I have come to realize just how male-centric this blog is. Women are often most victimized by religion, and yet I very rarely write about women’s issues here. Even the name of the site and the group—SHAFT—is evidence of male bias! (Yes, the phallic innuendo was intentional; men cannot pass up the opportunity to make a penis joke.) It isn’t surprising, then, that only 21% of our readership is female*.
So I figure I ought to do a little something for the ladies in this post.
Molly Muses recently offered a list of small changes the LDS Church could make to advance the role of women in Mormonism. Below are her suggestions:
1. Female missionaries serve at the same age and for the same duration as male missionaries.
2. Men serve in Primary presidencies and women in Sunday School presidencies, as presidents and counsellors in positions above and below women leaders.
3. Girls pass (though do not bless) the Sacrament.
4. Women stand in circles when babies are blessed.
5. Elimination of mandatory gender-based dress codes in the chapel.
6. Home Teachers are male and female.
7. Visiting Teaching is phased out, as it’s an unnecessary duplication of Home Teaching.
8. Single men may be called as bishops.
9. Women periodically guest-teach in Priesthood, similar to occasional lessons taught by Bishops and other men in Relief Society.
10. The women’s meeting typically held weeks in advance of General Conference is integrated into the main sessions with the same fanfare as Priesthood Session.
11. Women speak at the Priesthood session of General Conference, as men speak at the Relief Society session.
12. Unendowed immediate family are permitted to attend LDS temple weddings.
13. Women act as LDS temple officiants during the main ceremony.
14. Private prayer to Heavenly Mother(s), or Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s) jointly, is permitted.
Which suggestions are the most/least feasible? And what would you add to her list?
*There are actually quite a few women in SHAFT. This blog hasn’t reflected that diversity, however. So while I will work hard to minimize my gender bias in the future, I invite our female readers to contribute their perspective to the blog. We are always looking for writers.
1. I think this one might be the easiest to get past the leadership, but I’m sure parents and young girls would prefer the “lighter load” of not being gone as long, and maybe not interrupting their college education.
5. Will probably happen eventually – the more people reject the power the leaders have over them the more they are willing to rebel. I compare it to Catholicism, where in the 50′s you’d probably be reprimanded by the parish priest if you wore inappropriate clothing, but today you can pretty much wear whatever you want. I wear jeans to church all the time, and one of the few times I attended an lds service I wore jeans. haha
6. Seems easy, if there are already female missionaries, why shouldn’t they agree to letting women teach members? But that would mean women teaching in a position of authority over male priesthood holders (missionary work means talking to non-members who have no priesthood authority). Will probably be seen as a threat to their male authority. To be honest, anything on the list that involves women speaking with authority in the company of mostly men will probably never be accepted.
10. Seems to me that if they want people to honestly believe that motherhood is equal to priesthood (as one young woman put it), then they should be treated with equal authority and importance.
14. I don’t see this one happening – they’re already on a crusade to get rid of the image of mormonism not being Christian, or being weird in general. This would only compound their task.
Carla — your comments ring very true. While at BYU I often heard girls laugh that it was sexist that they had to wait two years longer (increasing the chance that they’d marry before going on a mission), that it wasn’t mandatory (implying that female missionaries are less important) and that their time was shorter (compounding the idea that they are less important than male missionaries) had an upside; it meant six months less of your young adulthood wasted and six months less to risk gaining weight.
I think your comment on #14 is bang on. The bizarre We’re Normal(TM) campaign currently going on in the US makes it highly unlikely that the LDS Church would encourage openly embracing a goddess, empowering though that would be to a gender-balanced theology.
At least 4 of those points are really bad suggestions, seeing as women don’t/can’t hold the Priesthood…
Why not just suggest a brand new religion? Seems easier, and you’d have a shorter list.
They’re hardly bad suggestions. It was Brigham Young who instituted most of the church’s racist and sexist doctrines/practises. Joseph Smith ordained at least some women to the priesthood, and in the early church women gave blessings. There is some historical precedent for female equality, though JS’s record is spotty at best.
If Mormonism wants to be in any way relevant in the future, it will have to eventually adopt most if not all of these changes, (as well as becoming significantly more gay-friendly). It’s certainly possible that the church will always refuse to give up its gender disparity, and if it does, it will become almost completely irrelevant. The desire to have a spiritual beliefs may not ever disappear, but I do believe that sexism and homophobia are very quickly becoming deal breakers for most people born after 1980 or so.
Mormonism will not survive, at least not in any meaningful way, if it doesn’t soon begin to make changes in the direction of increased gender equality. A lot has changed in our society since my parents generation was raised (they’re in their early 50s). When they grew up gender inequality was not just rampant, it was more or less totally socially acceptable. While there is a long way to go yet, it is far less acceptable to be blatantly sexist in the way the church currently is today than it was just 30 years ago. Women my age (26) and younger are simply not going to accept the subservient role that Mormonism currently has for them. Even women raised in Mormonism with the very polarised, dichotomous gender roles are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the status-quo. The church obviously knows this as we can see in their new commercials that they protray a totally atypical women who has her own career and point blank says that she believes in a god who wants her to be an individual, and the entire feeling of the commercial is that she’s a self-sufficient, opinionated, equal woman. But the reality of Mormonism is very different, and the church realises that an accurate depiction of women in Mormonism would not be acceptable to the outside society.
Basically, it’s change or die. I’m sort of hoping for the latter option.
Are you suggesting the Church can’t change? If it can embrace and then reject polygamy and racism, women getting the Priesthood isn’t impossible.
I don’t think the LDS church is trying to “survive” or be accepted by the current generation. It’s a religion and has it’s own unique standards and beliefs, just like any other religion. Women and men within the church just have different roles and parts to play based around families. You seem to know enough about the church and can understand why the church isn’t as gay-friendly as you would like, so I don’t need to go into that. I know many women my age (21) who look forward to raising and caring for their children. It’s not a bad thing. I also know many women who are aspiring to successful careers and raising children at the same time. Just because a woman joins or is a member of the LDS church doesn’t mean she can’t have her own career. Sure, male figures are dominant in the Mormon church, but in what religion aren’t men dominant figures? For some reason this is aimed at one religion out of many that have male dominance.
Haha, and you want the Mormon church to die? Wow. I don’t want to know where you messed up to hate a religion so much.
“Sure, male figures are dominant in the Mormon church, but in what religion aren’t men dominant figures?”
In several. You’re not looking hard enough. Also, it’s not a very good way to excuse the institutional pervasive sexism of the church by saying, “hey, we’re not the only ones!”
I agree there’s not a thing wrong with wanting to be a mother or raise children, but women in Mormonism are not given the freedom to really choose. The guilt and shame which accompanies daring to choose a non-standard role is intense. If you choose a career, work outside the home, decide to not have children or only have one or two you’re looked down on, you’re ridiculed, you’re constantly hounded as to why you’re not having more kids, why you’re so selfish, etc. The rigid gender roles in the church harm everyone because they’re based on arbitrary cultural norms, not on actual biology or psychology. Both women and men (and those who identify with another gender all together) are harmed by being in a society which puts such rigid expectations of gendered behaviour on them. I know there are many women in the church who are ok with and even defend the fact that they’re subservient to men. That doesn’t make it right.
Mormonism isn’t just like any religion. Many religions aren’t very concerned with spreading their faith to others – Mormonism on the other hand is obsessed with proselytising, and the church cares very much about its image and the way non-Mormons perceive it. If the church doesn’t change and adapt to the changing culture, it will not survive. Chances are though that it will adapt – just as it did with polygamy and blacks. Whatever the internal reasons given (revelation from god), it’s obvious that the church adapts itself to the external culture, albeit slowly and a few decades behind.
As for why I dislike Mormonism and would rather it disappeared? It might have something to do with the way it intellectually rapes, emotionally manipulates, and dehumanises people. Many religions do this, but Mormonism, because of its intense authoritarianism and top-down hierarchical structure, does it better and more intensely than many other religions. It brainwashes people to such an extent that many Mormons choose to disown or treat with disdain their own children and family members who don’t adhere to the orthopraxy. The hierarchy is very much complicit in this.
Jason,
Many of us who dislike the LDS church have the feelings we do because it has hurt us in some way (and I mean a big way, we didn’t just get offended). My disdain for the church comes from the fact that it has cost me all hope of really connecting with my family anymore. The fact that I am working my ass off for a PhD to work with children who have disabilities and brain damage, but I am still the “Honorable Mention Child” because I won’t get married in the temple. I am perceived as not “being true gold because I feared the refiner’s fire.” And compared to many, I have it extremely easy. People like Craig and I didn’t mess up, we decided to be ourselves and were punished for it. The judgement that we “messed up” is unwarranted and ignorant.
Craig,
I honestly don’t think the Church will adapt because I think it would lose too many members if it did. Granted, that might be supplemented by missionary efforts for a more “relaxed and groovy” religion, but I don’t think they’d get away with it like they did with Blacks and the priesthood or polygamy. Those were the days before internet scrutiny, 24 hour news networks and documentaries at the Sundance Film Festival. Information-sharing has become too accessible and sophisticated for the church to cover itself like it used to be able to. The leaders have spent too much time (and been heard by too many people) preaching about holding their ground against the “impure and unclean” and legalizing “immorality” (I can’t STAND Packer). They could get away with it if it weren’t for that meddling media.
Having a career does not mean women are treated equally in the church. Open your eyes and see how badly the LDS church degrades and patronizes women.
I love the ideas for guest speaking in third hour lessons, and possibly the missionary service. But no to passing sacrament and baby blessings.
Why?
Also, why do you wish Mormonism would die? That hardly seems to be in the spirit of tolerant and open discussion.
I think all religions are harmful. They perpetuate the idea that faith (belief in ideas w/o evidence and/or with contradictory evidence) is a virtue.
I don’t understand how expressing my belief that we’d be better off w/o religion (and Mormonism specifically) is intolerant or not in the spirit of open discussion.
I don’t think it is intolerant. It is important to be tolerant and respectful of believers, but not necessarily their beliefs (and that’s all Mormonism is–a system of beliefs).
I wouldn’t say that I want Mormonism to “die,” because “die” is such an emotionally-charged and negative word. But it’s true that I want to see Mormonism (as a system of beliefs) defeated. And that is not because I hate Mormons or the LDS Church as an organization, but rather because I believe that Mormonism is wrong, and I want false beliefs to be abandoned.
I mean, as a believer, don’t you want atheism to die? And Islam? And whatever belief systems you deem to be false?
Besides everything being completely misunderstood when I comes to the priesthood I fail to see how 5,8,12,14 even have anything to do with advancing feminism in the church. Technically you could wear a business suit to church if you were a woman but wearing jeans to church is disrespectful. They call it “Sunday best” for a reason. If wearing something nice for and interview is highly recommended then why would worshipping your God be less than that?
Sometimes the superficial things are the most telling evidences of inequality. Clothing that is assigned by gender sends a very clear message about the status and function of the person. Women are expected to wear pretty dresses and have styled hair. This is the uniform of decorative function and frivolity. Men wear business suits. This is the uniform of power, business, authority, and seriousness. Women have been officially instructed on many occasions that they are not to wear attire reserved for men. It keeps women visually marked as “not men” and therefore not entitled to do what men do. It’s very difficult to understand how hard this bias hits if you’ve never been affected by it.
The focus on outer appearances, for what it’s worth, is also directly contrary to what Jesus had to say about it. The fact that you can have a legitimate discussion in an LDS chapel about whether or not button-down shirts should only be white is an indicator that there is an unhealthy focus on appearances.
Thanks for the comment, Kyle.
First, I don’t profess to understand the rationale behind each of her suggestions, but I think the majority of her suggestions are reasonable and worth considering. Like you, I’m not quite sure why she included suggestion #8 and #12 (though I could hazard some guesses). I will briefly explain why #5 and #14 belong in the list.
#5: Molly is not claiming that a Mormon shouldn’t wear their “Sunday best.” I suppose she just doesn’t want women to be expected to wear dresses. A woman should feel comfortable wearing a business suit to church, if she feels it is her “Sunday best.” That’s how I understood her point, at least.
#14: This one seems obvious to me. Throughout the history of Western thought, god is most often thought of as a man. Mormonism does teach that women will become goddesses, but why don’t we accord those deities with the some worshipful reverence we do their male counterparts? That the LDS Church largely ignores its female deities is taken by some to mean that womanhood is less godly.
For one, a god who is offended by someone wearing jeans really needs to get over himself, especially one which claims to be all benevolent. Do you really think your god cares about the cultural traditions of society that he prefers one colour and material of clothing over another?
5 & 8 have to do with deconstructing the rigid gender roles in the church. Feminism isn’t just about getting rights for women, it’s about equality for both men and women, and about losing our obsession with dichotomous views of gender which everyone deviates from in one way or another. Idealised, rigid views of gender harm everyone.
For a church which emphasises family so much, the policy of not allowing non-endowed family members to attend weddings and disallowing inclusive extra-temple ceremonies only in certain countries like the US and Canada is pretty hypocritical.
If you can’t see how 14 has everything to do with feminism, you really don’t get what feminism is at all.
@Jon:
My reason for #8 is that temple married men can only serve as bishops. The idea that a man can only serve in a leadership position with a proper hausfrau to support him is harmful to highly competetent men who, for whatever reason, are single. Also, it reinforces the idea of women as beards/June Cleavers/support staff.
#12 is motivated by the fact that in our culture wedding days are still largely seen as the bride’s “Special Day.” I have lost count of the number of weeping brides I’ve seen who were unable to have all of the people they loved at the ceremony. Compound this with the fact that brides may not wear a veil, often have to change out of the wedding dress they’ve chosen in favor of bland, ugly temple clothing, and the fact that they “give” themselves to their husbands who “receive” them and an LDS temple wedding is often not an entirely happy experience for a woman. Allowing her to determine her guest list would seriously soften the blow.
Though this problem seems to disproportionately affect women, men are also entitled to look at their wedding day as “their special day.” Exclusion of “non-worthy” people hurts families and runs contrary to the idea that the LDS Church is about bringing families together.
if you dont understand why certain people, even family members cannot enter to temple to view ceremonies, then you have no idea what temples and Mormonism is even about. Think of it this way…in your home i cannot dictate what goes on there. I cannot come into your home and say that everything you do and how you operate is wrong. To me that goes against every constitutional right that we have. On the flip side you have no right to dictate the the church how they should “run” things. Its their church. Craig sorry to disappoint but i dont think the church will ever “die” nor do i believe that they will flip on key doctrinal issues.
jon- i appreciate that you understand key portions of doctrine and state them. Something that was once said to me, which i believe but is not doctrine, is that there are goddess and a Heavenly Mother. The reason that God hasnt revealed a lot about her is out of Love. Let me explain. The name of God has been used to declare countless wars and bloodshed and is probably the most desecrated name in all of history.When things go wrong its god’s fault. It is a very common profanity. Now if i loved someone enough to be with them eternally then i would never allow that name to be profaned. I could handle mine but my spouses no. If you dont believe me, ask my brother what happened when he called my girlfriend the b word.
Also i just wanted to point out also that you need to be careful when attacking someones beliefs that you think are wrong because you can easily throw that logic back at the gay community. I know this has been discussed in other blogs before so i dont mean to rehash things but the idea of homosexuality could be classified as a belief system which would make it ok for anyone to just sit an attack the “belief” of gay marriages. now i dont want to make a large mention of this, suffice it to say that if you attack someones beliefs whether you think they are right or wrong could be taken as attacking that person. PS if you think i hate gays i do not, in fact my sister is lesbian, just throwing that out there.
oh and i wanted to say that the reason that i think #8 is not a good idea is that a bishop is there to counsel and help. How can an unmarried man teach a married couple how to have a better marriage if he has not experienced that himself. Im not saying its impossible im just saying that its hard for me to teach adult men how to be better father in elders quorum when i am not a father myself.
“How can an unmarried man teach a married couple how to have a better marriage if he has not experienced that himself.”
By that logic, how can a bishop counsel a young man or woman struggling with (not that I think it should actually be struggled with) homosexuality if he hasn’t himself experienced homosexuality.
About your explanation as to why the church is so mum about Heavenly Mother: I’ve heard it before, and it’s a possible explanation, but I don’t think it’s doctrinal. It’s just conjecture, no?
Also, I’m uncomfortable with the way you describe Heavenly Father’s relationship with the Heavenly Mother. I can understand why he might not want her name to be profaned, but why is it his decision for her to remain a hidden god? That would have to be her decision. Otherwise, Heavenly Mother would be treated like how many women are treated in Muslim countries. In the Middle East, many women aren’t allowed out of the house and are forced to wear burqas all in the name of “protecting women.”
And could you expound about your arguments about how my logic about attacking beliefs can be thrown back on the gay community? Homosexuality is not a belief, it is an orientation. Beliefs are, ostensibly at least, something we choose. Just as it would be wrong to criticize somebody for being a certain race, it’s likewise wrong for me to criticize them for having a certain orientation. But you are certainly welcome to criticize someone’s belief that homosexuality is morally acceptable, that gays should be able to marry, etc. All beliefs–religious or otherwise–require critical evaluation.
@Kyle
You’re completely missing the entire point of this post. It’s not even remotely about forcing Mormonism to change its doctrines (as if that were even possible). We’re discussing what changes the church could and should make in order to be a more equal institution/religion/corporation.
Both Molly and I are very, very aware about the rules governing temple attendance. I myself went on a mission. My point is that the rules about worthiness/unworthiness needn’t necessarily apply to marriages. In most European countries couples have a civil ceremony the day before the temple sealing because it’s required by law that in order to have a legally recognised civil marriage it be performed by a government official. But in the US, if you have a civil ceremony, you’re forced to wait an entire year before you’re allowed to go to the temple. It’s simply a cruel and inconsistent policy.
Sorry to break it to you, but Mormonism has and does alter its doctrines over time. Several early church doctrines have been either swept under the rug, demoted from doctrine, or dismissed as “that was just his personal opinion”. For example, Brigham Young was quite clear that the Adam/God idea, blood atonement, and the perpetual inferiority of blacks were core doctrines. After a time, those teachings became disfavoured, and the doctrine was changed. For well over a hundred years it was firm, unchallenged doctrine that blacks were a tainted, less valiant, unworthy race. McConkie, Benson, and the other most vocal racists in the church simply had the bad luck to be outspoken towards the end of that doctrine’s usefulness and cultural acceptability. Because they were alive when the doctrine was changed, suddenly their teachings were just their opinions. But the belief that they weren’t speaking prophetically is a belief that would’ve gotten you excommunicated for apostasy if you’d have said it a generation or even a few decades earlier. It was as fundamental a core doctrine of Mormonism as ordinances for the dead is.
Here’s the thing. The LDS church retconns like nobody’s business. Past beliefs and doctrines are examined through the lens of the current Mormon culture. Mormon leaders and church members in the 1860s would have never, ever believed that polygamy could be discontinued. It was such a core, fundamental part of Mormonism. It’d be like telling you that the church would one day repudiate the Book of Mormon or First Vision. Just as you cannot fathom a Mormonism w/o those two things, so too could they not fathom a Mormonism w/o polygamy. This becomes especially clear when you read their teachings on monogamy. They are, almost word for word, the exact same teachings that the church now promulgates about homosexuality and gay marriage. Monogamy was seen as evil and a great societal ill to the pre 20th century Mormons. That’s why the fundamentalist sects broke away from the church because in their minds, the church had fallen into apostasy by renouncing a core doctrine.
If the church tomorrow said that the Book of Mormon wasn’t doctrinal, or that gay marriage was acceptable, or that the idea of becoming a god and having an eternal family wasn’t part of the church’s teachings (and it had never been truly doctrinal), you’d probably think the church had fallen into apostasy too.
Whatever you believe about the church being divinely led, you’re lying to yourself when you tell yourself that the church has never flipped on key doctrinal issues. What you view as core, unalterable doctrine is very different from what was core, unalterable doctrine during Joseph Smith’s time, which was different from the core doctrines during Brigham Young’s, which was different from what was considered doctrinal during Joseph F Smith’s tenure, which was very different from David Mckay’s. etc. The doctrines have changed. It is a verifiable fact. It’s not just a matter of opinion or viewpoint. It was once unshakeable doctrine that monogamous marriage was evil, and you could only get into the celestial kingdom if you had more than one wife. And never would a black person ever get the priesthood or be able to be sealed to anyone.
My point is that there is ample historical precedent for the alteration and outright revocation of doctrines which become culturally untenable. Now you can believe that those changes were revelation from god, but you still have to admit that every previous president of the church has been fundamentally wrong on some aspect of what is core, unchangeable doctrine. Brigham Young was, by current church teaching, outright wrong when he taught that Adam/God was a fundamental doctrine. And if he was simply wrong on a teaching he “thus saith the lord..”ed, then how can you be certain that the current hierarchy is 100% right when they teach as core doctrine that women cannot hold he priesthood, or gays cannot be sealed to each other in gay marriages?
Lastly, how is it that you’re so arrogant to say that you know god would never tell the church that they’d been wrong all along, and he actually has no problem with gay relationships or total equality for women? That sort of change wouldn’t be any more game-changing than the when polygamy was done away with, or when blacks were given the priesthood. In fact, the way most Mormons think today about how it’s just not possible for a woman to hold the priesthood – that the universe just doesn’t work that way, is the same belief that was held about blacks. That it was impossible for a black to hold the priesthood. The universe just didn’t work that way.
@Kyle: The argument that Heavenly Mother needs protection from the dangers of public existence only reinforces the idea that women are so fragile and delicate and incompetent that they need to leave the business of running the universe to the big boys so they can stay home and bake lemon bars.
A goddess need not fear the petty remarks of human beings. Hiding Heavenly Mother “out of respect” is just a faulty excuse for making sure that female members of the church don’t get too uppity and think they can have the same powers and responsibilities as men.
@ molly and jon
I know that if our Heavenly Mother wanted to you could defend herself with the same power and abilities as our Heavenly Father. I do no wish to perpetuate the idea that she needs be restrained or restricted in any way. jon you even said ‘but why is it his decision for her to remain a hidden god? That would have to be her decision.” how do you know that it already isnt her decision. I personally know many women who are powerful, eloquent and extremely business savvy who give that all up to stay at home and raise children. I think that women fulfill that role 100 times better than men. Not because they are subservient to belittle but that they are naturally more loving, caring and nurturing than men. For people to assert that women “need” to leave the homes for the workplace, to me, is downplaying and disrespecting their abilities and talents. For example i dont know how a single mom works, takes care of a home (financially and physically), takes care of the bills and still has time for herself, but i know my mom does it and does it well. To say that all the years she stayed home while my dad work, to me is more offensive than saying she should change to fit societies view on women today.
Jon, what i meant by your logic is that attacking someones beliefs can be easily used to attack a gay person. You are correct by saying it is an orientation but isnt it also still a choice? I know the scientific evidence behind it and to me it all still resonates from a personal choice be it good or bad. example. A pregnant mother addicted to coke gets her baby hooked on coke as well. no one knows about it until the child has matured and still has the desire for coke. That child still has to make the choice to use that drug whether he feels in inclination to use it or not. It may be hard to resist it or easy to use but it is still his choice. Now i dont want to get into the logistics of being gay as right or wrong but i do think it is wrong to downplay the fact that any homosexual or lesbian person has made a choice to live that lifestyle or orientation. Just as it is wrong to say that i have made a similar choice in my orientation.
@ craig
i dont think your post really deserves a reply. If you hate the church so much then why do you spend hours trying to destroy peoples belief of it but expect everyone to accept yours? I find it ironic that most gay or lesbian people (and this is my personal experience, not trying to stereotype) want to be accepted and not judged but they are the first to judge others on what they believe. I cannot tell you the countless times ive had gay people insult me, my religion, my belief system, my family, etc etc when i have never said or done anything to offend them.
the only thing i will say about your post is this. you said “We’re discussing what changes the church could and should make in order to be a more equal institution/religion/corporation.” the church does not have to make any changes nor should it to be more equal to your standards. If you dislike that “organization” dont aline yourself with it. in fact you should probably just run away from anything LDS and move on with your life. SImilarly i dislike shopping at larry h miller dealerships, so guess what i do. i dont shop there! funny how you eradicate so much unhappiness and confusion in your life when you just stop worrying about that specific institution and do something constructive with your life.
“jon you even said ‘but why is it his decision for her to remain a hidden god? That would have to be her decision.” how do you know that it already isnt her decision?”
I did not say that it couldn’t have been her decision. I was just objecting to the way you framed the issue. You said: “The reason that God hasnt revealed a lot about her is out of Love.” Your statement strongly implied that it was God’s choice, not Heavenly Mother’s, to conceal her identity.
“You are correct by saying it is an orientation but isnt it also still a choice?”
You’re confusing homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. We can choose whether we act on our sexual attractions, but we—homosexuals and heterosexuals alike—don’t choose our attractions.
The second half of your post is in response to Craig, but I feel compelled to make just one comment. Your comparison between the LDS Church and a car dealership isn’t very apt. Sure, they both are corporate organizations with salespeople (sorry, I could resist ha ha), but the similarities end there. First, while it’s easy to avoid Larry H. Miller’s car dealership, it’s nearly impossible to avoid Mormonism (if you live in Utah). Second, one’s relationship to a car dealership isn’t nearly as important as one’s relationship to a religion. Many ex-Mormons were once very faithful members who loved the LDS Church and sacrificed a great deal for it. When these members discover that the church isn’t what they believed it to be (namely, the one true church), they felt hurt and betrayed. In this sense, leaving the church is more analogous to getting a divorce than it is to changing car dealerships. And finally, if Larry H. Miller was lobbying to take your marriage rights (as a heterosexual) away, I doubt you’d be able to merely “stop worrying about that specific institution.”
All that said, I personally do not hate the LDS Church, nor do I hate Mormons (I have many Mormon friends, you included, Kyle). I was just trying to explain why ex-Mormons are able to leave the church, but not leave it alone. I submit that were you to leave the church, Kyle, you wouldn’t be able to leave it alone either—at least not for a while. Mormonism is probably deep within your identity. It’s not something you could easily or quickly, if ever, get over.
Jon I see your point. Respectfully I remove my comparison. I don’t believe though if I left the church I would do or say anything but that is also my personality to just avoid things like that if I did feel betrayed or hurt.
I do see your point about my original argument on a HM. It wasn’t very clear. Sorry.
Ps I’m glad that you don’t hate Mormons or the church. Similarly I just want to say if it seems like I hate the gay community in any way I do not. Gay just like mormon are generally good people I hate how there are some who perpetuate sterotypes and ruin family relationships over issues
@ Kyle
“if you dont understand why certain people, even family members cannot enter to temple to view ceremonies, then you have no idea what temples and Mormonism is even about. Think of it this way…in your home i cannot dictate what goes on there. I cannot come into your home and say that everything you do and how you operate is wrong. To me that goes against every constitutional right that we have. On the flip side you have no right to dictate the the church how they should “run” things. Its their church.”
It is true, non members have no right to tell a church how to run itself, but consider this. Drinking alcohol, smoking, looking at pornography, sex outside of marriage, even wearing a bikini are all outlawed by the Mormon church. I would leap to agree with you that the church has every right not to allow these things to occur in their house of worship. You make the analogy of your house rules vs. my house rules, and again, I completely agree with you. But here is the catch. Drinking, smoking, porn and suggestive clothing might be against the rules at your house, but are you really going to say that anyone who drinks, smokes, looks at porn, or wears bawdy clothing in their house can’t even enter your house because of it?
Also, thanks for thinking my list was worth consideration. I look forward to hearing more ideas on small changes.
I was always annoyed that men are slated to speak last and often times longer in sacrament meetings. It was such a small thing but it really rankled me inside.