The key to power is clean laundry
In LDS General Conference last month, Relief Society President Julie Beck gave a talk, entitled MOTHERS WHO KNOW, that set the Mormon world a spinning. There have been some female strides inside the intense patriarchy known as Mormonism, but it’s always been a two-steps-forward, six-steps-back kind of progress.
After all, women cannot hold the “Sacred” priesthood. This “power” alone rules and runs the Church. Everyone knows this. But some Mormon woman continue to convince themselves that they hold their own “power,” and that the Church is listening to them, and valuing them as human beings who have something important to give to society besides a garbage dump full of disposable diapers.
Wrongo. I think we need an exorcism, because Beck seems to be channeling Boyd K. Packer, or some of the other ancient Mormons apostles (I know, I know, they are ALL ancient, but you know what I mean).
I practically expect to see Beck’s head spin around and watch her spew perfectly simmered and seasoned pea soup at the next General Conference. There can be no other explanation for this speech, unless it’s a time warp.
Key points from Beck’s speech include:
Mothers Who Know Bear Children
Mothers who know desire to bear children.
Well, HELLO, duh? If they don’t BEAR children, they aren’t MOTHERS. This makes no sense at all. What kind of crap is this? Being female alone does not make you a mother. Did she even THINK about this before she wrote it? And what about those who CAN’T bear children? Let’s just rub the salt in the old wound again, shall we?
Mothers Who Know Honor Sacred Ordinances and Covenants
Mothers who know honor sacred ordinances and covenants. I have visited sacrament meetings in some of the poorest places on the earth where mothers have dressed with great care in their Sunday best despite walking for miles on dusty streets and using worn-out public transportation. They bring daughters in clean and ironed dresses with hair brushed to perfection; their sons wear white shirts and ties and have missionary haircuts. These mothers know they are going to sacrament meeting, where covenants are renewed. These mothers have made and honor temple covenants. They know that if they are not pointing their children to the temple, they are not pointing them toward desired eternal goals. These mothers have influence and power.
What the HELL does dressing your children up have to do with the temple? This makes no sense. The connection is not there. This is influence and power? How? Better do some ’splaining, Julie, because your talk is not only disjointed and nonsensical, but your making some PRETTY BIG leaps here.
Mothers Who Know Are Nurturers
Mothers who know are nurturers. This is their special assignment and role under the plan of happiness.5 To nurture means to cultivate, care for, and make grow. Therefore, mothers who know create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth in their homes. Another word for nurturing is homemaking. Homemaking includes cooking, washing clothes and dishes, and keeping an orderly home. Home is where women have the most power and influence; therefore, Latter-day Saint women should be the best homemakers in the world.
Okay, Sister Beck, now you are REALLY starting to irritate me. You are taking HUGE liberties with the meaning of the word NURTURE. The dictionary says:
1. to feed and protect: to nurture one’s offspring.
2. to support and encourage, as during the period of training or development; foster: to nurture promising musicians.
3. to bring up; train; educate.
–noun
4. rearing, upbringing, training, education, or the like.
5. development: the nurture of young artists.
6. something that nourishes; nourishment; food.
It doesn’t say ONE word about keeping an orderly home. Nor does it say to “nurture” is female. Men should, and in many cases are, just as involved in the upbringing of their children. I say we call an exorcist and try to get BOYD K. PACKER back where he belongs.
There are more than a few other key points, but they were kinda boring. I included a link to the talk itself, so feel free to go immerse yourself in the propaganda and brainwashing.
There are more than a few LDS women up in arms over this talk, and rightly so. Except I’m not sure what they expected. After all, the roles in Mormonism are, and always have been, very clearly defined. Women have a place. It is by the side of their “priesthood bearing” husband, and only THROUGH him can they achieve the highest of God’s kingdoms. If he ain’t there to call your name, and pull you through the veil, then you are NOT getting through.
This alone is the perfect example of what Mormons REALLY believe and teach. For no MAN needs a woman to get him into the Celestial Kingdom. But women? Not the same rules.
Apparently, the current atmosphere of sexual equality has someone in the LDS hierarchy disturbed, and thus, they set Sister Beck about RIGHTING things, and making sure that women known just exactly what their place is.
It’s interesting to see the reaction from around the Bloggernacle. For example:
From Feminist Mormon Housewives:
So, as Mormon women, how do we approach a talk like Beck’s? Is “in one ear and out the other” okay? Would it be inappropriate to respond directly, write her a letter listing in detail the things I find flawed and disappointing in her approach, or is that not sustaining my leaders? Almost worse than my annoyance and dismissal is the (unnecessary) guilt and shame I think my orthodox friends probably took right to heart.
