18 August 2015. For ten years, August 18th has been a time of great sorrow in my home, for it is the anniversary of our beloved daughter’s death--the daughter that led me on my journey to feminism. Now that date will be a date of both sorrow and joy for my family, for it is the day that a hugely significant step towards diarchy was taken by the LDS Church.
Women now sit on three of the highest executive councils of the Church: the Priesthood Executive Council (now rightly called the Priesthood and Family Executive Council), the Missionary Executive Council, and the Temple and Family History Executive Council. These are the “three general priesthood councils,” with greater influence than the two committees on which women have served in the past, the General Welfare Committee and the Executive Welfare Committee, as well as the Board of Trustees of the Church Educational System.
For quite some time now, a feeling has been welling inside of me—a feeling that progress for women in the Church was surely coming and soon--almost as if on the other side of the veil, female spirits were radiating joy that echoed into the mortal world. I’ve wanted to share that feeling of certainty of progress with all I’ve met who have struggled with the place of women in the Church. I’ve wanted to shout, Don’t leave now! Good things are about to happen! I know that to those who do not feel this same certainty, such a message sounds very Pollyanna-ish. Even Uncle Tom-ish.
But this latest announcement by the Church, which follows several other important progressive steps in recent years, cannot be gainsayed. In a way that would have been though impossible even five years ago, our faith community has taken an irrevocable step towards the diarchy that characterizes the order of Heaven. Women are not “auxiliaries” in that order. As Sheri Dew put it in reaction to the announcement, “This is yet another important step forward in the restoration of the gospel . . . [this] signals how invaluable women are at all levels of church government on matters affecting all members.”
That is right. If, as President Boyd K. Packer taught in his very last conference address before he passed from this world, “The end of all activity in the Church is to see that a man and a woman with their children are happy at home, sealed together for time and all eternity,” and if, as the Proclamation on the Family states, “fathers and mothers [are] equal partners,” then the Church could not fulfill its mission without finally incorporating women as equal partners in Church government. In other words, the Church must move towards diarchy if it desires to move closer to Heaven, for the government of Heaven is identified with the government of the family. In Heaven, our Parents—a Mother and a Father—preside jointly over their children, and stand before each other as equals. Elder L. Tom Perry gave us a vision of how that could be when he stated in 2004, “There is not a president and vice president in a family. We have co-presidents working together eternally for the good of their family . . . They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” As it is in Heaven, so it should be on earth. New and wonderful blessings will come as we more closely pattern our family and Church government on the government of Heaven.
Significantly, too, these councils to which women have been appointed as standing members are considered priesthood councils. I have written in other places about how women hold the priestesshood as men hold the priesthood, and how both together constitute the Priesthood of God. If God is our Heavenly Mother and our Heavenly Father, united in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, then together their powers constitute the Priesthood of God. Understood in this way, priestesshood is the power of God the Mother, and priesthood is the power of God the Father. When married, those powers are infinite in scope and make divinity possible. No man can ordain a woman to the priestesshood: it is her birthright, and she comes into the mortal world with that birthright. Thus, these councils should more rightly be seen not as priesthood councils, but as Priesthood councils. The name change to the Priesthood and Family Executive Council is thus quite appropriate.
Now I think we all wonder why there would be only one woman as a standing member on each of these councils. I feel certain that over time that number will increase. First steps are just that. But once taken, this first step cannot be undone. It will no longer be possible to exclude women from priesthood councils—now understood to be Priesthood Councils--on the basis of their sex. That wall has been shattered forever, and hallelujah for it!
And, of course, this forward step gives us cause to hope there will be similar progress in other areas of concern to women. For example, it makes me hopeful that as the Church considers an alternative to the Boy Scouts, it will simultaneously overhaul the Activity Days program for girls. This is the first fork in the road that our young people experience in the Church, where what is offered to boys is just so much better in quality and resources and vision than what is offered to girls that it is impossible for boys and girls not to notice the disparity and make erroneous inferences from it. And the inadequacy of the Activity Days program offers real spiritual pain to parents who love their daughters as much as they love their sons. This is low-hanging fruit, and I hope it will be addressed very soon.
