The Lost Teachings of Jesus on the Sacred Place of Women Review at Real Intent

Check out my recent book review on Alonzo Gaskill's upcoming book, The Lost Teachings of Jesus on the Sacred Place of Women at Real Intent.

This was the most significant thing to me:

[From the "lost teachings"] Be submissive toward your wife. Her love ennobles man, softens his hardened heart, tames the brute in him, and makes of him a lamb.

Christ told men to be submissive toward their wives.  This is huge.  This levels the playing field for men and women.  In my search for understanding submission to one’s husband, I’ve read many wonderful, well-meaning Christian women who bend over backwards to submit to their husbands because they want to be obedient, yet somehow it still doesn’t feel quite right. When men are also asked to submit as women are, this requires that they listen and counsel with their wives and work as a team!  I think many Christian women, and even some LDS women likely need a paradigm shift on submission if they use a strict Bible definition rather than the modern revelation of “equals” as found in the Proclamation, and subsequently in these lost teachings.

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.

Cooking in the home again and again and again

My friend, Cheryl, posted this fantastic epiphany she had about our roles.  You've got to read it.  Just lovely.

Here's the start:

The other day the kids were watching "The Jungle Book" while we were driving in the van. It was the end of the movie, the part where Mowgli sees the village girl and she's singing this song:

My own home, my own home
My own home, my own home


Father's hunting in the forest
Mother's cooking in the home
I must go to fetch the water
'Til the day that I'm grown
'Til I'm grown, 'til I'm grown
I must go to fetch the water
'Til the day that I'm grown


Then I will have a handsome husband
And a daughter of my own
And I'll send her to fetch the water
I'll be cooking in the home
Then I'll send her to fetch the water
I'll be cooking in the home

I remember hearing it and thinking, "What the? That's not very empowering for women." I didn't say anything out loud to the children, thank goodness, because two days later, I had an epiphany. . . .

Faith and Feminism

Here's a recent discussion from the Washington Post site regarding faith and feminism:

“The discrimination against women on a global basis is very often attributable to the declaration by religious leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions that women are inferior in the eyes of God,” former President Jimmy Carter said last week. Many traditions teach that while both men and women are equal in value, God has ordained specific roles for men and women. Those distinct duties often keep women out of leadership positions in their religious communities. What is religion’s role in gender discrimination?

My thoughts are, first of all, because there is still discrimination and abuse toward women all over the world from whatever source, this is why I like people (defined feminist or not) who fight for equal work rights, pay, voting, political opportunity, education, health care, respect, etc. for women (and the rest of humanity for that matter). 


Secondly, I think it's great that religion teaches "that while both men and women are equal in value, God has ordained specific roles for men and women."  President Monson in the LDS Church's General Conference in April just re-stated :

Your wife is your equal. In marriage neither partner is superior nor inferior to the other. You walk side by side as a son and a daughter of God. She is not to be demeaned or insulted but should be respected and loved. Said President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Any man in this Church who … exercises unrighteous dominion over [his wife] is unworthy to hold the priesthood. Though he may have been ordained, the heavens will withdraw, the Spirit of the Lord will be grieved. . . .” ⁸

The LDS Church's Proclamation on the family teaches: 

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Clearly, men and women are equal, yet there are also some role guidelines.  To me, the role division keeps me from being too busy and taking on too many responsibilities.  It keeps our duties slightly divided so we can each have our own turf. Although the separate guidelines are there, there is a lot of overlap.  Several times, I've heard a father encouraged to be the one to leave a church meeting with a fussy child so that the mother may stay and enjoy the meeting.  Several times, I've seen mothers serve in heavy duty leadership positions.  It's not always the men in leadership positions, nor is it always the women taking care of the children.

I see marriage as a partnership.  My husband holds the priesthood which he uses to bless and lead our family; I carry and primarily care for the children (at least when my husband is not home).  It's not much unlike body parts.  Is my arm more important than my leg?  Is my vision more important than my hearing?  Is a man more important than a woman?  We each have our particular roles and work together as a team.

Thirdly, by stating "those distinct duties often keep women out of leadership positions" obviously shows that whoever is asking the question is valuing leadership over other duties.  If we valued following, or nurturing, or something else more than leadership, would this even be a question? Actually though, in the LDS Church, there are very few positions in which women don't serve.  Some of these include bishop (leader of a congregation) and prophet (leader of the world-wide church), but women are plenty involved on the home-front all the way to the general level of the world-wide Relief Society.  (By the way -- there are also positions in which men DON'T serve!)

