And of course there’s no reason a kid in a single parent family should learn about the ideal for the family. I mean, it’s not like they’ll ever get married and make decisions about how they want their family to be. And of course, they’ve never realized that reality and ideals could be different.

I’m sorry. While the propagating gender stereotypes point may or may not be valid, the “single parent household” point is a FAIL. Like saying kids shouldn’t read Harry Potter or they’ll try to do magic and get all confused. Just plain silly.

Wow, if you do not like the lyrics of that song, check out what the prophets are teaching:

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony…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. We warn that individuals who…fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

(The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Needless to say, the words in the song are quite appropriate for primary children to sing. And the principles taught are quite worth the primary children’s aspirations. We need no reminders here that we live in an imperfect world – that much is obvious, even children understand that. As individual family circumstances dictate individual family circumstances may be explained by the family. These young children, who may have valid questions about the differences they notice between the teachings of the Church and their reality, should be taught by their parent/s.

Liz – I agree that kids should learn about an ideal family. However, there is a balance between teaching that incessantly to the exclusion that there is value in all types of families – in other words, it does not matter what your family is like, you are valued. Of course, my big beef is with the gender stereotypes. Why not just sing the two verses about parents instead of a specific parent? That would be a nice way to address both of my points (at least in my opinion). The sad reality is also that at least half of kids born today (in or out of the Church) will be in broken homes. Also, I have no idea what FAIL means sorry.

Tom Rod – see comment to Liz. I have no issue with the traditional family with two parents, I do have issues with the stereotyped roles for those parents as well as the incessant focus on the “true” family without acknowledging that there is value in all families, no matter the makeup.

Ha! When I first started reading the post I thought, gee, a little trite but what’s the big deal? I had no idea. Our primary chorister has been teaching only the first and fourth verses so those are the only ones I’ve heard so far. Awesome, I’ll have to thank her next Sunday.

Ugh! The gender stereotypes in our church make me positively CRAZY. My husband is MUCH MORE nurturing than I am. I will NOT allow ANY male authority, much less my husband – MY EQUAL – preside over me and our family just because he has a penis. He’s a non member and you know what? The word PRESIDE never ever even comes up. Not sure why on earth we hear it over and over and over and over again in our church. In some areas, my husband makes the decisions, and in other areas, I make the decisions. If we selected one of us to stay home and raise the kids, my husband would want to do it much more than I would. As it stands, we both are equal in education (actually, I have a higher degree than he does), income (he makes about $4,000 more per year than I do), and abilities. I completely refuse to teach my two daughters that their husbands will preside over them. And singing these silly primary songs flies in the face of what I hope my daughters will become – and which I am teaching them by example — that they will be equal partners with their spouse in every way. This song, in my opinion, is awful and gives me one more reason to question if primary is really a net positive or net negative. For family reasons, I’ll keep taking my kids to primary but, sheesh! Ick.

Sister Blah 2

A more extensive idea of presidency or “the right to preside” as it pertains to Priesthood and fathers is covered in this talk by Rodney Turner, entitled “Woman and the Priesthood”:

http://www.divideasunder.org/turner.pdf

If you are interested in the audio (which I think is a worth-while listen because Rodney Turner was a very good speaker) just let me know and I can post that too. It was a devotional given during those days when some LDS women demanded to be permitted to hold the Priesthood (the talk was given in 1966). It doesn’t appear on the BYU Speeches website probably because it is so direct and may be hard for some handle. I actually found it on a blank tape while on my mission. I had it put onto a CD and then transcribed it myself. I finally found an original transcription through a lawyer in Orange County, CA who was attending BYU at the time and made a habit of purchasing the transcripts of all the devotionals. Well, for what it’s worth – it was a very powerful and insightful talk for me.

Kent,

Too late. Oh My Gosh. Are you serious???? Your poor wife and daughters. No wonder BYU is trying to bury this talk. Good heavens. Sorry, I don’t buy it One Tiny Bit. It is so inflammatory and off base that I am nearly speechless. Let’s just put all women into slave-type servitude to their husbands. Great idea. Have a penis? You’re in charge. If you’re not, you aren’t a man. What’s wrong with that? Everything.

