Continued discussion about gender inequality in LDS church

[Moksha]

God could be in there. You wouldn't want to miss Him.

The trick is figuring out if there is a there there. Right?

Regards,
MG

Excellent point, MG! Let's hope there is somewhere.

[MG 2.0]

God could be in there. You wouldn't want to miss Him.

The trick is figuring out if there is a there there. Right?

Regards,
MG

Excellent point, MG! Let's hope there is somewhere.

We agree!

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Are you saying the Wizard just made it up all along, and that Dorothy was not beholden to his false promises?

Yes, o flightless one, yes.

...Putting aside the revelation inconsistency for the moment, I think this is why the LDS church tries to very carefully publish articles to give people the impression of equality, while not actually basing the pretty stories on any underlying, real substance. It is the appearance that matters, not the substance. The substance of the sexist status quo is still firmly entrenched.

Just don't look behind the curtain. And don't give them any more money.

[I Have Questions]

(This is the same type of thread trashing and trolling that mg 2.0, a.k.a. MG, a.k.a. mentalgymnast, did to grindael. Hopefully it has run its course this time and we can move on with the topic now, but I hold no illusions.)

Back to the topic--I quoted ihq's response to malkie earlier:

You’re quite right. The First Presidency, and in particular the Prophet, are portrayed as the only reliable source for answers to key questions that concern the entire Church. The Prophet is set apart as God’s only spokesperson. So if there’s a pressing question that needs an answer, the Prophet is a member’s go to source. If he doesn’t know, with all that “special” access to the source of all things, he’s either not asking, or he isn’t what he claims to be...

This idea of revelation guiding the LDS church position on this is a bit murky, and Renlund's address (which was partially quoted earlier in the thread) regarding gender inequality in particular with respect to the priesthood didn't really help:

LDS Apostle Dale G. Renlund addressed gender inequality in priesthood ordination. He acknowledges the church’s gender imbalance but quickly pivots to uncertainty: “The reason for the asymmetry between men and women regarding priesthood office ordination has not been revealed.” This statement is designed to prevent further questioning while implying that the answer, if there is one, belongs only to God. He then warns that “any proposed reason… is speculative,” which serves as a way to dismiss critical discussion while absolving leadership of any responsibility to provide clarity. By framing speculation as dangerous, he discourages members from thinking critically about these issues. The refusal to address gender inequality is not due to a lack of revelation but a reluctance to challenge entrenched power structures.

Despite claiming no one knows why women are excluded from ordination, he simultaneously asserts that the “asymmetry” (what normal people call prejudice or sexism) cannot be changed simply because people want it to. This is a contradiction: if there is no divine revelation supporting this inequality, why should members accept it as immutable? Why assume the asymmetry is intentional rather than a cultural holdover? His phrasing suggests that obedience to the status quo is more important than the pursuit of truth or fairness....

https://wasmormon.org/church-admits-gen ... to-change/

[bolding added by me.]

Putting aside the revelation inconsistency for the moment, I think this is why the LDS church tries to very carefully publish articles to give people the impression of equality, while not actually basing the pretty stories on any underlying, real substance. It is the appearance that matters, not the substance. The substance of the sexist status quo is still firmly entrenched.

I have to admit, however, I was still shocked to find out that their new gospel essay on women, under the heading "How do women participate in leadership of the worldwide Church?" is actually based on the work of three women serving on multiple committees, and four women, each serving on one committee. That's it. In a church that's says it has 17 million members, there are only three women who do almost everything women are allowed to do at the highest levels. That's token representation, not participation by LDS women. They spun it to create the best image possible.

They always spin it (mislead, lie). But in practice is where you see the truth of it - General Conference - 3 women spoke, 27 men spoke. That’s inequality (using the word ‘asymmetry’ is just another attempt at subterfuge and trying to make it sound like something it’s not).

[MG 2.0]

General Conference - 3 women spoke, 27 men spoke. That’s inequality...

That's rather obvious. Any reason you can think of why this might have been the case other than chauvinistic/patriarchal malfeasance? In other words, is there only one possibility or one right answer...and it has to be a slam/bash against the male leaders who hold priesthood authority?

One thing to consider. If the Priesthood is from God the Brethren may not have as much choice in the matter as you would like to give them. It all comes back to the discussion of is there or isn't there a God, doesn't it? It has to start there. Take God and His determination of who and who doesn't receive Priesthood Authority out of the picture and you can pretty much go the chauvinistic/patriarchal route without any kind of detour at all.

The road is wide open.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

General Conference - 3 women spoke, 27 men spoke. That’s inequality...

That's rather obvious. Any reason you can think of why this might have been the case other than chauvinistic/patriarchal malfeasance? In other words, is there only one possibility or one right answer...and it has to be a slam/bash against the male leaders who hold priesthood authority?

One thing to consider. If the Priesthood is from God the Brethren may not have as much choice in the matter as you would like to give them. It all comes back to the discussion of is there or isn't there a God, doesn't it? It has to start there. Take God and His determination of who and who doesn't receive Priesthood Authority out of the picture and you can pretty much go the chauvinistic/patriarchal route without any kind of detour at all.

The road is wide open.

Regards,
MG

So what you’re saying is that it is Mormon God deliberately forcing those poor helpless old males in Salt Lake City to organise a conference in which the male speakers outnumber the female speakers 10 to 1?

