Smashing Arguments Against OW Part I

So hey everyone. Sorry I haven't posted in a while. To tell you the truth, my sister actually found my blog. I'm not open about this blog because, honestly, being a Mormon feminist is difficult. She didn't really approve, confirming the need for me to be discreet.

But the thing is, I'm a writer and I'm opinionated and passionate. I have lots of feelings and I cope with them by writing them out.

There's been a lot of fuss among Mormons on the Internet lately about Ordain Women. The leaders of OW decided to bring more attention to their cause by hosting an event where they wait in line at the Priesthood session of this October's General Conference. This is because women have never been allowed into the session before, despite it being broadcast and shared publicly after the event. Also, because they see themselves as future priesthood holders. You can read more about the event here. And probably some other locations.

Of course, many Mormons are in an uproar against this. They've flocked to Facebook to tell OW and Mormon feminists how unrighteous and wrong we are. And I'm getting really sick of it. First of all, they are being extremely rude, divisive, and not at all Christlike. Which is pretty ironic considering that they're calling us "apostates." But also, their arguments are completely illogical, offensive, and just plain wrong. 

So I've decided to tear apart some of these awful arguments, one blog post at a time. (I should probably preface this by saying that while I have no interest in obtaining the priesthood for myself, I support the efforts of OW and find it absolutely ridiculous that people are so vehemently against it. I mean really, why can't we even entertain the notion?)

Here's the first argument I've been hearing: 

"If women get the priesthood, they will have no need for men. Women shouldn't get the priesthood because they should depend on men."

These are two different arguments, but they essentially amount to the same idea. Women should need men and if they have the priesthood, they won't. 

This argument is wrong for a few different reasons. I'm sure if the people making this argument really thought it through, they would realize how illogical it is. 

The idea that women wouldn't need men would supposedly have two manifestations:

1. Wives wouldn't need men in their marriage or as a father to their children. 
2. Women wouldn't need men to help run the Church.

The problem with #1 is that women do not marry men for their priesthood. Women marry men because they love them. Women and men complement each other not because one is a priesthood holder while the other is a nurturer, but because they are both individuals with unique attributes. 

I'm gonna use my marriage as an example because that's what I've got. My husband and I complement each other in many ways. One of them is that I tend to get passionate and angry much more easily than he does. He's more even-tempered. Neither of those attributes have to do with our sex - come on, guys, we've all seen hot-tempered men and women! 

The other issue with #1 is that most women in the world aren't married to men who hold the priesthood. Even many LDS women have husbands that have never been members or are inactive. Most of those women still need their husbands, even though they don't hold the priesthood. They still have very happy, functional marriages. 

This is also a very sad argument to me. I really hope the women (and men) who use this argument as a reason why women shouldn't receive the priesthood don't really mean it. They may not realize it, but when people use this argument, it makes it sound like the only reason why they are married is for their husband's priesthood authority. What would happen if their husband became inactive and no longer had his former priesthood authority? Would the wife leave him? And for men who use this argument - do you really want your wife to think of you this way? Do you really want a wife who is spiritually dependent on you, rather than able to have her own spirituality?

Now to #2. Again, an out-of-church comparison makes this one fall apart. The Church is an organization, much like a business. Probably moreso like a business than most other churches. And businesses all function with both men and women. Sometimes women are the bosses and the authority figures, often the men are. Either way, businesses absolutely need people of both sexes to help it run to its best capacity. 

If women were to be ordained in the future, men would not be kicked out of the Church. They would not stand around with nothing to do while women covered everything. Men and women would work together, both holding about half of the callings, doing half of the work, and having half of the authority.  

Essentially what this argument amounts to for me is "woman, know thy place." 

I have no problem with a member of the Church believing that women are not meant to receive the priesthood at this time, or ever. However, there are absolutely no good arguments against it. I'm okay with anyone who thinks that we just have to trust in the Lord, but I'm not okay with anyone who does any sort of mental gymnastics in an attempt to come up with any sort of reason for why women don't and never should have the priesthood. 

I had an uncle-in-law who simply and authoritatively said to me "not gonna happen" when I told him about the existence of OW. It annoyed me that he said it that way, but I also appreciated that he didn't have any sort of argument against it.

I repeat: We don't currently know why women don't have the priesthood. That is something Heavenly Father has never revealed to us. Therefore, there is no good argument against it other than "it just is."

I hope you can appreciate that and understand that. If not, well, then, even though it is tough to be a Mormon feminist, I have pretty thick skin. 

The "White Knight"

Today I want to talk about teh menz. Men in feminism are great. I really admire them and have had some really great discussions with them.

But there’s also a problem with male allies. They tend to have the “white knight” complex more than they should. What this means is that they’d rather say they are a feminist in order to impress somebody (I really don’t know who. Potential romantic partners? Themselves?) than actually BE feminists. 

Because being a feminist means a lot more than saying you’re a feminist. I wrote this post about how not every feminist should feel the need to be a super marching, protesting activist. That’s still true. But even if you aren't sticking it to the man is in a very obvious and dramatic way, there are still small ways that you need to do it. More than BEING a feminist, you need to actively make the world more feminist in some way.

So what do I even mean? How does one strike the balance between activist and small efforts?

For one, you need to live your life in a more feminist way. This will mean different things for different people, and it’s up to you to determine what that will look like in your own life. It’s not enough to say that men can often treat women terribly, or that women should be treated better by society in general. Yes, admitting that women are oppressed is the first step. The next is working against it.

How, you ask? These are a few suggestions:

Men:

• Examine the balance of housework between you and your wife/partner. Splitting it 50/50 isn’t the answer for every circumstance, but are you doing your fair share? Do you avoid tasks that don’t seem like “men’s work”? Does your wife/partner pick up the slack most of the time? If so, it’s time for you to actively rearrange your situation. (By “actively,” I mean discussing it with her and agreeing on it, not just making a resolution to do better.)
• Same thing with childcare.
• Do you speak out when your dudebros say offensive or sexist things? If not, you are helping perpetuate the problem.
• When you are on the streets, in a bar, or other situation, do you actively work to make sure the women around you feel safe? This doesn’t mean being chivalrous. What I mean is, if a woman is walking alone at night, cross the road and walk on the other side of the street so she doesn’t feel threatened by you. Seriously, you need to do that, because every woman is going to view you as a potential rapist whether you deserve it or not. 
• Do you actively work to make women more comfortable in the workplace? This means not interrupting them, encouraging/allowing them to speak out, creating better conditions for women, speaking up when dudebros say sexist things, and mentoring them. Check out “Lean In” by Sharyl Sandberg for more tips on that.
• Listen more. Do not dismiss the experiences of women. Pause before speaking up.