Kent – I really can’t believe that you find that talk enlightening? wow – it is quoting things from the 1800′s and sounds like something Brigham Young would have taught. Hopefully, we as a Church and society are past this…

Brian – oh yeah, that too. It has been stuck in my head all day too…

Lulubelle,
I don’t know which ward is teaching you that if you have a penis, you’re in charge, but there’s potential there for some very interesting characters to “preside” there.

In all serousness, though, as I understand “preside”, it means to take stewardship, or responsibility for the care and outcome of the family. I don’t think it entails “directing” or “being in charge” in any way.

Frankly, I think the Gospel teaches the opposite- the only real authority is moral authority. Compulsion and totalitarian direction have no place.

In that way, women are actually immensely empowered by the words of the proclamation, and men held to a high standard. Just like in General Conference.

I generally think the backlash is disconcerting as well, but mostly because I think it is based on old-fashioned non-doctrinal definitions borrowed from, for lack of a better word, “militant” feminism.

There are times when the backlash is warranted, sure, but this song only needs a few verses omitted or even to be skipped over completely and the world moves merrily on. It is, after all, a Primary song. I don’t remember 1/3 of them.

Which reminds me- I walked by our primary room last Sunday and they were singing “High on a Mountain Top”. How refreshing to hear a hymn sung by children. Let’s have more of that.

Easy answer: Priesthood.

Men are given the power to act in God’s name and given instructions to disseminate that power to their families in order to bring a unit of God’s children to exaltation.

Lowering or distributing the bar is definitely appealing, but probably not wise.

May I ask why men being held to a higher standard rubs you wrong?

Thinking about it, I think that it is not so much a “higher” standard as it is a “different” standard. I think the standards are very equal. But the priesthood makes “preside” and “not presiding”, by difference of gender, mutually exclusive standards.

Kent that talk is an abomination.

Oh my gosh. That talk fits right in with a lot of other garbage which was spouted during the 60s. I’m with you, Steve Evans. The talk was not just “strange” but deplorable, even contrary to the scriptures. Is that talk part of the set-up for the anti-ERA movement?

So I was in a meeting and wanted to finish my thought. We hear in the church that women are inherently more spiritual than men so we don’t ‘need’ the priesthood because we get motherhood instead, which is, in essence, acting one with God in creating life. However, men are held to a ‘higher’ standard. Does these even make sense? The less spiritual sex has more authority and is held to a higher standard. Am I really less accountable for my behavior, thoughts and actions than my less spiritual male leader because he holds the priesthood? We don’t even need to go into the argument that women don’t ‘need’ the priesthood because we get to make babies. What about women who can’t/don’t want to/don’t have the opportunity to procreate? Gosh, then you’re not even on the map of ‘importance’ because you are neither a priesthood holder or working one with God in creating life. And then the missionaries consistently look to my husband (a non member Catholic) to pick someone to say the prayer. When I finally asked why, they said “because he is the spiritual leader of your home.” Huh??? He’s not spiritual at all but because of his penis, that makes him spiritual leader? I had to correct them that actually I am the spiritual leader in our home. And I believe that women ought to be able to hold the priesthood if they want to. I don’t because I don’t believe I need the priesthood to bless, pray or receive spiritual guidance. And so this ‘why men being held to a higher standard rubs you wrong?” question? It completely rubs me wrong because I believe that just because one has a penis does not mean that God automatically expects more/greater/different things than me.

yeah for LDS traditional family values. So counter cultural. I like them and like that our church teaches them

BBell–you should read the talk Kent linked lest you be taken unawares and endorse teachings you don’t actually believe. That talk contains elements which are contrary to the current temple ceremony and to current teachings of the Church. I am a firm believer in equal partnership. I raise my sons and daughters to also be firm believers in that concept. I believe it is an eternal concept.

Those of you who think we need to teach kids in “different” families exactly what’s wrong their homes should know that kids whose parents are divorced are EXCRUCIATINGLY aware that reality and the ideal are different. If anything, they have a heightened sense of how families should be–they *really* don’t need any help to feel bad about their families or condemn their parents for failures they may or may not understand. Really. And church is hard enough for single parents on a regular Sunday–there’s no need to make the Primary program sheer torture for them. They already feel bad. If they manage to overcome their shame at the wagging tongues and nasty looks and endless discussion of how selfishness leads to divorce and keep coming to church, it would be nice if we’d spend a little time thinking about how we might demonstrate God’s love for them instead of trying to inflict what we believe might be his judgment.

