from the ERA era

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

from the ERA era

Post by _ludwigm »

While I was looked for Something Completely Different, I stubbed my foot against this:

http://LDS.org/ensign/1980/08/the-lord- ... n?lang=eng
The Lord as a Role Model for Men and Women - By Ida Smith - An edited version of remarks delivered at the Brigham Young University Women’s Conference, 2 February 1980 - Used with permission of Brigham Young University Press.


from the article:

Building upon the foundation laid by Joseph Smith, subsequent prophets taught that God was not single, but married; that there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother; and that we were made in their image: male and female children. (See James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 4:203, 205.)
Is this doctrinal?


But, as is true with most good things, Satan has devised a counterfeit to God’s plan for women. And as we have watched the growth of the “women’s movement” in the hands of the world, we have been aghast at some of the excesses and directions it has taken. Whereas God wants us to know that men and women are of equal value and importance, the devil—subtly changing the truth—would have us believe we are not different, but the same. The Lord’s way is for men and women to become “like” each other only as we each take upon ourselves the Savior’s universal traits; the devil’s way would be for us to become a unisex society. We must be careful not to confuse the phony with the real thing.
CFR: whom, when and where did said/whispered this the Satan?
If men and women were the same - certain organs were the same and not complement of each other - then we all were objects of prop8.
You know, I wouldn't like it...


When the Prophet Joseph Smith organized the Relief Society after the pattern of the priesthood in 1842, he told the women that they were responsible for their own sins. For some this was a radical thought in those days. He taught them they were responsible for their own salvation, that they had access to every needed blessing the priesthood gives, that they also had direct access to the Holy Ghost and to spiritual gifts and they also had direct access to the Savior—to model him, become like him, be heirs in his kingdom. (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938, pp. 223–229.)
... and they had had access the priesthood itself...


Some women complain that they have no strong role models in the scriptures. That is not true. We have many models there
For example there are three of them in the whole Book of Mormon. At this moment I remember only one, Isabel. Google may help.
For example in Matthew 1:1-16 (42 generations from Abraham to Christ) there are 42 men
and four women:
Thamar, Rachab and the wife of Urias (Bath-sheba, for beginners), who were ideals, weren't?
and Mary, who wasn't married with god when ... ehm ... you know


Ida Smith, director of the Women’s Research Institute, Brigham Young University, is a Sunday School teacher in her Orem, Utah ward.
Please, educate me (You know, I am not a native English).
What does Women’s Research Institute means?
1. The Institute is owned by women
2. The Institute is working for women
3. The researchers are all women
4. The objects of the research are the physical and spiritual attributes and parameters of women (in all other area men and women are equal, as we know)
5. The Institute is looking for the risks and side effects of liaison with Satan
6. The director of the Institute is a woman, and there may be male underlings (I know, this were atrocious, heinous, monstrous, outrageous, scandalous, appalling, awful, dreadful, fearful, frightful, ghastly, horrendous, horrible, terrible, obscene, preposterous, ridiculous, unconscionable, unreasonable and unusual)
7. Other, take Your pick
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _just me »

Good Morning!

I do think that a Heavenly Mother is doctrinal. We just don't talk much about it or know much about it. But, married couples being the only ones who can gain eternal life is doctrinal.

The Women's Research Institute of BYU was the Women's Studies department section. They got rid of it a couple years ago (see this article). You can still do women's studies, but it has been reorganized.

Funny how the article seems to be arguing that equality would somehow strip us sex and gender. Somehow we were able to give equal rights to black people and we still enjoy much diversity. Huh.

She is also speaking of only one small portion of the Feminist Movement. One that I don't personally know anyone who believes in today. People love to use the most extreme cases when trying to argue against something.

Some women complain that they have no strong role models in the scriptures. That is not true. We have many models there


This is a really sad comment, in my opinion. Women who do not feel they can identify with the hero's of the scriptures are just WRONG. Stupid women. They are TONS of role models. The problem is with you, not ever the scriptures, not ever the church. Yet another example of the feelings and spiritual needs of the membership being dismissed and invalidated.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_aranyborju
_Emeritus
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:39 am

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _aranyborju »

Heavenly mother is doctrinal. I used to have a theory that the reason that we couldn't talk about her was because there was more than one, as heavenly father is a polygamist. It wouldn't be appropriate to talk about MY heavenly mother, because she might not be the same as YOUR heavenly mother.
"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." - Samuel Clemens

The name of the "king" in Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham is Isis. Yes...that is her name.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _Blixa »

just me wrote:
She is also speaking of only one small portion of the Feminist Movement. One that I don't personally know anyone who believes in today.


Justme, I can't find anything in that article specific enough to link it to any strand of feminist thought.

