Point: Proclamation -- Yes, men and women are still different

Ruth over at Empowering LDS Women brought up the summary of a recent study regarding differences between women and men. In the study:

Scientists at the University of Turin and the University of Manchester say they have developed a new method to analyze personality differences between the sexes, which suggests the differences are much greater than previously thought.

They studied 10,261 people — 5,137 females and 5,124 males — and found key differences.
Women scored higher in:

• sensitivity.
• warmth.
• anxiety.

Men got higher scores in:

• emotional stability.
• dominance.
• rule-consciousness.
• vigilance (wariness).

They noted significant differences in levels of aggression and life interests as well.

The researchers measured behavioural traits in a broader fashion than previous studies did. They argued that these broader definitions provide a more accurate description of personality characteristics. "We believe we made it clear that the true extent of sex differences in human personality has been consistently underestimated," they write.

I just love hearing studies that validate inherent differences in men and women because we ARE different.  Makes me say, "Point:  Proclamation!" I really believe that nurturing comes a bit more naturally to women -- particularly when the nurturing involves young children.  I also believe that men are generally better protectors, in part because of their generally larger size (however, they do need to be taught to protect, not to take advantage of).  I think both men and women are capable of being providers, but they may go about it a little differently.

Ruth brought up a very good point in her post inspired by some of the comments on the study summary.   Apparently, some commenters took the research as evidence that women are inferior to men and shouldn't be in leadership positions.  (So rude!)  Ruth concludes, "That, to me, is the essence of feminism. It isn't insisting that I am exactly the same as men--I'm not, and to be honest, I don't want to be. It is merely insisting that my differences do not make me inferior, and demanding the respect that each of us deserves as human beings. . . ."

The comments go to show what our society values: the men traits.  If we flipped things around and placed greater value, or an equal value on such things as sensitivity and warmth, comments would probably be different.

Raising Girls

Last October I had an interesting conversation with a friend regarding motherhood and raising daughters.  I should have just blogged it then, but I wrote it in my journal so I wouldn't stay up so late on the computer, which doesn't make any sense because handwriting takes so much longer, and now I have to type it up anyway!?

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how I feel about all of it, but wanted to put out the ideas for some feedback.

Just for background, this friend is a mother of slightly older children, including some of marriageable age.  She said that many of her friends with married sons and sons of marriageable age, are complaining about their daughters-in-law (or potential DILs) because these younger women expect their husbands (or future husbands) to go to school, work, cook, and if they have kids, help care for them in ways such as putting the kids to bed. She said the girls look at having a family as a burden (I suppose something to push off to someone else like their husbands) when it should really be an honor to care for a husband and kids.

She also said that she thinks a big change in the girls stems from girls' sports -- making them more aggressive.  Sports activities takes not only the girls out of the home, but also the mothers; therefore, the girls don't see the mothers being homemakers anymore, so they don't know what to do when they marry -- they don't see homemaking as their responsibility.  My neighbor did say she felt ballet and other feminine activities were okay, though, because they don't cause the aggression.

Later, she sent me an e-mail emphasizing how sacred this time with young children is, and that we don't need to be on the go all the time -- it's okay to be home and not be signing up to help with everything (I'm way guilty of that one).

Anyway, it was an insightful discussion, and I want to know what others think.  Particularly,

• Is it a common attitude among young, married women to look at having a husband and a family as a burden and the care for them not primarily their responsibility?
• Do you think sports and the aggression that comes along with sports is carried into a younger woman's overall attitudes and affects her relationships and marriage?
• Do you think activities such as dance, although a more feminine past-time, could also have a negative impact on a girls view of homemaking because it, too, can take her and her mother out of the home so much?
• How can we raise our girls with homemaker/mother/caregiver qualities, yet still help them be competitive academically/professionally (which can be very important as a lot of women don't marry)?  I had a really hard time valuing both roles, and favored the latter qualities.  I wish I could have had a better balance of the two.

Understanding the Priesthood

I'm beginning a little quest, finally.  I started gathering some articles regarding the priesthood, it's organization, and history a while back, but was finally driven to actually start reading them because I had to teach a lesson on the priesthood to the 11 year old girls in our ward today (I didn't teach any 11 year old boys because there are none).

Sometimes understanding the priesthood can be difficult, especially when you start hearing people question it and why only men hold it.  I wanted to get to some fundamentals, so that's where I'm starting here.  I've read three articles so far, which are the ones I'll cite today, but I'll add another two or three installments as I get the other articles read.

Let's start with the basics from my lesson:

Q:  What is the priesthood?
A:  The power to act as God on the earth (Primary Lesson) or Gods power and authority to man (Bateman)

Q:  What are some of the blessings of the priesthood?
A:  Receiving a name and a blessing; being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost; receiving a blessing when sick; partaking of the sacrament; serving a mission; being married in the temple.

Q:  Who receives the blessings of the priesthood?
A:  Anyone, male or female, who is worthy and properly prepared.

Q:  Who holds the priesthood?
A:  A male who is worthy and properly prepared.

Q:  What are some of the priesthood keys?  (I didn't get into this one in class.)
A:  Repentance, baptism, kingdom (organizing the Church, I'm guessing), gathering (missionary work), sealing (temple) (Bateman).  Also, if a person holds priesthood keys (the prophet), he can delegate them to others.  (Bateman, Priesthood Manual).

So, I think you can look at it this way:

The prophet holds the keys of (there are probably more, and I could be incorrect in my assumptions as I'm drawing my own summaries from the articles):

• The gospel of repentance (JS-H 1:69)
• Baptism by immersion (JS-H 1:69)
• The kingdom (organizing the Church, I'm guessing) (Bateman)
• Gathering (missionary work) (Bateman)
• Sealing (temple work) (Bateman)

However, because the prophet can't possibly personally oversee all of that for an entire worldwide church, he delegates the keys to others through the organization of the priesthood:

• Mission presidents
• Branch presidents
• Temple presidents
• Stake presidents
• Bishops
• Melchizedek Priesthood quorum presidents (Elders, High Priests, 70s, Apostles)
• Aaronic Priesthood quorum presidents (Priests (Bishop), Teachers, Deacons)

Because those listed above still can't oversee all the duties associated with all the keys for every person, they then delegate a portion of their authority to others to help them, but they do not pass on the actual "keys"(Bateman, Priesthood Manual).

So, I think you can look at it like this:

• The prophet needs to organize the women in in a certain area of the world.  He delegates the "keys" to a bishop to organize them.  The bishop needs help in this and calls a woman to head up the other women; she then has the authority to organize the women.  I think this whole process brings clarity to me regarding the statement about the Relief Society being organized after the manner of the priesthood.  Not only is one of the priesthood duties to organize the members of the church (the women in this case), but the women's organization of president and counselors follows the same pattern as the priesthood organizations/hierarchy.

• Another example:  The prophet needs to give the temple ordinances to the women in the church, so he calls and gives the "keys" to a temple president, who organizes the work at the temple, and calls/delegates women to be temple workers to administer the ordinances to women.  (That's always been a big question of mine of how do female temple workers get the authority to administer the ordinances, as they are so similar to priesthood blessings?  It seems like they would need to hold the priesthood to do this.  Under this outline, though, it's just a priesthood responsibility that has been delegated to them.  You can also see this as an explanation for how women were able to give blessings in the early days of the church.  They didn't hold the priesthood, but they were given the authority to carry out this priesthood responsibility. 1/15/12 update:  Another reason the women were allowed to bless in the early days of the Church was that the church wasn't fully organized -- there were not yet temples (see Oaks).  Once temples were built, the blessings could occur there, rather than outside.  This could be compared to baptisms for the dead being performed in bodies of water; however, as soon as the temple was built, they were done in the temple.)

I started reading "The Priesthood Reorganization of 1877:  Brigham Young's Last Achievement," by William Hartley.  In it, Hartley states:

The revelations [concerning organizing the priesthood] said what but not always how.  Implementation therefore required new approaches at times, as Apostle Orson Pratt explained it in 1877:

To say that there will be a stated time, in the history of this Church, during its imperfections and weaknesses, when the organization will be perfect, and that there will be no further extension or addition to the organization, would be a a mistake.  Organization is to go on, step after step, from one degree to another, just as the people increase and grow in the knowledge of the principles and laws of the Kingdom of God, and as their borders shall extend.

Based on that quote and the process of delegation mentioned above, I think it's worth looking at one more example.

• The prophet needs to get the sacrament to the people every Sunday.  There's no way he can do that personally, so he delegates those "keys" to presidents of the Aaronic Priesthood to take care of it (Deacons, Teachers, Priests (Bishop)).  They in turn, administer the sacrament to the members of the Church.  I don't know that there's anything stating that the Aaronic Priesthood holders HAVE to take on that duty (I'm still studying), but that is the way it is currently organized.   Perhaps it's good for the young men to have this early practice of service in a formal church setting as they are training to serve in other priesthood offices someday where they'll have even greater responsibility and organizational duties.  Also, I'd suppose that if the Lord wanted it another way, he could change the process.  He could say, instead of giving the duties of the sacrament to the Aaronic Priesthood, why don't you delegate the duty to the young women; but, that's just not the way it's currently organized.  Pratt said things can change and obviously they did change regarding women giving blessings as mentioned above.

So, that's what I've concluded for now.  I probably have some errors in there, and I'm sorry I didn't cite everything perfectly, but to me, it helped the priesthood make the most sense that it's ever made.  If you've had any great insight regarding the priesthood and its organization, be sure and let me know.

***

I also read "Sacred Keys of the Aaronic Priesthood" by Gibson, but didn't use it in this post.

***

1/15/12:  Additionally related to this is Dallin H. Oaks talk:  The Relief Society and the Church.  Fantastic!  (See the comments below.)

The Death of Pretty

I really enjoyed this short article, "The Death of Pretty," in The National Catholic Register by Pat Archibald.  Archibald points out that women used to display an essence of beauty, innocence, and virtue, whether or not they really were.

"By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact.  That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it."

However, now days, "Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. . . .  It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity.  Something to be used up and thrown out. . . .But here is the real truth.  Most men prefer pretty over hot. . . . Our problem is that society doesn’t value innocence anymore, real or imagined. . . .  Nobody wants to be thought of as innocent, the good girl.  They want to be hot, not pretty.  I still hope that pretty comes back, although I think it not likely any time soon."

Daughters in My Kingdom: Chapter 3

I'm really going to make it through posting my notes/thoughts/questions regarding Daughters in My Kingdom one of these days.  This post shouldn't be long.  Chapter 3 - "Cleave unto the Covenants" Exodus, Migration, and Settlement was pretty straight forward.

In the chapter we learn that before 1846 the "formal organization of the Female Relief Society was discontinued. . . " (29).  That is sad, but the sisters still did work to help others, just not in such an organized fashion.  The book does not mention reasons the RS was discontinued, but as far as I understand, at least one reason was that Brigham Young was upset that Emma Smith was teaching against polygamy at RS meetings.  I apologize that I can't cite that reference, but I'm going to guess it was one of the podcasts on the Mormon Channel.  I'm just guessing there because I don't go seeking out anti-LDS literature, so I probably heard it from a pretty safe source -- but, I could be wrong.  It would be nice to know additional reasons for the discontinuation, and we could guess some reasons.  I'd have to figure that the Church was just trying to simplify at the time as they were leaving Nauvoo, and there just wasn't the strength and time to continue the organization.

It's amazing that "More than 5,000 Saints thronged the Nauvoo Temple after its dedication so they could receive the endowment and sealing ordinance. . ." (29).  Can't you imagine the excitement of receiving this newly revealed knowledge and protection before this long trek West?  It would give me so much strength.  I do wonder if the Saints were scared and if the temple would give me more courage BOTH temporally AND spiritually.

As the above quote mentions, people were sealed, and I'm reminded of V.H. Cassler's Polygamy article where she mentions that often women were sealed to Church General Authorities to assure their salvation, while husbands were sealed as children to the union created between the woman and the GA.  I wonder if that is some of what was happening in Nauvoo.  If you're unfamiliar with the LDS Church today, that's not the way we do it anymore.  A husband and wife are sealed (bound for eternity) to each other, and children born into that union are automatically sealed (tied for eternity) to their parents.

On page 31, we learn that "during the migration, the ratio of men to women and children was low."  "'Few men were left to raise grain and vegetables and protect he women and children. . . .'  The Saints were blessed by priethood power. . . .  They were also sustained by the sisters' faith in God, charity, strength, and prayers.  With illness rampant, the sisters served as doctors and nurses to their own families and to one another. . . ."  Although the book does not mention it, here could be a good time to remember the practice of "female ritual healing" (as written by Stapley & Wright) where the women actually did bless those in need -- not through an actual priesthood blessing, but more through a faith blessing.  Heather at Women in the Scriptures taught a lesson that touched on healing/blessings given by women, if you want to read it.  (1/15/12 update:  Also, D.H. Oaks addresses women giving blessings in the early days of the Church in a address from 1992 and reminds us that the church was not fully organized at that point in time:  there were no temples. Once the temples were built, these sacred ordinances/blessings would be performed there.)  I'd suppose it was quite a relief to the women to know that they were authorized to bless as needed, particularly if men weren't around to give a priesthood blessing.  It was probably a very empowering feeling.

I suppose a logical explanation for the practice of polygamy can relate here in a couple ways.  With this high ratio of females to males, polygamy allowed women to receive the sealing ordinance before coming west.  If the requirement were 1:1, so many women wouldn't have been able to receive the ordinance.  On a practical note, it seems that polygamy had the potential to bind adult women together as a team (sure some women were already sisters and probably felt like team, but some weren't).  On that arduous trek, wouldn't it be nice to be surrounded by family -- particularly other adults? 


The great Mormon Exodus and settlement in the Salt Lake Valley have always been a favorite topic of mine, so I enjoyed reading the chapter as well as the examples of faithful women in it.

The Moral Molecule: Oxytocin

My husband told me about a Ted Talk he listened to recently by Paul Zak on oxytocin.   Apparently oxytocin is the moral molecule -- it makes us connect with people, care about them, empathize with them, trust, be happy, be generous.  It is found only in mammals and is released in women during birth and breastfeeding, and in both men and women during sex.

Zak found, though, that men and women can easily increase their levels of oxytocin through massage, dance, prayer, weddings, social media, and hugs (he suggests 8 hugs/day to make the world a better place).

He also found that 5% of the population don't release oxytocin when stimulated.  One reason as to why people did not produce oxytocin was improper nurturing:  Half of abused women don't release it.  Stress also inhibits it.  Testosterone stunts it.  Men have 10 times more testosterone than women, and therefore, are more selfish; however, even though they are more selfish, they are also more likely to punish others for being selfish.

Zak concludes that the basis for our morality doesn't have to come from God, but from our chemical makeup.  (I say, if God is the Master Scientist, then isn't that an ingenious way to make our morality work?) 

The podcast didn't go into anything regarding fundamental differences between women and men, but I had fun contemplating the implications of the nurture/provide/protect roles of men and women as laid out in The Family:  A Proclamation to the World.  I couldn't find how much more oxytocin women have than men in general, but they do have/make more.  I would assume, then, that women are generally more moral and empathetic.  Is that why women often make better nurturers than men?  Because men have 10x more testosterone and are more selfish and want to punish others for being selfish, does that make them better protectors/better at watching out for their families?