bbell: Wow, you’re going to teach my children that they should not aspire to the home my husband and I have/are providing them? That’s disturbing. I want them to aspire to something similar to what we have. We have a very happy home. There are two parents who love each other. We have great family time. We are able to financially provide for them plus a lot of extras that they enjoy. Who are you to encourage them to ‘reject the poor choices of their parents and learn the ideal at church and go ahead and form much better families than the ones they were born into”?? How arrogant and completely wrong you are. And how inviting do you think your attitude is to those of us who struggle to even show up in church due, in large part, to those members who ‘look down’ on those of us who don’t fit YOUR ideal? You really have no idea. Many of those seemingly ‘perfect Mormon families’ are not nearly as perfect as you think behind closed doors. I can name a few close friends who seemed to have that family you so highly praise but it was all smoke and mirrors.

The church/BYU has wisely tried to bury it and I think we would do well to follow their lead.

Why are we allowed to be selective in the things we bury and the things we dig up? When the Church buries something related to polygamy, everyone cries foul. Why the dual-policy?

Kent,
What are you thinking.

Scott, I’m fine with being honest about all aspects of our history. But that talk shouldn’t be promoted as something that represents our beliefs, that we should (or worse, must) apply to our daily lives, as Kent was doing. That’s all I meant.

28. DavidH – Amen – thanks for the comment – heaven help us if we retrench further…

30. Lulubelle – thanks for the comments. My wife loves you.

31. Margaret Young – wise words as always – particularly when I agree with you which is most of the time :)

32. bbell – do you really tell the YM that they must provide, preside, and lead while their future wife does all of the caring, preparing and nurturing? That seems bassackwards to me – if anything the young men need to be taught it is ok to nurture, care and prepare…

33. Kristine – thanks for your comment. I agree that as we propogate stereotypes it causes hurt. I know in my family growing up that was often the case since we were the “poor” and “welfare” family of the ward…

36/37. Scott – maybe because we like the a la carte approach to past teachings. Those that support the current Church position are ok, others are buried. While this is not surprising, it does cause harm when garbage like Kent dug up is thrown around.

38. KLC – ok that one is on my top ten of worst Primary songs, but at least the tune is catchy!

40. EmilyCC – I will have to let my wife know that we can swap that song out since she is in the Primary Presidency now. I am doing sharing time this Sunday and my focus is on all families are different, but all are loved by God. Each kid is going to talk about his family and what they like about it (good mix of backgrounds). Then we will talk about how it does not matter what your family is like, it is different from everyone else’s. The important thing is to love your family and know that God loves you and your family.

Ok Kent – come clean – did you post that talk just to stir up controversy? Do you really believe it???

I want Rodney Turner as my Dry Council speaker! Thanks for posting that talk. I teach GD and will have a lot of fun with that crap, at Brother Turner’s expense. Holy cow. Although, I think my father-in-law shares some of Brother Turner’s views. Thankfully, his very successful businesswoman, working-mother-of-four, daughter sees things a little different.

fwiw, I spent 10 consecutive years as a YMP or Stake Young Men’s President and never peddled the things Brother Bell feels compelled to peddle. Teach an ideal to be sure, but what ideal? Where is this collection of 1950s style two-parent stable families? Not in the wards I’ve lived and served. For every great family-and there are lots-I can show you a family that appears on the outside to be great but is dying inside.

rbc – too bad I can’t sit in on one of your lessons. Agree with you on the ideal piece – have not seen too much of that in my wards. Reality is we are a diverse Church (at least in some respects) and we should recognize and embrace that diversity so that we can truly be a ward family. I am also amazed as I get to know people how many of us are from dysfunctional families when all seems fine from the outside. It makes me wonder what my kids will say about me when they are adults…

This is what I want my children (I guess that’s my grandchildren now) to learn in Primary:
They have Heavenly parents who love them.
They have earthly parents who love them–regardless of the family situation.
Jesus Christ loved them enough to set an example for them and (though the concept is very advanced) even died for them.
Joy and resiliency are at the core of the gospel. Bad things can happen, but we are surrounded by people who want to help and comfort.
We will help and comfort others.
The rest is commentary.

Marjorie, # 48,

On page 13 of the talk Kent linked, Turner repeats that insulting little ditty:

Women are doormats and have been
The years those mats applaud, -
They keep their men from going in
With muddy feet to God.

