So this conference LDS leaders are somewhat capitulating to the LDS women who want to see more women's rights - leadership positions in missions and women praying in conference.

Strategically I think they are making a mistake. The women aren't going to be satisfied until they are treated as equals in the church - which isn't going to happen anytime soon. Instead of appeasing these women, I think these baby steps will just embolden them to press harder for more equality.

They would have been better off just keeping the women all the way down with "pay, pray, obey & breed." C'mon evil dictators, you can do better.

Have they actually prayed? At work today, so not watching. But will follow up to see if things are changing...

In any case, I'm not sure that baby steps will be more problematic than not. They might just assuage most of the voices, while alienating and isolating only the loudest ones. Then, after an excommunication or two, problem solved.

Things will go on like that for a long time before more concessions are extended...

Things might move more quickly if strict gender disparities persisted long enough, I should think. But time will tell.

People should stop trying to resuscitate a dying corporate body and, if they are so inclined, revive the spiritual core of the "Church".

I saw a comment that the lady who sad the closing prayer was a MILF, heh - so apparently yes they prayed. I hope to see it die as quickly as possibly and don't see that the church has ever had much of a true spiritual core.

You are likely right that it will work well appeasing the masses.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2013 04:40PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

Thought provoking........... I do think you're right however.
"The women aren't going to be satisfied until they are treated as equals in the church - which isn't going to happen anytime soon. Instead of appeasing these women, I think these baby steps will just embolden them to press harder for more equality."

Yes, I think this is very true.

I can't decide whether I personally am for it or against it. On the one hand, I love to see activism, especially for something like women's rights/equality, and I think the more women see it working, the more will jump on the bandwagon - a good thing.
On the other hand, I would really rather women/people just got completely frustrated, saw the light, and left.

But, maybe that will still happen with those who are 'activating'....?
So maybe it will 'activate' more people, and then eventually more people will leave...?
Or, it will appease people enough that they will stay in, hoping to change it.......

I'm always a little torn.

On one hand I'd like to see the church get more evil and controlling so it gets more and more obvious to the members that the church is Yertle the Turtle and the members are Mack.

On the other hand I'd like to see it be less abusive to its members now.

In the end I just want to see members of the church educated about the truth of the church. Then they can make their decision based on the truth instead of lies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2013 05:32PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

Yertle the Turtle - literally just read that book to my daughter before bed last night, and in fact, thought about TSCC...!

"In the end I just want to see members of the church educated about the truth of the church. Then then can make their decision based on the truth instead of lies."

Exactly!

They need more women to go on missions to make up for their declining active membership. They have too few young men going. Lowering the age for men will hardly make a difference, but lowering it for women will bring a real increase. I think 1/3 of new missionaries are women, if you can call a 19 year old girl a woman.

When they come back and become adults, these RMs are going to expect a larger role than previous generations of women did. If Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2017 and the first cohort of the new female missionaries turns 25, you are going to see them demand more and more in the church.

More women go to college in the US than men. Half of my bosses have been women in my career. The idea that women cannot lead in the church becomes ever more appalling to today's young women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2013 05:33PM by axeldc.

Yep.

Have you ever noticed that there are a LOT of female returned missionaries that post here on RFM?

Going on a mission means you spend 2 years thinking of nothing but the church 24/7. You get to see a lot of its inner works and deal with its leadership. You see how Mormon royalty are treated compared with the peasants.

I became disenchanted with the church on my mission. I saw parts of it that I did not like at all. I saw how focused on numbers and how little focused on people it was. I came home less interested and more doubtful than when I left.

I have a couple female RM friends on FB, and they are some of the more critical thinkers regarding the church that I have met. They have posted about how ill treated they were on their missions. They have higher expectations of being equals in the church to male RMs than other women. If 1/3 of the RMs are women, then the church is creating a critical mass of feminism in its ranks.

I think that having increased numbers of female missionaries will help. Also, as more Mormon women enter the workforce, especially in professional and managerial positions, that too will be an impetus for change.

It's hard to see this as progress without also recognizing the extreme inequality that makes it appear progressive in the least.

It's like getting excited about Augusta admitting two women last year. Sure, it's progress compared to Augusta's extremely sexist history, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement in a day and age where women are serving in the SCOTUS, and considering runs for the presidency.

I haven't been on here a ton lately, so I missed the news about women being given leadership positions in the mission field. Can anyone direct me to a source that discusses that in greater detail? Thanks.

And I agree with The Oncoming Storm although I see a different way that it's problematic - part of the problem is that either the church needs to keep women "in their place" or when they discover how horrible the history of the church was for women, they'll be far less willing to view it as remotely justifiable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my experience has led me to understand that enlightened, liberated women seem to be the least willing to accept the church once they know how horrible polygamy was and once they find out how Joseph Smith and Brigham Young treated women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2013 06:22PM by joesmithsleftteste.