Girly Men and Manly Girls

I have a three year old little girl who absolutely loves the color pink. I am sure we influenced that in some way because we buy her a lot of pink clothes. We don’t do it on purpose, I think it has more to do with what’s available than with what we would prefer for her to wear. I don’t think we have a preference for what color she wears.

I also have a five year old little boy who up until a few weeks ago refused to use the pink plates, cups, and bowls because “Pink is a girl color.”

Now, I don’t think those words have ever come out of my mouth, and I definitely do not feel that way. I am pretty sure he came to that conclusion on his own. He is very aware that there is a significant and inherent difference between girls and boys, and he knows that his little sister is very much a girl (a fact she, at three years old, is also acutely aware of). I think he just put two and two together – J wears pink, J is a girl, therefore pink must be a girl color.

Every time he says “Pink is a girl color.” We say, “Pink is a great color. Boys can use pink things. Boys can even wear pink clothes!” or something of the sort.

I think it has started paying off. A few weeks ago my son picked a pink cup out of the drawer for his drink and proudly proclaimed, “I’m going to pick the pink cup!” It was as if he had realized how silly he was being for refusing to use pink dishes and was pleased with himself for being man enough to pick the pink cup. He also has a best (boy) friend whose favorite colors are pink and purple, and I think the exposure to his friend has helped, too.

On Sunday night my husband and I were having a great conversation about various topics, including gender roles and homosexuality. We were talking about the stereotype that men who like “girl things” must be gay. There is a term I have been hearing a lot lately -

ef·fem·i·nate    /iˈfemənit/

Adjective:   derogatory. (of a man) Having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.

I am glad that this definition points out that it is a derogatory term. But I have seen people use it who were simply using it to describe how they are (in a non derogatory way). In fact, most recently was in a post by Josh Weed, a gay Mormon who is married to a woman and came out on his blog a few days ago. He said (emphasis is mine)

*Why did a girl ask me that question in junior high? Because a bully actively spread a rumor around the entire school that I was a “woman trapped in a man’s body.” This was unbelievably horrific and traumatizing, and I was harassed every single day about it, often by perfect strangers. I was more effeminate, played the violin, didn’t play sports, was never interested in girls and didn’t hang out with guys, and so people glommed onto that rumor and ruthlessly harassed me for the entire year, culminating in a yearbook filled with breathtakingly insensitive taunts. Being the gay kid is really, really hard in junior high. If you know a gay kid in junior high, give them a hug and tell them you love them. I assure you they could use it.

I was startled when I read that he described himself as effeminate, because he was LDS, and the gospel doesn’t really support the stereotypical gender roles of the world. The gospel, in fact, encourages all men to be “effeminate” – submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, etc. (Please note that I am fully aware of the fact that there is a difference between the gospel and the Church, and there is an even bigger difference between the gospel of Jesus Christ and Church culture).

The Wikipedia article for “Effeminacy” states

Effeminacy describes traits in a human male, that are more often associated with traditional feminine nature, behavior, mannerisms, style or gender roles rather than masculine nature, behavior, mannerisms, style or roles.

It is a term frequently applied to womanly behavior, demeanor, style and appearance displayed by a male, typically used implying criticism or ridicule of this behavior (as opposed to, for example, merely describing a male as feminine, which is non-judgmental). The term effeminate is most often used by people who subscribe to the conventional view that males should conform to traditional masculine traits and behaviors.

I acknowledge that this term can be used non-derogatorily and that it gets the point across when you are describing a man who, by the world’s standards, does “girly” things or is “girly”. But, notice that the article also mentions that “merely describing a male as feminine … is non-judgmental”. I think that both descriptions of men are judgmental and offensive.

I think that the world’s (and members of the Church’s) gender stereotypes are hogwash. Malarkey.

In a previous post about gender I mentioned that the Church’s Parent’s Guide is a great resource to help us understand that our divine gender identity is not founded on the world’s stereotypes of what men and women should act like.

There are many patterns of behavior that are appropriate for all people. Everyone, male and female, is invited to examine the character of Jesus Christ and emulate him … Among the traits Christ revealed as proper for men and women alike are faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, kindness, godliness, humility, diligence, and love. These virtues transcend gender. They are Christlike attributes to which both sexes should aspire … Spiritual gifts, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 46, are not restricted to one gender either. Included are gifts of knowledge, belief, administration, organization, healing, and discernment.

You should provide opportunities for your children to develop talents in various directions unhindered by improper stereotypes … Teach your daughters and your sons to seek opportunities to learn and to exploit every such opportunity fully … Boys must learn basic domestic skills, and girls must be able to earn a living if necessary. (emphasis mine)

We should be and should raise our children to be unhindered by improper stereotypes. I believe these improper stereotypes are a way that Satan confuses us about our divine gender identity. Either he tells us that “gender doesn’t matter” and we can “choose” our gender identity, or, using the stereotypes, Satan would have us believe that if a man “acts like a girl” or a girl “acts like a man” they must be homosexual, or they must not really be a man or a woman – as if how a person acts somehow changes who they actually are. Even someone who lives contrary to the commandments of God can never change the fact that they are, indeed, a child of God.

As parents I think that we have a very significant role in shaping our children’s perspective of what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman. I am still figuring out exactly what it means to be a woman, but I can tell you that I know what being a man/being a woman doesn’t mean.

Being a man does not mean being able to change a tire, having huge muscles, being able to bench your weight (or more than it). It does not mean being able to “take someone” in a fight. It definitely does not mean “controlling your woman” or being “in charge” at your house and in your family in an unrighteous-dominion kind of way. It absolutely does not mean loving football (or any sport for that matter), or not ever crying, or being able to “take it” (physical OR emotional pain). It in no way means that you have to ignore your children, that you can never sing a lullaby, or kiss a boo-boo. It does not mean that you cannot be in a play, do ballet, play the flute, or paint.

Being a woman does not mean that you are tender hearted and sweet. It does not mean that you adore children and babies. It doesn’t mean that you like the color pink or purple or some variation of the two. It definitely doesn’t mean that you like scrapbooking, or that you like to cook, or clean, or blog. It absolutely does not mean that you “submit” to every thing your husband ever wants you to do. It in no way means that you can’t like monster truck rallies, the rodeo, or fixing cars. It does not mean that you keep out of the wood shop and stay in the kitchen. It in no way means that you can’t play the tuba or the double bass or sing tenor. It doesn’t mean you have to wear makeup or a dress or never have a job or not get an education. There is nothing about being a woman that says you can’t clean 200 lbs or bench more than your own weight. Being a woman does not mean that you cry over every sad movie or love story. It doesn’t even mean you like love stories.

Manhood and womanhood are not defined in these ways. Right now I can’t tell you exactly what defines manhood and womanhood, but I am absolutely certain that it isn’t those things.

All of the things I mentioned are characteristics, personality traits, and hobbies that are not gender specific, no matter how badly the world wants to claim they are. There is nothing innately feminine about being meek and submissive or crying. There is nothing innately manly about being strong and charismatic or fighting. Nor do those things make you a man or a woman. In fact, except in very rare and extreme circumstances, the only thing that really does make you a man or woman is the second chromosome in your body.

There are Christ-like characteristics and there are non-Christ-like characteristics. We should all, men and women, be seeking to develop Christ-like qualities. We should not make men feel like “less of a man” because they are developing those qualities, or make women feel less womanly because they don’t innately have Christ-like qualities.

What improper gender stereotypes do you see around you? Were improper stereotypes embraced in your family? In your ward? By your friends? What problems do you see developing from gender stereotyping?

Women and the Priesthood

There seems to be a big conflict about women and the priesthood. A lot of women (and men) seem to think it is the same as the ban on blacks having the priesthood. They are waiting for a revelation that will extend the priesthood to all women, as well as men.

I don’t think this will ever happen. Not because I don’t think women won’t or shouldn’t have the priesthood. I don’t think it will ever happen because women already possess every power of the priesthood, and are not excluded from priesthood service. And because the women are already organized after the pattern of the priesthood, and all we need to do is wake up and fulfill our potential that has already been given us.

Women have Priesthood Power

In a post at By Common Consent a few months ago, the post author pointed out that ordination to a priesthood office does not necessarily mean the priesthood “holder” has any kind of priesthood power.

So if ordination to priesthood office does not give someone priesthood power, then what does?

When a man (or a woman) enters the waters of baptism and receives the gift of the Holy Ghost, they are entitled to priesthood power from those gifts (repentance and revelation) based on their worthiness. In the temple, women are endowed with all the same gifts and powers as a man. There is not separate ceremony for men, there is no separate blessing. Both men and women have the same blessings given to them in the temple. These powers and blessings are also contingent on their worthiness.

So how do we get priesthood power? By our worthiness.

In a Mormon Channel episode, Sister Julie B. Beck said,

I think that there is a great confusion about this, and some of it came about through the sifting of the scriptures and when plain and precious things were removed from the scriptures, but there is confusion about priesthood and how we talk about it…sometimes [we imply] that the men who hold the priesthood are the priesthood… [but] the priesthood is the power of God… it is His power… and in His plan He has give certain responsibilities to men and to women to utilize that power he’s made available to bless His children. Some of that power comes to us through the gifts and blessings of the priesthood…some of that power comes to us through ordinances. For instance, when we are baptized and given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Everybody gets that power if they’re worthy… that is God’s power speaking to us through the power of revelation... There are authorizations to perform ordinances.

Sometimes we say “Well, the men have it and the women don’t.” I hear that argument a lot. That isn’t even the right question. The question we should be having in our lives is “How can I access every ordinance that’s available to me to walk back to my Heavenly Father. How can I access the gifts and the blessings he’s made available to every one of His children.” And those blessings and ordinances are not gender specific, those saving ordnances that will exalt us. Now, men have been given the assignment to hold in trust the priesthood. To really understand this you would have to do a study of the family of Abraham and go all the way back to Adam and “Why did the the Lord give Adam to give the Priesthood to hold in trust?” It was so that every child of Adam’s family would have access to the ordinances that would save them. That was Adam’s assignment. To hold in trust that authority to perform those ordinances to bless his family. Now Eve was his sealed wife. That was a priesthood ordinance that sealed them. So the power of that ordinance was effective in her life. She also had assignments in her family. To teach her children, to nurture her children, to create the life of that child. And by whose power does that happen? That is God’s power. Women don’t need to be ordained to an office to perform that… The Lord can bless us in many many ways through the gifts of the priesthood…

This is Satan's way of confusing all of us, so that the men don’t understand what they have and value it, and the women don’t understand what they have and value it, and that neither values what the other has. If we can get into a polarizing, combative frame of mind then neither of us values really what the Lord has blessed us with in His priesthood.

This polarizing, combative frame of mind is what I see all around in the discussion about women and the priesthood. Why? Because Satan wants to confuse us so that none of us can enjoy the blessings of the power of God. I wish that we could get beyond this frame of mind and open up a real dialogue about how women can use the power of the priesthood in their lives and to bless the lives of others (which, really, when we get right down to it is the purpose of the priesthood – to bless the lives of others).

Priesthood Organization and Authority

Women will (and do and have) absolutely perform(ed) priesthood ordinances. In the post at By Common Consent a commenter suggested that women perform ordinances in the temple for “practical” reasons. I do not think that is so.

In the most recent (April 2012) General Conference, Sister Julie B. Beck echoed President Spencer W. Kimball’s call for the sisters of the Church to “catch the vision of Relief Society.” In a BYU Devotional address earlier in 2012, Sister Beck said that the Relief Society is like a priesthood quorum. “A priesthood quorum is a group of men with the same office of priesthood who are to perform a special labor.” The prophet Joseph Smith
“organiz[ed] the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood.” The Relief Society, then, is a priesthood quorum for women. Sister Beck quoted a talk given by President Boyd K. Packer about quorums, stating that the words “quorum vos unum” mean “of whom we will that you be one”. She then said, “The word society has a meaning nearly identical to that of quorum. It connotes “an enduring and cooperating … group” distinguished by its commons aims and beliefs.”

Sister Beck went on to point out all the patterns of the priesthood that include women as well, such as the calling of Relief Society presidencies, sustaining our Relief Society leaders and teachers, receiving personal revelation over our stewardships, among other patterns.

When will we, as sisters of the Church, realize that our Relief Society is part of the priesthood? The Church was not fully organized until the Relief Society was formed in the pattern of the priesthood.

Equal Partners with Different Responsibilities

By divine design, men and women have different roles – both in the family and in the Church. This does not mean that we are not equal (different =/= unequal). It does not mean that men are somehow “over” women. “By divine design, [the brethren] are to preside over [the Church] in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for [the Church]. [The sisters of the Church] are primarily responsible for the nurture of [the members of the Church]. In these sacred responsibilities, [brethren and sisters] are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World – edited to apply to the Church broadly) If the purpose of the Church is to strengthen home and family then it makes sense that the Church is patterned after the family. The basic unit of the Church is not actually the ward, it is the family. So here we have it – men have different roles in the Church than women do. But, they “are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” So just as fathers are to preside in their families in love and righteousness, men are supposed to preside in the Church in love and righteousness.

Some questions to think about that may help this be more clear: Should men have wombs and carry children just as women do? Should Adam and Eve both simultaneously partaken of the fruit of the tree, rather than Even partaking first, then offering to Adam? Should there have been a male and a female Christ?

Could mortality be possible with out Eve (female)? Could immortality be possible without Christ (male)? Is one more significant than the other? Was Eve’s act any less noble, any less vital to our eternal salvation?

A Woman’s Right

It is a woman’s right to posses and exercise every power of the priesthood (based on her worthiness). The roles in exercising that power are different from men and women, but the power is the same. I do not feel any less significant in God’s plan for being a woman, nor do I feel that the doctrines (or policies) for the Church demean me as a woman. In fact, I feel that they empower me.

I feel like this is what Sister Beck has been trying to drill into our stubborn woman brains the past several years – that women have so much more potential than we even recognize. That women spend so much time worrying about why women aren’t ordained to priesthood offices they are wasting precious time they could be using to perform the priesthood duties they have already been given. Why are we sitting around arguing and complaining about why women “don’t have the priesthood” when we know and can be taught by the gospel of Jesus Christ and by His Holy Spirit that we indeed do have every blessing and power of the priesthood, that we, as women, are organized after the pattern of the priesthood? Why don’t we get up and go to work, exercising the priesthood power that is ours to exercise, doing good in God’s kingdom in the way we are called to?

Let us rise up and catch the vision of Relief Society and be the women God wants us to be.

Equality and the War on Gender

I went through a few different titles for this post, thinking about what I was going to write: Women and the Priesthood, Women and Equality, Culture vs Doctrine, Feminist or Disciple of Christ? I hope this title describes the post accurately.

My mind has been really full lately. This post, I think, is really just me trying to sort out all those thoughts.

I am not sure what piqued my interest in the Mormon feminist movement, but I am pretty sure it had something to do with all the talk about Joanna Brooks’ book and Ralph Hancock’s responses and critiques of the book. It may have been a post I read on Segullah about the “war on womanhood”. Regardless, a few months ago I started doing a lot of thinking about equality, gender, and the doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I also started thinking about the way women (and men) in the Church seem to misunderstand the fundamental doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Manhood/Womanhood vs Discipleship

A commenter on the Segullah post said, “I don’t think in terms of womanhood and manhood. We are all children of God with eternal potential. There is nothing uniquely female about the godly characteristics I am asked to develop.” I agree with this in a major way. In the Church’s handbook for parents there is a section that talks about teaching children to accept and understand their gender roles. If you are unfamiliar with the A Parent’s Guide, I will point out that it was published in 1985 and has not been revised since. When I read this section yesterday I was fully expecting to read about how the Church encourages stereotypical gender roles, such as cooking and cleaning for women, and college and job skills for men. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Church has been teaching equality of the genders at least since the mid-80s, but obviously the doctrine of Jesus Christ has been around for longer than that, and as “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33), this doctrine of equality has been part of the gospel since before any women’s movements.

A quote from the book that supports the commenter at Segullah says, “There are many patterns of behavior that are appropriate for all people. Everyone, male and female, is invited to examine the character of Jesus Christ and emulate him … Among the traits Christ revealed as proper for men and women alike are faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, kindness, godliness, humility, diligence, and love. These virtues transcend gender. They are Christlike attributes to which both sexes should aspire … Spiritual gifts, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 46, are not restricted to one gender either. Included are gifts of knowledge, belief, administration, organization, healing, and discernment.” There is more of the same through the section, including statements such as, “You should provide opportunities for your children to develop talents in various directions unhindered by improper stereotypes … Teach your daughters and your sons to seek opportunities to learn and to exploit every such opportunity fully … Boys must learn basic domestic skills, and girls must be able to earn a living if necessary.”

Gender as an Eternal Characteristic

However, the same guide says, “members of the Church must not be deceived about one immutable truth: there is eternal significance in being a man or a woman.” And recall that in The Family: A Proclamation to the World it states, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” So, if gender is so important, but each gender is equally expected (by Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father) to develop all of the characteristics of Christ (many of which, ironically, are “naturally” attribute to women) and any of the spiritual gifts available to God’s children, then what is the difference between the genders?

The same commenter at Segullah pointed out this problem we often encounter in trying to learn and teach about the significance of gender, “Our efforts to teach women of their spiritual equality often overreach into expressions of otherness, specialness, or even betterness [than men]. If we truly believed we were equal in God’s eyes we wouldn’t need to find ways to feel set apart or special.”

So, how do you teach the importance of gender and identity while staying away from expressions of “otherness” and “betterness”?

When Equality Gets in the Way

Equality is a hard principle. What does it really mean? Does equality mean that we should all be the same? Does it mean that everyone should have the exact some opportunities in this life? Does it mean that we should all be treated the exact same? Children should be treated like adults, young adults should be treated like mature adults, the elderly should be treated like young adults?

What does equality really mean? What do we really want when we say we want “equality for women”?

Men today are pressured to be worldly. They are pressured to neglect their families for their jobs, often using their families as an excuse for how much they work. They are pressured to provide the luxuries of the world for their families.

Image Credit: Alex E. Proimos

Families are used by the world as an excuse for men to focus on their jobs and careers, rather than focus on their family. It seems like the opinion of women is, “Why do we only pressure men to be worldly? I want pressure to be worldly, too!” That’s not what they say, but think about it – as women we are not fighting for men to come home, man up, and protect and lead their families. Instead we are fighting for women to be pressured to do more outside the home. We want equality, but we want it in the wrong direction. We are sick of the stereotype of women being housewives and staying at home and doing the laundry while our husbands are out smoking cigars and going to bars with their coworkers and bosses. Should we instead be sick of the stereotype of men being workaholics, spending more time pursuing their careers than spending time with their families?

Is our fight for equality perhaps pushing all of us in the wrong direction?

Manhood/Womanhood and Discipleship

Although there are cultural stereotypes for gender roles which, as members of Christ’s Church we should not espouse, gender is still a significant part of our creation.

In the world today I think that some would like to remove all distinction between the genders. In fact, we are moving at an alarming rate toward a society where you can choose your gender. You can choose to marry someone of the same gender, as if there isn’t a reason why we were created male and female. It was just chance, or it was a mistake nature or God made. If you don’t like it, don’t be that gender, don’t follow the “gender roles” of that gender (and I don’t mean the stereotypical ones here, I mean the we-need-a-man’s-reproductive-organs-and-a-woman’s-reproductive-organs-to-make-babies roles).

Why would we be created the way we are if there wasn’t a reason for it? There is a reason for it. Gender is essential to our identity as children of God. I am just still learning exactly what that means.

From the proclamation again, “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.”

What does this really mean, though? I do not think it means what a lot of people think it means. I do not think it means that men or women are necessarily more naturally inclined to perform their divinely appointed roles. I take this as more of a commandment. Rather than God saying, “Women, you are more naturally predisposed to nurturing, so you guys nurture. Men, you are more predisposed to protecting your families and earning a living, so you guys do that.” I think what God is saying is more like, “Regardless of what your ‘natural’ tendencies are, I want you, women, to nurture children. Men, I want you to provide a safe environment for women to do that, and make sure women and children are clothed and fed and sheltered, and help her out in the nurturing.”

My husband and I have talked at length about this. As far as providing for a family goes, I could make probably two or three times my husband’s income. But my husband has been commanded to provide for his family, and we feel that it is really important for him to do that. Staying home with kids and being nurturing is hard for me, even though I know a lot about raising kids (from a research stand point – not from experience). I can deal with workplace stress a lot easier than I can deal with children-induced stress. But we feel that it is really important that I learn how to nurture our children, even though I would rather provide for our family than nurture our family, and my husband would rather have it be that way, too.

I am aware that there are individual circumstances, but as with every other area in the gospel where there is an “ideal” we should not be looking for reasons to not live the ideal. Nor should we judge others who are not living the ideal for whatever reason.

Questions Without Answers

I’ve been asking a lot of questions in the past few months, and I don’t have all the answers yet – and I was hoping that I would have more answers as I wrote this post, but they seem to elude me. Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings, and especially quotes from talks or scripture passages that help you answer these questions. Maybe I can find some more answers, too.

GCBC Week 2: “And a Little Child Shall Lead Them” by President Boyd K. Packer

First off, a big thank you to those who came and participated in GCBC Week 1 last week. I imagine I should have expected all the participation, but I didn’t. My humble little blog has always been just that – humble. I didn’t have any big plans for it. I really just wanted a place to write down all the stuff I didn’t get to say in Gospel Doctrine class and in Relief Society.

Also, Happy Easter! I hope all of you have been able to enjoy this Easter Sunday and ponder on the meaning of the Savior’s atonement, death, and resurrection for all of us, and for you personally. If you haven’t discovered the Bible Videos from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you should – you can find them here. Last night I watched the videos that portray the Savior’s final week to get me in the mood for Easter Sunday. They were really powerful.

The general consensus for the order in which to proceed with GCBC is to go through the talks in chronological order. So we will more or less go in chronological order. I have doubled up some of the shorter talks so that we can also study the talks from the Priesthood session (since that was the only time Elder Bednar spoke, and I really love his talks) and possibly President Monson’s talk from the Young Women’s broadcast. I have posted a tentative schedule here, so let me know what you think.

“And a Little Child Shall Lead Them” - President Boyd K. Packer

“The creation of life is a great responsibility for a married couple. It is the challenge of mortality to be a worthy and responsible parent. Neither man nor woman can bear children alone. It was meant that children have two parents—both a father and a mother. No other pattern or process can replace this one…

The ultimate end of all activity in the Church is to see a husband and his wife and their children happy at home, protected by the principles and laws of the gospel, sealed safely in the covenants of the everlasting priesthood. Husbands and wives should understand that their first calling—from which they will never be released—is to one another and then to their children.”

A friend of mine from the BYU married student ward we attended eons (read: about 5 years) ago wrote this while they were going through adoption training:

Here's a question for you, are a worthy husband and wife entitled to have children? I kind of thought so, and I know Nick did because when we were asked this at training he said yes out loud! Well, it's not a crazy thought: if people live righteously and are married in the right place, they should be able to have children right? Wrong! The only place the word entitled is mentioned in any church document is in the Proclamation on the Family where it says "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." The entire reason the church offers this program and seriously subsidizes the cost of adoption is for the children, and their rights to be in a good family, not because the parents have any right at all to having children.

As a fertile, child-bearing woman this changed my perspective probably as much as it did hers. I suddenly saw that these children in my home were entitled (what a powerful word!) to “birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” I have a solemn responsibility to be a righteous mother to my children, because they are entitled to have righteous parents.

What were some truths about families and children that struck you in this talk?

“Be Men”

Book of Mormon Papers - a series of posts
containing papers I wrote for a
BYU Religion class my freshman year of college.

(Note: This is one of my favorite papers. Ever since I found out my first son would be a boy I have fretted over how to teach him to be a man. What does it even mean to be a man? Our society has such twisted ideas on what makes a “man” – they don’t usually include being a worthy priesthood holder, serving others, obeying God, and protecting your family. The world is more likely to see a “man” as someone who is “buff”, someone who can “get the ladies” and someone who does whatever he wants to, without regard for anyone else’s needs or feelings. The Lord’s way is not our way (Isaiah 55:9), and is definitely not society’s way. Let’s teach our sons to be men. Godly men.)

Lehi and his family traveled for many years in the wilderness. Near the end of Lehi’s life, he spoke to all of his sons and gave them words of wisdom and admonishment. Lehi spoke to Laman and Lemuel and counseled his sons to be men. What did Lehi mean when he gave his sons this counsel, and how can this counsel be applied to how one lives in today’s world? When Lehi gave this counsel to his sons, he was encouraging them to be strong in the faith and stay true to the gospel of Jesus Christ so that they would be able to receive eternal life and live with their families in glory for eternity. Men and women today can take the same counsel to heart if they desire the blessings promised to those who become men or women of Zion.

Lehi was concerned about the spiritual welfare of his sons, which is seen throughout his life as recorded by Nephi. Along with his father, Nephi tried several times to convince his brothers of the truthfulness and necessity of accepting the gospel. Throughout their journeys in the wilderness, Laman and Lemuel rarely showed the qualities of manhood which were desired of them by their father. Lehi showed his great concern for his sons when he instructed them to “arise out of the dust… and by men, and be determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity.” The dying prophet was trying to get his sons to understand what qualities would make them part of Zion – by being “of one heart and one mind, and [dwelling] in righteousness.”(Moses 7:18) To Lehi, being a man meant possessing and developing the qualities of Zion.

Other fathers also counseled their sons to “be men.”(2 Nephi 1:21) On his deathbed, King David of the Old Testament pleaded with Solomon, “Shew thyself a man.”(1 Kings 2:2) David had the same ideas as Lehi on what would make his son a man. A son could become a man if he would “keep charge of the Lord thy God, to walk his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies.”(1 Kings 2:3) These qualities also can be included in the list of those that build Zion.