What follows is a list I wrote in 2013, on what additional changes might be seen within the Church concerning women. It was interesting for me to go back to that list and see what has taken place concerning each point, so I’ll share an update on each section with you:
Temple Ceremony—
--I anticipate that in the future we will see portrayed in the endowment ceremony that Eve actually had something to say after the Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. Right now, she turns into a potted plant after that departure. Women (and men) have read into her complete silence things that are not true.
--I anticipate we will see a greater indication of our doctrinal belief that Eve did not sin in partaking of the fruit of the First Tree.
--I anticipate we will see a greater indication that in partaking of the fruit that Eve gave him, Adam is hearkening unto Eve in righteousness, as he no doubt covenanted to do in the pre-existence. In that way, women (and men) will see that there were two hearkenings in the Garden of Eden story: men are to hearken to women, and women are to hearken to men.
2015 Update: The new temple films do a good job in reorienting out thinking about the story of the Garden of Eden. I am greatly pleased with the progress in this area.
Sealing Practice—
--Currently, a dead woman may be sealed to more than one man, but a living woman may not. (See discussion in the book Women in Eternity, Women of Zion.) A widow with children who remarries faces a very hurtful situation along with her new husband. She cannot be sealed to her second husband, even if she has children with him. The husband cannot be sealed to his own children. The children cannot be sealed to their father. I believe that one day, women—whether living or dead—will be able to be sealed to more than one man, just as men are.
2015 Update: This has not happened yet, but surely it will.
General Conference—
--As we move closer towards Zion, I anticipate that one day we will hear a powerful talk in General Conference focused on Heavenly Mother, striking down in one fell swoop all the cultural inhibitions that have wrongly led us to believe this subject is somehow taboo. And I hope this talk will be given jointly by a man and a woman, so we are not faced with the appearance of men giving women permission to talk about their own Mother. On a related note, I believe one day we will hear, on a routine basis, from the companions of General Authorities.
--I also anticipate that one day—probably soon--we will hear a powerful talk in General Conference that plainly states that education is not Plan B for girls, but it is Plan A, and young women will be strongly encouraged to finish their degrees, and young men will be asked to facilitate their wives’ graduation from college even after marriage. Again, this will serve to strike down any remaining cultural weeds on this topic.
2015 Update: I have not seen these things yet.
Relief Society General Presidency—
--I anticipate that one day we will see a retired working mother of grown children appointed to the Relief Society General Presidency, thus indicating to the membership in no uncertain terms that working mothers can be as righteous in the eyes of Church leadership as mothers who have not worked.
2015 Update: To my knowledge, this has not happened yet. But it will, I feel certain.
Walking the Walk on the Importance of Family—
--I believe we will see the LDS Church and its units, including BYU, lead out in developing the most innovative family-friendly workplace policies ever seen, in accordance with Elder Cook’s injunction that, “I would hope that Latter-day Saints would be at the forefront in creating an environment in the workplace that is more receptive and accommodating to both women and men in their responsibilities as parents.”
--I anticipate we will see over time that men are only considered for high positions in the Church if they have not lived their lives in such a way that they have, in a de facto sense, abandoned their wives and children while they pursued success in their careers.
2015 Update: No movement on this that I can see. Yet.
Teaching Our Youth—
--I anticipate that we will see the Personal Progress Program for Young Women be modified to include preparation in real-world life skills that young women need. Just as the Young Men (in Scouts) are taught merit badges such as communication, citizenship, and so forth, so we will begin to see that our Young Women need such important skills as well. They need to know how city councils are run, for example, just as much as our young men do. Furthermore, I anticipate the Church will back up this commitment by expending resources for the Young Women’s Program that are on a par with the resources we expend on our Young Men’s/Scouting Programs.
--Already underway, I anticipate we will see our Young Men’s and Young Women’s lessons will be based more fully on the most modern revelations, and not, for example, suggest that a righteous woman’s only possible path is that of stay-at-home mom unless she never marries. We will teach our Young Women instead that they should counsel with the Lord about the path God has planned for their individual lives, and that God will provide divine assistance for any woman He calls to play a role in the world as well as the role of a mother. We will teach our Young Men that the women they love may be called upon by the Lord to play a role in reshaping and healing the world, and that they should support the women they love in these divine callings.
