Sunday, March 29, 2015

Sex changes - The Family Is of God


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?

Let's look at the special musical number from last night's General Women's Conference that opened up the session. It's called "The Family Is of God" and it came out in 2008 as an anti-Proposition 8 propaganda tool to be applied in LDS primaries across the United States (and now the world). It picks up on the gender assignments found in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", so predictably switching the gender references in the song will look a bit like my previous post. Here it is:

1. Our Mother has a family. It’s me!
It’s you, all others too: we are Her children.
She sent each one of us to earth, through birth,
To live and learn here in fam’lies.

[Chorus]
God gave us families to help us become what She wants us to be—
This is how She shares Her love, for the fam’ly is of God.

2. A mother’s place is to preside, provide,
To love and teach the gospel to her children.
A mother leads in fam’ly prayer to share
Their love for Mother in Heaven.

[Chorus]

3. A father’s purpose is to care, prepare,
To nurture and to strengthen all his children.
He teaches children to obey, to pray,
To love and serve in the fam’ly.
[Chorus]

4. I’ll love and serve my family and be
A good example to each fam’ly member.
And when I am a dad or mom, so glad,
I’ll help my fam’ly remember:
[Chorus]

First off, changing "Our Father" to "Our Mother" gives LDS Mormons a big headache because the Church teaches next to nothing about Her. In fact, we don't know if it's a "Her" or a "Them" (every orthodox Mormon has to admit that Heavenly Father might be a polygamist). This possibility - that God has at one or more wives who are banished from showing their faces around their children - already screams sexism. On the positive side, changing "Our Father" to "Our Mother" somehow renders the song just that much more poignant and pleasing. I honestly prefer it.


As for the second verse, I say why the fuck not? Mothers can be just as good as managing people and earning money as father can. If that's where a mother's skill set lies, why not let her use and develop those skills? Denying women that opportunity based on their having a vagina is sexist and culturally damaging.

The third verse makes just as much sense as it did when it addressed mothers. What does that mean? That the gender reference is poorly conceived. There is no truth to be learned from it. What is should say instead is that the purpose of a "parent" is to care, etc. Then again, aren't we all supposed to be caring about and strengthening each other?


The only problem with the fourth verse is that it assumes every child will become a parent one day. That's not how it works. Some people never find a partner, some couples are infertile, other couples don't want children and other couples are simply too irresponsible to properly look after children (I have several relatives who fit this last category). The amazing thing about all of this is that the rest of the session was spent pointing out many of these very exceptions.

Where is the wisdom in memorizing and singing this song? Why should we bother teaching it to children when it's sexist and not logically sound? Why be part of the Church's knee-jerk reaction to homosexual marriage being legalized in California? We can think for ourselves.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Sex changes - "divine design"


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"By divine design, mothers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Fathers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, mothers and fathers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." From "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 1995.

Restricting an individual's participation in work and family according to his or her sex is sexism. You cannot subscribe heart and soul to "The Family" and also claim you are not sexist. Either embrace the fact that you are a sexist or the fact that you disagree with this proclamation.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Sex changes - "none more beautiful"


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"Of all the creations of the Almighty there is none more beautiful, none more inspiring than a lovely son of God who walks in virtue with an understanding of why he should do so, who honors and respects his body as a thing sacred and divine, who cultivates his mind and constantly enlarges the horizon of his understanding, who nurtures his spirit with everlasting truth." Gordon B. Hinckley, "Youth Is the Season," New Era, Sep. 1988, 44.


Which is more beautiful, a lovely son of God or a lovely daughter of God? If you pick one or the other, you're an asshole. Don't doubt that you are.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Sex changes - a force for good


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"Every young man is a child of destiny and every adult man a powerful force for good." Jeffrey Holland, "To Young Women," Ensign, Nov. 2005, 28.