Lastly, I agree that some of the abuse and discrimination against women is carried out in the name of religion, but I don't think that a separation of roles is a direct form of abuse or discrimination.  I don't know specifically what many religions teach or practice that is interpreted as or is truly discriminatory, but I wonder how much of the abuse and discrimination is actually cultural in nature, not religious.  I'm sure some people want us to conclude that religion breeds discrimination, but I see role division as a way to help us unite as women and men and to simplify our lives.


4/20/11:  And wow, on the other hand ... this just in today:

People across the world are suffering from persecution. “And why are they suffering?” John Graz said. “Are they dangerous for their country? Are they bad people? No, most of the time they are good people. But they are suffering, they are discriminated against, they are excluded only because of their religion.” 

So either religion is the culprit of discrimination, or those who are religious are discriminated against.  How confusing.

A Quiet Heart

I just read A Quiet Heart by Patricia Holland.  It was such a lovely (and even short) book!  I was honestly left with a quiet heart each time I read it.  I can tell that she has thought so much about being a woman and a mother.  I just wanted to share some of the gems.

On women (page 2):

One especially troubling complaint of our time is there is no commonality among women.  Across cultures and countries and even in our own neighborhoods, we women have become so diverse and so separated in our lifestyles, interests, and preoccupations that rarely do we have a friend such as our mothers had over the back fence, a neighbor to visit, to love, and to talk with. . . .   We must not let the modern world isolate, fragment, or distance us from those we can love and serve.

(pages 40-41)
. . . because of the increasing diversity of lifestyles for women of today, we seem even more uncertain and less secure with each other.  We are getting not closer but further away from that sense of community and sisterhood that has sustained us and given us unique strengths for generations.  There seems to be an increase in our competitiveness and a decrease in our generosity with one another. . . .  [continuing on page 42] So as long as we are committed to living righteously and with faithful devotion, we should celebrate these divine differences, knowing they are a gift from God.  We must not feel so frightened; we must not be so threatened and insecure; we must not need to find exact replicas of ourselves in order to feel validated as women of worth."

On mothering (pages 58-59): 

Some women give birth and raise children but never "mother" them.  Others, whom I love with all my heart, "mother" all their lives but have never given birth.  Therefore, we must understand that however we accomplish it, parenthood is the highest of callings, the holiest of assignments.

(page 54):
. . . it is our sacred obligation to identify [our eternal nature] and to teach it to our young sisters and daughters. [Then on page 59] . . . we can provide some of that divine pattern, that maternal prototype, for each other and for those who come after us.  Whatever our circumstance, we can reach out, touch, hold, lift, nurture -- but we cannot do it in isolation.  We need a community of sisters stilling the soul and binding the wounds of fragmentation.

(page 81):
Being there and loving [children] is our specific assignment in those years when a mother is needed most, though it seems to me a mother is always needed.  These are not grandma's years, or a day care's years, or years with any other caretakers, no matter how competent they may be.  I believe with all of my heart that during those years our most important task is simply to be there!

On prayer (page 7):

 . . . if it is a high priority and a fundamental goal in your life, you will find ways, early or late, to be with God.  If the key to your car or your mortgage payment check or a child were lost, would you take time to find them?  Wouldn't finding them provide that peace you needed to then go about your day?  . . . .

If you believed that your earthly father could could comfort any heartache, heal any illness, solve any problem, or just be with you through the crucibles of life, wouldn't you call to him constantly?  I am just childish enough to believe that our Father in Heaven can bless us in all those ways.  The price to be paid for this kind of communion is time and your best powers of concentration, but by that investment you may offset untold hours, days, weeks, and months of struggle or sorrow or pain (pages 7-8 ).

On my purpose (page 19):

And while one purpose may seem more pleasant or important than another, this really is not so.  All purposes are absolutely essential and important in the body of Christ.  And all purposes lead to one thing:  individual happiness.

On pain (pages 30-31):

And do not be deceived into thinking that even though there are different and seemingly unfair paths in life, that in the end we all get the same pasture.  Your pasture will compensate for your path, and my pasture will compensate for my path. . . .  Whatever blessings you have gone without will be made up to you in divine and glorious fashion.  I give you every assurance, they will be made up to you to the point where you will not be confident that God treated you fairly but embarrassed that he treated you so very generously.

