Last night I saw the PBS 2-part documentary on Mormons and Margaret Toscano was one of the commenters. She had been excommunicated from the church for teaching theories and ideas that were not consistent with church teachings. I was curious, so I looked at one of her articles on the Internet and can see why she was seen as a source of trouble -- stirring up the feminism debate, which, in my personal experience, seems to encourage dissatisfaction in women, rather than allow them to just live the gospel, have faith and be happy.
I do not commonly read 'anti' stuff or even Sunstone, but I just wanted to see what others thought of her comments. I just cut and pasted a few paragraphs to give the main ideas, but the whole article (if you want a LONG read) is here: http://www.margarettoscano.com/?p=8
(Given at the Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 11, 2006)
“Are boys more important than girls?” This question was asked by an 8-year old Mormon boy who had been left behind with his mother and sisters while his father and older brother attended the October 2004 priesthood session of general conference. When the boy’s mother answered that boys and girls are indeed equally important, this eight-year old contradicted her with bracing candor: “I think,” he said “that boys are more important because Jesus and Heavenly Father are boys, and boys get the priesthood and girls don’t.” The very next morning, President Hinckley addressed the value and importance of LDS women in a talk entitled “The Women in Our Lives,” where he stated that “women are such a necessary part of the plan of happiness which our Heavenly Father has outlined for us.” The boy’s mother felt that the LDS prophet’s remarks were an inspired answer to her son’s question and supported her defense of the equality of women in the Church. Subsequently, she related this incident as a faith-promoting story in sacrament meeting in my sister’s ward.
But is President Hinckley’s statement that “women are such a necessary part” of God’s plan really an assertion of gender equality? In this paper I will address the question “Are boys more important than girls?” by examining five related questions:
1. Does God’s justice demand gender equality; and, if so, is it possible to achieve gender equality and gender difference simultaneously?
2. Is gender equality in the Church to be measured objectively by outward criteria or subjectively by the feelings reported by LDS women?
3. Does the Church have the moral duty to promote gender equality within its organization?
4. If the Church is failing in such a duty, how can concerned members work for change when they also believe it is divinely guided by priesthood authority?
5. And perhaps most important of all, what would it take to make an 8-year-old conclude that LDS girls are just as important as LDS boys?
As the 8-year-old boy could see: Jesus and Heavenly Father are boys. If the Godhead is boys, then boys are in charge. Mormon theology, reinforced as recently as October 2004 by President Hinckley, does not accord to women the power to create or save worlds. The highest authority is vested in males. Women are not final decision-makers. The Relief Society, touted as the largest and possibly oldest women’s organization in the world, is subordinate to men in every way with no chain of command from General Relief Society Presidency to each stake and ward Relief Society Presidency. Rather, at each level, general, stake, ward, and branch, women are called by, released by, and supervised by men, to whom they must report and from whom they must seek and obtain permission and money to act. Church resources rest entirely in the hands of men. Although often used by women, Church funds are never to be used without male approval. Women cannot even schedule the use of a chapel without male permission. They cannot create or present a curriculum that has not been approved by males. The current Relief Society textbook is taken entirely from the writings and utterances of males.
Women confess their sins to males, never to other females; and certainly men never officially confess their sins to women. Men hold all the judicial offices of the Church, whether in a disciplinary council conducted by a bishop on the ward level or by a president on the stake level, or on the general appellate level. Women are therefore never tried by their peers. On the other hand, Church leaders do not need the approval of women for any of their actions, nor are they required to receive doctrine or ordinances from women. Men define doctrine, policy, and practice. They define normative behaviors. They create the moral context for all departments of Mormon life. They literally hold the keys of the kingdom on earth and in heaven.
