If you ask any Mormon male if the church is sexist, they'll likely say no. So let's switch things up a bit to see if this claim holds up to scrutiny. Pretend that we live in an alternate universe:

The Goddess head is composed of three different personages; Heavenly Mother, her daughter Jane the Christ and savior of the world, and the Holy Ghost/Banshee who is also a woman.

It was Adam who was convinced to eat the forbidden fruit by the talking snake.

The Bible and Book of Mormon rarely mention men by name, and all of the major prophets are women.
After the apostasy, it was Emma Smith who was entrusted with the task of translating the gold plates, being the Prophet, etc. She was known to have many husbands at the same time. From that point on, all future Prophets, Apostles, Stake Presidents, Bishops, etc. would be women, because only women were granted the priesthood (or priestess-hood).

Women are seen as the matriarchs of the house. They're expected to serve a full time mission. Upon returning, they're expected to get married to a worthy son of the Goddess in the temple ASAP. Husbands are to submit to their wives.

If all of the above was true, I would certainly feel inferior as a male in the church. Your thoughts, please. If you'd like to add anything else that seems sexist, please do.

I knew there was a reason I liked Emma!

It's not fair helping them see it from a different perspective. After all, if you open up their world it let's satan in.

There would be many titles for female church officials, with the title President handed out like M&Ms. All brothers would just be brothers.

Oh, sure, there's Primary and RS President, but we all know those aren't real presidents. Just listen to who really gets listened to in ward PEC (Priestesshood Executive Meeting) meetings.

Women would be pressured to go on missions, in preparation for church leadership positions. Men would be allowed to go if they hadn't managed to get their MRS after 3 years at BYWoo.

Women would be told to seriously consider their career choices. Men would be told to get an education. Family Relations would be a popular choice.

No man would EVER be the presiding officer at any meeting ever attended by women beyond the age of puberty. Only women can be in charge of mixed gender groups beyond child age. And of course a man would not ever preside over a group of women.

Men are assigned to spy on, er, visit teach men. Women home teach families.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2012 12:42PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Men would speak in high voices as though talking to babies, women would drone on in low monotones.

Crying would be highly valued. Probably some sort of award would be given.

Having children would actually be valued in real ways, not just a pat on the head. There would be financial stipends for big families. The church would spend money on child care facilities.

Obituary columns in church publications would list the child bearing accomplishments of woman after dead woman, while men would only get infrequent mention for job recognition - especially if they were married to highly placed women.

Women would be promoted based on number of kids, not work history.

The YW would get to go hiking, boating, and camping. The YM would fill out "personal progress" pages and earn colored ribbons (and eventually a nice medallion that they can wear around their necks.) They would be asked to make a list of qualities that they want in their future wives. They would dress up in white suits and be photographed in front of the temple to prep them for their future weddings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2012 01:32PM by summer.

http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/mormon

its a great list

Not that we know of, unless Helen Mar Kimball hadn't reached menarche. Technically he was an ephebophile, one who likes teenagers.

Strictly speaking, an ephebophile has to have a *preference* for adolescents of mid to late teens. The evidence suggests that while Smith didn't see age as a barrier to sexual relations, he did not target a particular age group to sufficient extent that we could say he had a "preference".

According to the ages of his wives listed here: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Only 10 of the 34 were under 20, 10 were in their 20s, 9 were in their 30s and 5 were 47 or older. Only 2 of the 34 were of questionable moral age, being 14 at the time.

freeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only 2 of the 34 were of questionable moral age, being 14 at the time.

Given that the average age of first marriage for women at the time (both in Ohio and in the U.S as a whole,) is estimated to have been 21-22, I find Joseph's "marriages" to most of his teen brides morally reprehensible. At least the older women had reached their majority.

If 21-22 was "average" then it suggests a large number (half?) were under 21, and the distribution curve would see a significant number 18 and under.

"Morality" is subjective, but in the UK the age of consent for sexual relationships and marriage is 16, so I can't consider it "immoral" to marry or be in a sexual relationship with somebody of this age, based only on the age of the woman. Sure, the age gap might make it more questionable, but all things considered, it is less immoral to marry a single 16 year old than a married 30 year old.

Indeed, given the circumstances of Smith's polygamy, I would say the polyandry and the coercion are far more immoral than the age of the brides.

When the men needed money for any of their functions, they would have to go to the women and beg for it.

back in the year 2000 I was chatting to some mishies (I was close to them in age back then), just chilling as teens do, and when they mentioned the upcoming elections (and the GOP primaries with Bush and McCain), I said I thought it was time for a female president.

Mishie no. 1: "Would that be legal?!"
Mishie no. 2: "Would that be constitutional?!"
Mishies no. 3-6: "No! Couldn't be, could it? I mean, like, really? Dude! Not about to happen anyway. For crying out loud! A woman! Ludicrous..."

So, yes, in my opinion, this cult is verrrrrry sexist.

I'm sure when they saw the 2008 Democratic primaries between Hillary and Barack, they thought the millenium was just round the corner lol.

Your example is clear, but a bright casual observer or nonmo would see the situation clearly by being in a wardhouse for ten minutes.

Do you think for one minute the male leadership of the church would agree to go confess their sexual "sins" to a woman? Do you think they would allow teen boys to be questioned about mastrubation by women? Hell no.

Yet they think it is OK for the opposite to occur because they think women are different and it is OK to question them.

Do you think for one minute the male leadership of the church would be OK with instructing the members not to mention Heavenly Father "because he is too sacred" and instead to direct everything to a Heavenly Mother? Hell no.

If you have to keep telling women they are special and really are equal but in different ways, that's your first clue that women are supressed.

When women are more valued for their vessel value (baby busses for breeding which the men make rules to control) than their brains, that's your second clue women are suppresed.

Any woman who enables this kind of situation by supporting an all male Priesthood is perpetuating the problems. (IMO, this goes for Catholics as well. When women just say, "We don't really obey them," it is not enough. The money trail still gives male leadership power over women. It won't stop until the money stops.

Well, Duh!!!!