Episode 179: Women in LDS Families

I agree with your points, especially your last one.

But I think there may be more to the church’s difficulties with its doctrine of a Mother in Heaven. If the church fully acknowledged her, then it would also have to acknowledge a whole goddess-oriented theology. She would need at least a name, and there would need to be a way to deal with her through prayer and liturgy.

This would distance Mormonism from the Christian mainstream toward which the church aspires. In fact, to some people it would make Mormonism appear as exotic as Hinduism or Wicca.

Excellent points, Megan!  What you said plus the points Kevin made in reply provide the best explanation I have yet heard of why the Church is so reluctant to openly and extenseively discuss “Heavenly Mother” and her role.

Megan look at it this way…from a believer’s point of view if the church is true than obviously Motherhood is the most salient  feature of women being women…I don’t think the leaders sit around and say how can we degrade women so they will become our second class citizens!  

Again if its true what else should the message be? Don’t have kids be ur own person and let spirit children come down and be born to so another faith? 

That’s like God telling Jesus :its okay son its ur choice you can save the world or make wooden shoes instead, its ur choice” 

I walk into these podcast with an open mind and love them and the cast but I have to be honest and give my opinion when the message doesn’t make sense, at least to me lol, and I’m wrong most of the time so what do i know??? 

I don’t think the church is saying ur worthless unless you do this…I think it just magnifies the calling but again what’s wrong with that? 

Men are supposed to provide for their families right? So what if some men just sit around and say f__k this I’m not listening to the church I’m collecting government funding to provide for kids, its my life…

I think ME needs a little more balance that’s all…ox

Oh, there are so many… Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks might be a good introduction, as well as Full Frontal Feminism. The classic awakening text for most of the Mormon feminists I know is Dance of the Dissident Daughter by Sue Monk Kidd if you’re looking for something specifically religious, or Women and Authority which is specifically Mormon, although it might be a bit outdated. Unbending Gender by Joan Williams is a good look at economic oppression, as well as family situations and employment situations.

Those are off the top of my head. Hope that helps!

“The lion. The tiger. The bear.” Sorry, but I couldn’t pass up the liturgical reference.

I agree that the explanation of the mucking up of family roles and that disruption was a watershed moment in the podcast.  

We have had remarkably little pushback from our families and I have been wondering about that.  

I realized that on my wife’s side, her parents don’t follow that authoritarian model with their children AT ALL.  We are treated very much as peers.  (Interestingly, 4 out of 5 children have left and the last is… wobblyish)  There was warning and prophesying of sadness from her at first, but nothing from my FIL. At all.  

My family is dysfunctional.  I have a peer relationship bordering on inverse authority with my Dad (no pushback from him) and my mother (bless her Mormon heart) is classically passive aggressive.  All heartache has come from her, but mostly through subtle guilt trips.  There is massive pain and anguish there, which comes out in hints in the annual Christmas letter. 

In neither case is there a fire and brimstone patriarch there to call us to repentance and levy his authority.  

Does anyone else find correlation between types of roles parents have taken and how they dealt with filial disaffection?

Well said Greg.
I like the idea of starting with the model of everyone needing to work and take care of themselves and then when a women and man want to start a family they can negotiate the differing duties.  This may even elevate the importance of the parenting role.

I think another way these defined roles hurt is in our relationships with our spouse. ( I guess I should just speak for myself.)  I grew up in the church excited to be a mother and keep a house.  Little was said on how to be a wife except by  being supportive of your husband.  I prepared for and love being a mom and keeping a house.  Yes, I am one of those women who actually found joy in the monotony and love the beauty and order I can create in homemaking.  ( I love that, the art of making a home.)  That said, who else could I have been and what else could I have done and what kind of relationship would have been possible to have with a spouse? 
I’m good at mothering so good that I mother my spouse.  He is comfortable with that most of the time.  He doesn’t look to dominate or rule the family with an iron fist however; he also doesn’t feel the need to compromise or explain when he decides he wants to do something he just does it.  He also does so much in his life out of a sense of obligation rather than what he might really want to do.  Who could he be if he was  free? 
I don’t know how much of this is due to us and individuals but I do think that by keeping people in very narrowly defined roles we do not grow up to be mature, responsible adults in deep meaningful, fulfilling relationships.