On marriage and being submissive (pages 103 - 106):

At first I was a little offended with the word subjection. . . .  . . . I began a search for what the Lord had called "the hidden man [or woman] of the heart, [even] that which was not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and a quiet spirit."  For the first time in my life I saw "subjection" as a virtue, a synonym for "meekness" and "a quiet spirit."  I felt subjection -- to God and then to others, including my husband -- to be astonishingly liberating. . . .  If we choose to recognize only the negative aspects of such words as submit, subject, and obey, it is little wonder that women recoil at their mere mention.  But if we look up the word submission in any good thesaurus, we will see the synonyms patient, humble, softness, lamb-like-ness.  These words fairly shout the discipleship of Christ!

(page 109):

The older I become, the more I see that marriage is not a contest of wills but an orderly way to have a profound relationship.  It is learning how to support each other in being the highest and holiest we can become.  It is learning the true meaning and beauty and glory behind the word submission for both men and women.

Update 3/28/11:  Heather over at Women in the Scriptures referenced One Thing Needful:  Becoming Women of Greater Faith in Christ.  I read it last night and it's pretty much my favorite chapter in this book if you want to read it without buying the book!

How Do I Change My Husband?

My sister-in-law, Sam, got How Do I Change My Husband by Merrilee Boyak for Christmas and let me borrow it when she was done. I'd forgotten I'd heard the talk, or much of it, at BYU's Education Week, so it wasn't too new to me.

The one thing I wanted to mention, though -- somewhat related to the last post -- was that Merrilee shared how she used to always try and change her husband to be more like her, then someone pointed out that because of their opposite natures, skills, talents, and qualities, they have all they need for salvation between the two of them (with of course Jesus Christ).  OK, that's probably not exactly how she said it (it's been a few months).

Isn't it true that if you look at you and your spouse you really balance each other out both in temporal ways as well as spiritual?  I suppose that's why they say opposites attract!

It's things like this that make me want to be a better wife!

I recently read a post over at Mormon Momma regarding some potential favoritism toward women and rejection of men and their roles and needs.  Some of the discussion I quite agreed with, others of it I don't totally agree with, but I can understand why people feel the way they do.  No need to go into it, you can read it and decide where you fit in.  However, one commenter, Lisa, made some profound statements about women doing their part that I wanted to post:

In the past I have had membership on large LDS women only message boards. While dozens of the members would complain about their husbands (or ex-husbands) joining recreational sporting leagues, gaming during off-work hours or taking too much time away in fulfilling their priesthood directed church duties like home teaching or presidency responsibilities, these women would spend many hours a day lurking on the internet chat forums, spending a great deal of money shopping for unnecessary, costly items and planning GNO’s where they would go and gossip about their husbands and tut-tut over their man’s inadequacies.

If many a woman doesn’t “feel” like providing a meal to her family on any given day, she feels entitled to shirking her duty to family in a pseudo-liberation rant of “I don’t have to do anything I don’t feel like!” and is applauded by her friends on Facebook or in gossip circles. If a man doesn’t “feel” like leading family prayer or in other family responsibilities, he’s labeled slothful and belittled. If a woman doesn’t want to clean her home and would rather craft the day away, more often than not- a man would be vilified for spending his day on a hobby when his wife expects him to tick off items on her Honey-Do list. I would think that both partners would deserve the reprimand for bad behaviors.

It’s a clear double standard that is even applied to physical affection. More often than not, a woman shouldn’t “have” to share intimacy if she doesn’t feel like it and can be quite rude about it but if a man refuses when approached by his wife, he is accused of sending the message that she is undesirable and unloveable and a beast for being “mean”. I’ve seen the complaint so. many. times. from woman who do not see the unfairness of the situation they put their men in.

I worry about the Pavlov’s dog analogy and if the society that is trying to uplift women is not in fact suppressing manhood and men, for men who enable bad behavior on the part of women are doing themselves and society no favors. I am doing my best to teach my daughters that women are to be held as accountable as men and to see equal respect for doing their duties- not elevated praise and adoration while casting the efforts of men by the wayside. I sincerely hope that there are mothers raising sons to see fairness and hard work as a mutual yoke in marriage. And I hope my girls can find those boys in the dating pool someday.

We've come a long way

A while back I listened to the Legacy broadcast regarding W. W. Phelps.  It was interesting to me to learn more about women and their cultural context in the 1830s.