The thing is, I want to sustain Beck, I don’t want to bash her, but there is no way that I can believe that “keeping our homes as tidy as the temple” or “being the best homemakers in the world” are the vital lessons that will bring myself and my family closer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Shesh.
I’m curious to know if faithful but progressive Mormon women really thought that things were changing? I would love to hear some comments from them.
Comments that don’t start with, “U r really stoopid,” that is. Those usually come from young Mormon males, actually.
I personally found her comments ridiculous, and her talk poorly thought out. There were huge leaps of logic, and it did not tie together well. If anything, the masses should be in an uproar because she obviously needs some laying on of hands or something, so she can become as eloquent and well-spoken as… Oh wait. There aren’t many Mormon women known for that, now are there? In fact, you don’t hear much from women at all. Especially during conference. Why is that? Oh YEAH. Patriarchy. Always has been. Nothing new, people. I don’t see what the furor is all about.
Thanks, Natalie.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:58 am
As a never been, I am curious about when a woman in LDS dies first. Where does she go until her husband calls her?
Does she hang out in the Bardo, Purgatory or the Mormon equivalent, if there is such a thing?
I was thinking of the Osmond’s. Mama Osmond died in 2004 and Papa Osmond just recently died. Does she just swing on a star until he arrives. Just what happens to the Mormon female?
Just curious.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:10 am
[…] Trapped by the Mormons wrote an interesting post today on The key to power is clean laundryHere’s a quick excerptThe key to power is clean laundry November 20th, 2007 In LDS General Conference last month, Relief Society President Julie Beck gave a talk, entitled MOTHERS WHO KNOW, that set the Mormon world a spinning. There have been some female strides inside the intense patriarchy known as Mormonism, but it’s always been a two-steps-forward, six-steps-back kind of progress. After all, women cannot hold the “Sacred” priesthood. This “power” alone rules and runs the Church. Everyone knows this. But some […]
November 20th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Yup, Beck could be my mother. Her heathen, post Mormon daughters are such an irritation and burden for her. My husband and I both work, and we share all of the household chores and activities related to raising our only child. In her perfect world, I would stay at home and have more babies and let him support me. Um, yea, not gonna happen. Plus, I make more than he does
The best comment my mom ever made was to my brother-in-law, a naval officer:
Mom: Why don’t you have [sis] iron your clothes for you?
BIL: Because she does not do it right.
Mom: [BIL], you need to get control of your house.
She was dead serious.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I was offended, but I’m not LDS. I make more than my husband too, he in fact was a stay at home dad for a few years and did an awesome job of it, actually, probably far better than I ever could do as a SAHM.
I was interested, and happy, to see that some of these gals who call her “Sister Beck” aren’t putting up with the blah blah blah.
I’m all about preserving the traditional family if you can and that’s what you want to do, but I’m more about having a good family of any makeup (including two gay parents if that’s what works for you) and a family that can EAT and have a ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS.
‘Nuff said.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I LOVE your blog, you sassy thing.
I never thought it could get worse than Sherrie Dew, but alas, the Morg has proven me wrong yet again!
November 21st, 2007 at 1:34 am
Renee, I understand why you would offended but I think you would be a lot more offended if you grew up Mormon. You would feel the weight of a lot of oppression.
I really think the primary reason I left the church is that I could not stand the idea of being married to a mental zero like Beck. Other ideological paths followed the fact that at about 22 years old I looked around and noticed that most of the girls wanted to be a house elf with a uterus (like Sister Beck). I can’t figure why a guy would want a slave when the world is full of real women that think of themselves as more than baby machines. I married a feminist and have never regretted it.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I laughed when I read this Natalie, but in retrospect, it’s a little bit creepy. Sort of like THE HANDMAIDS TALE…
November 21st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Hiker, you sound a lot like my husband - though he he’s never been LDS, he had a girlfriend when he was 21 who was - and “houself with a uterus” is a beautiful description of how she sounded. He broke up with her b/c he suspected she was trying to get pregnant - and she promptly ran out and did just that with someone else.
You made me laugh out loud. Thanks.
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
As someone who actually read the enitre talk I get what this woman is trying to say. Needless to say she is a crappy talk writer and whomever her editor was did a real sucky job. If people can’t read between the lines a little regarding the content of a crappily (is that even a word) thought out and executed talk/piece of writiing anymore then there are a lot more seriously uneducated people out there than I thought. As an active member of the LDS church, I can’t say I was offended. But then, maybe I am a little smarter than the average mormon?