--I anticipate we will see the Church make some small, but incredibly important choices that will cascade outward in unexpected ways. For example, the choice to feature some working mothers on Mormon.org was much more revolutionary for LDS persons than it could ever be for non-members. It spoke volumes in a way nothing else could. I believe as we move closer to Zion that we will see the Church do small things for women that create powerful ripples, especially in terms of role models for our young women. For example, I would not be surprised if the Church one day appointed a woman to be president of one of the three Church-owned universities, BYU, BYU-I, or BYU-H for this very reason.
--I anticipate we will see that our Young Women will no longer be taught that modesty and chastity are all about protecting men who cannot control their urges, but is rather about equal standards for temple worthiness for both Young Men and Young Women. In this regard, I also anticipate that we will speak more plainly to our youth about the myths of rape, such as the dress of a woman can justify a rape, or that men are less to blame for their actions than women.
2015 Update: Not much movement on this. But now that the Church needs to rethink its association with the Boy Scouts, that sad turn of events might be the springboard for a revisiting of programs for girls and young women. God has this way of turning lemons into lemonade.
Our Councils—
--I anticipate we will see in the future that because of the more consistent inclusion of women in all councils, people will think it completely natural that women must be present for the councils to work properly, and they will openly express concern when women are not present.
--As mentioned previously, I believe questions of who has or does not have authority will fade as we truly incorporate the principle of unanimity in our councils, and as we recognize that women have and hold their own power and authority of divine origin. When unanimity is the rule and equal voice the principle, the entire notion of authority changes. Yes, men will hold certain keys of divine power that women do not, and women will hold certain keys of divine power that men do not, but when we do things unanimously and with equal voice in all our councils, the whole matter fades as a wedge issue between men and women.
--I anticipate that there will come a time when the Elder’s Quorum and the High Priests Group will begin to share in the large responsibility for caring labor that currently rests at the feet of the Relief Society alone.
2015 Update: This latest announcement is a giant step forward in this area. Not much movement on the last point, however, that I can see.
Counselling with Young Women—
--As we move forward, I anticipate bishops will receive special gender sensitivity training in order to more appropriately guide our young women as they talk to their bishops, especially about sexual matters. (I think we are all aware of horror stories of young women who counseled with untrained bishops and were permanently scarred as a result.)
2015 Update: I have not seen any movement on terms of new training for bishops. However, we have been told that women, including young women, may choose to speak to their Relief Society president instead of their bishop regarding sensitive topics.
Conclusion
This Church is, as Sharon Eubank famously put it, a “woman’s Church.” We believe we have a Heavenly Mother. We believe Eve did not sin in the Garden of Eden, but rather is to be praised for her courage and wisdom. We believe in marrying, and staying married. We believe that marriage was meant to be an equal partnership, and that this equal partnership between man and woman is at the heart of divinity and constitutes the government of Heaven. We believe in complete chastity and fidelity for both sexes: no double standards. We eschew pornography, and domestic abuse/neglect.
To those women who are disaffected, I ask you, where would you go? What religion would give you this entire package? Please stay instead, stay in the “good ship Zion” and experience the joy of obtaining that “further light and knowledge” we were promised. Or if you have stepped away more formally, please come back. Be a part of helping this incredible vision of the equal partnership of men and women come to fruition. Are there further steps to be taken? You bet. So be there to see them . . . be there to see Zion in her beauty rise!
Addendum: Additional Thoughts on Diarchy, with Reference to Cory Crawford's Dialogue Essay on "Female Authority in Biblical and Mormon Theology"
Thanks to the readers who pointed me to a recent essay in Dialogue on female authority in Biblical and Mormon theology by Cory Crawford. It is a very interesting essay, which I recommend to SquareTwo readers for consideration. It is an exploration of female authority by Biblical personages such as Deborah, Jael, Mary Magdalene, Hannah, Zipporah, Huldah, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, etc.
On one level, the analysis is heartening, and on another, ironic. It is heartening that an LDS exploration of female authority in the scriptures is taking place, in a context of serious and knowledgeable scholarship. On another, it is more than a bit ironic that seemingly only a man is capable of making this case, and capable of being taken seriously when he does, in LDS culture. Ah, well. It is what it is.