I want to thank Kent for posting this. It is an invaluable resource which will help us to remember how truly foolish many of our teachings on these topics have been and in some cases continue to be. It is my opinion that the same talk could be given in many places today and people would nod their heads in agreement. The traditional gender essentialists among us might quibble with a few of the details here, but Turner illuminates quite nicely where those beliefs will lead us. It is absolutely idiotic.

I was seven when I first experienced dissonance, I still remember sitting in the primary room, I still remember the small chairs, and I remember the song about “I’m so glad when daddy comes home”.

The thing is, I grew up in a traditional family. Very traditional. But the lyrics about jumping up on his knee and kissing his cheek? Nah, not even. And that opened the door to thoughts about the kids next to me, whose fathers didn’t live in the home. This was in the seventies, and at that age I thought that the songs sorta sucked.

I think the kids get it. At least some of them do. I did. And I suspect there are many kids in little chairs singing verses like this and quietly thinking “this song kinda sucks”.

In a couple of decades, they’ll be some pretty decent bloggers. Or whatever we’ll be doing then.

I concur with Steve Evans and Margaret Young. The Turner talk is an abomination, and we must lose no opportunity to say so. We live in a world where we are daily confronted by palpable evils, and it’s very discouraging when one finds such confrontations coming forth from the mouths of a high councilman speaking at the Smith Field House. When church leaders say things like this, those who refuse to speak out against them will suffer retribution before the bar of God.

Kristine, Lulubelle, anyone else who discourages teaching ideals for the sake of those who do not live within the ideal (everyone), i.e. reminding them of their lowly state-

What do you suppose ought to be taught?

I wholeheartedly disagree that the teaching of ideals is an oppressive venture. I see it as empowering and contributing to the self-actualization (rising above their circumstances) of those not meeting the ideal- when done correctly. Still, the ideal must be taught- hence, the existence of scripture.

I nominate Kent’s #12 for a Niblet.

And wow, that talk. My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Stop preaching polygamy, Emily, you fundie . . .

:P

Agreeing with #62 completely. It never ceases to amaze how controversial basic church teachings are in the bloggernaccle.

The ideal really does need to be taught and not just assumed.

I assigned one of my Webelos scouts to conduct the opening of pack meeting. Looking for someone to assign the opening prayer, he saw Wendy, another den leader.

“Wendy, could your, your [pause grasping for the right word, not part of his standard vocabulary] your boyfriend say the opening prayer.”
“My boyfriend? You mean my husband?”
“Husband! That’s right; husband. Could he say the prayer?”

And so the bishop, husband of the den leader, offered the opening prayer at the appropriate time.

John – now that is a classic. Did anyone keep a straight face?

Ardis – I realize the Church will continue to teach its standard model, although I hope (and pray) at some point, there will be a realization that these “models” of man and woman are problematic and reality is so much more complicated and perhaps that slight wording change to include parents as capable and able to fulfill both roles would make me happy (I realize this is unlikely). While this is a minor thing in the big scheme of things, it is one of those “burrs under my saddle”. Will I ever stop being riled over this? Maybe, I hope someday to be less “rilable” and more peaceable…

And while I’m on the topic, I could give example after example after example of single parent homes that are far more happy and cohesive and functional than several families in the church with both parents holding temple recommends. Of course, not all. But I once had that… two parents, both church members, both holding temple recommends. And on the outside, we were that ‘perfect’ family. But… low and behold, it came to my attention that my husband was doing some very horrible things, that resulted in horrible, terrible fights and strife, and I finally left my priesthood holding/temple recommend baring husband. And you know what? The home I provided my daughter was much better than that ‘ideal.’ I am not alone here. I know of those seemingly happy ideals that we are taught to emulate and it is tragic that the parents/families are still in tact.

I like the song. And my kids like it. And my wife likes it.

I don’t object to the fact that it doesn’t contain all possible qualifiers.

I don’t feel that the Brethren got it wrong with the Proclamation, and verses 2 and 3 of the song are wholly consistent with the Proclamation.

The Church is all about ideals and improvement. I know of no perfect family. I know of no perfect individual. But we are still commanded to be perfect. I take no offense at this. The Church unmistakeably teaches that we are responsible for our own desires and actions, not those of any other person.