It was recorded that W. W. Phelps was overbearing toward his wife (around minute 17:30); in those days, stemming from the Puritan tradition, "men ruled the home," and this was also common in the Church.  "Women had little voice in the church -- it was a very rare thing for a woman to stand out and be heard and be listened to on her own. . . . As revelations have continued in these latter days, we can see how important that harmony and equality is between a man and a woman in the marriage covenant.  It was not as fully grasped in those days."

I'd love to write up some examples of how women gained a voice over time and how women's organizations, including the Relief Society, assisted in this effort, but I don't think I can take the time!  I just love, though, that the women did gain a voice and we continue to have that voice and respect today.

Mrs. (Insert Husband's Name Here)

Yesterday I met some really neat women over at Empowering LDS Women.  As I was new to the site, I took a little time to read some old posts.  There was one entitled "Feminist Pet Peeve" and I just had to read it.  Karissa, the author commented that it drove her nuts receiving things addressed to Mr. and Mrs. (husband's name).

I just had to laugh!  I used to feel the same way.  It also drove me insane when we'd be at a social gathering, people would ask my husband what he did, and then completely glaze over me as if I had nothing to contribute to society.

However, I don't know what has changed over the last couple years.  For some reason, I now feel honored when someone addresses me as Mrs. (my husband's name).  Perhaps it's that I've delved in too much history; maybe it's that since I "just" stay home, I like being attached to his public successes; possibly it's that I just love him so much that I like being "claimed" by him (for lack of a better word); perhaps it's that if I do something stupid, I can blame him (I jest!).

I told my husband my thoughts last night, and he gave a sincere, but sappy, "oooohhh" [that is so sweet].  He admitted that it still does bug him, though, because I do, in fact, have a name, and I am my own person.

A few minutes later as I was thinking how I was honored to take his name, I also realized another name we take: Jesus Christ's -- at baptism.  I thought, I need to be just as honored to bear His name as I am my husband's -- and show it.  I'm sure most of those "Titus 2"/"Biblical Womanhood" ladies have already discovered this, as they so clearly understand the symbolism of Christ being the bridegroom and us all being the bride.

Now, just a last side note:  As for being skipped over regarding what I do at social gatherings, as long as I know there are other mothers in the room, it doesn't bug me all that much anymore, either.  My husband can be the "popular" one, and I know I can automatically relate to the other mothers there without making a grand introduction.  Now if I'm at a academic or career-type function, I do feel a bit of an inferiority complex.  It is sad, and hopefully I'll grow out of that someday.  For the meantime, though, I'll try and remember our similarities as discussed in Similarities and Differences.

The Two Trees

My husband saw a link on facebook the other day to an article/speech called The Two Trees (meaning the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life) by Valerie Hudson Cassler.  He knew I would like it.  He was right.  Cassler very broadly and clearly explains how woman is not without the man, and man is not without the woman in order to progress in our eternal existence.

Specifically, woman's duty is to bring man into the world through birth (or in Eve's case, she was responsible to eat the fruit and get mortality rolling for them and for the rest of humanity).  Adam's (or man's) responsibility was for spiritual salvation:  he was to get the family out of this world (at death) in a righteous state.

This is where the whole submitting thing comes into play.  Cassler, however, doesn't use the word submit, she uses the word hearken and gives this example:

Women, do we hearken to our husbands? Well, of course we do. If my husband said to me before we were married, "Honey, I want to be married in the temple, and I don't want to be married anywhere else." I would say, "You betcha!" If after we were married and had children, he said, "Honey, I want to hold family home evening, and I want to hold family prayer, and I want to make sure they get baptized when they are eight." I would say, "You bet! I'm going to accept and receive that fruit of the Second Tree from you." If my husband said, "Honey, would you go get me the remote, it's in the other room," or "Tomorrow we're moving to Iowa, did I tell you?" It is not my spiritual obligation to hearken outside of loving my husband and receiving from him the gift of the fruit of the Second Tree.

 A few more interesting quotes:

. . . I grew up in a tradition where the fact that Eve was created second was taken to mean that she was an appendage to Adam, that she was somehow inferior to Adam, that being derivative of Adam and not derivative of God that she was two steps away from divinity, not one step as Adam was.