I see two obstacles to an open examination of gender difference and equality: first, an ambiguity surrounding the desirability of power; and second, the belief that the present Church structure must, and therefore does, reflect the will of God. Most women who complain, or even express pain or doubt, about gender inequity in the Church are immediately accused of being power hungry and out of line with Church doctrine and authority. Lorie Winder Stromberg asks why we assume that wanting power is a bad thing:
I’ve spent too many years on the defensive . . . It’s time I owned the term. Perhaps I am power hungry. And my question is: Why aren’t we all? If by power hungry you mean I desire the ability not only to accept responsibilities in the institutional Church but also to be part of defining those responsibilities, then, yes, I’m power hungry . . . . If by power hungry you mean I believe women must have a voice in the Church, then, yes, I’m power hungry . . . . If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry . . . . if by power hungry you mean I want the ability to participate in a model of power based on partnership rather than patriarchy, based on empowerment rather than domination, then, yes, I’m power hungry.[iv]
The second reason current LDS gender roles are not equal is that they prevent women from developing all of their talents. If a woman must invariably nurture and is forbidden from exercising her other abilities, these other talents become meaningless to her and may in time be lost as well (a “hiding your light” analogy). There is currently no place for a woman to bless the Church with prophetic insight because this particular spiritual gift is connected solely with priesthood office, which is true of many other spiritual gifts as well.
The third reason that current gender roles in the Church are not equal is that they deny women full agency to participate in defining and authorizing doctrines and policies that shape cultural and personal identity and practice. Because most decisions about the management of the Church and the direction of spiritual affairs are made by priesthood councils, women do not have a full voice or “vote” in the Church. Thus, the Church’s current gender roles promote, at best, a gender-based policy of “separate but equal.”
25 comments:
To which I say, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Heard it all before and it still stinks. If they're going to continue to whine, at least they could change their tune every once in awhile. These women are so BO--RING. IMHO.
Yeah, I'd say power hungry, or rejected/offended by too many men in their lives, stuck-up, etc.
It all comes down to this: If you believe that the Church is true, then there's a REASON God did things that way. If you don't think the church is true, then don't be a part of it, or find the answers to your concerns.
I've been in the church for a while now, and have NEVER considered men to be more important than women. That's like saying a husband is more important than a wife because, traditionally, he earns the money and pays the bills.
She's probably a lesbian, too.
And it's interesting how she (in the PBS documentary, at least) talks about how she has such a strong testimony of the gospel and that 'questioning' should be a part of the gospel. But those evil, oppressive men shut her up!
It really bugs me when people -- whether women, blacks, gays or whatever -- assume that nobody could ever understand them unless they are also female/black/gay...
Like women who will vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman -- as though she represents all women! Not even...
Toscano felt the all-male church disciplinary council denied her a 'jury of her peers' -- as though only other women could rightfully judge her. (Some could argue that her fellow women would be even harsher, cattier and more competitive!)
I hate that you-can't-possibly-understand attitude because we are all just people, period. George might understand me in ways in which some woman down the block might not. You don't always need to have the same physical characteristics to identify with others.
And well, I think these white men have done a pretty good job of leading the church. If they follow Christ, who cares what they look like?!
Anybody who thinks men have all the power in the LDS Church needs to start actually going to some meetings, looking at how much of the budget goes to which organizations, etc., etc., and one more etc.
And on an unrelated topic, BYU has claimed the top spot in the Princeton Review's "Stone Cold Sober" category for the 10th straight year.
At least there's one place trying to have some standards and stick to its principles!
>Toscano felt the all-male church disciplinary council denied her a 'jury of her peers'
If I were ever subject to a disciplinary council, I would pray that I would be denied a "jury of my peers!" If we define a "peer" as a person who is equal to me "in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status" (dictionary.com), then my peers would be incompetent, middle-aged losers. Personally, I'd rather have God as my judge and jury, working through the people He has chosen, even if, by some wacky chance, they did happen to be incompetent, middle-aged losers.