Crawford's main thrust is that later transcribers and writers have all but erased--or at least drastically altered by changing language/words from what was originally in the texts--what he feels was a diarchic relationship between men and women in the Old and New Testaments. He argues that Joseph Smith's restoration "was not a removal of accretions like the restoration of a painting darkened by the patina of time (as other Protestants saw it) but a replacement of that which was lost, primarily of original authority." (46) I think he is right in that judgment. (Though I hasten to add that the many specifics of Crawford's interpretations are too numerous to be able to pronounce a blanket endorsement.)
However, there is one part of Crawford's essay that does not ring true. In fact, this particular detail is so out of sync with the rest of the essay, and so foundational a detail to Crawford's thesis, that it threatens to pull the entire work into incoherence. As a daughter of Eve, I must call Crawford on it. Here is Crawford's mis-step:
"In 2007 Elder Bruce C. Hafen and his wife Marie attempted to use this verse as evidence of egalitarian governance by an appeal to the underlying Hebrew preposition bet, the word translated as “over” in “he shall rule over you.” In the August 2007 Ensign, the Hafens, aided by a BYU professor of Hebrew, argue: “Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. . . . Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’ Since then it has been repeated several times by LDS political scientist Valerie M. Hudson, including in the April 2013 Ensign. According to normal Biblical Hebrew usage and to the narrative context of Gen 2–3, this translation is, unfortunately, impossible. The repetition of this mistranslation underscores well the increasing LDS need to neutralize scriptural gender hierarchies. The Hebrew verb māšal, “to rule” requires the preposition bet and always means in this construction “to rule (over),” as in the sun ruling over the day (Gen 1:18), Abraham’s servant over all his house (Gen 24:2), Joseph over Egypt (Gen 45:8, 26), Solomon over all the Levantine kingdoms (1 Kgs 5:1), and so forth. When the preposition bet is translated as “with” in English, it is an instrumental “with,” as in, “I hit my thumb with a hammer.” To say “together with” requires an entirely different preposition. Added to the Hebrew difficulties, the logic of the exchange—in which the sequence of the transgression yields negative consequences for the participants—clearly prohibits such an egalitarian understanding. Thus, besides contravening basic Hebrew semantics and the plain logic of the verse in its context, this reading also stands in contrast even to previous LDS theology, including the JST. The impossibility of this translation, and the extent to which the plain sense of the text is ignored, highlights a growing discomfort, even among the ranks of General Authorities and conservative scholars, with bald-faced gender hierarchies in scripture. The only hermeneutic motivating this translation is the need to resolve the dissonance between text and modern sensibility by so thoroughly recasting the most blatantly hierarchical proof text of the Bible to legitimate the Church’s stance on egalitarianism." (13)
This paragraph is really quite revealing. The Hafens "attempted"--I guess they failed! "A BYU professor of Hebrew"--could this be Don Parry, who, according to the Wikipedia page on him, "has authored or edited more than twenty-seven books, and has written and published more than eighty articles. In addition to writing six books on Isaiah, Parry brings fifteen years of work on the Dead Sea Scrolls. As one of the scrolls' international team of translators, he translated the Books of Samuel and has authored fifteen volumes on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He is a member of several other organizations, including the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (Groningen, The Netherlands), the Princeton Dead Sea Scrolls Society (Princeton, New Jersey), Society for Biblical Literature (Atlanta, Georgia), and the National Association of Professors of Hebrew (Madison, Wisconsin). Parry also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Brigham Young University's Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts from 1987–2005." Crawford's credentials pale in comparison, of course, and we are not told why we should believe Crawford over Parry.
It gets worse. Diarchy between Adam and Eve, to Crawford, is "unfortunately impossible." And, apparently, God did actually want to punish Eve, because (I gather), Crawford believes the Fall was not foreordained and not fortunate in the least. The language, Crawford tells us, simply "prohibits an egalitarian understanding." "Plain logic" tells us this, we are informed.
Also interesting is Crawford's polarization of scholars into two camps--"conservatives" and, I suppose, "liberals." Those silly conservative scholars--they are so discomforted by hierarchy between men and women in scripture, that they have to blatantly "ignore" the reality of hierarchy between Adam and Eve! Liberals, I guess, are not discomforted by this, and so accept the hierarchy assumed in Genesis? And this in an essay on how female authority has been erased by later wordsmiths and transcribers? Wow. This is incoherent.
