DiscussMormonism.com

I ask this because at a recent BYU-I devotional, Dallin Oaks warned the women from becoming just that. The full text of his (with his wife, Kristen) talk can be found here:

http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Trans ... 7_Oaks.htm

Some highlights from the talk that caught my interest (all bold mine for emphasis):

1. On some "missing the mark" when it comes to Gospel topics:

We see this today. For example, some persons write General Authorities asking when we will be returning to Missouri or how we should plan to build up the New Jerusalem. Others want to know details about the Celestial Kingdom, such as the position of a person who lives a good life but never ever marries.

I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. What I do know is that persons worrying about such things are probably neglecting to seek a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the gospel that have been given to them with words of plainness by the scriptures and by the servants of the Lord.

In other words, stop asking the GA's any tough questions -- they simply don't know the answers.

2. Women should be women (this is where the "manly lawyer" comment is made):

While I am telling the men to be men, I also want to tell the women to be women.

Sisters, don’t fall for the worldly urging that women should emulate men in various masculine characteristics. That is not what the Lord created you to do. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that women should not be doctors or lawyers or any particular occupation that fits their circumstances. To use lawyering as an example, what I am saying is that women should not attempt to be manly lawyers. Nor should women emulate the worldly ways of womanhood. Your destiny is to be a wife and a mother in Zion, not a model and a streetwalker in Babylon. You should dress and act accordingly.

There's a lot in here. First, he seems to say that being a lawyer or doctor is ok for women IF "that fits their circumstances" (this seems to be a reference to the Proclamation's admonition that women should work outside the home IF unique circumstances "necessitate individual adaptation"). Second, women who do work should not be "manly" in whatever profession they choose (I have no idea what he means by "manly"). Third, a woman's "destiny" is to be a wife and mother in Zion -- does this suggest that women should not actively seek after a profession (in contrast, men are encouraged to work and provide even though their similar "destiny" is to be a husband and father in Zion)? Fourth, the last two sentences about looking like a whore is an extension of his "walking porno" comment to girls a couple of conferences ago.

3. As if to confirm that Dallin is an avowed sexist with a "Leave it to Beaver" mentality, I found this interesting comment from his wife, Kristen:

When we first married, I was working as a consultant for a publishing house based in Boston -- I never cooked except once a year. Poor Elder Oaks. The first few months we were married I burned everything, even grilled cheese sandwiches. I knew very little about housework; I didn’t even know how to match socks. Elder Oaks wears only two colors -- black and blue. I called my married sister in tears and asked how to sort them and she told me to go stand by the window.

Hmm. Cooking grilled cheese sandwiches, housework, sorting socks -- I guess this is what Dallin Oaks meant by a woman's "destiny" in Zion. I'm sure they are a very nice couple, but I think it is high time they moved into the 21st century.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

We see this today. For example, some persons write General Authorities asking when we will be returning to Missouri or how we should plan to build up the New Jerusalem. Others want to know details about the Celestial Kingdom, such as the position of a person who lives a good life but never ever marries.

I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. What I do know is that persons worrying about such things are probably neglecting to seek a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the gospel that have been given to them with words of plainness by the scriptures and by the servants of the Lord.

In other words, stop asking the GA's any tough questions -- they simply don't know the answers.

I have developed a sensitivity to what they don't say about things like this. For example: Wasn't it Joseph and the early leaders who started all the discussions about his revelations telling us of the future? Didn't he attract exactly the people who were interested in that type of thing? Didn't he fan the flames by writing about mysteries, like the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon?

How odd that people would wonder about returning to Jackson? He sure seemed to like to get them all whipped up about his being a "Revelator" and such. Aren't the current boys all sustained as "Prophets, Seers and Revelators"? But...they all must have misplaced their "revelator-stones", I guess.

Of course the Saints are neglecting the more cultish-understanding ... or did he say "firmer understanding"?

They come from a religion where the wild claims were used to catch people's attention and now they want to stop discussing "the mysteries". Disingenuous Revelators, aren't they?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:2. Women should be women (this is where the "manly lawyer" comment is made):

While I am telling the men to be men, I also want to tell the women to be women.

Sisters, don’t fall for the worldly urging that women should emulate men in various masculine characteristics. That is not what the Lord created you to do. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that women should not be doctors or lawyers or any particular occupation that fits their circumstances. To use lawyering as an example, what I am saying is that women should not attempt to be manly lawyers. Nor should women emulate the worldly ways of womanhood. Your destiny is to be a wife and a mother in Zion, not a model and a streetwalker in Babylon. You should dress and act accordingly.

There's a lot in here. First, he seems to say that being a lawyer or doctor is ok for women IF "that fits their circumstances" (this seems to be a reference to the Proclamation's admonition that women should work outside the home IF unique circumstances "necessitate individual adaptation"). Second, women who do work should not be "manly" in whatever profession they choose (I have no idea what he means by "manly"). Third, a woman's "destiny" is to be a wife and mother in Zion -- does this suggest that women should not actively seek after a profession (in contrast, men are encouraged to work and provide even though their similar "destiny" is to be a husband and father in Zion)? Fourth, the last two sentences about looking like a whore is an extension of his "walking porno" comment to girls a couple of conferences ago.