Lady, the Church isn't a club or a public organization or a democracy. It's not going to conform to your theology, or adopt the god you have created in your own image, so your leaders did you a favor by giving you the bum's rush. You would be just plain too uncomfortable with a bunch of people who were humbly trying to conform to God's will. And, you know, the Godhead is made up of three MALE members. That's really gotta stick in yer craw!
>Men define doctrine, policy, and practice.
In other words, this broad didn't have a testimony in the first place.
This is just too easy to pick apart. I don't even know where to start.
By the way, Amanda wanted to comment and say that she agrees with me, but I told her that I, as the man on the house, needed to write the comment for her.
Hey Tsubaki, I hope that by this statement: "my peers would be incompetent, middle-aged losers" you are not inferring that you are this way! I would not describe you that way. Just watch a few reality TV shows and you'll feel extremely competent and accomplished!
And yeah, if she considers MEN created the gospel this way, well... I guess God is nothing more than some guy to her? No testimony of Christ there. Funny how a lot of ex-LDS claim they had a strong 'testimony' but came to see the church's errors and left. Testimony of what?!
Now to check out this Princeton Review thing you mention...
Andy -- ha ha, you funny guy! Hey, I made Cinnabons the other day and they were just like the real ones.
>I hope that by this statement: "my peers would be incompetent, middle-aged losers" you are not inferring that you are this way!
Oh, I am! Reality is reality, and the search for self-esteem only brings depression and a variety of personality disorders. But as Francis Bacon wrote, "Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." I think pretty much everything is funny, so I'm fine with reality.
And, recognizing what I am doesn't mean that I'm beaten. The band Nocturnal Rites sums it up pretty well.
____________________________
Still Alive
Like a thunder storm it’s breaking out
Won’t take another blow, and,
I’ll let you know
I’ll never kneel or falter
‘cause you are not the only
I’m not crawling back again
I’m still alive
Though I’m old, trite, and weary
And I know I’m alive enough
To stand my ground
So there is nothing to revive –
I’m still alive
I tried to wash away those filthy lies
Betrayed and lead astray,
I just walked away
In my darkest hour
I still hear you breathing
Well, you won’t get the best of me
_________________________
Yep, still alive.
Part II
But the point is that mortals are weak and incompetent, and I don't want to be judged by the weak and incompetent who rely on their own weakness and incompetence to pass judgment. Only God's judgment is acceptable, so I want to be judged by those called of God and given the authority to relay to me God's judgment, whether they're male, female, young, old, black, or white. The only thing that matters is God's will.
I guess these questions should be given some answers. They're pretty obvious answers, but since this person has asked them, apparently there are some people so incredibly dense that they can't grasp the obvious.
>Does God’s justice demand gender equality
What does that even mean?
>is it possible to achieve gender equality and gender difference simultaneously?
There are differences between the sexes. That has already been achieved. A definition of this fuzzy "gender equality" would have to be given before any answer can be possible.
>Is gender equality in the Church to be measured objectively by outward criteria or subjectively by the feelings reported by LDS women?
Again, "gender equality" doesn't really mean anything, but everything in the Church must be judged only by God, so I'll go with "measured objectively by outward criteria," and that criteria and measurement come exclusively from God.
>Does the Church have the moral duty to promote gender equality within its organization?
First, how do you promote a concept that has no coherent meaning? Second, the Church only has a moral duty to do what God wants the Church to do. Anything else is for crazy social engineering schemes.
>If the Church is failing in such a duty, how can concerned members work for change when they also believe it is divinely guided by priesthood authority?
They can live the Gospel instead of playing revolutionary and dragging worldly social engineering schemes into the Church.
>what would it take to make an 8-year-old conclude that LDS girls are just as important as LDS boys?
Teach him the Gospel as presented in the Standard Works and by the modern prophets and apostles, let him see the way the Church works in almost every case, and keep him away from crazy social engineering schemes promoted by apostate wenches who are so self-centered that they believe that they know more about what the Church is supposed to be and do than do the people who God has actually put in charge.
I have read through your comments and am amazed at the level of your discourse.
