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.
No comments:
Post a Comment