In this quote gender is entirely irrelevant. There is nothing in what Jeff has to say that relates exclusively to women. No doubt about it.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Sex changes - Heavenly Mother's husband


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"A three-year-old had wandered off on an adventure, shedding her clothing as she went. When she realized she was lost as well as cold, she knocked at the home of this young man. He saw a little girl standing on the step; she was wearing only soiled underwear and was crying her heart out. He took her in, and while they waited for the police to find her father, he wrapped her in a blanket and held her on his lap and sang songs to her. He made her clown faces on home-dipped ice cream cones and drew pictures with her so she could surprise her mother. He made her feel marvelous.

"When at last the girl's father arrived, she started for the front door. Then suddenly she stopped, maybe remembering what a special time she had had with the young man.

"'Hey!' she asked. 'Are you Heavenly Mother's husband?'

The young man was startled - and sobered. At last he replied, 'No, but I am her son.'"
Elaine A. Cannon, "Voices," New Era, Jul. 1980, 13.


Besides being a sappy, poorly told story, there's nothing in this modified version that should offend LDS sensitivities. We might be caught off guard at first by a story about a naked little girl spending an afternoon with a young man, but I think that's mostly because American culture - disgustingly - has hyper-sexualized children. The most offensive aspect of this story is found in the original, where Heavenly Mother is called "Heavenly Father's wife". You know there's a problem with gender inequality when a woman's identity relies entirely on a reference to a man.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Sex changes - handsome and chaste


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"The true spirit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives to man the highest place of honor in human life. To maintain and to merit this high dignity he must possess those virtues which have always, and which will ever demand the respect and love of mankind... [because] 'a handsome and chaste man is the perfect workmanship of God.'" First Presidency of Heber J. Grant, Improvment Era, May 1935, 276.


 The original quote was already plenty condescending to women, but readdressing it to men makes it feel strangely empowering for sexy men who won't give it up. The message makes just as much doctrinal sense maled so I'm going to have to call bullshit on brother Heber. Men do indeed get the highest place of honor in the LDS Church; Mormons are all about being virtuous, lovely, of good report and praiseworthy; and who's to argue that God really gets off on handsome, chaste men?


Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Sex changes - blessing others


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"Prepare yourselves to ennoble, to enrich, and to become the heart and soul of the home. You may bless others either as fathers or as legislators; as leaders in the schoolroom or in the laboratory of truth; at the hearth or at the crib side." Russell M. Nelson, "Daughters of Zion," Young Women New Era, Nov. 1985, 5.

This to me sounds exactly like what the LDS Church requires of men. Changing the addressees from women to men is insignificant here. Maybe the Church needs to stop perpetuating this nonsensical gendering. 

Monday, March 9, 2015

Sex changes - "become great men"


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"Cultivate and employ generously your noble, manly instincts of care and mercy, first to your family and then to others. May you always hunger and thirst after righteousness within the framework of the revealed gospel of Jesus Christ. May you have an eternal perspective as you go about your angelic cause of doing good so that it will not only lead you to become great men but ultimately to become kings in the eternities." James E. Faust, "How Near to the Angels," New Era, Mar, 1999, 4.

This quote also seems to work just fine when addressing men instead of women. Talk of being caring and merciful might get us thinking about women but it's more likely to get us thinking about Heavenly Father and Jesus, and just as likely to bring to mind our father or grandfathers or even a friend who's a man. Womanliness or femaleness has little, if anything, to do with care and mercy. The other potential clue that the Faust here is talking about women and not men is his reference to "your angelic cause." I would dare say that we typically associate angels and the adjective "angelic" with women,


and yet all the angels mentioned in scripture (with the exception of two possibly evil stork-winged women bearing a woman representing wickedness off to Babylon) are men. No female angels, isn't that interesting? It would very much appear that angelic causes are male causes.

I'm starting to think James Faust was completely off base addressing these thoughts to women.

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Sex changes - "near to divinity"


General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?


"Fatherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assume by males. It places him who honors his holy calling and service next to the angels." James R. Clark from Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 Vols. (1965-75), 6:178.


If you ask me, this quote worked out perfectly for men. The fact that Jimmy Reuben here was speaking about women only shows that he had not fully thought through his reasoning.