LDS letter addresses online criticisms about women


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whoa.  It's like you're talking about some other Church altogether!  So sorry you've been through all that!

 

I've been in the Church for over 12 years - attended many wards including ones halfway around the globe - and I, honestly, have never seen anything remotely close to what you've experienced.  Count my lucky stars?

 

And I'm a feminist!

 

The more I read, the more I wondered how things could go this wrong. This stuff would never happen in my ward. We've got HTs that you can't keep away from doing things for you, especially the few of us who are single women. I can't imagine a bishop who would comment on whether someone was healing fast enough after surgery. Geez Louise.

 

If I'd been an investigator in this kind of ward, I would never have joined. If this kind of garbage was going on currently in my ward, I'd probably stop going or just sit in on another ward's Sacrament Meeting  until they told me to stop. I might have to get up in somebody's face if they said something stupid/harassing to me.

 

And, may I ask, where were the missionaires? They should have helped with the sprinklers if no man in the ward was willing to do so.

 

Because this is a college town, our ward members are from all over.  I've never heard anyone say they were in a ward, anywhere, with this kind of behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Good Morning Margin of Error. I hope you've been well! :)
 
I read your blog post about the letter. One criticism you made was:

"But we talked about how so many positions in the Church require strong leadership skills, and the Church does next to nothing to teach those skills. I mean that quite seriously: the Church does next to nothing to teach its members leadership skills."

I disagree with your criticism. The General Authorities are just that, general. They teach general principles. It is up to each stake, ward, and/or branch to take the general counsel and implement it based on their specific circumstances.

Also, the Church provides many, many resources for members to learn leadership skills. There are many manuals, books, and training videos that are available to ALL members. Members have been repeatedly and continuously encouraged, commanded, and taught to make use of the manuals and the resources available. Many of these teach specific skills and techniques for effective leadership. They provide examples and they also provide the scriptural backing for these skills.

One of the most useful resource is the "Preach My Gospel" manual. It was made for the full-time missionaries but everything in this manual can be adapted to every aspect of Church life and to one's calling. The principles taught are universal. The apostles have encouraged all members to utilize this great resource. If you follow the curriculum in "Preach My Gospel", do all of the activities, answer all of the questions, study the related scriptures, and use the principles as a regular part of your life, you cannot help but to become a more effective leader and teacher in the Church and in your life in general.

To address one point you made, the "Teaching the Gospel" section of the LDS.org website provides training on how to effectively teach, including how to ask questions "that get members to evaluate and express their own beliefs". Have you studied the manual, "Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching"? If you haven't looked at it lately, you really ought to invest time in reading and using it.

Further, on LDS.org you can also find the Leadership Training library. There you will find specific training for various callings in the Church, including videos where General Authorities demonstrate how certain leadership roles ought to play out in each stake/ward/branch. You will find many specific trainings on how to be an effective leader; not to mention that there are all sorts of talks, training, and ideas from the thousands of talks and sermons given by general authorities and other Church leaders/members in past conference talks, Ensign articles, and other magazines and books on being an effective leader and teacher.

Finally, the pattern of the Church has always been that General Authorities usually train stake presidents. Stake presidents are then tasked with training stake leaders, bishops, and other ward and branch leaders. Stake leaders, bishops, and other ward/branch leaders are tasked with training those within their jurisdiction and stewardship. For instance, the Sunday School president of each ward is responsible for training the Sunday School teachers. The ward mission leader is responsible for training the ward missionaries. The Elder's Quorum presidency is responsible for teaching the Elders...and so on. General principles get taught by the apostles and each leader is then tasked to implement those principles based on the specific needs of their stewardship and to teach these principles to those who fall under their jurisdiction. This is a known and long standing pattern of training within the Church. Those who have served full-time missions will be very familiar with this pattern and those who haven't served full-time missions have probably experienced this pattern at some point in their church life. It is one of the ways that the General Authorities depend on so that stakes, wards, and branches will have effective leaders and teachers.

The Church spends a tremendous amount of resources to provide training, training material, and train members specific skills, techniques, and principles about being a good leader and a master teacher. The claim that the Church "spends next to nothing to teach its members leadership skills" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is simply a false statement. I encourage you to become familiar with the vast resources and training the Church provides to teach members leadership skills, life skills, teaching skills, job skills, interview skills, etc.

Below are some links for you and for anyone else interested in getting started. If anybody wants to make a powerful difference in their stake/ward/branch, then start using the resources provided by the Church, share this information with your stake/ward/branch members, start implementing the principles in your life, and teach them to those within your circle of influence and/or stewardship.