Laman and Lemuel were further instructed by their father to “put on the armor of righteousness”(2 Nephi 1:23) to escape the chains of Satan. This instruction is explained more fully in Lehi’s discourse to Jacob, his firstborn in the wilderness. Lehi teaches his family, or rather reminds them, of the plan of salvation and the law of the atonement and the Messiah, whereby men are justified. It is by observing the commandments of Christ that Lehi encouraged his sons to be men, and the commandments of Christ begin with the atonement and salvation through Him.

Lehi desired that his sons become men, just as the Father desires that all of His children become men and women, heirs to celestial thrones. Therefore, mankind must “stand fast in the faith… [and] be strong”(1 Corinthians 16:13) and “be of good courage”(2 Samuel 10:12) and be steadfast in keeping the commandments of the Lord. Mankind must choose to heed the counsel of Lehi and other fathers, including that of the Eternal Father, and be determined, be of Zion, “be men.”

How are you teaching your sons to be men, and your daughters to be women? Are we men and women of God? Are we courageous in keeping the commandments – a mark of true manhood and womanhood?

If you haven’t seen the movie Courageous, I can’t recommend it enough! It is an excellent movie, which testifies of the importance of fathers who are godly men, and also testifies of the redeeming power of the Savior’s atonement. Go watch it. You won’t regret it, I promise. It’s even action packed enough to keep your husband’s awake! Here’s the trailer if you need more convincing:

Children are hard - So don’t have any

A friend of mine shared a “funny” video the other day. If you want to watch it without having it spoiled, hurry and click on the link. If you don’t have a desire to watch it, read on.

The video opens with a young father and his son (probably 6 or 7?) at a grocery store. The young son takes some cereal off the shelf and puts it in the cart. The father picks it up and deliberately puts it back, and thus ensues a little “take it out, put it back” war between father and son. Suddenly, after the father puts it back again, the young boy starts throwing a tantrum, screaming, throwing things off the shelves, lying on the floor screaming and hitting the floor, all while the bystanders watch in displeasure and seem to give the young father one of “those” looks (if you’ve ever been in the grocery store with a screaming child, you know what I’m talking about). You notice (or maybe you don’t, but I did) that there are only adults (and most of them older – think 40s+) and none of them have children (of any age) with them. The commercial ends with a close up of the young father’s face and a message at the bottom: “Wear condoms.”

Now, while the irony of the video might be somewhat funny, I found the message to be in poor taste, and exactly what Elder Neil A. Andersen was illustrating in his talk from General Conference about children and how the world views them as a lower priority than anything. The message I observed in the video was this, “Children are hard work, so make sure you don’t have any.”

The video is in another language with subtitles (I think French?) and I thought that a commercial like this would probably not fly in the United States. Fortunately we have enough mothers who aggressively defend motherhood (like Rachel Jankovic) in the United States that I think there would be some really negative backlash to a commercial like this being aired in the United States. But in Europe, where families values have eroded so much that some countries are trying to get more men to be teachers so that children will have positive male role models (what happened to fathers?!) I thought this commercial was probably very well received.

I thought the message in the commercial might have been more “don’t have kids if you’re not ready to have kids” if there had been other, well-behaved children in the commercial. But in the commercial you will notice a blatant lack of children. So that leads me to believe that the marketers weren’t just targeting people who might not be emotionally, mentally, physically, or financially prepared to have children. Since the only child in the entire commercial was acting like a monster (while the father simply stands by and “lets” him throw the fit – a conversation for another day) – which even well-behaved children will do sometimes – there was no other conclusion to draw other than that the marketers view all children as trials and burdens which we should protect ourselves from  by wearing condoms (or using another form of birth control – don’t worry, I am not knocking birth control here – there is a time and place for that, too).

I know this sounds a little harsh, and maybe I am off – maybe the marketers really were saying “If you’re not ready to have kids, wait until you are.” What did you think?

PS – I included a few pictures of my two year old during some of her tantrums. (which happen quite frequently… because she is two) so you would know that I don’t think my children are always perfect. I wanted to be fair and include pictures of my four year old, but either he doesn’t throw tantrums as often as she does, or he just makes sure he isn’t throwing tantrums while we are taking pictures. Either way – parenting is hard, children are hard – mine throw tantrums all the time. But it is by far the most important thing we can ever do.

What message did you see in the commercial? Do you think the commercial illustrates, at least somewhat, the lower priority most people in the world give to having and raising successful children? Or do you think it is simply a harmless message?

Children

(find the talk here)

“In the most beloved story of a baby’s birth,
there was no decorated nursery or designer crib –
only a manger for the Savior of the world.”

I have been thinking a lot about Elder Neil L. Andersen’s talk since General Conference. When I was a teenager, I thought a lot about being a mother. It was really all I wanted to be. I dreamed of having a house full of kids. Mothering children has always been on my mind.

The thing about having children (in God’s way, at least) is that it isn’t a one-person decision. I don’t get to just decide to have kids, or not to have kids – it is a decision I have to make with my husband, “with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith.”

There are many women in today’s world who want to have children and raise them as a single mother. They don’t see anything wrong with that. I see a lot wrong with that.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World states, “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” When single women decide to bear and raise children by themselves, they are teaching those children the complete opposite. Sure, it’s hard to be married, and it is hard to compromise and maybe not do things exactly the way you want to, or the way you think is right. But that is where children belong – with a mother and a father who are trying to work together, to be unified. They may not always be perfect, but children are entitled to being raised with a father and a mother who are trying to make things work.

Unity in marriage is another post entirely, but there needs to be unity in marriage for the decision of bearing children – obviously, since neither a man nor a woman can biologically have children without the other. Which means that the choice to have children rests with both the husband and the wife.

Just as the world has succumbed to Satan’s lie that it’s okay for single, unmarried women to raise children on their own (I’m not talking about women who get pregnant from a dumb decision, or a mistake – I’m talking about women who purposefully get pregnant while they are single because they don’t want to get married, yet they want to have children. I am also not talking about women who would get married in a heart beat, but want to raise children and so they adopt or foster as a single woman – those women are to be praised for their courage), Elder Andersen says, “Many voices in the world today marginalize the importance of having children or suggest delaying or limiting children in a family.” I have thought of this a lot – if there is no reason you shouldn’t have more children (you don’t have a job, your health won’t permit bearing children, you are physically unable to bear children, etc – and even in some of these cases, people will bear children), then why shouldn’t you bear children? The world will tell you ___ number of children is enough. I have a boy and a girl, and I can’t tell you how many times the world has told me, “Oh, you have a boy and a girl, that’s perfect, you can be ‘done’ having kids!” What a horrible lie. Sure, I enjoy my boy and my girl, but I have never once thought that I was going to be “done” after two children – regardless of their genders! What a crazy lie the world would have us believe.

I love when the prophets and apostles quote other good Christians at General Conference. Frequently quoted are C.S. Lewis, Charles Dickens (best of times, worst of times), and William Wordsworth, but Elder Andersen actually quoted a contemporary Christian blogger, Rachel Jankovic. I almost fell over backwards when I heard him quote her, and then after conference I had to go look her up. Of course, her quote is now being spread around the internet attributed to Elder Andersen (if you spread her quote, please give her credit). The entire blog post she wrote was very powerful. The part Elder Andersen quoted was this

Motherhood is not a hobby, it is a calling. You do not collect children because you find them cuter than stamps. It is not something to do if you can squeeze the time in. It is what God gave you time for."

Part of me wonders what Rachel thinks of being quoted from the pulpit at LDS General Conference. I took the time to read her entire post that this quote was taken from, and it was excellent. I decided today to go buy her book, Loving the Little Years. That sentiment reminds me of a quote from President Monson in General Conference of October 2008 where he said, “If you are still in the process of raising children, be aware that the tiny fingerprints that show up on almost every newly cleaned surface, the toys scattered about the house, the piles and piles of laundry to be tackled will disappear all too soon and that you will—to your surprise—miss them profoundly.”

The other day I came in to my bedroom where I had laid our two and a half year old to sleep on our bed. She was asleep – next to my journal and my economy Book of Mormon. When I opened up my journal, I noticed she had scribbled on a few pages and on the inside covers. I expected to get upset (my journal is very precious to me) and then I thought about reading through that journal when my little J is grown up and independent and doesn’t need me to snuggle her and put her down for naps anymore. And I thought what a beautiful reminder that scribble in my journal will be of the innocence of her childhood, and the precious child that grew up under my care.

I enjoyed the story Elder Andersen told about Elder Mason’s talk with President Spencer W. Kimball. President Kimball asked Elder Mason “Where is your faith?” When I first heard that story, and that question, I thought differently about it than I do right now. At first I thought that I didn’t have enough faith and that is why we aren’t expecting a third child yet. But now I am realizing that the Lord wants me to have faith that all my righteous desires will be realized. I need to have faith that I will have all those children my heart desires to have. And I don’t need to be bitter because I won’t have what I want right now.

I was particularly pleased that Elder Andersen reminded us not once, but twice “we should not judge one another on this matter… we should not be judgmental with one another in this sacred and private responsibility.” I think that goes both ways – we should not judge people who do not have children yet, and we should not judge people who choose to have many children, even though it may seem that they have “too many” children. It is a very personal decision, and one made between a couple and the Lord.

How have you had to have faith when it comes to bearing children? Do you think there are things that you need to do before you have children? Are children highest on your list of priorities? Do you cherish each child the Lord places into your family?

Find more insight on this talk over at
Diapers and Divinity’s General Conference Book Club

Being Mormon – the Priesthood in the Family

(read the handbook of instruction here)

One of perhaps the most misunderstood principles of the Gospel (both outside and inside the LDS Church) is that of the priesthood and patriarchal leadership. I have to admit, until I attended a class at BYU Campus Education Week back in August, I didn’t really completely understand it either.

We believe that the father (hopefully a Melchizedek Priesthood holder) “presides in righteousness and love, serving as the family’s spiritual leader. He leads the family in regular prayer, scripture study, and family home evening.” We call this the “patriarchal order” and some people have a hard time with it.

First, let me talk about the priesthood. When a young man turns 12, he is ordained to the Aaronic (or “preparatory”) priesthood. Basically this priesthood is teaching young men how to be worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders. As a young man grows up, and as his knowledge increases, and as he remains worthy, he is ordained to each additional office of the Aaronic priesthood – a teacher, at fourteen; and a priest, at sixteen. When he turns eighteen, with plans of serving a full time mission, his ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood in the office of an Elder – now ready to preach the gospel to the world, and to ordain others to the priesthood (as authorized by Church leaders).

One of the biggest hang ups that some people have about men holding the Priesthood is just that – it’s men who hold the Priesthood. Many people (inside and outside the Church) assume that means that the LDS Church is a chauvinistic, man-run organization. That men get to tell the women what’s up, and that women are somehow inferior to men.

