NOM

In case you needed greater clarity on the Church's stance on feminism, it is now available in the New Era: What is the Church’s stance on feminism?. Or maybe not greater clarity -- just more handwaving. Since this is the New Era, maybe they're just putting it simple for the kids, but since this is mostly targeted at teens, they've rather got an insulting view of what teens are capable of understanding. Or what they already know about the topic. And this being the Mormon Church they're now going to expect that adults, who never really get to grow up, accept this as a full explanation.

Mostly they cite the CrocProc and insist separate but equal is equal, or at least that those who find it unequal, just need to accept it. And build up straw men from outdated concerns and terms.

There's also a Salt Lake Tribune article on it: LDS Church issues new statement on feminism

Latter-day Saints frown upon such things.

That sums it up pretty well. I suspect we'll see people using terms like "the Lord's feminism," which of course isn't feminism at all.

When they say Latter-day Saints frown on things they are telling you to start exercising your frowning muscles for the long road ahead.

What a completely useless article - like the similarly vague "when leaders make mistakes," you want to fill us in, guys, just WHAT kind of feminism is to be frowned upon? What kind of radical social movements? I can't wait to hear some yahoo in my ward tries to fill in the blanks with any woman who dares to work outside the house as one of these "radical" feminists. Sheesh.

What a load of nonsense.

By that same token, we also frown upon extremes such as male chauvinism, sexism, machismo, or any other cultural influence that would cause men to think and act in ways that are not in harmony with gospel teachings of respect, love, modesty, chastity, equality, and family responsibilities.

Ooohhh ... they frown upon them. Such strong condemnation.

Or other cultural influences such as an all-male patriarchal leadership? And scriptures? And constant affirmations of the male-dominated society?

Part of what's notable about this mini-article is how it manages to come across as so thoroughly out of touch.

Another interesting tidbit - has the New Era become the new President Newsroom? It seems like that "clarification" for the WoW a few months back was in the New Era as well. Maybe because not even the youth are reading it?

Isn't the policy basically that the Brethren should control the rights of women?

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:27 pm

Latter-day Saints frown upon such things.

That sums it up pretty well. I suspect we'll see people using terms like "the Lord's feminism," which of course isn't feminism at all.

When they say Latter-day Saints frown on things they are telling you to start exercising your frowning muscles for the long road ahead.

The Pucker and Puff, the Ooooo and Eeeee, and the Cheek Suck are good exercises. But probably the best exercise is frowning on each other. No sweat.

Didn't they learn in Primary that no-one likes a frowny face?

You see, feminism is one of the philosophies of men that must be guarded against.

This article is probably intended to deal with young women who are being told in school that they can pursue whatever career interests them. They are not stuck being either a nurse or a teacher. However, when it comes to church, they are not qualified to count the number of people who show up to church each week, or sign a reimbursement check, or do anything without the approval of the men in charge. Most girls won't stand for it much longer.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:51 pm

Another interesting tidbit - has the New Era become the new President Newsroom? It seems like that "clarification" for the WoW a few months back was in the New Era as well. Maybe because not even the youth are reading it?

That is a really interesting insight, Mormorrisey. Very few people actually read it but it provides a way to gently trickle out new ideas while creating a paper trail so later they can say they have been talking openly about something in the past. Come to think of it, wasn't the only mention of the seer stone back in the 70's published in the youth magazine?

After getting my eyes unstuck from having rolled then into the top of my eye sockets, I have concluded from the 40-60 year old language they are using that they still don’t even understand what feminism is. Their language is as old as their ideas. “Male chauvinist” is a term that I don’t think I have even heard since 1980, which puts it going out of usage about 40 years ago. Machismo is even worse. They frown on male chauvinism huh, well then must look awfully sour when they look in a mirror. What they suffer from in benevolent patriarchy, which is just “be kind to the slaves.”

Put simply, Feminism is the radical idea that women are people too. Somehow, I still think they consider women “wives and mothers” in a way a robot could accomplish...well, we don’t quite have the technology to incubate a baby from conception. But every time I listen to the general authorities, I feel like to them I am nothing but a pot a baby grows in. To them women are not “us,” but “other”.

Jeffret wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:26 pm

By that same token, we also frown upon extremes such as male chauvinism, sexism, machismo, or any other cultural influence that would cause men to think and act in ways that are not in harmony with gospel teachings of respect, love, modesty, chastity, equality, and family responsibilities.

Ooohhh ... they frown upon them. Such strong condemnation.

Or other cultural influences such as an all-male patriarchal leadership? And scriptures? And constant affirmations of the male-dominated society?