I think I have a tendency, at times, to want to disregard the teachings of current prophets if those teachings conflict with my agenda, my shortcomings, or a mindset that I find most comfortable. I think I am not the only person so afflicted.

Kent,

You should put the talk back up at the same location so that this discussion makes some sense to those that arrive late. Also, you might find some converts to your antiquated views.

arJ,

you might find some converts

Can you tell from your blog stats if you get many visitors from YFZ ranch? That would probably be the most likely place to find people who adhere to these views.

Devyn S.

I disagree with you that the talk was condescending. It, however, did infer (as you pointed out already) that part of holding the Priesthood and being good men is defending women and womanhood. But Turner did this without calling women “helpless” as you said. If men protecting women has gone “out of style” than clearly our modern leaders are bringing it back. President Faust, 40 years after Turner’s talk was given (2004), says this: “Priesthood is the righteous power and influence by which boys are taught in their youth and throughout their lives to honor chastity, to be honest and industrious, and to develop respect for and stand in the defense of womanhood.” Richard G. Scott, also speaking in the 21st century, seems to support the so-called “antiquated view” (#73) as well:

“We [men of the Priesthood] can and must help them [women]. Each of us absolutely must help each daughter of God we can to realize what sacred characteristics Father in Heaven has given her. Many are being cheated of the rich, full life and the blessings God would have them receive. Will you help them understand what they are sacrificing as they are led as innocent, blind sheep by those who, for personal gain and self-justification, would rob them of their priceless womanhood?”

This last statement also contains some of what Rodney Turner was trying to explain. Turner said: “We can solve the problem of immorality in the Mormon Church if the priesthood of the Mormon Church will rise to their covenant, because women by nature follow, as men by nature are meant to lead. Women will be as pure, brethren, as you will let them be. I know that is true; it is the nature of women to be pure.”

Elder Scott continues from what was already quoted above:

“Because it is their nature to give and please others, many women do not realize their intrinsic worth. That loss makes them vulnerable to those who would convince them that their major role is to be physically appealing.

“So many of our own young women sacrifice their God-given endowment of femininity, deep spirituality, and a caring interest in others on the altar of popular, worldly opinion. Young men, let such young women know that you will not seek an eternal companion from those that are overcome by worldly trends. Many dress and act immodestly because they are told that is what you want. In sensitive ways, communicate how distasteful revealing attire is to you, a worthy young man, and how it stimulates unwanted emotions from what you see against your will.”

Sheri Dew also understands the need for Priesthood and prophets to protect motherhood and womanhood: “When we understand the magnitude of motherhood, it becomes clear why prophets have been so protective of woman’s most sacred role.”

These are recent statements, and they can be added upon and multiplied. This idea of men protecting and defending women and their womanhood is quite doctrinal and appropriate – and modern (at least in the teachings of the Church). Is it a popular view, maybe not, but isn’t that what Elder Scott was talking about anyway – supporting and encouraging the right choices, no matter how unpopular?

Men and woman, by divine design, are different. Their roles are different, their strengths are different. These differences should be embraced, not suppressed. On the other hand these differences shouldn’t be exploited. There needs to be balance. President Faust comments:

Is it not possible to give to womankind all of the rights and blessings that come from God and legal authority without diminishing the nobility of God’s other grand creation, manhood? A reflection on this theme stated in 1872:
“The status of women is one of the questions of the day. Socially and politically it forces itself upon the attention of the world. Some … refuse to concede that woman is entitled to the enjoyment of any rights other than … the whims, fancies or justice … men may choose to grant her. The reasons which they cannot meet with argument they decry and ridicule; an old refuge for those opposed to correct principles which they are unable to controvert. Others … not only recognize that woman’s status should be improved, but are so radical in their extreme theories that they would set her in antagonism to man, assume for her a separate and opposing existence; and to show how entirely independent she should be [they] would make her adopt the more reprehensible phases of character which men present, and which should be shunned or improved by them instead of being copied by women. These are two extremes, and between them is the ‘golden mean.’”

Well, again I am sorry that the talk offended so many. For those that have not read it, I assure you it is not as radical as is suggested by some. It is, however, a talk where snippets could be taken out of context and misconstrued. So to avoid that kind of thing I will leave the talk off the server.

I mean, outside of the BYU RelEd department

Mark, I think even there it would categorically dismissed as antiquated, incorrect, and offensive by most professors.

Kent,

You have totally threadjacked this thread. Who is this Turner guy? You have given the folks on the opposite side of this issue a strawman to shoot at. If you want to make a doctrinal point in the bloggernaccle I suggest Scriptures, Correlated manuals, quotes from GA’s etc. Not random people from the past.

Mark,

I am more concerned about Turner. He is a strawman since he is an unknown speaker at BYU some 40 years ago. Obviously after 5 years in the bloggernaccle its obvious that I believe in traditional gender roles as oulined by current leadership.

Christopher

I believe the quotation speaks for itself. There is little contradiction here. The quotation you referenced above, and that President Faust used, was speaking politically and socially (rights and justice, etc.). Brother Turner was speaking about morality and this to a BYU audience. And you left out the last sentence, which would have answered your own question: “I know that is true; it is the nature of women to be pure.”

Women don’t need men to be pure. I don’t think anyone is saying that. But generally speaking the Priesthood of this Church ought to influence women for good. Turner is suggesting that this is part of manhood and priesthood – to be this positive and even sanctifying influence in the lives of women. I believe that is honorable and a worthy pursuit. There is nothing degrading about that. I love my wife and I love my daughters, and my sisters and my mother – I feel to protect them from any harm (both spiritual/moral, as Turner was talking, or social or political as the women’s magazine cited). Also, the last line of the 1872 article might have also answered your question: “These are two extremes, and between them is the ‘golden mean.’”

You must have only skimmed the material – perhaps only looking for a rebuttal, rather than a plain and already existent answer to your own question. Even so…

The problem that Brother Turner and Elder Scott have identified is that many women (not all) have made choices against their very natures to live purely because their natures also involve “pleasing others” (Elder Scott’s words). Some women have emphasized “pleasing others” over purity – and this because of wicked men who enticed them to gratify evil pleasures. Elder Scott, again, puts it this way: “So many of our own young women sacrifice their God-given endowment of femininity, deep spirituality, and a caring interest in others on the altar of popular, worldly opinion.” Brother Turner suggests that “We can solve the problem of immorality in the Mormon Church if the priesthood of the Mormon Church will rise to their covenant” – that is, as was earlier mentioned in his talk, “to guide and to direct; to redeem; and to sanctify…Woman has the right to be protected, to be honored, to be sustained and supported in her calling. Someone must do that; and where we have the widow, there stands the priesthood, the bishop; there stands that power to be to that widow what no other man can or will be. But no woman, from the standpoint of the Lord, is ever meant to be abandoned in this world. That is what men are here for – to protect…that choice vessel…” Whether that protection is from physical harm, economic hardship, moral temptation – it is a basic priesthood duty to protect and defend womanhood. I’m not sure why this concept offends so many people. My wife is flattered that I would use my Priesthood to protect her and our daughters – not offended. President Packer has this to say, and though this statement was made in 1977, I am quite certain he would not apologize for it – it is a true statement:

There are basic things that a man needs that a woman does not need. There are things that a man feels that a woman never does feel.

There are basic things that a woman needs that a man never needs, and there are things that a woman feels that a man never feels nor should he.

These differences make women, in basic needs, literally opposite from men.

A man, for instance, needs to feel protective, and yes, dominant, if you will, in leading his family. A woman needs to feel protected, in the bearing of children and in the nurturing of them.

Have you ever thought what life would be like if the needs of men and women were naturally precisely the same?

What would it be like if they both naturally needed to feel dominant all of the time, or both naturally needed to feel protected all of the time?

How disturbed and intolerable things would be.

When God created male and female, He gave each important differences in physical attributes, in emotional composition, in family responsibility. We must protect and honor the vital differences in the roles of men and women, especially in respect to the family.

If you want a good talk on why it is a good idea for the brethren to responsibly and tactfully encourage and support their sisters in righteousness then a reading of Elder Scott’s talk given during Priesthood session and entitled “The Sanctity of Womanhood” would be a good start.

RBC

Turner’s talk doesn’t really address wives and mothers working outside of the home, so there will be no need to post it again. However, the scriptures do address this subject: “And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him.” I have no qualms, neither do I believe that Rodney Turner has any problems with women in the work place. That’s a pretty ancient standard, actually. He and I are only interested in the priority of family nurture. We live in pretty confusing times – spiritually speaking. Our children need direction and a lot of love – women are best designed to give this kind of nurturing.