Women:

• Let men do all of the above things. Sometimes, women also have a hard time letting go of the status quo. It can sometimes be difficult for women to hand over the fair share of housework to men because they like the level of control they feel, or they don’t trust men to do it right. That’s dumb. Let it go. Let him make mistakes. Similarly, women don’t always want to give up the benefits that chivalry gives them. I’ll admit that I've felt special before when a guy opens a car door for me, or a group of men stand up when I walk into a room. I don’t anymore, because I hate chivalry. But I understand that feeling.
• Demand that men do the above things. You absolutely cannot wait for men to figure it out by themselves. Why would anybody do that? If you are unhappy with your present circumstances, speak up about it. No, you don’t want to be accusatory or call them a huge flaming ball of suckfest. But an open, honest discussion about your feelings is necessary. (“Demand” may be the wrong word because I do think that, lots of the time, you should be nice about this. But I’m keeping it because what I mean is that you shouldn't give up or settle for less. Stay firm in your stance and resilient in your efforts to get it.)

Really, this is all the tip of the iceberg. I could probably go on forever talking about ways that we can all work towards a better, more women-friendly world. Many other blogs have done so in a much better way than I have. I just needed to vent about the men who are feminist only in name, and not in action.

Do you have any experiences where this has happened to you? Do you have any other suggestions? Feel free to share!

Is the modern world really that bad?

In Mormondom, you here a lot from leaders, local and higher up, that the world is getting worse with time. Our modern days are some of the wickedest ever seen, they'll warn. Something like that.

President Monson said in the latest edition of the Ensign (the July one):

"In the decades since the end of World War II, standards of morality have lowered again and again. Crime spirals upward; decency careens downward. Many are on a giant roller coaster of disaster, seeking the thrills of the moment while sacrificing the joys of eternity. Thus we forfeit peace."

Now, I'm not going to say that all of this is utterly false. I'm sure in many ways the world has gotten much worse. But I don't think things are as bad as they seem. I think to some of the leaders of the Church (especially the older ones), our present-day situation appears to be a lot worse than it actually is.

Here are some reasons I've come up with for why things SEEM worse, but aren't necessarily:

1. Crime rates have gone up. This is in part because more laws and decisions have been made, creating more crimes. For example, up until relatively recently, it was still legal for a man to rape his wife. Nowadays we realize that marriage does not give you permission to force someone into having sex with you. 
2. Crime rates have gone up. This is in part because our forensic sciences and technology has improved immensely. Go read a crime novel written in the 1920s (Dashiell Hammett is the big one). Now go watch an episode of "Castle," "Bones," or "Criminal Minds." There is a GINORMOUS difference in how these detectives solve their crimes - Hammett's characters mainly had to piece together circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies. They didn't have fingerprinting, security cameras, medical technology, or any of the other things we take for granted on our modern-day crime shows (admittedly, some of the stuff Angela does on "Bones" can't be fully realistic, but that doesn't take away from the fact that we have made huge strides in our technology). This all leads to more arrests, more convictions, and more people with jail time. (Admittedly, this does not change the statistic of actual crimes as much as it affects the statistics of criminals. Still, I see those numbers going hand in hand when we mourn the state of this world.)
3. As our world becomes more globalized, we will hear more and more about horrific events and crimes that happen further away from us. Back in the 1950s, we weren't able to Wikipedia the youngest murderer ever (it's about 8. I checked a few years ago). We didn't have the technology to film or photograph many of the really awful things that happened. Our fiction wasn't even as graphic or imaginative as it is now.
4. Divorce rates are higher. General Authorities, and for that matter, many of the critics of feminism, love to talk about this one. Lots of people blame feminists for it. But really, why do we assume that all divorce is bad? In the 1950s, a woman could not divorce her husband, even if he was abusive, either because the law was not on her side or because she was not financially dependent. Do we really want to go back to the "good ole' days" of when there was abuse, but it was never reported or talked about? Of course, I'm not trying to trivialize divorce because I know it can have lots of negative consequences for many of the people involved; but I do think we're only looking at the negatives, when in reality, many positive things can come from divorce as well.
5. Standards are lower. The problem with this is that standards are all relative. For example, it used
   
   to be scandalous for a woman in the U.S. to show her ankles. Now, we laugh at that. In a hundred years, we may think it's funny that we used to find butts sexually appealing. The LDS church has SOMEWHAT codified their standards, meaning that some of them have not wavered in like, fifty years. At least, we believe that to be true. In actually, many of the more "petty" standards the Church used to promote have changed quite a bit. In the 1950s, the For the Strength of Youth... used to tell young women that it was inappropriate to leave the house with curlers in your hair. I'm serious! Check it out here. So while the Church has never really changed it's position on sex before marriage, it has changed it's position on modesty standards (tank tops used to be okay); alcohol, tobacco, and coffee; polygamous marriages; and many other large and small standards. What I think this proves is ... IT'S OKAY TO BE FLEXIBLE ON
   STANDARDS! 

So what does this all mean? While we should continue listening to our ecclesiastical leaders, maybe we don't need to be quite so depressed when they say the world is getting worse. We don't need to feel like we're so much more righteous than the rest of the world. We might make different choices on what we consider is "worldly" or not. 

And, it might make us a little happier living in this world.  

What your clothing "says" about you

Lately, in my internet sphere, there has been this kind of "war" about modesty. There are those who say modesty is important because it shows self-respect and keeps a man from having sexual thoughts about you - and there are those who say that modesty is all well and good, but doing it for the sake of others' is not the right way to go about it.

I think you can guess by now that I'm clearly in the second camp. I wrote about it last year here. You should also check out this great post by another Mormon feminist here; this one is responding to a video that's been making the rounds by Jessica Rey, creator of a "modest" swimsuit line.

One comment the above blog post ("To Every One That Believeth." Not my blog.) was something about what we were "says" something to everyone around us.

Actually, what she said was this:

Of course, I replied something snarky and said she must be exhausted all of the time from "evaluating" and "assessing" people. Although, I truly believe that this lifestyle does sound exhausting. You're already running errands, working, going to school, and trying to have fun - so while you're doing that, you're also turning your head every way to look at people, see what they're wearing, and judge them based on something as shallow as their clothing? 

The idea that a person "says" something with their clothing comes from pure commercialization. When you shop at Urban Outfitters, you're saying you're quirky and a hipster. When you shop at American Eagle, you're saying that you're preppy. But who decides that? The stores do. The commercials do. The commercials convince you that you need to represent yourself a certain way, specifically their way. And that way, you aren't going from store to store finding items that you like, but you're staying at one store and spending all of your money there. They've got you hooked. 

And are we really "saying" something with our clothes when we all shop at the same prescribed stores anyway? A store produces thousands, millions of the same exact item every time it creates a new piece of clothing. The chances of you running into someone wearing the same shirt as you is actually pretty high. So why do we think that we're "saying" anything unique with our clothing when we clearly have very little say in it anyway? 

Lastly, this is such an unreliable method to get to a decision anyway. Most of the time when you judge someone based on their clothing choices, you are wrong. What about the athletes who sexually assault women? The businessmen who embezzle? In my high school, a group of about 20 of the good-grade-honors-students-teachers'-favorites-athletes-who-got-into-good-colleges weren't allowed to walk at graduation because they got drunk on their way to prom and assaulted a police officer. Last week in the grocery store, despite the fact that my hair was a mess and I was wearing my cleaning clothes (and a wedding ring), I got hit on when I didn't want to. Most of the time when you try to "interpret" someone's clothing, you're going to get it wrong. 

From there, it's a slippery slope into victim blaming. That woman was wearing a low cut shirt and short skirt, which we all know means that she's "saying" she wants sex, so isn't it her fault that someone decided to "listen" to her clothing and not her words? Doesn't that make it her fault she was raped? 

No. It never does. Never ever ever. 

The same thing applies to women in bikinis. This woman, and many other champions of "modesty," are presuming that a woman who wears a bikini is doing it for the sexual attention she will attract. What we should be doing is thinking that maybe a woman in a bikini is wearing it because that is what she is most comfortable in, and she really doesn't care who looks at her. It's a cliche, but there's also that expression that we don't wear makeup for men, but for ourselves. Same thing with bikinis. 

Honestly, I really feel a lot of pity for this woman who posted the above comment. (Of course, I am judging her without meeting her and that's wrong, but ...) I can imagine that she is the type of woman who wakes up two hours before the crack of dawn because she can't stand to leave her house without her make up and hair done. And while many may think "oh, she's showing respect for those around her," really, she's just very insecure about herself. 

2 situations in which women commonly find themselves in movies

I went to go see Oblivion (imdb.com) last week with Colby. He and I are both really into sci-fi. I thought it was a great movie, particularly as a post-apocalyptic sci-fi story. There was some beautiful imagery. There were a lot of cool inventions. The storyline was really great. I liked all the characters, including the female ones.

But then, I also have to analyze this movie as a feminist. Interestingly enough, it does pass The Bechdel Test. This is surprising considering that there is a male protagonist and the men generally have all of the violent, action roles. I think a woman picks up a gun and fires it twice in the movie, but only reluctantly (to protect a man in one instance and after another man has dropped the gun in the other). But it's a nice surprise. It's nice that even in a male-centered movie that women can have adequate (maybe?) representation. We just need to step it up by making tons more female-centered movies.

There were two things I noticed about this movie that I think you can find it lots of other movies as well. I don't think you could call them "tropes" exactly, because they aren't character molds. They're just situations that women are frequently found in. Warning - spoilers!

1. Nurturing/Protecting a Random Child - When a child fell down, it was a woman who picked him up and protected him from that point on. Julia was basically a random stranger to this colony of Earth survivors, but when one of their children is somehow separated from the group and left behind, she picks him up. Why doesn't someone else from this band of survivors protect the child? Doesn't he have any friends or neighbors who are interested in his welfare?

I've seen this happen in a few other movies. Katie Holmes does it in Batman Begins. The whole city is under a chemical attack that causes them to hallucinate. Holmes's character, Rachel Dawes, clutches to a random little boy that is for some unknown reason all on his own. (Interestingly, that boy happens to be a young Jack Gleeson, who plays King Joffrey in Game of Thrones.)

I actually can't think of any other movies, so I'm either brain farting or it's just a coincidence that these two movies have incidences of women protecting children during attacks. I don't think it is, though.

The reason why I don't like this is because it puts women in the role of natural nurturers. By having women who are not yet mothers slip into the role of pseudo-mother instinctually, you are saying that all women are potential mothers. This is a naturally accepted role. I wonder why in these movies you don't have men playing this protective part, or even just the child's own mother?

It also generally happens when the man is out doing hero stuff. Jack sacrifices himself as a kamikaze and Batman is off fighting villans. The women just stay out of the way until the fracas is over. This way, they won't get hurt.

I'm sure there are movies that do have men protecting random children, but I think we are meant to respond to that as an out-of-the-ordinary heroic, compassionate act, whereas women are treated as that being the norm.

But I don't have anything to back that up, so you can take it whatever way you'd like.

2. A Baby as a Consolation Prize - At the end of the movie, Jack Harper, the protagonist, and Julia, his love interest, plan to suicide bomb the aliens. Julia is put into "delta sleep," while Jack flies the spaceship. When Julia wakes up, she realizes that Jack has tricked her, and she is actually safe on Earth. Which really pisses me off. Julia volunteered to die with Jack, knowing full well what the consequences were! Who is he to make that decision for her? Anyway, we flash forward to five years later (or whatever), and now she has a daughter. Somehow during that time, Jack impregnated her. This is a frightening implication on its own because we are never aware of them having sex. I guess there's a possibility they had sex before she went into delta sleep the first time, or they did have consensual sex but we don't see it. I guess.

So even though Jack is dead, it's okay because Julia has a baby, who is supposed to be the next best thing. I guess you can see Jack in the child, or the child reminds her of Jack.

I know this has happened in LOTS of movies. It happens in Cold Mountain, where Nicole Kidman's character, Ada Monroe, has sex with her lover just before he is shot to death. Again, fast forward a few years, and she has a child.

It happened in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Jack is cursed to the point where he is only able to set foot on land once every ten years. His wife, Elizabeth, settles down alone on an island after a sex romp. Jack comes back ten years later, and now Elizabeth has a ten-year-old son.

It kind of happens in Superman Returns (2006). When Superman returns, he finds that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) now has a young child. We realize by the end of the movie that this is actually Superman's son, and not Lois's boyfriend's. So even though Superman didn't die and the baby wasn't the consolation prize revealed at the end of the movie, Lois was still left with a baby by herself for a number of years. 