How, then, to explain why the internationally eminent Old Testament/Ancient Hebrew scholar, Professor Donald Parry, believes "rule with" is more the more appropriate translation? Actually, I think Crawford puts forward a pertinent and persuasive argument when he writes,"The priests and other male functionaries who curated these texts would have likely been uncomfortable with the depiction of a system at odds with their own, but nevertheless were not at complete liberty to deviate from the collective memory of their culture." (23) I assert, in line with Parry and the Hafens, that this is precisely what happened to the Genesis text. Just as Crawford feels the diarchy that existed in the time of Junia and Deborah has been toyed with by these curators, so the diarchy that clearly existed between our first parents, Adam and Eve, has been monkeyed with. Junia and Deborah could never have been equal authorities if their Mother Eve had not been the first exemplar of such authority.
The Restoration preaches plainly that the Fall of our first parents was both foreordained and fortunate. With that doctrine firmly established in LDS theology, "the plain logic of the verse in its context" now argues for God rewarding Eve, and certainly not for punishing her.
I recommend Crawford's essay for its good points; however, there is an obvious stumble which mars it and threatens to render the entire work incoherent. But such problems attend everything written by fallible mortals. Take the good from Crawford's essay, but never doubt that God intended Adam to "rule with" Eve. Diarchy is the order of Heaven, and our first parents lived that order.
Full Citation for this Article: Cassler, V.H. (2015) "A Day to Be Remembered: New Stirrings Towards Diarchy in LDS Church Government," SquareTwo, Vol. 8 No. 2 (Summer 2015), http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCassler18August.html, accessed <give access date>.
Would you like to comment on this article? Thoughtful, faithful comments of at least 200 words are welcome. Please submit to SquareTwo.
I. Nan Petersen
Thanks to Sister Cassler for her always thoughtful and thought-provoking reflections. One point I would like to make, however, regarding the General RS Presidency. Chieko Okazaki absolutely fit the bill described by Sister Cassler. It is my understanding that she worked as a teacher and then a principal while her children were growing up. She poignantly tells of the terrible racism she encountered when she first began teaching in Utah, in fact. I agree that there should be MORE women like Sister Okazaki in this important position of role-modeling, but she has been such a powerful influence on many LDS women that I think it is important not to leave her out of the conversation.
___________________________________________________________________
II. Kathy Bence
Thank you for your perspective on this announcement and for an update on a very meaningful list. I will especially hope for a change to the temple sealings. Not allowing a living, previously-sealed woman to be sealed to her new husband and children, while a previously-sealed man does not have to endure this hurtful situation, conveys a message that she is somehow less valuable.
While we hope that our temple work for both the living and the dead will remain for eternity, only the Lord knows if it will. As you address in your book, Women in Eternity, Women in Zion, God will provide a way for righteous men and women to be linked together in His eternal family, despite the fact that not every individual in every relationship that we seal on earth may remain eternally connected. In other words, we are told not to worry about these details, because God will make it work out in the end.
For this reason, allowing living, previously-sealed women the same privilege as living, previously-sealed men—sealings with their new families and therefore allowing them to exercise faith that their living relationships will be eternal—should not be contrary to any temple doctrine; instead, it will be progress toward reaffirming the value of women.
___________________________________________________________________________
III. Leslie P. Rees
I liked and agreed with most of what you said. It is so good to see women included in more of the decisions that effect both men and women in the Church. I agree this was a great step forward and that we will see many more. And I was touched that this step toward diarchy came on the day your sweet daughter slipped into the world of spirits to continue her work there. Think she helped to play a role in this new step taking place?