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Kris,
It was not a crappily written speech at all. Sister Beck spelled out the woman’s role in the family. Women cook, clean, iron, and feel real good about it because the most important thing for a woman is to submit to the priesthood. Beck articulated women’s position in the church perfectly. Most members were not offended because they already knew that women are supposed to get pregnant, and stay in the kitchen. Shoes are optional.
Whether you read between the lines or not, most Mormon women so spend a huge amount of time pregnant and cleaning up after their priesthood holders. As a guy I have to question why so many guys are attracted to female slaves.
If you read between the lines, you will note the term “female slave” is an exaggeration.
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Sometimes the truth hurts!
November 24th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Kris, I read the entire talk, too. You should know by now I usually do my homework. And when one is touching on a controversial subject that is BOUND to have long-reaching repercussions, don’t you think that reading between the lines IS too much to ask? Should not Beck have been EXPECTED to do better?? You are talking about very serious issues here. If she is going to be the “mouthpiece” for Mormon women, should she not have thought this out better? Sorry but I don’t believe reading between the lines was necessary here.
And Tauna, not sure which comment or post to which you refer.
Jen, Handmaid’s Tale! Exactly!
Hiker, I think the way a woman is treated has a LOT to do with the man she is with. Honestly. That’s always been an issue I have with Mormonism, and patriarchy. In certain minds, it just gets twisted and torn, and warped….
November 25th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Natalie, I wasn’t implying that you didn’t read the talk…I was implying that some of the commenters hadn’t however.
Apparently I don’t have the same opinion of LDS women as most of your readers do…which makes perfect sense to me.
Yep, Mrs. Beck did a real crappy job at that talk. Crappy crappy crappy. Frankly I cringe that it even got past the editors. However I do understand her point and you do have to get past the words and read between the lines.
Unfortuantely, the pregnant, barefoot in the kitchen, homeschooling, freaky mormon women seem to be a dime a dozen in Utah and some of the other “mormon states”. Those women however do not represent that totality of LDS women in the church. Believe it or not (and yes I know you all will choose NOT) I HAVE met many of those, BUT the majority are freethinking, educated women who you can’t simply write off as submitting little “Women cook, clean, iron, and feel real good about it because the most important thing for a woman is to submit to the priesthood.” That’s a bunch of bullshit. Quote me on that one.
Just my opinion though…and you know Natalie that I do very much enjoy your site and your opinions. You make me think and although we may not agree on many points I still hope that you and your readers can put up with me (reading between the lines sometimes helps).
K.
November 25th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
The Professor George Lakoff has an progressive ideology where conservatives are mean harsh parents and atheist progressives are kind loving nurturing parents.
Other groups play the same game where they try to position themselves as the nurturers. The Mormon bent is to emphasize the outward appearance of nurturing.
PS: I think both Lakoff and the article you referenced are quite silly. These people who want to define society are dangerous. I really dislike that Julie B. Beck implies that it is the number of children a woman drops is the prime indicator of how nurturing a woman is. In today’s world people are concentrating more resources on fewer children; which is a legitimate tact in the light of recent decreases in the incidences of child mortality.
November 25th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Kris, while I don’t agree that the MAJORITY of Mormon women are as you describe, I think a good deal of them are. I also think it’s more complicated than just you ARE Mormon, or you AREN’T. I think there are degrees of subservience, and tiers and levels.
Are there intelligent, thinking, opinionated Mormon women? HELL YEAH. And thank God. And the LDS Church has seen a lot of progression in the past 20 years. They also aren’t the ONLY religion with patriarchy issues (I know, I know, that’s a “duh” statement, but bear with me for this purposes of this comment).
Beck links BEARING children with power and superiority, and that is wrong, and hurtful on so many levels. How do you read between the lines on that?
And KD, I agree. Some of the WORST nurturers I have ever seen have the most children. The more you have, the more your attention is spread and your time is used up, and your nerves are frazzled. I know there are women who have many children and pull it off, but more often than not, in huge families the oldest children end up raising the youngest children, parents long before they are ready.
Nurturing one or two children often makes more sense, especially for those who aren’t mentally equipped to having a lot of children.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I won’t go into what did offend me…as I said I’m not LDS but I did watch most of the speech during General Conference (I’m definitely curious about the culture I’ve landed myself in). Point is I didn’t see a lot of flexibility there.