What’s more likely? God is a male chauvinist, or some old men in Salt Lake City are male chauvinists? Pinning the blame on your God doesn’t make the situation better, it makes it worse! It means your entire faith is based on gender inequality. But of course, you’re a Mormon man so you’re bound to think there’s nothing wrong with a male God thinking the Mormon women should be seen but not heard when it comes to Conference.

Let’s say you’re right, and Mormon God wants the authority of Men and the subservience of women to be the order of things. What message is that sending to the women of the Church in terms of what eternal life is going to be like?

[I Have Questions]

Elder Paul Newton has been called a pioneer and a guinea pig — appropriate for the first-called senior single male missionary since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently expanded missionary opportunities for single men 40 and older.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/04/0 ... provo-mtc/

This is another example of the Church actively suppressing gender equality.

Full-time missionary opportunities for senior single members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are now expanded, for both single men and single women ages 40 and older.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have approved changes allowing single men 40 and older to now serve full-time missions and single women the same age to have increased opportunities.

For several decades, senior single sister missionaries have been able to serve in limited assignments, while senior single men previously were not called to serve full-time missions.

Effective Friday, Nov. 1, single men 40 and older may be called as full-time senior missionaries if they do not have dependent children living at home. They will be considered for a variety of assignments, including in area and mission offices, family history or other roles for which they have unique life or career experience, such as medical or legal responsibilities.

Similar to most single senior sister missionaries, single senior elders will be given an individual area of responsibility and will not serve in a companionship.

As do senior missionary couples, single senior missionaries can serve for six, 12, 18 or 23 months.

Types of missionary assignments available for senior single women ages 40 and older are being expanded, beyond current roles such as supporting local Church units, advising missions on medical matters, working in family history or serving in mission offices. Additional assignments now include responsibilities at visitors’ centers, historic sites, employment centers and other roles in area and mission offices.

Why is there a difference?

[MG 2.0]

That's rather obvious. Any reason you can think of why this might have been the case other than chauvinistic/patriarchal malfeasance? In other words, is there only one possibility or one right answer...and it has to be a slam/bash against the male leaders who hold priesthood authority?

One thing to consider. If the Priesthood is from God the Brethren may not have as much choice in the matter as you would like to give them. It all comes back to the discussion of is there or isn't there a God, doesn't it? It has to start there. Take God and His determination of who and who doesn't receive Priesthood Authority out of the picture and you can pretty much go the chauvinistic/patriarchal route without any kind of detour at all.

The road is wide open.

Regards,
MG

So what you’re saying is that it is Mormon God deliberately forcing those poor helpless old males in Salt Lake City to organise a conference in which the male speakers outnumber the female speakers 10 to 1?

What’s more likely? God is a male chauvinist, or some old men in Salt Lake City are male chauvinists? Pinning the blame on your God doesn’t make the situation better, it makes it worse! It means your entire faith is based on gender inequality. But of course, you’re a Mormon man so you’re bound to think there’s nothing wrong with a male God thinking the Mormon women should be seen but not heard when it comes to Conference.

Let’s say you’re right, and Mormon God wants the authority of Men and the subservience of women to be the order of things. What message is that sending to the women of the Church in terms of what eternal life is going to be like?

That there will be relationships based on respect, love, and responsibility.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

So what you’re saying is that it is Mormon God deliberately forcing those poor helpless old males in Salt Lake City to organise a conference in which the male speakers outnumber the female speakers 10 to 1?

What’s more likely? God is a male chauvinist, or some old men in Salt Lake City are male chauvinists? Pinning the blame on your God doesn’t make the situation better, it makes it worse! It means your entire faith is based on gender inequality. But of course, you’re a Mormon man so you’re bound to think there’s nothing wrong with a male God thinking the Mormon women should be seen but not heard when it comes to Conference.

Let’s say you’re right, and Mormon God wants the authority of Men and the subservience of women to be the order of things. What message is that sending to the women of the Church in terms of what eternal life is going to be like?

That there will be relationships based on respect, love, and responsibility.

Regards,
MG

So long as the women know their place, right?

[MG 2.0]

That there will be relationships based on respect, love, and responsibility.

Regards,
MG

So long as the women know their place, right?

Both men and women have their place. Men can't have babies and develop the bond/connection that mothers have with their offspring.

Considering all the 'blow back' that priesthood holders have received over eons of time, it may well be that God has placed men in the position of 'taking fire' so that the women don't. Who knows? What is obvious, however, is that men are men and women are women and they do have responsibilities that differ from each other in very few...but important to recognize (?)...respects.

Do you feel shortchanged that you cannot and never will be able to have your own baby and nurture it in the way that a mother does? You can adopt, you can raise, you can even nurture and support a child...but you can not biologically have a child. Men know their place in that regard.

Why women don't actually exercise priesthood authority while at the same time they do exercise priesthood power...I don't know. But I do know that active believing women that have testimonies of the gospel are not as concerned about this as you and some others are. My wife, for example, would not even consider/think about wanting priesthood authority. It isn't even on her radar. And there are certain rights/responsibilities that she has that I would not even think about overstepping her own authority and desire to be responsible for.

Sheesh, IHQ, we have no clue as to whether or not you're even married or have children and have a 'hands on' clue as to what you're even talking about.

Regards,
MG