Links:
Preach My Gospel https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service?lang=eng

Leadership and Teaching https://www.lds.org/callings/leadership-and-teaching?lang=eng

Teaching, No Greater Call https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching?lang=eng

Fathers Interviews https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/12/really-getting-somewhere-with-fathers-interviews?lang=eng

 

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes our Brethren (Bishop, Stake President, whomever) need to be told something. We tend to watch but keep quiet and that's a huge mistake. One of my Bishops would go online and make jokes about sisters being "fat" , he thought he was being funny and he would treat his wife poorly in front of others making horrible sarcastic remarks about her, etc and laugh.

 

One day, when he did it in front of me and a few other members, I told him off. I said very calmly but seriously that if he thought he was being "entertaining or funny", he wasn't. I told him he was being disrespectful, insensitive and cruel and he needed to stop because he was hurting people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In speaking about what are the reasons for poor leaders or leadership (when they exist) at the local levels, one can hardly lay blame at the institution of the Church. I've heard it said on more than one occasion that the Church is starting to change in regards to some questions concerning women in the Church and specifically in regards to women and the priesthood. If one does a review of the materials, examples, patterns, and principles that have come from the Church since it was restored it is with certainty that the institution of the Church has consistently taught leaders and members to live and apply the principles of righteousness and to develop charity for all. Recently Elder Oaks taught in conference about the role of the priesthood in the lives of women. Many made comments that this is "new" teachings. In fact, what Elder Oaks taught in a recent general conference is what the scriptures and the prophets have always taught in the restored gospel and some people are only now coming to realize and accept these truths.

How things are taught and the implementation of principles may and have changed over time, but the Church has been consistent in its message. If anyone is treating women and men poorly and with disrespect, it is because these individuals and leaders have failed to learn the doctrine, understand the doctrine, to live the doctrine, or all of the above.

I don't believe there is a systemic issue in the institution of the Church and the bad examples are local and exceptional circumstances. But, if there is a systemic problem in the Church it is that too many members and local leaders fail to put in to practice the principles and truths that have been taught by the apostles and other general leaders. Too many members are ignorant of the gospel and the doctrine. Too many members and local leaders fail to utilize all that the Church has to offer and to actually put it in to practice.

What does it mean to be a leader in the Church?

Elder Gordon B. Hinckley taught, “Effective teaching is the very essence of leadership in the Church”

To lead in the Church is to teach, and to improve as a leader is to learn to teach more effectively...(Teaching, No Greater Call).

Who is ultimately responsible for learning and living true principles?

“Now let us come to … a conclusion that will have an important bearing on our eternal salvation. It is that each person must learn the doctrines of the gospel for himself. No one else can do it for him. Each person stands alone where gospel scholarship is concerned; each has access to the same scriptures and is entitled to the guidance of the same Holy Spirit; each must pay the price set by a Divine Providence if he is to gain the pearl of great price.

“The same principle governs both learning truth and living in harmony with its standards" (Bruce R. McConkie).

“The Church system for gaining gospel knowledge is as follows:

“a. The responsibility rests upon each person to gain a knowledge of the truth through his own efforts.

“b. Next, families should teach their own family members. Parents are commanded to bring up their children in light and truth. The home should be the chief teaching center in the life of a Latter-day Saint.

“c. To help families and individuals, the Church, as a service agency, provides many opportunities to teach and to learn. We are commanded to ‘teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom’ (D&C 88:77). This is done in sacrament meetings, in conferences and other meetings, by home teachers, in priesthood and auxiliary classes, through seminaries and institutes, and through the Church educational system” (“Finding Answers to Gospel Questions,” in Charge to Religious Educators, 3rd ed. [1994], 80).

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be against the law, but I agree, opposite gender shouldn't be dishing out compliments pertaining to physical appearance in the workplace. Keep it professional. Keep the compliments professional. I would never in my lifetime ever say to a male colleague or employee (if I was his boss): "Hey, nice pants". To me, that's an inappropriate and unnecessary comment to make, regardless, if I was just being friendly.

 

I think it is a sad state in society when being friendly is automatically considered as having an ulterior motive. Perhaps we would all get along better if we were allowed to have friendly and meaningful conversations... alas we are left to talk about the weather and celebrities because everything else is too controversial for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why that is... because the word FEMINIST has been HIJACKED in America just like the word LIBERAL.

 

So that, I can't use that word with confidence in public anymore because it comes with connotations that is not what I want to portray.

 

Hijacked or merely exposed I'm not sure, but I prefer anti-sexist myself because it encompasses treating both genders with equity. Feminist sounds like female supremacist, which it can often seem to entail. It simply seems by nature that a feminist would be in opposition to a masculist which doesn't even seem to exist... but if it did a feminist would call it a chauvinist; you can see how these things get warped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hijacked or merely exposed I'm not sure, but I prefer anti-sexist myself because it encompasses treating both genders with equity. Feminist sounds like female supremacist, which it can often seem to entail. It simply seems by nature that a feminist would be in opposition to a masculist which doesn't even seem to exist... but if it did a feminist would call it a chauvinist; you can see how these things get warped.