In general, we come from homes where our mothers cared for us and our fathers provided for us to homes where we are cared for or provided for.  There is no place in our culture for us take repsonsibility for learning to care for and provide for our own needs.   I’m sad for my kids.

I don’t have any daughters and it seems unlikely that I will at this point but I imagine the approach I would take is make yourself marketable for a good living regardless if you want to eventually settle down and be a SAHM someday.  This means to me emphasizing education before marriage because it is never wise to simply rely on marrying a good man for a good living.  You might fall in love with a man who doesn’t make enough, loses a great job down the road, gets debilitating injury, you get divorced, he dies and leaves nothing but debts, etc, etc, etc…

But of course, I’m a godless secularist so this is just common sense for my ilk.  But at the same time, I would emphasize the joy and fulfillment having children gives so that they don’t miss out on that if they find themselves so inclined.

I agree everything you’ve said, Greg. What makes me a feminist is that I don’t believe anyone (males included) should be restricted from doing what they want to do because of their gender. A man should be free to be a stay-at-home dad if he chooses (and has the financial means—gosh, I wish our society had more affordable day-care like the French and Swedes do). He likewise shouldn’t feel ashamed if he wants to pursue hobbies or professions that have been traditionally associated with females such as nursing, elementary education, sewing, cooking, interior design, cross-stitching, etc. I also strongly believe that it is healthy and important for men to express their emotions without fear of being seen as a “sissy.” (IMO, being perceived as an effeminate male is just as much about the negative stigmas against LGBTQs as it is about males being boxed into a rigid gender role.) In short, I’m a feminist because I believe in living free from all gender stigmas.

So, with that in mind, I’m not sure why the podcast gave you the impression that we were saying that a man always has to be the breadwinner by default. It seemed to me like Zilpha repeatedly emphasized that men have the potential to be great parents/nurturers and that we think SAHDs are cool. The problem is that we were discussing the issue of gender in terms of Mormonism—and contemporary Mormonism begins from the patriarchal assumption that men will work and women will stay home. It doesn’t mean that we as individual panelists were assuming/advocating that men should be the de facto provider.

I guess I just don’t understand your argument. Are you saying that men are just as boxed in by their gender as females are? If so, I agree with that. Or are you just saying that we should begin from the assumption that women should work by default—just like men do? If so, I don’t really have a problem with that either. So, I don’t see where we’re in a disagreement here… Clarification, please?

P.S. I think John and Zilpha want to do a podcast on the males in Mormonism some time in the distant future. There’s a lot that could be said about that too.

Openly talking about a Heavenly Mother wouldn’t just take us out of the mainstream of Christianity, it would make us freaking pagans.  The very idea must scare the Brethren to death.  

That’s a really interesting point about the unique LDS doctrines that could be used to help overcome discrimination.

But there’s another unique LDS doctrine that may be an insurmountable barrier to any further acknowledgement of Heavenly Mother: polygamy. The first question that the church would have to address is whether there is only one Heavenly Mother or a whole bunch of them.

If the church were to say that God is monogamous, then it contradicts one of the central teachings of all its early prophets. Awkward. If the church were to say that God is polygamous, then everybody in the PR department has heart failure, Mitt Romney can’t get elected county clerk, and it’s party time in Short Creek. If the church were to say that it doesn’t know if more than one Heavenly Mother even exists, then its options for doctrinal development become pretty limited.

I love your way of thinking and explaining things.  Your insights and depth of knowledge have enriched me and (I am sure) many others, causing me to place you very high on my list of favorite posters to this forum!

My fist question is why do 14 year old girls do not go visiting teaching?