A Future Only God Could See for You

[RubinHighlander]

Alternate Title:
"The COB doesn't really tell women to stay at home and just have babies...much...anymore."

So I'm not one to waist any time with BYU Devotionals anymore, but I heard this one mentioned on public radio yesterday, something about it generating more traffic on BYU's website because the topic was about encouraging women to get an education, which goes against the stereo type of Mormon women staying home and not entering the workplace. The thing that triggered my interest was the comment about the speaker saying something like the church does not tell women to stay home and never get educated or work. I heard this while on my commute and said "bull Sh*t!" very loudly. Here's a link to the talk:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/eva-wite ... e-god-see/

Now, I'm certainly biased, because I've witnessed decades of seeing the church fight against the feminist and progressive movements from the 70's to now. I've heard it preached from the top that women should stay in the home, make babies and raise kids. I bought into it with my first marriage and we did what we could to make it possible. I also witnessed the scrutiny and finger pointing by stay-at-home mom's that went on when my first wife went to work to help our financial situation. Also with my now DW, she experienced the same scrutiny both spoken and unspoken because it has taken two incomes to raise our melded family and also when she was single and working.

So I decided to give this talk a listen this morning on the commute. In my biased opinion she does a good job cherry picking the scriptures and quotes, both old and modern, that support her premise that the church and or God wants women to get their education. She certainly ignored any past doctrine or preaching from the COB that was contrary. She was careful to say that it's through prayer and personal revelation that each woman finds her right path. She gives three other friend's stories about their experiences with it. I give her kudos for mentioning the local scrutiny and finger pointing that goes on that can be discouraging.

In addition to the cherry picking of supporting quotes and scriptures, here's an upper class privileged white women who was able to pay for or have her husband pay for all that education and have disposable income to give her all those opportunities. I would guess the same for her friends. She's also preaching to quite a bit of the choir, because her audience of students are obviously there at BYU pursuing an education...duh! What do all the stay-at-home mom's think of her talk? What do all the single divorced mom's (many who gave up higher education to follow the Lord's will and have kids) with only HS diplomas now working low paying jobs and who can't afford higher education think of her talk?

Yes I'm being judgemental here and assuming a lot of things I don't know about her situation and the struggles they may have gone through. Set that aside and just think about the mixed message coming from this talk vs. all the other talks you've heard from the COB on this topic. Maybe this is the new and slowly changing norm, moving into a new progressive era for the church. But this mixed message goes along with all the others, e.g. removing the little factory pamphlet or "masturbation" from the youth pamphlet at the COB level, but letting local leaders continue their zealous preaching of it.

[Thoughtful]

So, your criticisms are valid, but I'm sending the link to every working or in School mama I know. God knows we need the validation. And I want her to get the clicks, so maybe someone, somewhere would get the message that women are not happy with the status quo assigned roles.

[oliver_denom]

Is there anything in that talk that is inconsistent with what Dallin Oaks taught in 1975?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/03/insi ... n?lang=eng

According to him, women should gain an education in order to be better teachers for their children, or to prepare for the possibility that they may become widowed. In other words, the purpose of encouraging a woman's education is to help in her primary role as mother and as a back up plan in case their husband dies.

I'm just asking because it's completely possible for the church to support the idea of women's education while simultaneously opposing their equality.

I think this quote here is a direct contradiction of Oaks:

Our learning is of value not only if we become mothers or workers, church leaders or community activists. We are of value because of our divine heritage and because of what will one day be our divine inheritance. Our value is not merely instrumental. It is intrinsic. And our learning is not merely instrumental. It is essential.

[RubinHighlander]

I'm just asking because it's completely possible for the church to support the idea of women's education while simultaneously opposing their equality.

That's a good point Oliver. There does seem to be plenty of admonition to get educated, but also plenty of placation to the women over the inequalities without actually addressing it.

I also should have mentioned that it bothered me when she quoted BKP. I was thinking of the talk BKP talked to the CES and Institute instructors about not sharing all the truths with the general membership, just the ones that are in harmony with the correlated narrative and not the harmful church historical facts.

I think where she breaks ranks is to suggest that a woman can pray to God for personal revelation that it would be okay for her to go out and get educated AND have a career IF God tells her it's okay. This, in spite of what leadership says that it's only okay if the mom needs to help support her family because her husband looses a job or dies. It's always got to have strings attached or be justified somehow to allow for exceptions but otherwise fit the narrative.

[Give It Time]

Is there anything in that talk that is inconsistent with what Dallin Oaks taught in 1975?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/03/insi ... n?lang=eng

According to him, women should gain an education in order to be better teachers for their children, or to prepare for the possibility that they may become widowed. In other words, the purpose of encouraging a woman's education is to help in her primary role as mother and as a back up plan in case their husband dies.

I'm just asking because it's completely possible for the church to support the idea of women's education while simultaneously opposing their equality.

I think this quote here is a direct contradiction of Oaks:

Our learning is of value not only if we become mothers or workers, church leaders or community activists. We are of value because of our divine heritage and because of what will one day be our divine inheritance. Our value is not merely instrumental. It is intrinsic. And our learning is not merely instrumental. It is essential.

This is what I was thinking when I was reading the OP. I've never read the quote, but this was attributed to Brigham Young. If a family can't afford to educate all of their children, it should educate the girls, because the girls raise and teach the next generation.

Welcome to the world of Mormon double speak.