I'm not a fan of this occurrence either. It is insulting to both the male partner and the kids. Your lover cannot be replaced by a child, and a child isn't just a momento of someone you deeply loved. It's also insulting to the women: it's basically saying that they can get over the man if they only have a child. In Oblivion, Cold Mountain, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, the three mothers stop their adventurous lives and settle down into a domestic one. This is generally seen as much better and safer for them, and a sacrifice the male makes out of the purest most selfless love. It's even worse in Pirates because she's spending ten years waiting for this man while he's running off on adventures - the ultimate working dad who passes off all the childcare to his wife. 

I understand that movies are made this way in order to make audiences less sad. There is more resolution in a movie that ends with this kind of bittersweet ending. And it is very tragically bittersweet - I felt lots of feels when watching (most) of these movies. 

Both of these situations also have a degree of passivity in them. In the first one, women are standing in the sidelines after having been "given" the safest responsibility. In the second, women have no control over reproduction (I know that's historically accurate, but it doesn't stop it from sucking!).

I don't appreciate women being put in this situation over and over again, even in fiction. I believe it has all these implications for "real world" women, including being shuffled into the nurturing/mothering role without any regard for the previous strength and adventurous spirit these women once had. And without any regard to how they felt about the men in their lives before they lost them.

So anyway, if you agree or disagree, please let me know in the comments below! I would also love to hear it if you know of any other movies where these situations happen to women.

Self-Reliance Versus Charity

For the past few months, I've been working as a freelance writer for a food storage company. It's been a completely different experience for me - I've always found emergency preparedness and food storage boring before. Now, I actually find it quite interesting.

Frequently, I run into resources that are affiliated with the Church. The books I read are mainly written by authors living in Utah, website I come across are made by members, etc. I don't think you could be a prepper or survivalist without being aware of the Church's involvement with emergency preparedness.

It really shows this attitude that members of the Church have. Because the Church has constantly pushed emergency preparedness, members develop a deep appreciation for self-reliance. And I can understand that - I think it'd be awesome to grow my own food, be prepared for any type of emergency, have parts of my house run on solar power, grown-up stuff like that. Those are goals I want to achieve, for the sake of saving money, being environmentally friendly, convenience, and as activities that will make me feel good about myself. As soon as my husband and I are in the phase of home-ownership, that is.

You can also see how the self-reliance attitude enters in to all parts of members' lives. I always marvel at how many Latter-day Saints can be so conservative in their political beliefs when it seems like liberalism falls more in line with the charity of Jesus Christ. Of course, socially, stances on abortion and gay marriage are similar between LDS doctrine and conservatism. But I'm thinking more like socialized healthcare - aren't we supposed to be taking care of our neighbors without judgement? Of course, that is a different issue I don't want to get into now.

I just believe that the attitude of self-reliance and the attitude of constant charity clash. Members are so proud of self-reliance that they stop being charitable indiscriminately. A problem arrises when self-reliance becomes so important to members that they reject receiving or giving outside help in any areas of their lives. They start to decide that one group or person does not deserve their help or charity because they are homeless, they are immigrants, they have made poor life decisions, or they wear pajamas and eat McDonald's all of the time.

The attitude of self-reliance should not be one that interferes with Jesus's ultimate commandment, which is to love one another. When Christ says in Matthew 6:3

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

I have always interpreted that to mean that you must give indiscriminately. I grew up hearing the excuses of why you should not give to homeless beggars or panhandlers because they'll use the money for drugs or booze, or because they should be trying to find a job instead of wasting their time begging. I've heard that you should try to buy them a sandwich instead of giving pocket change (which isn't terrible, and probably is the option that most people feel comfortable with, including myself). But Jesus never said "only give to the people who you know will use it the way you want them to use it." He never had caveats. In fact, He's a big proponent of not judging anyone, remember? He only said give!

So to me, self-reliance means that you must have yourself and your family fully taken care of before you can fully give indiscriminately. Self-reliance means not making yourself someone in need of charity while you are trying to give charity yourself. It does not mean holding out or judging others.  

And, absolutely, self-reliance is not more important than charity.

A feminist review of "Family: Guidebook"

I was really excited this Sunday when we were about to get a new manual. I'm a huge nerd! I like to have new books and new things to read. (And I like the smell and feel of paper ...)

It only took me a few pages to be disappointed by Family: Guidebook, which is published and distributed by the Church.

On page two, the manual talks about the organization of the family. I began to highlight the words used to describe fathers. Fathers "preside," have "power and authority," and "leads." He has strength, power, and authority within the family. His duties are to provide for the material necessities and spiritual needs of the family; to perform priesthood ordinances and remain worthy of holding the priesthood; and guide the family through spiritual activities. I was going to compare my highlighted words with the words they used to describe mothers.

And then we get to the section on mothers:

"The mother is an equal partner and counselor to her husband. She helps him teach their children the laws of God. If there is no father in the home, the mother presides over the family" (page 3).

So while the father gets A FULL PAGE dedicated to his duties and responsibilities, mothers get one paragraph - 3 sentences. Along with that, every single one of those sentences has the father in them as well as the mother. There doesn't even seem to be the tired "mothers are nurturers" bit in there.

I'm happy that they included the "equal partners," but it doesn't seem to be demonstrated in this lesson book. I was really hurt reading this and feeling like mothers somehow didn't matter as much as the men did.

This is followed by another paragraph that combines fathers and mothers. If you are being generous, this brings the total up to 2 shared paragraphs that mothers have dedicated to them.

Why is this important?

Yeah, I know, this seems like a whole lot of a feminist getting upset over something relatively little.

But it is important. When the Church tells me that I am equal to men, that I have just as many duties and responsibilities as them, that I have the same amount of worth and importance, I would like to see them walk the walk and not just talk the talk. I don't feel important when I am regulated to two roles - wife and mother - and then one of those roles is being demonstrated as less important than the male counterpart (fatherhood). I have been told many, many times how important motherhood is -  so why isn't it important in this manual that is supposed to guide how I work within my family?

Yes, this is just one tiny (seriously, it's only 26 pages) manual that are "more like guidelines anyway." But, actually, it really isn't. This is almost every manual, every lesson I have in Sunday School and Relief Society, the way many die-hard Mormons choose to live their lives just because the Church tells them to, and the attitude that has been completely adopted by the Church.

Bonus Round

This is a bonus round because it's been said before and I don't need to go into detail here. But I ABSOLUTELY HATE THE WORD "PRESIDE." A couple cannot be equal and also have one of them presiding at the same time.

(This lovely meme can be found, along with other brilliant ones, on Facebook here. Enjoy!)

Righteousness never was attractiveness

I have a lot of LDS friends on Facebook. So when some article comes out saying that BYU is #1 for hots and smarts, it gets reposted 6 bajillion times. (Or just 6).