And I will agree that women do not necessarily need men to defend womanhood, I only believe that men (and especially those holding the Priesthood) should defend womanhood. And Brother Turner never does suggest that your friend’s wives are incapable of defending their womanhood, either – he only suggests that men should also.

Lulubelle

I don’t think your argument is with me. I don’t believe I’ve ever said one gender is better than another or more spiritual than another – I certainly do not believe that. I believe, as was already quoted, and as President Packer believes:

There are basic things that a man needs that a woman does not need. There are things that a man feels that a woman never does feel.

There are basic things that a woman needs that a man never needs, and there are things that a woman feels that a man never feels nor should he.

These differences make women, in basic needs, literally opposite from men.

A man, for instance, needs to feel protective, and yes, dominant, if you will, in leading his family. A woman needs to feel protected, in the bearing of children and in the nurturing of them.

Have you ever thought what life would be like if the needs of men and women were naturally precisely the same?

What would it be like if they both naturally needed to feel dominant all of the time, or both naturally needed to feel protected all of the time?

How disturbed and intolerable things would be.

When God created male and female, He gave each important differences in physical attributes, in emotional composition, in family responsibility. We must protect and honor the vital differences in the roles of men and women, especially in respect to the family.

In response to your comment about how “men are held to a higher standard because of their priesthood” it shouldn’t be labeled “absurd”. It’s quite logical. When men receive the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods they enter into an additional covenant which holds them to a higher standard than the baptismal covenant. Furthermore, Melchizedek Priesthood holders usually enter the Holy Temple where more covenants are made and the standard becomes even higher. Hugh B. Nibley taught that these “endowments” and covenants will be had after this life as well, and progression will continue in this manner – with a high standard replaced by a higher standard, only to be added upon again by another even higher standard. Anyway, women do not usually receive their endowments until marriage and so while they’re similarly aged brothers are held to a higher standard because of their additional covenants, the women are not – yet. I suppose an endowed woman and an endowed man are held to very similar levels – morally speaking. I think the “women are inherently more spiritual” notion is a myth, and not taught by the Church. At least I cannot think of any concrete statements to that effect.

Kent – I can’t get your link to work. Did you pull it of the site? So disappointed. I needed a good laugh today.

Mark Brown,

You are more optimistic than I, but I hope you are right. As I stated before, I can see this talk being given in most wards without an eyebrow being raised.

Upon further reflection, I’m going to shift my answer and agree with you, Mark. The RelEd faculty members I know and count as friends (even the more culturally conservative ones) would dismiss Turner’s view of gender roles outright. That said, I can think of a handful of other (mostly older) faculty members who would probably agree with nearly every word articulated in Turner’s talk.

Kent,

You must have only skimmed the material – perhaps only looking for a rebuttal, rather than a plain and already existent answer to your own question. Even so…

I think it a bit unfair that you dismiss my own reading of the quotations you provide (and the talk by Turner) as evidence that I “only skimmed the material.” My own reading of Turner’s talk is that it qualifies as one of “the two extremes” from the 1872 talk that Pres. Faust quotes. It appears that others agree with me, and that the quote does not, as you suggest, “speak for itself.” It is filtered through each of our individual lens of interpretation. No need to dismiss my contrarian point of view by suggesting I didn’t both reading the material.

I think the “women are inherently more spiritual” notion is a myth, and not taught by the Church. At least I cannot think of any concrete statements to that effect.

Actually, it looks like statements of such a nature have occurred quite recently, and by no less authority than a BYU RelEd professor.

Kent,

I probably disagree with 99% of Brother Turner’s fireside broadside, but I have to agree with others who have complimented you on your grace in defense of Brother Turner’s antiquated views. As a lifelong Mormon, I’m embarassed by the psuedo-science and claims in the BKP quote you posted (twice!) but you defend your position with aplomb. (I’m also left to wonder about the women Elder Packer has encountered in his life and studies to arrive at such strange, to me at least, conclusions. The women I have encountered and known in my life provide virtually zero support for his claims about basic nature and desires. The same is true with my brethren. Poor BKP’s been beat to death in the Bloggernacle, often unfairly imo, and I am not piling on, I just find that particular quote embarassing if it’s meant to be anything other than his opinion.)