the Lord has set.  For 
    example, mowing the lawn is not necessarily a "Priesthood responsibility" 
    though a family member of mine has been told this while living in Utah.
    Doing the dishes, diapering kids and picking things up are not just for
    women to do.  
    
    I agree with Allen that some meetings are as appropriately run by female 
    leadership as male.  I know that when Priesthood ordinances and functions 
    are involved the meeting must be presided over by Priesthood.  Beyond that,
    I don't know that I can always say for sure and might have to refer to 
    Church publications.
    
    A similar problem exists when you get into callings that can be held by
    single adults.  That's another area where we sometimes inappropriately 
    eliminate good possibilities.  There is nothing that says that a
    Primary teacher needs to be a married female.  In our ward it's almost
    like pulling teeth to get some of the fathers to participate in doing
    Sharing Time for the Primary.  It's sometimes still thought of as odd
    to have a single adult teach a primary class.  But, we are improving in
    these matters (I hope).
    
    Steve 
                       

>>
>> (Allen)
>>
>>That's true, but the leaders are also partly at fault, as for example, if
>>Bishops continually reinforce the role of Aaronic Priesthood holders and
>>don't do much in public to make the Young Woman's program seem just as
>>important.
>
> (me)
>
> ...  I do not think it wrong for any member to let the bishop know that 
>it appears the YM are getting all the attention and the YW seem to be 
>left out.  The biggest problem is it seems that the YW do better in their 
>"callings" than the YM.  Same for the older folk.  


	Well, last month I had the opportunity to take my own advice as
	my perception of a situation fell right in with Allen's comment.
	As I become aware of situations brought up in this conference, it
	allows me to better watch for out for what other people see as
	problems that I was not cognizant of.

	Last month we had the Young Women camp one week followed the next
	week by the Young Men scout camp.  Our PEC is on Thursday which
	happens to also be the family night at both camps.  Guess which
	week PEC was canceled?  The Thursday night of the girls camp was
	actually Ward Council, so the Young Women's leaders, to their credit,
	were absent as they were supporting their charges.  

	I had a little talk with the bishop and his first counselor over 
	this.  The bishop stated that he did not have any girls old 
	enough for the girls camp.  I stated that just because he does 
	not have any doesn't mean that everybody else is in the same
	situation.  I felt he was not supporting the girls because he 
	was not encouraging their families to go up and support them.
	And it went on and on.

	As far as I am concerned, this situation fell right in with
	what Allen stated.  Too bad.  I don't know if my bishop will
	ever change, but he did get some flak from me on this.  And
	he will get some more next year if the same thing happens.

	Charles

I think that to some degree there is an ingrained attitude among some
Priesthood leaders that the role of the man is more important than the role
of the women.  We hear comments about women supporting their husbands, but
we don't hear comments very often about men supporting their wives.

I also think that some of the problem is that we just have narrow visions
about things.  We see the world from our own context and don't see it from
that of others--I know I have lots of problems with this.

Last Sunday, for example, my wife and I (we're the singles couple) were
meeting with our Bishopric and the single adult committee while a Stake
brother explained about the program.  We were discussing a singles activity
that is coming up and people were brainstorming ways to advertise the event.
Somebody suggested that it be announced in Sacrament meeting since events
that pertain to the married folks are announced there.  People remarked that
that would be a good idea.  I then commented that it was important that it
be announced there, because if married activities were announced but
single activities weren't we would be implying that singles were second-class
citizens.  I quickly added that we wouldn't mean to imply that but that is the
way it would come across.  One single sister nodded her head, yes, that is
the way it would come across.

My point is that in many cases we don't mean to discriminate, but we do it
because we have limited vision about the situation and how others feel.  We
need to make *explicit* effort to be fair in our attitudes, decisions, and
dealings in matters than concern minority groups.  And, in order to make this
effort, we have to realize that discrimination does exist in the Church because
we're human and have our weaknesses. Once we realize this and accept it, then
we're free to act upon it.