The article is here. Enjoy. Also, a shout out to BYU Idaho, who rank somewhere. 

Of course, this is annoying, and LDS people frequently need to get over BYU. (That is an issue that has been addressed by Amen Already here. Definitely go check it out because she's pretty funny.) But what bothers me the most is this: 

"Everyone at BYU is very attractive; I've yet to see an ugly person here. Thanks to the honor code, every guy is clean shaven and well groomed (no super long hair) and every girl is dressed modestly (not too much skin). Everyone is very friendly, and it's not uncommon to strike up a conversation with a perfect stranger. BYU is famous for beginning long-lasting relationships and marriages, so dating is greatly encouraged."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-where-students-are-hot-and-smart-2013-3?op=1#ixzz2OBpn6cGw

So everyone at BYU is attractive because they follow the honor code - because they are clean-shaven and don't show too much skin? (You can tell that this was written by BYU students, because very few people in the "secular" world would think not showing skin is attractive.)

Which comes to another idea prevalent in the LDS culture: Being righteous and obedient makes you more attractive.

I'm serious. People really believe this. It's somewhat addressed in another blog post I did on how femininity is viewed in Mormonism (here).

It is perpetuated in this famous story (here):

I recently recalled a historic meeting in Jerusalem about 17 years ago. It was regarding the lease for the land on which the Brigham Young University’s Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies was later built. Before this lease could be signed, President Ezra Taft Benson and Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, then president of Brigham Young University, agreed with the Israeli government on behalf of the Church and the university not to proselyte in Israel. You might wonder why we agreed not to proselyte. We were required to do so in order to get the building permit to build that magnificent building which stands in the historic city of Jerusalem. To our knowledge the Church and BYU have scrupulously and honorably kept that nonproselyting commitment. After the lease had been signed, one of our friends insightfully remarked, “Oh, we know that you are not going to proselyte, but what are you going to do about the light that is in their eyes?” He was referring to our students who were studying in Israel.
What was that light in their eyes which was so obvious to our friend? The Lord Himself gives the answer: “And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings.” Where did that light come from? Again the Lord gives the answer: “I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” The Lord is the true light, “and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.” This light shows in our countenances as well as in our eyes.

I've never seen such a light. (The idea of it "showing in our countenance" sounds Biblical poetry to me.)  For a while, I believed that I can tell Mormons apart from non-Mormons. And to some degree, you can. But being in Utah means everyone adopts the same basic fashion choices, so unless you're tattooed with a neon green mohawk and showing cleavage, it's really not that easy to tell.

As great as being righteous or obedient is, it does not translate into attractiveness. Someone may find them to be attractive traits in another person (especially at BYU!), but that doesn't mean that being righteous or obedient makes you attractive.

I think the problem with this misconception is the shallowness of it all. As Christians, we are not supposed to be concerned with outward appearance as much as we are. It is especially manipulative to constantly be telling young teenagers and college students that they will be attractive if only they are righteous and obedient. Not fair, in my books.

This phenomenon also gives us permission to judge each other. Do you have enough light in your eyes? Are you attractive? No? Then you must also be a disobedient apostate.

It often turns out that this cultural aspect mainly affects women. Sure, you have here that clean-shaved men are more attractive than their bearded counterparts. But there's nothing in our culture that says not having a beard is righteous the same was being modest is. Facial hair does not reflect one's virtue the way modesty supposedly does. This is definitely obvious if you go read my post on femininity!!! Because, as lowly RMs all the way up to lofty apostles have said, a woman is only attractive if she is righteous and doing exactly what the Church culture tells her to do.

How to Talk to a MoFem

With the recent campaigns that have been going on (Pants, Let Women Pray, and now Ordain Women) lots of faithful LDS members seem to have forgotten how to be good christians (lower-case "c" is intentional). I know lots of people who have grown up with the Church a certain way all of their lives are confused about why some LDS women and men are unhappy with the current cultural climate. They wonder how so many people can be discontent with a belief system that has brought them so much joy, peace, and community.

But a lot of them are really terrible at expressing that. So, I have come up with a few guidelines for how to talk to someone who identifies as a Mormon feminist or just someone who supports these campaigns.

I don't know who made this, but it wasn't me, so all credit to that person.

1. Do Not make assumptions about them. Many people approach Mormon feminists with questions of why they want to be a man, why they want to have the priesthood, etc. There are a lot of things wrong with doing this. For one, it's extremely rude. You're forcing the feminist you are talking to to immediately go on the defensive. You're not going to get a good conversation out of this.

Another, you actually have no idea what a particular feminists grievances or goals are. Some Mormon Feminists want women to have the priesthood, some do not. Like general feminism, this is not one organized movement where every member thinks exactly the same. This is a broad spectrum where many feminists are different from one another, though they usually share the common goal of "equality." Equality, however, means different things for different people.

And lastly, quite a few Mormon feminists are men. Assuming that we are a bunch of angry women is discounting the large male population.

2. Do Not use sexist language. For years, women have been called "hysterical," "screeching," "crazy," "overreacting," and more. I saw a woman yesterday wondering why we all "had our panties in a bunch." Again, saying stuff like this is just plain rude and not going to contribute to a polite conversation. It's also being sexist, which is really not helping the problem. (And again, it's also awkward when you are addressing men, even if you don't realize you are.)

3. Do Not bring our testimonies or spirituality into question. So many times I've seen that if only we'd read the scriptures or prayed more, we'd find peace. This is another assumption. People who say this to us are assuming that we haven't prayed or read scriptures about it. Many Mormon feminists have been devout members their entire lives. They hold callings in their regions and raise religious families. Many of them have prayed and studied to find answers. Through a combination of revelation, scripture study, and studying what the prophets have written, they have come to the conclusion that activism is their answer.

Also, many of what the Mormon feminists are working against is not doctrinal. For example, in the Let Women Pray movement, there was no doctrinal foundation for a woman having never said a prayer in General Conference before. This is merely a cultural tradition, or a policy that did not necessarily have spiritual guidance in its creation. When it comes to dismantling cultural norms, I do not believe you need to have the strongest testimony or full activity in the Church.

This also includes not blasting Mormon feminists with scripture quotes or conference talks. Many of them are already aware of what you are trying to share with them. If you honestly are curious about what they think about a specific talk or quote, you may calmly and respectfully ask them. You should not just throw it at them.

4. Do Not tell them that the problem absolutely does not exist. This comes in many forms. There are women who say they are perfectly happy in the Church, so everyone else should be. There are people who like to point out to all the places where the Church/LDS culture excels from a feminist standpoint, so nothing else that goes against that exists. Whether or not you have seen or experienced an inequality or problem that one Mormon feminist sees does not matter. You could live in a great ward where things aren't as bad. You may not have experienced a certain issue that another Mormon feminist has.

5. Do Not tell a Mormon feminist to just leave if they are unhappy. This is not productive, and it is very dismissive of their feelings. People who grow up LDS often find they have a hard time leaving. Many Mormon feminists have a very strong testimony of gospel principles; they also don't want to leave all of the positive parts of the Church behind. Besides which, deciding whether or not to leave or stay is a very personal decision, and one that should not be made by you.

6. Do Not tell a Mormon feminist to "get a sense of humor," "get a life," or to not be so easily offended. Again, just because you think something is a funny joke and not at all offensive doesn't mean it's wrong if someone else does. Just because you think something is a non-issue doesn't mean someone else sees it the same way. These phrases are also very dismissive of someone's feelings. You're also making another assumption - many feminists have senses of humor and very full, enriching lives.

DO:

Listen. This should be really simple, but so many people seem to have forgotten this. Mormon feminism is new to a LOT of people. At first, it may seem contrary to a lot of things you have learn in Church your entire life. It is normal to be confused and to have questions. The best thing to do is to ask a Mormon feminist about it. You can ask them why they feel a certain way. You can ask them what their take is on a particular scripture or conference talk. You can ask them what their personal experiences have been with certain issues. You can ask them what they believe. 

Mormon feminists want their voices to be heard and their thoughts to be shared. You do not have to agree with everything a Mormon feminist says, but you should engage with them in a polite and respectful manner. 

If you have any questions/suggestions about how to talk to a Mormon feminist, please comment. If you have any questions about Mormon feminism, you can also comment, and I will do my best to answer or redirect you to a place with an answer. 

Existing for others

The other day, this quote was brought up in one of the MoFem communities I'm a part of:

“It is interesting to know how man is put together – how incomplete he is. His whole physical and emotional, and for that matter, spiritual nature, is formed in such a way that it depends upon a source of encouragement and power that is found in a woman. When man has found his wife and companion, he has in a sense found the other half of himself. He will return to her again and again for that regeneration that exalts his manhood and strengthens him for the testing that life will give him. A woman has the privilege and influence to transform a man into an able and effective LDS priesthood leader. However, for this there are two prerequisites. First, she must want to, and second, she must know how. Part of knowing how includes the genius of encouraging him to meet his obligations without replacing him in his role, without presiding over him.”
Boyd K. Packer, Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 2, 1971

I'm sure the quote is meant to be this nice sentiment about how men need women and how romantic that all is. To be honest, General Authorities are notoriously sweet and flattering to their wives, saying romantic things about how much they love their wives all the time.

But, of course, I still have a huge problem with this quote.

I currently go to a BYU married ward in Provo. I absolutely love Relief Society, but I've been disappointed with some of our recent lessons. We had one on how important it is to get an education. How awesome is that?! Education is awesome, and I'm 100% behind women educating themselves, whether it be in formal schooling or trades or talents. But we got stuck on this idea, as a group, of how our education would help our children. It was essentially said that men get educated for themselves, to get a job, while educating a woman is for her and her family.

The next lesson was on our divine potential and how we will one day become like Heavenly Father and be goddesses. Heavenly Mother was brought up, but only because she shows us that we will be mothers even in the next life.

I think that maybe this phenomenon is occurring in part because we, as young newly weds, have never been so close to starting a family before, and it is always on our minds. (Not me, so much, but I imagine that's how these other women must be feeling.) However, only a few of the women in my ward are mothers or expectant mothers. Where does that leave the rest of us?

I find the culture of the Church is to constantly tell women that they exist to serve others. Whether you are exalted your husband's manhood (innuendo, anyone?) or learning just so you can teach your children, your needs begin to be ignored. There was some great self-esteem, self-love promoting comments during the divine potential lesson. But what I mean moreso is doing something just for yourself.

For example, when I got an education, I did so for myself. I did it because I love learning and I really want to have a fulfilling career. I do want to make a difference in the world, but why is my impact limited to only my family?

The argument against my thinking is that the Church promotes everyone serving everyone. That is what Christianity is supposed to be about. LDS men are told quite a bit that they need to honor their priesthood in order to be able to constantly serve others.

I would say that the difference is that priesthood is an extension of an LDS man's identity. The priesthood does not solely encompass all they are. Culturally, at least. Motherhood, which is frequently taught as the equivalent of priesthood, is not an extension of who the woman is, but more of an inherent part of who the woman is. I hope that makes sense.

I am tired of being told that I need to exist for others. As much as I want to serve my family members, I was not brought into this world for that sole purpose, nor will I limit my capabilities to just that. But I am a very defiant and stubborn woman. What are we telling LDS women when we teach them this?

SodaStream

So I've been wanting to talk about my SodaStream for a while because I'm kind of disappointed. And what else can I do about it except complain on the internet?

Also, there's not a lot out there about it. Probably because it's kind of relatively new.

SodaStream is a product that shoots carbonation into your water to make it bubbly. SodaStream also makes different syrup flavors to make your carbonated water into homemade soda.

The basis of the appeal of SodaStream is that it is better for the environment because you aren't buying soda cans and bottles. It's convenient, because you always have soda available. And SodaStream tries really hard to market the fact that it is also a healthier option, though I don't know if I'm going to fall for that.

The SodaStream "machine" (it doesn't use electricity, so I don't even really know what it is) works extremely well. The carbonated water is delicious, and it's nice to not have to buy it at the store.

And while there are a million different flavors (seriously, ranging from fruit to energy to cola to everything in diet and natural, etc.), most of them are disgusting. At least half of them. Colby and I hated tonic. We just threw it out immediately. I didn't like the cream soda, diet cola was okay, but none of the colas taste the same as any other cola-flavored sodas you can buy at the store.

My real complaint, besides the flavors that turned out nasty but there's no turning back now because we've already spent over $100 on this whole adventure, is the SPLENDA. SodaStream is really big on the fact that they don't use aspartame. But instead of real sugar (sucrose?) or aspartame, they use Splenda in every single one of their flavors, including the ones that aren't supposed to be diet. After I started getting headaches every single time I drank SodaStream concoctions, I found that this is a huge problem for me.

So, I have a few suggestions for SodaStream and the soda world out there.

1. Customers should be able to sample soda flavors before they invest in the $80 and up machine. It's nice that 6 flavor samples do come with the purchase of the machine, but I think if I had known that SodaStream's diet cola tasted absolutely nothing like Diet Coke (which, as a good Mormon girl, I am absolutely addicted to), that would have affected my decision in buying this product.
2. Mainstream soda companies, like Pepsi and Coke, should start selling their own syrups as an alternative to the SodaStream syrups. Sure, you can buy 5 gallons of Pepsi flavor for $80 on Amazon. But think of how great it would be if they just came in little bottles that were meant for home use and not restaurants!!! It would pretty much make my life five times better. I guarantee my quality of life would go up.

What sucks about suggestion #2 is that SodaStream pretty much picked a fight with Coca-Cola. Seriously. They started this -----------> type of campaign, a collection of the amount of soda garbage a family uses in five years. While effective, it featured lots of Coke cans. And Coca-Cola got severely pissed off about this.

And while I tend to side with SodaStream in that particular argument (Coke says the garbage belongs to them, SodaStream says they should be picking it up if the cans belong to them, and that makes a lot of sense), WHY DO THEY HAVE TO BE SUCH HUGE IDIOTS?! Coca-Cola is one of the biggest companies IN THE WORLD. If I had invented a machine that makes soda in the comfort of everyone's home, I would have immediately tried to get a huge-ass company like Coca-Cola on board. Think about it. Both companies would have benefited from a larger clientele. 

But no. Everyone has to go be stupid.

And that's why I dislike SodaStream.

Sexytimes Language

Once upon a time, I was talking to my mom and my sister about sex. I can't remember exactly how the conversation went, but it was definitely about intercourse and sexytimes ("sexytimes" is my fun word for all the sexual experiences, or "play" as some people call it. I prefer to use it, personally, because it makes the whole experience sound more playful and it is more all-encompassing. I also think that maybe it is less heteronormative - definition found here - because of it's nature of including all types of sexual acts). 

Both my mom and sister are medical professionals (or future medical professionals, in the case of my little sister) and LDS. Because my mom has been a nurse for a very long time, she has always been very comfortable talking about sex and genitals with us. My sister, on the other hand, can be very uptight. I think because of her rigidity in Mormonism and some of her past experiences, she is extremely uncomfortable when sex comes up. 

I, on the other hand, love to talk about sex. I like hearing about others' experiences with sex because I believe it can be very enlightening (for example, I think reading about the BDSM community or sex workers can teach us a lot about the emotions and psychology behind sex, as well as the culture and stigma surrounding sex). I can also be very immature at times, like when I think sex is funny. I'll admit that. I don't mind that I can be immature about sex, because I think it makes me more comfortable with sex and makes sex more fun for me and my partner.

So what happened in this conversation between me, my mom, and my sister, is that my sister became very upset with the time of colloquialisms I was using. I think I was saying "cum" or "jizz." To me, it is very natural to use those words, especially since I most learned about sex as an ignorant teenager trying to look up information online. Not exactly the best way. 

My sister found my slang to be "disrespectful" of sex, which she believes is a very sacred act. I agree with her there, by the way. I believe sex is sacred, and it is most enjoyable when it is treated seriously and with respect. 

But I'm not sure we need to "deify" sex all of the time. For a lot of people, using slang or colloquialisms for sexytime things makes them a lot more comfortable than using the correct, medical terms for things, which can be very sterile and intimidating. And when people are more comfortable talking about sex, they learn more and feel more comfortable having sex. 

The practice of being able to communicate with people you love about sexytimes, such as family members, does translate directly into being able to talk to your partner about sex. It is a hell of a lot easier to talk to your partner about specific sexytimes things when you feel more comfortable using specific words. It might be a lot easier for you to say "don't cum on me" than "don't get your ejaculate or semen on me." 

Some people might argue that this is very immature. And I'm not necessarily going to disagree with them. Maybe we do all need to be comfortable using "proper" words. I would definitely say that we should be more comfortable saying "vagina" and "penis," because I believe those clinical words help us to be more educated about those specific areas. That and other slang can be so derogatory to our own bodies, and I believe in loving your body! Not in subtly putting it down! 

And maybe if we were all more comfortable with using the "sterile" words, it'd be easier to talk to our doctors and other medical professionals about sexual, reproductive, and general genital health (that may have been redundant. Oh well).

But I would argue that it is way more imperative to educate others on their sexual health, and to have healthy dialogue about sex practices, than it is to enforce specific words being used.

That and my sister really just needs to lighten up.    

Thoughts? Questions? Confessions? They are welcome!

Mormonism & Femininity

So much pink ...

When men in the LDS church say things like this, it makes women feel special. Words such as "delicate, radiant, sensitive, creative, charming, gracious, gentle, dignified," and possessing "quiet strength," are very complimentary.

My problem is that those are the ONLY words used to describe LDS women, or really the ideal LDS woman. This quote comes from the talk Womanhood: The Highest Place of Honor, and can be in full found here. 

What bothers me first about this quote is the very limited way which a woman can be in Faust's eyes. It sounds like he is basically describing a china doll, and I for one do not want to break. I've head before that "if you put a woman on a pedestal only the thing she can do is fall," so I disagree with saying things like "womanhood is the highest place of honor." 

But also, this quote tries to make it so beauty is no longer dependent on shallow things, such as hair and makeup, but making beauty based instead on levels of spirituality. "Inner beauty," becomes the strength of your testimony. In this sense, it is almost as shallow as the physical attributes. To judge a woman's spirituality and to find her attractive based on that quality alone is wrong. A person's spirituality is just one facet of her life. Why are we not attracted to her based on her personality? 

What disturbs me even more about that talk is this quote right here:

"Unfortunately, we see some very poor role models of womanhood in today’s society. We see women boxers and wrestlers as we flip through the television channels trying to find something uplifting. I believe the women of our time need to be strong, but not in that sense. In my opinion, these activities demean the nobility of womanhood."

 Women are only allowed to be strong in a "quiet" way, possessing only spiritual strength. Women who engage in typically masculine activities, such as boxing and wrestling, are all the sudden bad people because they are not feminine enough. How in the world could female boxers and wrestlers be bad examples for women? We glorify female pioneers who pushed handcarts across the country for their physical strength, as well as emotional and spiritual strength - why not a modern woman doing what she loves? 

Talks like this rigidly define gender roles in the LDS culture. "Femininity" is a social construct, but many in the Church teach it as a divine characteristic of women. 