Most if not all of you lob your ad hominem attack from the safety of anonymity, hiding behind pseudonyms.
Not one of you directly engaged Margaret on a single point she made. Instead, you provide reasons why she is wrong without either stating what you think she said that is wrong or bothering to lay out evidence supporting your view that she is wrong.
One or two of your comments are probably libelous under the law.
You claim to believe in the Gospel, but there is little evidence of charity in the remarks of many of you that you. I understand that you see people like Margaret as enemies of the Church, but you apparently are in a state of amnesia about how Christ requires us to treat our enemies.
Margaret's claim that at her high council trial, the Stake President did shut her is quite true. She was not allowed to present a case other than to answer their questions. The chairs were arranged as indicated in the documentary by Helen Whitney. She was not allowed to know the charges before the disciplinary council convened. She was not allowed to have anyone with her either to take notes or speak on her behalf. She was allowed to have witnesses, but had to name them before the trial began. The State President would not tell her what witnesses would appear against her. The Stake President acted as a prosecutor not an impartial judge. I believe that Margaret was quite within her rights to claim that she was denied due process.
Critics of the church can act out of hate or out of love and deep concern. None of you has the ability to look into the heart of another to determine another's motives, but apparently that has not stopped you from such a judgment.
It is one thing to disagree with someone's ideas, acts, or omissions and even to call their leadershi to account by bringing forth strong reasons. It is quite another to make ad hominem attacks and speak evil of people as some of you have done in these posts.
Paul the anonymous troll: Isn't that you tapping your foot in the stall next to me? If so, please stop.
I wondered what your pseudonym "Cubicle" referred to. How long have you been in there?
Apparently my comment provoked a series of rude comments unpublishable even on this site. I had expected better from defenders of the faith.
Paul Toscano
>I wondered what your pseudonym "Cubicle" referred to. How long have you been in there?
Oh, for a few decades. How long have you been in the Land of Rainbows and Unicorns?
>Apparently my comment provoked a series of rude comments unpublishable even on this site.
Wrong again, little one. I posted two replies, but then realized that it was a waste of time to engage goofballs, so I deleted them and just left you with a question.
>I had expected better from defenders of the faith.
Something like your emo-boy comments, I suppose?
>Paul Toscano
Ah, that explains it. That Paul. HAHAHAHAHA! What in the world are you doing in this neck of the blogosphere? Now I've got to laugh at myself for wasting my time responding to someone that's not only a goofball, but also a self-absorbed malcontent who wallows like a 13-year old girl in a romanticized vision of rebellion and dissent. Viva la revolucion!
But, Paulie, aren't you stepping down a bit from your grand, exalted station to come whine like a little girl on some person's virtually unknown, and infrequently updated, blog? Isn't it a bit beneath you?
Now, we're just sum o' them ignernt Mormon cultists, blindly followin' our leaders in good old zombie fashion, so we doesn't know no better, but you, you're an anointed one! You have the great vision that eludes the rest of us. You are worthy to create God in your own image! You see what the rest of us lemmings don't see! You're SPECIAL!!!
Please save us, Brother Paul. Please save us!
The anti-Mormon business not paying that well or keeping you busy enough these days? Hmmm? You're so bored that you have to play the troll? Hmmm. Maybe you're not that SPECIAL after all.
Anyway, you're useless, spiritually corrupt, intellectually lazy, and completely irrelevant to anything in life, so before posting any further, please fill out an ID-10-T form and submit it to the receptionist and your case will be processed at our earliest convenience.
No points have been awarded.
In my last post I did not write the words "Something like your emo-boy comments, I suppose?" These were added.
What, exactly, have I said and done, to merit your vituperation?
Perhaps, I should not expect a rational response. Perhaps I am in the wrong neck of the woods.
Apostate: In my last post I did not write the words "Something like your emo-boy comments, I suppose?"
Cubicle: Um, you're absolutely right. That was my reply to your comment. I didn't think it was that difficult to follow...