Not so.

First let me quote from The Family: A Proclamation to the World: “In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” (emphasis added) So, if men and woman are “equal partners” then why don’t women have the priesthood? The short answer is that they do have the priesthood (or at least all the power of the priesthood). By the Holy Ghost, which is received at baptism, women have all the power of the priesthood within them that men have. (see D&C 84: 64-68)

Many gospel principles come in pairs, and if you take them out of their pairs, they get all messed up. Take faith and works – by faith we are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ, but faith without works is dead. We need both. Again, justice and mercy – we don’t need mercy if there wasn’t justice that needed to be satisfied, and we couldn’t satisfy justice without mercy (and still return to Heavenly Father) because we are all so imperfect. When we look at gospel principles as a whole, things make so much more sense.

So, we have the doctrine of patriarchal order in the Church – the Priesthood holder (a man) is the spiritual leader (notice I said spiritual – and it pretty well stops there). But we also have a very important doctrine that men and women are complete equals as well. President Howard W. Hunter said, “A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto.” Women have full participation in all the decisions a man could make when it comes to the leadership of the home. The way our instructor at Education Week described it was the husband and wife are co-presidents, rather than the man “president” of the home and the wife “vice-president” – they are co-presidents, each holding equal veto power for all decisions, and making all decisions together. Being a little more stern, President Hunter continued, “For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion.” So this principle of equality between man and woman is actually very significant and important. A husband is not the “head” of the family – he presides over the family – and it is a spiritual presiding.

What does that mean? What does it mean to preside spiritually over something?

Let’s look to the life of the Savior. The Savior is the spiritual leader of everything. He’s basically the end-all,  be-all of spiritual leadership – and rightly so, since it is His Church. But how did the Savior lead? He blessed children, He healed people, He washed His disciples feet. “

He led by serving.

And so it is with the priesthood. There is something significant about the priesthood, and that is the priesthood can never be used for personal benefit. A man who holds priesthood cannot give himself a blessing – he has to ask another priesthood holder for that blessing. And another significant principle of the priesthood is that every woman on the earth has available to her every blessing of the priesthood. What’s that you say? Every blessing. There is nothing a man can receive that a woman cannot receive – including blessings of the priesthood. In the same talk, President Howard W. Hunter said, “Of necessity there must be in the Church and in the home a presiding officer.” That presiding officer comes from the priesthood – but remember, the presiding officer is really the serving officer. Basically, then, a man is given the priesthood of God so that he will serve. Serve his family, serve the Church, serve God, serve others.

So the priesthood calling and authority is really just a calling to serve – and women have that same calling and authority, just no formal ordination to the priesthood – however, we are entitled to the power and blessings of the priesthood. There is nothing keeping us from anything the priesthood has to offer. President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority.  Authority and Priesthood are two different things.  A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord.”

To better understand this concept – that no blessing or power of the priesthood is withheld from women – I recommend an article written by Heather at Women in the Scriptures about the history of Relief Society sisters blessing each other. It is a really interesting article, and very enlightening. I want to share part of a scripture that she quoted.

"Therefore, as I said unto my apostles I say unto you again, that every soul who beleiveth on your words, and is baptized by water for the remission of sins, shall receive the Holy Ghost. And these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name they shall do many wonderful works; In my name they shall cast out devils; In my name they shall heal the sick...." (D&C 84: 64-68)

From Heather’s post, she said “The gift to heal is a gift given to all the followers of Christ, male and female. Women in the early days of the church often participated in healing as demonstrations of faith… Women who gave blessings never claimed priesthood power but always closed their blessings in the name of Jesus Christ.” And that “Joseph Smith clarified that women had the gift to heal and administer because of their faith and not because of their priesthood authority.” Women are eligible for every single blessing of the priesthood, because those blessings only come through the Holy Ghost, which is bestowed by the priesthood. Women can and do receive all the blessings of the priesthood.

In the Church Handbook of Instructions, the section I am reading today has a heading “Use of Priesthood Authority.” In this section, there is instruction given on delegating priesthood authority. If you still aren’t convinced that women can have ever blessing of the priesthood, let me tell you that they are also organized under priesthood authority and are given authority to preside in the Church. When the prophet Joseph Smith organized the Relief Society, he told them “This organization is divinely made, divinely authorized, divinely instituted, divinely ordained of God to minister for the salvation of the souls of women and of men.” (Daughters in My Kingdom, p.7) The Handbook of Instruction says that “Priesthood leaders can delegate authority by assigning others to assist them in fulfilling a calling.” By delegating responsibilities to Relief Society presidencies, Young Women presidencies, and Primary presidencies, and other callings, women have, by delegation, authority over their callings, under the direction of their priesthood leaders.

The ultimate illustration of the participation of women in the priesthood is that the priesthood needs woman for exaltation (to live with God and receive all that He has), and woman needs the priesthood for exaltation. A man holding the priesthood cannot be exalted without a woman, and a woman cannot be exalted without a man holding the priesthood. The full blessings of the priesthood can only be obtained with a man and a woman enter into the new and everlasting covenant of the priesthood – that of eternal marriage.

Do you feel that men and women are equal? Do you understand your priesthood privileges? How do you experience the blessings of the priesthood in your life? How do you bless others because of the priesthood?