The same type of rhetoric can be found here at Meridian magazine (link): 

"• Be a lady.
Is there a difference between a woman and lady?  When a female client was recently asked this question she said, “Woman is a gender, lady is an attitude.”  An excellent definition of the difference.  One man said, “My wife is my yardstick for womanhood.  She acts like a lady, she dresses like a lady, she talks like a lady, and expects to be treated like a lady.  And she’s fun to be around.”
Men love being with a lady. They’re surrounded by men all day, or some women who are trying to be like men, so give him the gift of having a wife who is a true lady. He’ll love it. And yes, ladies can do all kinds of tough tasks and still be a lady.  Does that mean she has to wear a skirt all the time.  Of course not.  That’s not even practical. It means she acts in gentleness, but can work like a trooper.  She is strong, and yet is respectful and gentle in her strength. She doesn’t curse or act vulgar. She speaks in loving ways. She embraces her femininity. That’s being a lady.  Remember, it’s an attitude.
President Faust said, “Femininity is part of your inner beauty.” (Ensign, May 2000, 96) So let it show by how you act."

This comes from a list of how to be a good wife (which I mostly agreed with until this part).

This type of language and these very specific expectations on LDS women are not only among the older in the Church (whom I believe are still living in a Mad Men era). I see it a lot in the people my age as well, for they are internalizing everything they are hearing.

Here is a blog post from a "gentlemen" at BYU, wondering where all the truly beautiful women have gone: http://mythoughtpapers.blogspot.com/2013/02/where-have-all-beautiful-girls-gone.html.

Here is an article published in BYU's student newspaper, The Universe, on gender roles and the recent announcement that women can now be in the front lines of the army: http://universe.byu.edu/beta/2013/01/29/gender-roles/.

All of this may sound very nice, saying nice things about women and their divinity.

But it is all extremely SEXIST. You may not immediately recognize it because of the benevolence with which it is said. And I am sure all of these different people only had good intentions when they wrote the things they did. They probably aren't aware of their sexism either.

Why is this all sexist if it sounds so complimentary? You are putting all women in a very narrow box. You are limiting women to very specific roles, instead of allowing them to make decisions for themselves based on their personal needs. You are putting women on a pedestal, instead of treating them like equals. You are treating women respectfully, but not actually respecting them.

I have a fairly good example of this in play. When I was living in my ward in New England, there was a young girl there, about 12-13, who wanted to be a boy. And I don't just mean that she was a tomboy - for whatever reason, she wanted to be a boy. She dressed in only boys' clothing, tried hard to cover up anything that revealed she was anatomically female, and always kept her hair short. This was a problem for the leaders in my ward who didn't know what to do with her. She couldn't be in the Young Mens program because that would be improper. She didn't want to be in the Young Womens program. This wasn't just a phase she was going through, and I believe that to this day her family respects her decisions and treats her as if she (I should be saying "he") is a man. But while he was still young, the actions of our ward made him feel very isolated.

There are many LDS members who believe that such behavior is wrong, the same way acting on homosexual attraction is wrong (to them). In my opinion, you are free to believe that, though I would disagree with you. Regardless, as christians and members of a welcoming church, we should not allow someone to feel isolated because they do not fit our description of what they should be doing. We should not judge others, spiritually or otherwise, based on whether or not they act more typically feminine or masculine. 

Good & bad wisdom

In my January Relief Society newsletter, there was a blurb from Elder Neil L. Andersen's talk Reverence for God is the Beginning of Wisdom, which can be found in full here.

The chunk picked out to be in the newsletter goes like this:

I want to emphasize several principles of wisdom. First, in our age of information and knowledge, we must seek after wisdom. Wisdom is multidimensional and comes in different sizes and colors. Wisdom gained early brings enormous blessings. Wisdom in one area may not be transferable to another. And finally, the wisdom of the world, while in many cases very valuable, is most valuable when it humbly bows to the wisdom of God.
The scriptures describe two types of wisdom: the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. The wisdom of the world has both a positive and a negative component. In the darkest description, it could be described as a partial truth, mixed with intelligence and manipulation, to achieve selfish or evil purposes.
An example from the Book of Mormon is the man Amlici. The scriptures say that “a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world … [drew] away much people after him.” The scriptures go on to describe Amlici as a “wicked man, … [whose] intent [was] to destroy the church of God” (Alma 2:1–2, 4; emphasis added). We are not interested in this kind of wisdom.
There is another kind of wisdom of the world that is not nearly so sinister. In fact it is very positive. This wisdom is consciously acquired through study, reflection, observation, and hard work. It is very valuable and helpful in the things we do. To good and decent people, it comes as we experience our mortality.

Let's just say that I don't really get it. As a Church, we are constantly encouraged to learn. We are taught that we all have gifts we can develop through learning, whether it is skills or hobbies. We are taught that an education in both a college sense and a religious sense is very important to our spiritual progression and eternal development. So why would we then classify knowledge into "good" and "bad"?

To me, it doesn't seem like there is really any kind of "bad" wisdom, unless you're learning about devil worship (that's mostly a joke). As Andersen clearly demonstrated, there is always cases of people using their wisdom in bad ways. But does that really mean that there are certain avenues of learning that we shouldn't pursue?

I feel like this sort of thinking comes up a lot in the opposition to Mormon feminism. Many members would like to classify feminism as "wisdom of the world." They feel feminism is a dangerous line of thinking that they should not follow, even if it means clarifying what "feminism" actually is. So you get people who respond to the "Let Women Pray" campaign by saying that we should not be questioning the General Authorities' wisdom. Or people who really do believe that, in the gospel and Heavenly Father's perfect system, women are subservient.

This is not to say that feminism should take the place of spiritual learning within the Church. Or that anything should. All kinds of learning can supplement the spiritual learning done in church (science and feminism are the first that come to mind).

I believe that many people are scared of certain kinds of learning, such as learning that may make them doubt the Church or their own testimonies, if only for a little while. They would put the kind of learning that scares them into "bad" wisdom, and accuse those who have allowed themselves to experience doubt of being led astray. But I also believe that it is necessary to doubt at some point in your life in order to develop real and lasting faith. I guess it would be a lot like the Indiana Jones scene where he takes the "leap of faith" ... but omg ... how coincidental is that name?!

We as a Church should not be closed off to any lines of learning, particularly when it comes to someone else experiencing their testimonies differently from ours. How ironic is it that a very radical, progressive church that was founded by a little boy praying and everyone else having the faith to believe him is now a stereotypical close-minded conservative church? How does that make any sense?

It doesn't. So I propose we throw out this old-fashioned line of thinking that makes knowing certain things good or bad, rather than emphasizing that only the active use of knowledge can sometimes be bad.