When a woman does what Dallin says, they do two things: 1) make lots of future tithing payors, and 2) are very dependent on a man for their support and happiness.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:3. As if to confirm that Dallin is an avowed sexist with a "Leave it to Beaver" mentality, I found this interesting comment from his wife, Kristen:

When we first married, I was working as a consultant for a publishing house based in Boston -- I never cooked except once a year. Poor Elder Oaks. The first few months we were married I burned everything, even grilled cheese sandwiches. I knew very little about housework; I didn’t even know how to match socks. Elder Oaks wears only two colors -- black and blue. I called my married sister in tears and asked how to sort them and she told me to go stand by the window.

Hmm. Cooking grilled cheese sandwiches, housework, sorting socks -- I guess this is what Dallin Oaks meant by a woman's "destiny" in Zion. I'm sure they are a very nice couple, but I think it is high time they moved into the 21st century.

It works nicely when you play the "do as I say" thing. If I hadn't had six kids before I was thirty, maybe I could have pursued the career of my dreams, like Dullin.

You're reading too much into this. Encouraging women not to be "manly lawyers" is a feminist thing I hear all the time in my profession (and, being a libertarian, I completely agree). In California we are required to take mandatory courses on discrimination, and I hear all the time that women lawyers should not be required to adopt "manly" (whatever that means) characteristics to advance in the profession or partnerships. We have to take sensitivity training in my firm if we make "manly" cracks in our personnel reviews. Oaks is just repeating what he has heard at seminars over many years.

Some of the best lawyers I know in Los Angeles are women who do not have "manly" attributes. They are persuasive and have steel-trap memories.

Moreover, of all the brethren likely to have liberal views of faith, it will be Elder Oaks.

P

Plutarch wrote:Oaks is just repeating what he has heard at seminars over many years.

Perhaps you're right. I still have no idea what he meant by "manly."

Moreover, of all the brethren likely to have liberal views of faith, it will be Elder Oaks.

I used to think this way about him -- I no longer think so, particularly when he compares some women to whores in Babylon. Way over the top, in my opinion.

Wow...

First, something about a fifty or sixty year old PhD consultant who doesn't know how to match socks or cook a grilled cheese sandwich sounds a little odd.

I do not understand the whole, "act feminine," or, "act manly," thing. What does this mean?

Put on an act? Pretend we live in the fifty's? Portray ourselves in a way consistent with a sterotype?

I seriously do not understand this... what difference should there be between a female or male lawyer? Or a female vs a male doctor? Or business person? Or Veternarian, office worker, therapist? Or whatever?

Hmmm....

~dancer~

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Plutarch wrote:Oaks is just repeating what he has heard at seminars over many years.

Perhaps you're right. I still have no idea what he meant by "manly."

Moreover, of all the brethren likely to have liberal views of faith, it will be Elder Oaks.

I used to think this way about him -- I no longer think so, particularly when he compares some women to whores in Babylon. Way over the top, in my opinion.

I agree, and in fact, I think that Elder Oaks's mindset has been spiraling towards this sort of conservative extremism for some time now. This devotional coupled with his remarks in that interview on homosexuality point to a shift in his ideology, in my opinion.

Lawyers are manly???

I think Elder Oaks was merely rehashing some of the notions of what women should be up to from his childhood. That barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen ideal of a women's role does not really fly anymore.

I would like it if the leaders of my Church would sometime choose to be in the vanguard of social justice issues rather than the tail end. That to me seems a much more Christ oriented position to be in. Oh well, all in good time. It is nice to know that even here, change is inevitable and that whether trailing or leading, God will show the way.

...

So glad your all hear to help steady it.

Gaz

Gazelam wrote:

So glad your all hear to help steady it.

Gaz

I have never understood that comment about not steadying the ark. Would you rather have it listing to the side and tipping over instead?

I agree with others. I have no idea what he means by "manly lawyer" or what one needs to do to avoid becoming like one.

What I do know is that persons worrying about such things are probably neglecting to seek a firmer understanding and a better practice of the basic principles of the gospel that have been given to them with words of plainness by the scriptures and by the servants of the Lord.

If the words are really plain, why is there such a difference between the beliefs of the Internet Mormons and the Chapel Mormons?

Your destiny is to be a wife and a mother in Zion, not a model and a streetwalker in Babylon. You should dress and act accordingly.

Since when do female lawyers act and dress like streetwalkers in Babylon? He's really confusing me here.

When we first married, I was working as a consultant for a publishing house based in Boston -- I never cooked except once a year. Poor Elder Oaks. The first few months we were married I burned everything, even grilled cheese sandwiches.

If she was burning everything, why the Hell didn't he cook?

I knew very little about housework; I didn’t even know how to match socks. Elder Oaks wears only two colors -- black and blue. I called my married sister in tears and asked how to sort them and she told me to go stand by the window.

How the Hell many different ways are there to sort socks?

And Holy Cow, I would LOVE IT if my life were so easy that something as trivial as matching socks was the trauma which caused me to shed tears.