The article reminded me of one of the first Women's Conferences at the University of Utah. This would have been in 1976 or 1977. One of the speakers was Lucy Beth Rampton, the wife of then Utah governor, Cal Rampton. Lucy Beth was a champion of higher education for women at any age. Though she had completed an undergraduate degree when she was a young woman, she went back to school for graduate work in her mid-50's. In her closing remarks, she commented that although she found satisfaction in her current studies, she wished that such work had been more encouraged for women when she was younger. She ended by saying something benign like, "Now days, so many opportunities have opened up that you have prospects I could never have dreamed of and I admit I am a bit envious of the young women of today."

The very next speaker was Barbara Smith, then president of the Relief Society. She opened her talk by directly referencing Lucy Beth's closing statement, saying, and I think I remember her remarks pretty accurately, "As Mrs. Rampton says, other opportunities may currently be encouraged, however true women will recognize that there is only ever one role for women, as wives and mothers."

It was one of the most disrespectful displays I've ever witnessed, delivered in the most condescending inflection possible. Lucy Beth Rampton was a widely beloved community leader across all political and religious lines. Her speech had been a model of genteel encouragement to young women with no mention of the Equal Rights Admendment, abortion, or any other allegedly controversial issue. The rhetoric in the article ludwigm linked to is of a similar rhetorical bent.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _MsJack »

ludwigm wrote:
Ida Smith, director of the Women’s Research Institute, Brigham Young University, is a Sunday School teacher in her Orem, Utah ward.
Please, educate me (You know, I am not a native English).
What does Women’s Research Institute means?
1. The Institute is owned by women
2. The Institute is working for women
3. The researchers are all women
4. The objects of the research are the physical and spiritual attributes and parameters of women (in all other area men and women are equal, as we know)
5. The Institute is looking for the risks and side effects of liaison with Satan
6. The director of the Institute is a woman, and there may be male underlings (I know, this were atrocious, heinous, monstrous, outrageous, scandalous, appalling, awful, dreadful, fearful, frightful, ghastly, horrendous, horrible, terrible, obscene, preposterous, ridiculous, unconscionable, unreasonable and unusual)
7. Other, take Your pick

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleWRIFarewell.html

The second director of the WRI, Mary Stovall Richards, was one of my history professors in undergrad. She was wonderful. The WRI did some legitimate work in feminist and women's studies, and the scholars and researchers who worked out of it had decent latitude on their topics of study. But as you can see from the article, it was discontinued---erm, I mean, "streamlined and strengthened." /eyeroll

Blixa wrote:She ended by saying something benign like, "Now days, so many opportunities have opened up that you have prospects I could never have dreamed of and I admit I am a bit envious of the young women of today."

The very next speaker was Barbara Smith, then president of the Relief Society. She opened her talk by directly referencing Lucy Beth's closing statement, saying, and I think I remember her remarks pretty accurately, "As Mrs. Rampton says, other opportunities may currently be encouraged, however true women will recognize that there is only ever one role for women, as wives and mothers."

It was one of the most disrespectful displays I've ever witnessed, delivered in the most condescending inflection possible. Lucy Beth Rampton was a widely beloved community leader across all political and religious lines. Her speech had been a model of genteel encouragement to young women with no mention of the Equal Rights Admendment, abortion, or any other allegedly controversial issue. The rhetoric in the article ludwigm linked to is of a similar rhetorical bent.

Wow. Just wow.

And the sad part is, Ms. Smith probably left that conference congratulating herself for having born testimony to "the world" concerning God's divine purpose for women. /another eyeroll
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _bcspace »

Building upon the foundation laid by Joseph Smith, subsequent prophets taught that God was not single, but married; that there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother; and that we were made in their image: male and female children. (See James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 4:203, 205.)
Is this doctrinal?


Yes. The Ensign is published by the Church making it doctrinal.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _subgenius »

bcspace wrote:Yes. The Ensign is published by the Church making it doctrinal.

Not an accurate conclusion. Just because it is an official publication does not make it doctrine per se. The church has made several statements about this often erroneous conclusion.
Though the teachings may be accurate and the testimonies true, the content of the Ensign, etc..may not always be actual doctrine.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_aranyborju
_Emeritus
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:39 am

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _aranyborju »

subgenius wrote:
bcspace wrote:Yes. The Ensign is published by the Church making it doctrinal.

Not an accurate conclusion. Just because it is an official publication does not make it doctrine per se. The church has made several statements about this often erroneous conclusion.
Though the teachings may be accurate and the testimonies true, the content of the Ensign, etc..may not always be actual doctrine.


Are you only addressing whether or not the Ensign is doctrinal or are you also proposing that Heavenly Mother is not doctrinal?
"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." - Samuel Clemens

The name of the "king" in Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham is Isis. Yes...that is her name.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: from the ERA era

Post by _bcspace »

Yes. The Ensign is published by the Church making it doctrinal.

Not an accurate conclusion. Just because it is an official publication does not make it doctrine per se. The church has made several statements about this often erroneous conclusion.


The Church has made no such statements. Rather, it has summarized actual statements over many decades in Approaching Mormon Doctrine establishing publication as the identifier for doctrine.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply