So, my comments were originally written to my friend, but I have decided to re-write them and address them to the author of the blog post (because it would be weird to speak of her in the third person when commenting on her own blog post). Despite the fact that I have now chosen to post these "comments" into a blog post of my own, I will leave them addressed to that blog's author, whose name is Stephanie. I do not know her last name, or anything else about her.
Here goes:
Stephanie, while I disagree with many of the conclusions you arrived at in your post, I do not wish to minimize the difficult nature of the issues you address. I will be the first to admit that I don't have all of the answers about women's eternal roles as conceived of and taught by the LDS church. But, I do think that it is far different from the way you characterize it. I feel to state that it seems you have misinterpreted certain things, based on your negative experiences. I'm sorry you have had those experiences.
To be honest, several of the points you raised have given me cause for concern as well. Ever since grad school (studying English Literature at Arizona State) I have become much more sensitive to the way women are treated/depicted/perceived in our society. This concern has naturally carried over into my religious life. Despite being a man, I consider myself to be somewhat of a feminist apologist. Despite never being able to fully comprehend the position of any woman, I do my best to try to place myself in her shoes and imagine how I would feel if I were her.
I feel obliged to state that many of your concerns, however, relate not to official doctrine, but to the actions and opinions of individuals. I feel like I should say that just because some people say or do certain things, it does not mean that their actions and words are representative of an entire religion, let alone being representative of what God thinks.
It is obvious that you have had some negative and painful experiences, and I sympathize with that. However, I feel that the sarcasm and hyperbole you used in your post paints the church in a much more discriminatory and sexist light than I think is fair. The best example of this is the following assertion:
"I have yet to hear recrimination for the male mind who allows the enticement to foster impure thoughts. The responsibility is heaped upon the female."I do not believe it possible for you to never have heard church leaders counsel men to have virtuous thoughts. Men are counseled regularly about having chaste thoughts; probably much more frequently than women are counseled about dressing modestly. Perhaps the most apropos teaching on this subject comes directly from the New Testament, spoken by Jesus Himself:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)As you know, the LDS church believes in the Bible. Nowhere does He chastise women in this passage for their standard of dress. Regardless of the way women dress, He makes it clear that men should not lust after women.
Having said that, I must point out the following: to assume that the way a woman dresses will not have any effect, whatsoever, on the way men think is naïve, at best. Women have some idea just how much power there is in dressing revealingly - which is largely why they do it. When it comes to assigning guilt when men have lustful thoughts, the man is definitely the one who is responsible. The counsel to women about dressing modestly is to warn them that a portion of the blame may be theirs, however, because when dressing immodestly they make it more difficult for men to have chaste thoughts. I'm sure there would be no problem with modesty if everyone was blind. But, since men can't simply walk through life with their eyes closed, it is only fair to ask women to do what they can to reduce the temptation.
Only a small portion of the blame could ever go to a woman who dresses revealingly - and that is only because she has placed herself in the position to tempt someone else to sin. That is where her fault lies. Whether or not the man chooses to have impure thoughts is up to him. His agency cannot be ceded to another individual. That is solid church doctrine. But, I can say from experience that it's much easier to avoid impure thoughts when women dress modestly than when they do not. Just like it's much easier for an alcoholic to stay sober if he avoids hanging out in bars than it is for one who spends all of his free time there.
Anyone who knowingly tempts someone into doing something wrong has a degree of culpability. If you have a friend who is trying to stop smoking, and you always smoke around her, you make it more difficult for her to avoid the temptation to smoke. If you offer her a cigarette, your responsibility for her decision increases, because you are making it harder for her to stick to her resolution. But, the fact remains, she is ultimately responsible for her own actions. That's what the gift of agency is all about. Women can't take away a man's agency, but, they can have an effect on how he exercises his agency regarding lustful thoughts simply by the manner in which they dress.
This comment is really long, but I felt that I should respond, because I feel that your characterization of the church, its beliefs, and its leaders, is an unfair caricature. I'm more than happy to discuss ideas about the church, feminism, etc. But, I don't like it when people misrepresent the church - even if that misrepresentation is unintentional (i.e., based on an individual's subjective opinions). I do appreciate the discretion you used regarding the temple ceremony, because you could have gone into much greater detail if you had chosen. So, I applaud your restraint, and thank you for not giving further voice to something that I consider sacred.
In reference to the veil, I have often wondered why women need to wear it. I have not arrived at an answer that I find completely acceptable yet, but I have reconciled myself to the fact that there are some things that are more important than others. For example, I may not know why veils are used in the temple, and I may not know why women do not have the priesthood, but I do know certain other things. I know that God loves his daughters just as much as he does His sons. I know that He is infinitely kind and loving, and that the frustration and degradation you feel is not the product of His feelings about you, but rather the result of Satan's attempts to deceive you. If Satan can convince the women of the world that God does not value them, then he has achieved a great victory. I hope you will pray and ask Heavenly Father about these things. Ask Him if he values women less than men. I can say with full assurance that the doctrine of the church is not that women are inferior to men, but that women and men are equal. Frankly, I find it frustrating when church leaders sometimes attempt to address the cultural inequality of men and women by denigrating men in order to elevate our perception of women's worth. Some church leaders even go so far as to make statements that appear to make men seem inherently less than women, which is why they are said to “need” the priesthood. The theory is that men having the priesthood is supposed to even things out, because women are naturally “better” than men, and so men require something to supplement their inadequacy. I have heard variations on this kind of thing several times, but I don't believe it. I believe that men and women are different, and they have different roles, but they are equal when it comes to their intrinsic worth. I do not accept the idea that one sex is inherently better than the other. The scriptures tell us that the worth of souls is great in the sight of God. It does not specify whether those souls are male or female, because it does not need to: a soul is a soul, regardless of its sex/gender. All souls are of great worth.
There is a truly wonderful verse in the Book of Mormon. It reads:
[God (or Jesus Christ)] inviteth . . . all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God. (2 Nephi 26:33)That last phrase is key: "All are alike unto God." In other words, all are equal in God's view.
Again, I will say that I am sorry you have felt devalued because of certain experiences you have had in the church. I hope you will take a moment and try to reframe those experiences; try to view them through a perspective that allows for God to view his daughters as fully equal to His sons. You may find that there are other explanations for why certain things are the way that they are in this world, and in the church. That's what I try to do. I try to give God the benefit of the doubt, and assume that what may seem like injustice is, in reality, simply a misunderstanding of the situation – due almost always to the fact that I do not have all of the information. It is easy to misconstrue a situation when we only have a piece of the puzzle. But, I am confident that when we have the opportunity to see the whole picture, and not just our limited perspective, we will be surprised at how generous, kind, and loving God is to ALL of his children – regardless of sex, race, religious affiliation, age, righteousness, etc. While it is true that he may be more pleased with some of his children than others, based on what they do with their agency, I am fully confident that he loves all of his children equally.
I wish you luck on your journey for peace and fulfillment.
5 comments:
How exactly would you define a feminist apologist?
Travis, I think your argument is weak. Just because the church doesn't explicitly teach these concepts and values, they don't NOT teach them, either. Just a few weeks ago, someone posted on NOM about how their bishop was having the young men come in to meet with the young women and "teach" them how important it is to dress modestly. This manner of thinking is perpetuated by leaders and as long as that is happening, the organization has a responsibility to nullify or quell such behaviors. The church leadership's unwillingness to involve itself in disassociating from these beliefs and values incriminates the church as a silent co-conspirator. I get tired of the "blame the victim" mentality and the condescending assumption that because someone has made a critical observation it is because they are unable to see past their own hurt.
Thank you, Travis. It is what I wanted to say, but I do not have the gift of words like you do.
Very nice. I concur completely. Yeah, the denigration of men by some church leaders is whole other can of worms...a bad attempt at making some women feel better I guess.
Dear Anonymous, I'm not looking for a fight, which you obviously are. The fact of the matter remains that if you look hard enough, you can find fault with anything. I choose to look for good. I guess that's the main difference between us. I see only bitterness and unhappiness in a perpetual focus on finding fault.
I don't think I was being condescending at all. I was respectful and sympathetic. I was not rude and unabashedly contemptuous like you were with your anonymous comments.
p.s. My awkward phrase "feminist apologist" was meant to indicate that I can't really be a feminist, since I'm a male; but I can support certain feminist ideologies.
On facebook, Sharon Quinn (who commented above) wrote a comment I felt was really powerful, so I'm stealing it and putting it here. I hope you don't mind, Sharon!
"She seems to think that the church puts all responsibility for male chastity on women, and I don’t feel that way at all! I agree with Travis, and am quite certain that men are reminded to be virtuous, far more often than women are reminded... to dress modestly.
I don’t get the concept of liberation as “I can wear whatever I want, and if you’re affected by it, that’s your problem.” Apparel is just another form of communication, and she seems to be brushing that fact under the carpet. She wants to look sexy, but if someone looks at her the wrong way, they’ll get a fist in the face or a lecture about taking some responsibility for his hormones.
I’m a feminist who feels liberated through modesty. It’s a reflection of my opposition to the objectification of women. I guess growing up, I noticed that when I was scantily clad (usually for dance or theater stuff), different boys came to hang out with me. They treated me differently, and as flattering as it was to get the attention, I really didn’t like knowing if they spent time with me for my brain or my boobs. Covering the cleavage a little, not only changes how men see women, but how women see themselves. At least that was true in my case.
Deep down I think many of us still associate looking good with being good. Thanks a lot Disney Princesses and Ugly step sisters! It’s just ingrained in us. So it’s no surprise that we’d think that revealing a little more skin would reflect appealing personality attributes. I don’t know: confidence, security, openness… Instead it’s just an invitation for others to look at whatever it is we’re revealing.
Also, sorry I just can’t stop writing!!! The writer really doesn’t take into account the fact that the Church has been restored in a world with different cultures. In Tonga, LDS men are expected to wear their awesome man skirt ( the tupenu) to church, just as women are expected to wear a dress or skirt. I really think Heavenly Father could care less about wearing denim in the chapel. He cares about what is in our hearts. But what is there, is reflected through our actions and even what we wear with whatever cultural symbols we clad ourselves with. Utah has a culture too, not that any of this gives justification for judging each other.
I think the veil is just another symbol, and I don’t think it has anything to do with shame. In fact, we learn in the temple that being ashamed and running away from truth is the last thing that God wants for us."
Post a Comment