My own mother, one of the most remarkable women I've ever known (and the reasons I say that would take a booklet at least) was serving as Stake Relief Society President in Oregon during the latter part of the 1970's. Elder M. Russell Ballard was the visiting authority. She had not realized there would be a member of the First Quorum of Seventy there, and as she sat next to him waiting to speak, she became concerned about those things she had prepared to address, but then felt she should not change, and didn't. She spoke of the importance of women as leaders in the church. She told of ward R.S. Presidents who came to her in tears because they fasted and prayed and received clear answers about who they should call as their counselors. Then, taking them to the ward Priesthood leadership, were told -with seemingly no consideration at all of their experiences- they should consider a different person. She said she well realized that sometimes a priesthood leader was aware of a real problem and reason the proposed sister wouldn't work, but could at least have explained that was the case- without revealing that reason. And often, presidents who had prayed fervently about how to handle situations received what seemed to them very powerful answers, and then felt their suggestions were dismissed without even any consideration by male leaders. She said they asked her “Why should we fast and pray to receive answers that, after we receive them, are so casually dismissed?” She said she asked only that priesthood leaders be able to tell those sisters they (the men) had gone through the same very prayerful process before dismissing the sister's experiences so quickly, and often showing little respect for their suggestions. There was more, but she sat down concerned about what Elder Ballard would think. He rose, and she said gave one of the finest talks she ever heard about the importance of women and their role in the Church and God's Kingdom, and counseled the leaders to take note of the women's words, spiritual experiences, and suggestions. Mother told me often over the following years how much she loved to hear Elder Ballard speak on the vitally important roles of women- both in and out of their Church callings. She was thrilled to read his book Counseling with Our Councils.
Now for a few random thoughts on what you wrote (your words are in italics):
Sealing Practice--
--Currently, a dead woman may be sealed to more than one man, but a living woman may not. (See discussion in the book Women in Eternity, Women of Zion.) A widow with children who remarries faces a very hurtful situation along with her new husband. She cannot be sealed to her second husband, even if she has children with him. The husband cannot be sealed to his own children. The children cannot be sealed to their father. I believe that one day, women—whether living or dead—will be able to be sealed to more than one man, just as men are.
2015 Update: This has not happened yet, but surely it will.
Actually that isn't always the case- but it takes the approval of the First Presidency to allow it to happen. My husband was serving as a bishop just before we were called to Africa (2006) and there was a woman in our ward who had been sealed to her first husband. He was killed while they were both still quite young. A few years later she re-married and had lived with this husband, having children with him, for something like 40 years. She did receive permission from the First Presidency to be sealed to her second husband, and they were both living. I've since learned of one other instance where this was the case – and I'm sure those would not be the only ones. I'm pretty sure polyandry won't be the order of Heaven (for a lot of reasons I can think of) but this woman was told the choice of which husband she would spend eternity with would be hers in the next life. Of course this would be the same for a deceased woman sealed to two different men.
One of the things I learned from the many visiting members of the Quorum of the Twelve who came to Ghana, to visit and teach us in the temple, is that we don't always have a clear understanding of sealing. I think understandably so- but won't take time to spell out why I say that. One for instance, children whose parents are divorced, and one leaves the church for a very different life-style, are often devastated, believing their eternal family will now never be. My husband and I recently spent a lot of time talking to a neighbor family with this situation. Another, when a Mom remarries, the children sometimes want to be sealed to the new Father (we have grandchildren in this situation), but this isn't done. Why? Because they have already been sealed “into the family of God” – which is what matters. Their sealing to Father and Mother's Eternal family cannot be broken by the actions of another- even an earthly parent. When “links in the chain” that binds us to that Eternal Family have to be removed, those children are still linked to their Eternal parents-Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. I think we sometimes think of it all in terms of our family life here – the nuclear family with our children all about us. But when you consider it, our grown children will all be adults – with their own eternal spouses, creating new families that have to face mortality. Not that the love bonds we built as earthly families will disappear between us—I'm sure they'll be even stronger -but we will all be adults who love each other and associate with each other as one large family -the Eternal Family of the Elohim. Am I making any sense to you on this?
General Conference—
--As we move closer towards Zion, I anticipate that one day we will hear a powerful talk in General Conference focused on Heavenly Mother, striking down in one fell swoop all the cultural inhibitions that have wrongly led us to believe this subject is somehow taboo. And I hope this talk will be given jointly by a man and a woman, so we are not faced with the appearance of men giving women permission to talk about their own Mother. On a related note, I believe one day we will hear, on a routine basis, from the companions of General Authorities.