Clearly both sexes can increase their levels of oxytocin, and there is overlap in male/female nurture/provide/protect roles, but chemically it appears there is a tendency for one sex to be a certain way over another, and that is fascinating.

---



This Ted Talk reminded me of another quote from the Scott article (Honor the Priesthood and Use It Well) from yesterday:

By divine design a woman is fundamentally different from a man in many ways. ² She is compassionate and seeks the interests of others around her. However, that compassionate nature can become overwhelming for women who identify far more to accomplish than they can possibly do, even with the help of the Lord. Some become discouraged because they do not feel they are doing all they should do. . . .

In the book, Passionate Housewives Desperate for God, the authors suggest that when we women get to this overwhelming point, that we go to our husbands for counsel to figure out how to simplify. I suppose I have a bit of a pride problem here because I want to decide for myself what I can handle and what I can't.  However, I think there is real benefit in his outside perspective, and I should seek his advice more often.

Elder Scott suggests in these times of stress:

Therefore, as a husband or son, express gratitude for what your wife and mother do for you. Express your love and gratitude often. That will make life far richer, more pleasant and purposeful for many of the daughters of Father in Heaven who seldom hear a complimentary comment and are not thanked for the multitude of things they do. As a husband, when you sense that your wife needs lifting, hold her in your arms and tell her how much you love her.

---
8/27/12 update
I was reading a summary from the Women and the LDS Church conference over at the Juvenile Instructor blog.  I wanted to save this summary here where I won't forget it -- a sociological finding showing some basic differences between men and women, particularly regarding religion.

Session Two presented various analytical approaches to women’s agency in the contemporary church.  David Campbell presented some statistics taken from a recent survey of 500 “active” Mormon men and women.  For one, Campbell and his colleagues found no significant difference between men and women in their level of religiosity and devotion to the LDS Church, as well as a very small difference in both group’s support for an all-male priesthood.  And so, Campbell concluded, from a “sociological perspective, patriarchy works, because it keeps men tied to the religion.”  Some feminist bloggers have already jumped all over this as a kind of apologia for unquestioned patriarchy, but Campbell presented other findings indicating more complexity in Mormon women’s reactions to the their religious experiences.  These included women’s much greater preference for personal revelation over obedience to authority, and female emphasis on “helping others” as a mark of faithfulness over men’s emphasis on “sinlessness.”

Equal Partners

I'd forgotten this fantastic quote by Richard G. Scott in Honor the Priesthood and Use It Well from October 2008:

The family proclamation states that a husband and wife should be equal partners. I feel assured that every wife in the Church would welcome that opportunity and support it. Whether it occurs or not depends upon the husband. Many husbands practice equal partnership with their companion to the benefit of both and the blessing of their children. However, many do not. I encourage any man who is reluctant to develop an equal partnership with his wife to obey the counsel inspired by the Lord and do it. Equal partnership yields its greatest benefit when both husband and wife seek the will of the Lord in making important decisions for themselves and for their family. . . .

The purpose of priesthood authority is to give, to serve, to lift, to inspire—not to exercise unrighteous control or force. In some cultures, tradition places a man in a role to dominate, control, and regulate all family affairs. That is not the way of the Lord. In some places the wife is almost owned by her husband, as if she were another of his personal possessions. That is a cruel, unproductive, mistaken vision of marriage encouraged by Lucifer that every priesthood holder must reject. It is founded on the false premise that a man is somehow superior to a woman. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The scriptures confirm that Father in Heaven saved His greatest, most splendid, supreme creation, woman, to the end. Only after all else was completed was woman created. Only then was the work pronounced complete and good.

Let's just say I'm grateful for modern-day revelation, and I'm grateful I live in a culture where male/female equality is acceptable.