/Allen

ps: I need to mention that my Bishop has done quite well in the past in
announcing both married and single activities from the pulpit so those
who know what Ward I attend won't think that my Bishop is unfair to
singles.

    In reading this last comment, I was just thinking about another view.
    I hope that you don't mind another view.
    
    Some people have a problem with things that are out of their normal
    view.  Lets talk specifics.
    1.  Do you stare at someone who has a physical handicap or
        Do you not look at them.
    
    2.  When an inactive person comes to church in the wrong type of
        dress do you,
        Say someting about it. or
        Don't say anything to them because you don't want to offend.
    
    3.  When some one comes to church smelling of smoke,
    	Do you say something about it. or
    	Don's say anything because your afraid that you might say the
        wrong thing.
    
    4.	When the young women ask for help
    	Do you say you can contribute nothing or
    	Do you simply say I don't have any girls in that program
    
    5.	When the young women have a problem that needs help
    	Do you simply do the work for them or
    	Do you advise them and then let them do the work.
    
    My views are that some people have a problem facing the real
    issues.  It is not necessarly that they don't want to, it is
    just easier.
    
    Lee

	I think this subject matter is the right place for this article,
	so I will enter it here.  A very good article on the priesthood 
	appears in the February 1993 Ensign (which I just got).  I sure
	would like to know where this guy got some of his information.
	If anyone knows anything about the book mentioned, please post it.




	Historian: LDS Intended Women to Hold Priesthood.

	Scholar Cites Evidence Joseph Smith Endowed Power in Temple Ritual.

	By Vern Anderson, The Associated Press

	(There is no date on the copy of the article I have,
	 but it would be around the Jan 1993 time frame - CER)


		Mormonism's founder taught that women receive the faith's
	priesthood as part of a scared temple ritual, a historian says, 
	but the doctrine is virtually unknown to the modern church and 
	its patriarchy.

		"In effect, nearly all authoritative statements by modern
	apostles have been inaccurate concerning the matter of women
	holding the priesthood," D. Michael Quinn writes in a new book.

		Quinn said there is compelling documentary evidence that
	founder Joseph Smith gave women priesthood power in the temple 
	"endowment" ritual, in which women are anointed to become queens 
	and priestesses.

		"It's an explosive issue," Quinn acknowledged in an interview,
	particularly at a time when church leaders face growing pressure from
	Mormon feminists for a more active role in a faith dominated by its
	male priesthood.

		Mormons define priesthood as the literal power of God and 
	as the authority to act in God's name.  They believe the "keys" to 
	the priesthood came to Smith through heavenly intermediaries from 
	Jesus Christ and have been passed on to the church's 12 successive
	presidents.

		Quinn said there is no evidence a women ever was ordained 
	to a specific priesthood office such as elder, high priest, bishop
	or apostle.  But in the early church, there was a clear distinction
	between priesthood power -- available to women in the temple endow-
	ment -- and priesthood office.

		It wasn't until the 20th century that Mormon leaders 
	completely backed away from the idea that women held the priesthood,
	Quinn said.

		Still, for nearly 100 years after Smith's death in 1844,
	Mormon women were authorized to perform the priesthood function
	of healing other women by anointing and blessing.

		More than half of Quinn's 44-page essay in "Women and
	Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism" comprises notes on sources.
	The volume, edited by Maxine Hanks and published by Signature Books,
	has 16 other contributors.

		Two Weeks before Smith organized the Female Relief Society
	of Nauvoo, Ill., in 1942, he told the women that "the society
	should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going
	to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day -- as 
	in Paul's day."

		Much later, in printing the official minutes of Smith's 
	remarks, the official "History of the Church" omitted Smith's 
	first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society"
	to "Church."

		"Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his
	statement," said Quinn, a former Brigham Young University historian
	who is writing a history of the church hierarchy.

		Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, speaking to a church general 
	conference in April, quoted from Nauvoo Relief Society minutes
	to show that "no priesthood keys were delivered to the Relief
	Society.  Keys are conferred on individuals, not organizations,"
	a point Quinn readily concedes.