Apparently, you don't know what an "emo" is...
Apostate: These were added.
Cubicle: Yes. By me. In response. To your. Comment.
You have a really hard time following along, don't you.
Apostate: What, exactly, have I said and done, to merit your vituperation?
Cubicle: Well, if you are the Paul Toscano who is the apostate excom professional anti-Mormon, who wrote some goofy books such as The Sanctity of Dissent, then I would merely point you to the things you have published, Sunstone speeches, anti-Mormon organizations that you have been involved with, that kind of thing. (I've researched the whole range of anti-Mormons. That includes the most minor anti-Mormons as well, so I'm even familiar with your work!)
If you're not that pseudo-intellectual thug, then I am sincerely happy for you and apologize deeply for the mistaken identity.
Apostate: Perhaps, I should not expect a rational response.
Cubicle: Why should I do anything more than play with you? If you're the wacko excom Paul Toscano, then you're not worth taking seriously. (You clearly take yourself seriously enough, making it unnecessary for anyone else to.) Again, if you're not goofball whiner malcontent Paul, I do apologize. If you are, then know that I cannot prevent myself from laughing at you and your ilk. I know, it's not very compassionate, but then, I'm in a cult, so what do I know?
Apostate: Perhaps I am in the wrong neck of the woods.
Cubicle: How perceptive of you!
If you're the freakazoid Paul, that is. If you're another Paul who just has the misfortune of being stuck with the same name, I do, very, very sincerely apologize, and suggest that instead of signing "Paul Toscano," you sign "Paul 'But Not the Whiny, Intellectually Lazy, Spiritually Dead, Doctrinally Confused, Foot Tapping Paul' Toscano." That would help gain the credibility that the self-absorbed, no-talent hack apostate Paul Toscano could never have.
So, you probably understand by now that I don't (can't, actually) take you seriously, and that I'm not going to do anything other than play with you. If you want a place to do your poor victim dance, then you are, most certainly, in the wrong neck of the woods. I've wasted way too much time over the years with anti-Mormon freaks. Your allotment has been used up.
Once again, I award you no points. You have also not submitted the requested form, but I will, out of my great generosity, bestow upon you an ID-10-T certificate. It will be mailed to you care of "Utah Lighthouse Ministry." The cost of each is $18.00.
Remember, Paulie, this isn't "Rainbows and Unicorns Land." This is "If You Come Here and Start Writing Goofy Things or Taking Yourself Too Seriously You'll Get Made Fun of Land." It's probably not the right place for you to play.
Paulie, if you want a more direct response to your words and to the Magster's words, please go to the following website.
http://awellordereduniverse.blogspot.com/
That's really all I have left to say.
I guess I haven't been over here in a couple days. And wow, a newcomer!
Paul, are you related to Margaret, being that you have the same last name?
I guess Cubicle knows your game... but then you disappeared when he 'outed' you. Wimp. Emo boy.
Since this is my blog, I don't mind you commenting here, but just realize that it is MY blog and we will comment back! We might even tease you!!
I kinda laughed when you mentioned that "one or two of your comments are probably libelous under the law."
Dude, it's my obscure little blog! And if a person puts their opinions out there, then they might just get some opinions about those opinions from other people.
This isn't meant to be some highbrow intellectual discussion that merely obscures the issues with fancy phrases and 'theories.' I've been through academia and know the meaningless B.S. thrown about by people who sound educated, but who really just say nothing of value.
Cubicle, I always love your comments and humorous insights!
BTW, I'm not trying to obscure my identity, Paulie. Whaddaya wanna know about me? Do you need my full name to start a lawsuit against me for hurting your feelings (or allowing others to do so here)?
Paul, WHO is trying to hide here?! I clicked on the link to your profile to find nothing there. Where you be at, boy?
I think this is his website.
Cubicle, you got a big laugh from me for that one!! Ha ha, I love his web site.
Post a Comment