Part of what's notable about this mini-article is how it manages to come across as so thoroughly out of touch.

Is it Feminism to want to pray to Heavenly Mother?

Hey CoB lurkers, you should probably let the Brethren know that most Millennials aren’t impressed by their solemn blah blah blahing about the crucial importance of 1950s gender roles. In fact, they look like pompous gasbags when they talk like that. To my kids, when they see someone talk like that they take it as a sure sign the person doing the speaking is full of crap.

Women are second class members of the Church. No amount of solemnly worded vague statements will change the reality of that experience for women in the Church. And many of the rising generation aren’t going to stand for it.

I dont know how I missed this the last few days... yiiiiiiiiiikes.

How can anyone say with a straight face that men and women are equal?

When Russell Nelson dies, he is going to have two women to sex up for eternity.

Neither of his wives have a choice to stop him nor do they have the option to get some extra dudes to celestualize with.

How is that equal?

And that doesn't even get into the priesthood, which is clearly the most powerful thing on earth that only men can have.

They are going full in and indoctrinating the youth early to think that this is normal or OK, and it makes me so sad to think of my nieces/nephews who are reading and hearing this nonsense. Luckily (for now) my kid is not seeing this, but I know it's only a matter of time.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:28 am

Women are second class members of the Church. No amount of solemnly worded vague statements will change the reality of that experience for women in the Church. And many of the rising generation aren’t going to stand for it.

This, this and this. That's why the church is on pins and needles right now, as the trifecta of evil that Packer prophesied is actually quite accurate. Feminists, LGBTQ individuals and "intellectuals" are indeed the ones breaking the church right now, and the lads at the top have no clue how to stop it.

The younger generation simply aren't putting up with misogyny, bigotry or gaslighting from their boomer/silent generation leaders. In a couple of decades, I don't think anyone will recognize the church we had to deal with. And it ain't "radical" feminism that's doing it, it's just regular people fed up with outdated and outmoded views.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:37 am

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:51 pm

Another interesting tidbit - has the New Era become the new President Newsroom? It seems like that "clarification" for the WoW a few months back was in the New Era as well. Maybe because not even the youth are reading it?

That is a really interesting insight, Mormorrisey. Very few people actually read it but it provides a way to gently trickle out new ideas while creating a paper trail so later they can say they have been talking openly about something in the past. Come to think of it, wasn't the only mention of the seer stone back in the 70's published in the youth magazine?

I think that's right. Put it out in the New Era, so you can gaslight later.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:08 am

And that doesn't even get into the priesthood, which is clearly the most powerful thing on earth that only men can have.

And boys. Once they're 11(+) they're more powerful than all the women.

I believe they are against it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1smartdodog wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:28 pm

I believe they are against it

This is my favorite comment.

But no, of course they're not against feminism. According to the article, they're totally for it, as long as it allows for teaching and institutionalizing the Lord's revealed stereotypes.

Reuben wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:07 am

1smartdodog wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:28 pm

I believe they are against it

This is my favorite comment.

But no, of course they're not against feminism. According to the article, they're totally for it, as long as it allows for teaching and institutionalizing the Lord's revealed stereotypes.

They are for feminism as long as women define feminism as happily accepting second class status and happily doing all the grunt work of motherhood and calling motherhood equal to all the glory jobs of priesthood. A woman can be a feminist in good standing as long as she believes that God loves his sons more than he loves his daughters. Just like the church welcomes gay members as long as they pretend to be straight. And welcomes intellectuals as long as they believe that someone smarter than them has already studied everything about the church and decided it is all true.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:51 pm

Another interesting tidbit - has the New Era become the new President Newsroom? It seems like that "clarification" for the WoW a few months back was in the New Era as well. Maybe because not even the youth are reading it?

Yes, I think this is the new President Newsroom. The Word of Wisdom was equally, and hilariously, and tyrannically clarified last summer in the pages of The New Era. This is where the future leaders of the LDS church are most accessible, after all. Ideally, this would be presented in a general conference talk and then in ward Sunday School. But they quickly run headlong into the problems of "speaking as a man" when that happens so The New Era is the best authoritative source until it is revoked in the future as needed.

This article attempts to straddle the issue without provide much in the way of systematic doctrine, much like plural marriage doctrine and old priesthood restrictions are still not really explained. This article also attempts to not immediately stomp out any future Ordain Women sympathizers while not acknowledging their position.

Dallin Oaks is probably the most open apostle with feminist views. And by "feminist views", Elder Oaks is largely against them.