 

Hijacked.  One cannot just take a word and make one's own definition of it.  A feminist, by defition, is a person (regardless of gender) who believes that females have equal rights as males.  No warping necessary.

 

Your post is like my son asking... "Why are they called apartments when they are all stuck together?"  or "Why is my shirt I wear to sacrament not called a Sleeveful Shirt?"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hijacked.  One cannot just take a word and make one's own definition of it.  A feminist, by defition, is a person (regardless of gender) who believes that females have equal rights as males.  No warping necessary.

 

Your post is like my son asking... "Why are they called apartments when they are all stuck together?"  or "Why is my shirt I wear to sacrament not called a Sleeveful Shirt?"...

Connotative definition maybe, I'd have to say the real world definition however is a female, or a male who believes males are the slime of the earth and no female anywhere should ever have use of one.

Yes I'm being a bit over the top, but not overly much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hijacked.  One cannot just take a word and make one's own definition of it.  A feminist, by defition, is a person (regardless of gender) who believes that females have equal rights as males.  No warping necessary.

 

Your post is like my son asking... "Why are they called apartments when they are all stuck together?"  or "Why is my shirt I wear to sacrament not called a Sleeveful Shirt?"...

 

No one is inventing a definition. If a new car model were to role out would you take the marketing pamphlet as definitive of the car or would you take customer reviews?

 

FORD: The Taurus is an excellent luxury sedan... blah blah.

Customer review: The Taurus worked well for the first five years and than should have been traded in, Now I've paid it for it twice with repairs.

 

Was the definition of the vehicle hijacked or was it exposed for what it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is inventing a definition. If a new car model were to role out would you take the marketing pamphlet as definitive of the car or would you take customer reviews?

 

FORD: The Taurus is an excellent luxury sedan... blah blah.

Customer review: The Taurus worked well for the first five years and than should have been traded in, Now I've paid it for it twice with repairs.

 

Was the definition of the vehicle hijacked or was it exposed for what it is?

 

Apples and oranges.  Feminist is a word found in the American Dictionary.  Taurus is a brand of car defined by it's manufacturer named Ford.  Ford can call Taurus the best car in the universe... doesn't mean squat.  Webster says Taurus means the best car in the universe... means a lot... but then Webster will never have that entry because Webster knows Ford Taurus sucks :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is that even googling feminism gives multiple definitions. Just because one dictionary labeled in a light you agree with doesn't make it the only possible definition.

 

Take this one for instance:

 

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending a state of equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

 

They get to decide what is fair... is it really unbiased? 

 

Any way, my point is not to contend. I think feminism by the definition you give is fine, I just happen to prefer anti-sexist because I think it is more definitive and doesn't have the stigma of man-hating attached to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Connotative definition maybe, I'd have to say the real world definition however is a female, or a male who believes males are the slime of the earth and no female anywhere should ever have use of one.

Yes I'm being a bit over the top, but not overly much.

 

That's exactly why I said it has been hijacked...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is that even googling feminism gives multiple definitions. Just because one dictionary labeled in a light you agree with doesn't make it the only possible definition.

 

Take this one for instance:

 

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending a state of equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

 

They get to decide what is fair... is it really unbiased? 

 

Any way, my point is not to contend. I think feminism by the definition you give is fine, I just happen to prefer anti-sexist because I think it is more definitive and doesn't have the stigma of man-hating attached to it.

 

I don't understand the bolded part.  Yes, feminists define what is fair... they are the ones creating the movement... it would be silly to have a movement where your main goal is defined by somebody not sympathetic to your movement... but they can't just define FAIR willy-nilly... FAIR is in the dictionary.  Man-hating isn't fair.  So, a feminist who is man-hating is not a feminist - she's a misandrist.

 

And yes, there are tons of misandrists posing as feminists... they're the hijackers I was telling you about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I think it is a sad state in society when being friendly is automatically considered as having an ulterior motive.

 

This reminds me of something funny I do and I try very hard not to lol. When I say hi to people, I always smile and wink. Women, men or children. I don't think about it, it comes natural until I started realizing that a few people look at me funny when I do it (it took me a while to figure it out). You know, the look like "why in the world are you winking at me?". :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked that people think giving someone of the opposite gender a compliment on appearance is inappropriate. 

There is a HUGE difference between harassment and a well meaning compliment. (Even if it makes you uncomfortable)

 

 

And if it's true all those compliments i've gotten from the Sisters about how my occasional haircuts makes me look more like a man {after cutting my longer hair I sometimes style} That I DON'T appreciate, Are harassment. I don't appreciate such compliments, but they were well meaning enough.

 

 

 

 

I don't think most modern feminists of the various types remotely resemble the original feminist movement. Sooo if the term is hijacked is based on the original movement, I'd be careful subscribing to it still.

 

I'm all for gender equality, with the realization that each gender has differences. That type of feminist policy makes the most sense to me, so yay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share