Now our [LDS] General Authorities have told us that that perspective is absolutely wrong, and that indeed when the term "helpmeet" is used, as I am sure you are well familiar, that "meet" actually means "equal in power to save." So let's read here from Elder Earl C. Tingey: "You must not misunderstand what the Lord meant when Adam was told he was to have a helpmeet. A helpmeet is a companion suited to or equal to us. We walk side by side with a helpmeet, not one before or behind the other. A helpmeet results in an absolute equal partnership between a husband and a wife. Eve was to be equal to Adam as a husband and wife are to be equal to each other. . . ."

And then in the King James version of the Bible, we are told that Eve, as part of her punishment, that she was told that Adam would rule over her. Is that what the LDS believe? Actually not. I think one of the most important new—I can't say new doctrine, because obviously it started with Adam and Eve, but rather a rediscovering of truth—appeared n the August 2007 Ensign. . . . If you read it, here's what Elder Bruce Hafen says: "Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to "rule over" Eve, but. . . over in "rule over" uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling with, not ruling over. . . . The concept of interdependent equal partners is well-grounded in the doctrine of the restored gospel."

The real drama of human societies is what's happening between men and women. It isn't treaties and wars and the price of oil or how the stock market is doing. . . .   . . . we can say that the situation of women is a barometer of how near death a civilization is. It is because where love and equality between men and women do not exist, you cannot live the Gospel. You might as well start anew. . . .That means that gender equality is not some "politically correct" ideal . . . . No, relationships of gender equality are the bricks of Zion, without which you cannot build Zion. . . .

At the end of the article, Cassler shares a parable of the whole plan for woman and man, easy enough for a child to understand. The article was very enlightening and you'd get much more out of the 9 pages if you read them!  If I could put it in very simple terms:  if you were playing a video game (not that I have in years) and had already chosen your players (man/woman), and it was now time to choose your armor, woman would choose child bearing and man would choose the priesthood.  Woman fulfills her duty by bearing children.  Man fulfills his duty by leading the family back to God in righteousness.

One last interesting point that Cassler makes (actually at the beginning of the article) is that she is a feminist.  She says "I didn't join the [LDS] Church because I was a feminist, but I stay in the Church because I am a feminist."  She seems to feel the equality between men and women is well manifest (and believed) in the LDS Church.  That was interesting to me because many of the popular Mormon feminists today still don't agree with that viewpoint.  I tend to relate to feminists and the feminist cause mainly because I, too, like the equality and also because of the history (not really the modern movement).  I'll have to write a post on why I like feminists some time.

More on Submit and Preside

I was listening to a Conversation with Jeffrey R. and Patricia Holland, and Sheri Dew quoted one of their sons as saying:

"Mom and dad are both very strong individuals; however, my mother gives her full, unreserved allegiance to my father's priesthood leadership and my father constantly turns to my mother for counsel and insight."

Sister Holland goes on to compare the marriage relationship to a business where someone ultimately makes a final decision.  However, that person pulls in the "greatest minds" to help him/her make that decision beforehand.  Sister Holland is quite the example in if her husband does what God wants him to, she will surely support.

Submit and Preside

I was wasting time on facebook today and wandered over to LAF/Beautiful Womanhood's page.  I noticed a question someone had posted regarding what it means to submit to one's husband.  There were some good answers there.   The first idea that popped into my head was not being snotty with one's husband -- just as a child should not be snotty with his/her parents -- goes along with being meek, humble, kind, etc.  Now, a husband should not be snotty with his wife, either.  If that's happening, or if it's going both ways, sounds like there are problems that ought to be resolved.

Tonight while I was cleaning, I listened to a Conversation with Elaine & Stephen Dalton on my iPod.  Now there's a good 45 minutes (on fast play) of cleaning time!  If I did that every night, my house would look great.

What really struck me was the balance these two have in their marriage of submissiveness and presiding (presiding particularly being a hot topic on Mormon feminist blogs).  The Daltons demonstrated how these two words can be a beautiful thing if done well.

The main example that struck me was that Elaine Dalton submitted to the stresses of mothering 5 boys and a girl when her husband was involved for years in church service.  She looked at his service as their service.  He led in a church sense, while her part was to "hold down the fort."  Now that she's serving in a very visible position, he, too, looks at this as their service.  Just as she supported him, he now supports her.  You can look at it this way, too:  it really wasn't her submitting to her husband in his service, it was her submitting to God's will for them to serve in their capacities at the time.

The Dalton's also mentioned three things they specifically tried to teach their kids:
1.  Identity - son or daughter of God
2.  Listen to the Holy Ghost
3.  Don't be afraid to be different

Of course they also talked about the courage to be virtuous, too.

Well worth listening to.