I have been so happy to see that our visiting authorities now often bring their wives to our Conferences and other meetings, and very often have them speak. My husband claims those are usually his favorite talks. I'm not sure we will have the experience often in General Conference because though we are equal before God, and equal marriage partners with our husbands, we each do receive different callings in the Ministry and their wives are not called as Apostles or Seventies. I am grateful that we hear more now from the Women in General Leadership callings! (Honestly- I don't think their husbands will speak in General Conference either :) ) But I could easily be wrong and I guess time will tell!
--I also anticipate that one day—probably soon--we will hear a powerful talk in General Conference that plainly states that education is not Plan B for girls, but it is Plan A, and young women will be strongly encouraged to finish their degrees, and young men will be asked to facilitate their wives’ graduation from college even after marriage. Again, this will serve to strike down any remaining cultural weeds on this topic.
I think, happily, that we have heard many more talks encouraging young women to get an education, and I, too, have encouraged my daughters to do that. But I have also encouraged them to first talk things over with their Father in Heaven as to what is the right path for them, individually. May I take some space here to explain why I feel that way?
I Really love to learn. It is my favorite thing to do. I have often said that, for me, the Celestial Kingdom is a never-ending library with a bottomless box of chocolates :) My parents encouraged that from the time I learned to talk, and the scriptures were my bedtime stories. I now especially love studying the scriptures and history.
Side note: When I turned 13, I asked my father if I could get my patriarchal blessing. He (who later became a Patriarch himself, and said as the world grew more wicked young people needed those blessings at a younger age than before), said he felt I should wait until I was a bit older. I bargained- if I read every word of the four standard works could I get it then? He agreed. I accomplished that just before my 14th birthday -so he had to give in :). (It mostly just taught me how much I didn't know- but gave me a great and life-long desire to learn more!)
I was disappointed because that blessing was very short- about half a page. Later in San Diego, which was my husband's first F.B.I. posting, I went to a luncheon with the Agent's wives and sat next to a lovely women who turned out to be the Stake Patriarch's wife. As we talked, I told her of my feelings about that blessing. She just listened, Two days later I got a call from her husband, asking me to talk to the Stake President, as would he, and to ask for a recommend to receive a second Patriarchal blessing. He said “Leslie, I have a blessing to give you.” To make a long story a bit shorter, that first blessing, which this great man never saw, was an outline for the two-legal-pages-size-long blessing I then received. Apparently the Lord thought I needed some maturing before hearing some of the things I was told.
Back to why I teach my daughters to be prayerful in their choices. I married at 19. Long story there, but the Lord very definitely told me who He would wish me to marry. When I was a young married woman with two very small children and a third on the way, and my husband was going full-time to college and working full-time because we both felt I needed to stay home with those little ones (who, I had been let know very clearly, were the first of a large family the Lord wished to send me), I sat in my tiny kitchen one night and just cried and cried. I had wanted to keep going to college. I loved learning. I wanted to get my degree, but didn't see how that was possible. I had tried to do everything I had a testimony I, personally, was to do, but this loss was hard for me. As I cried, I heard a voice speak so clearly I am still not sure if it would have been audible to anyone else who might have been in the room or not. But it was unmistakable, and the words I heard informed me that all learning took place in my own head. Whether I did that in a classroom or in my own home or wherever I might be was not as important as that I used every chance to learn all I could. I read my way through a small library before we left the University Village for his first job- and have never quit. And I have observed (while in no way putting down classroom learning) that many of my friends who received degrees have read and sought learning very little since their university years. It surely does not have to be that way- but for too many it clearly is the case. So that is why I encourage my daughters to learn all they can, but to be prayerful in how they pursue that path, so they can learn what Heavenly Father's plan is for them - individually. And that is why I loved your counsel: “ We will teach our Young Women instead that they should counsel with the Lord about the path God has planned for their individual lives, and that God will provide divine assistance for any woman He calls to play a role in the world as well as the role of a mother.” And that may- or may not- include obtaining degrees.
And I agree that we do this next far too little:
We will teach our Young Men that the women they love may be called upon by the Lord to play a role in reshaping and healing the world, and that they should support the women they love in these divine callings.
Relief Society General Presidency—
--I anticipate that one day we will see a retired working mother of grown children appointed to the Relief Society General Presidency, thus indicating to the membership in no uncertain terms that working mothers can be as righteous in the eyes of Church leadership as mothers who have not worked.
2015 Update: To my knowledge, this has not happened yet. But it will, I feel certain.
I was going to point out Chieko Okazaki, but I saw someone beat me to it! I think we will see others- and I'm grateful we've had single sisters called to those positions.
--I anticipate that there will come a time when the Elder’s Quorum and the High Priests Group will begin to share in the large responsibility for caring labor that currently rests at the feet of the Relief Society alone.
Hah! I've said that too. But in all honesty, I'm not sure it is as much a factor of not being called on to do this as it is of some men just naturally doing the least work possible to “get 'er done.” it's my observation that women (speaking generally and not specifically), just naturally look to find all the things that need to be done in the most comprehensive way possible – and start doing it. I really believe most women, by nature, make a bigger emotional commitment toward helping others and most men see more of a project to complete as soon as possible. But as I think of the countless hours spent over the years by my husband and grown sons helping people move, mowing and weeding other's yards, cleaning the meeting houses, shoveling snow so old people like me won''t fall down in church parking lots, setting up chairs before meetings or Relief Society dinners, running older women to doctor's appoints, giving priesthood blessings, etc., etc., I think good men in the Church do offer a lot of “caring labor.” I know that in his two calls as a Bishop and two terms in Stake Presidencies, we saw less of my husband that I might have liked because he was out serving others. Not cooking meals and tending children (though he has done both), but offering all his free time (and often not free) to care for others -- in the ways he was called on to do. (And he did the same as both an Elder's Quorum President and a High Priest Group Leader). So I'm not really too hard on him and other like-minded men in the Church. But if we are talking numbers, I would totally agree that far more women in the Church than men do give more hours of “caring labor.”
I LOVED your whole “Conclusion” section! I admit I copied most of that (giving you credit) on Facebook, along with a poster containing Eliza R. Snow words “In In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I've a mother there.”
Okay- if you've stuck with me all the way through this you are weary of my words and I'll quit. I want you to know I truly do admire you, your accomplishments, your knowledge and ability to impart that to others, and just have often thought, as I've read some of your writings, I would love to live next door and learn from you. But I will have to continue doing so through the printed word -so keep it coming!
Thanks Valerie.
__________________________________________________________________________
IV. Michael Larson
I just finished reading your Square Two article (Vol 8, No 2, Summer 2015) titled "A Day To Be Remembered". I really enjoyed it. You pose(d) some thoughts and hopes that left me enlightened and hopeful. Many of your comments left me feeling that 'she's right on the mark'. They feel comfortable and correct, adding words to those feelings that I believe most people have always felt deep inside. There's a certain spiritual 'logic' to your comments and List items.
All of this being said, it made me ponder the evolution of progress within the Church. It made me think about God's timetable of change and equality. As I think about some of the major changes that have happened in the Church over the last 50 years (Official Declaration 2 in 1978, The Proclamation on the Family, the missionary bar raised and age lowered, etc.) one must inevitably take one of two thought paths: Either the Church is reactionary and makes changes based upon external social, economic and political pressures; or, God monitors the hearts and minds of His children and brings about changes based upon our being prepared to receive them. Personally, I know the latter to be true. I also know that when questions arise, such as the many excellent questions and thoughts you pose in your article and List, it has the potential for us all to 'turn our minds' in a direction wherein we put ourselves in a better position to 'read' the thoughts and musings of one another and search the scriptures and latter-day prophetic writing even more intently, to 'ponder', and of course, to 'pray' to a loving, compassionate God for understanding and righteous change. Moroni's age old advice from the BofM is still very much relevant.
I guess the hard part for some, and it has led some to put themselves on the wrong side of Church doctrine and governance, is the patience required to let the changes come in God's time and through His designated servants. The analogous thought that came to my mind was the wagon train group that first entered the Salt Lake Valley with Pres. Brigham Young. Some out there trying to rush and force these changes are like members of that early group hopping out of their wagons, racing on foot into the valley, and starting to clear rocks for a temple before Pres. Young ever utters "This is the right place. Drive on."
Keep up the inspired work.