And, I work with several LDS women, some of whom have one child, some of whom have 3 or 5, some of whom stayed home for some years when the kids were small, some of whom have always worked. Also one who had a stay at home husband. So I definitely don’t mean to imply that LDS women are inferior. Far from it, especially if they give their kids, especially female children, the idea that you have a CHOICE.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Natalie, I agree that the way a woman is treated depends a lot on the man she is with. It might sound like a contradiction but I agree with Kris that there are many free thinking Mormon women but they are free thinking in spite of the church. the church teaches that women should submit to their husbands. Sister Beck’s speech is not different than many other teachings by the church.
November 26th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
As a man and a father of 2 girls, I found the talk utterly revolting. I’m an exmormon and the treatment of women is, of course, part of a long list of reasons why I saw through the zion curtain. The statement about home being where women have the most power and influence is complete and utter bullshit, IMO.
So how, Ms. Beck, do you exert power and influence living in poverty as a woman because you’re unmarried and have not developed a career, or in some cases, even an education? What if holding this position so strongly to exert your power and influence only within your home turns into complete emotional abuse of the husband you did have, to the point he can’t take it anymore and leaves? Now exactly how does that leave you in a position of power and influence?
There’s nothing wrong with having opinions such as Beck does, or really even desiring those types of things she desires. To each her own. The problem here is that this woman is representing a position of leadership, a role model for women of the lds church to follow. Thus, how else can one take it than a general proscription for the way lds women “should” be (carrying all the implied guilt and such if they don’t). That is what’s really wrong here. I vehemently disagree with the whole premise, of course, but what really irks me is the one-size-fits-all proscription for defining what womanhood is (and thus, isn’t). I sincerely hope my daughters (and my ex, for that matter) see through this bullshit in their youth before they hang themselves with it as adults.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
hiker, I somewhat disagree with your premise that the way a woman is treated depends a lot on the man she is with. Or perhaps it’s just a squabble over how much is “a lot”. I’m a very justice and equality focused person. That extended into my marriage to my ex. Though I was a fully qualified, card-carrying lds husband for many years (over a decade), I don’t recall ever supporting positions like this. I guess I was always a closet liberal. I did everything I could to be supportive of whatever ambitions my ex had. I even went so far to push in a few directions here or there from time to time — trying to encourage spreading wings. But despite any of my efforts, she would vehemently squash anything that deviated from the lds proscription for her, sometimes violently so (thus the ex part). It’s a pity, really. I still hope she sees past this someday, and I especially hope our daughters don’t suffer the same fate.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hey, Matt, I’m sorry to hear the wife is an “ex” but that happens a lot when one partner becomes an “ex” Mormon. I admire your beliefs, but I’m sometimes wonder if it’s possible for ANY of us to get past ingrained beliefs…. I’m hopeful….
November 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
natalie, thanks. There’s not much to mourn about the loss of my marriage. Looking back, I think it was probably a relationship that was created and held together unnaturally by the lds church to begin with, and as such, most likely doomed to fail anyway. Not that I consider it a failure, really. A learning experience for sure. I mourn the loss of the only environment my kids had known up to that point, for sure, but in my decision to end it, I had to consider the greater good. An environment of divorced, but happy, parents is far better, IMO, than an environment with parents still together but miserable (and even toxic to each other).
I think it’s possible for us to get past ingrained beliefs. It’s hard to look back completely objectively, but though I was an adult lds convert, I thought the belief system was pretty ingrained in me. I was probably far more liberal in it than most and very logically oriented, though I turned a blind eye to the illogic of all that is mormonism. I was finally able to free myself of it, but only after it was causing severe mental and emotional distress from the cognitive dissonance.
In the end, I don’t think my marriage ended over religious differences, it ended because it was a toxic relationship that was slowly getting worse. The division created by my turning my back on her belief system only added fuel to an already growing process of erosion. The abuse and toxic nature were already there, from the very start — I simply chose to ignore it at the time, foolishly thinking it would get better with time.
I just think it’s ironic that the more my ex adhered rigidly to the so-called principles of salvation and womanhood as proscribed by the lds church, the more it drove us apart, emotionally, especially when taken to extremes of outright abuse in her trying to enforce it.
I share your hope of humanity getting past ingrained beliefs and replacing them with ones that are rational, based on evidence and logic rather than centuries and millenia-old myth and superstition. At an individual level, I think it’s quite possible, though possibly not for some individuals. And I don’t know what the key is in determining when it’s possible and when not.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Both my parents are more or less happy as traditional Mormons. My dad calls all the shots and my mom follows like a sheep. My mom likes it that way and so does my dad. When I was a kid my dad decided to move out of Utah with his eight kids and his eight month pregnant wife into a 450 square foot cabin in Northern Canada. The place had no plumbing and there was an outhouse behind the cabin. It was cold enough in the winter to literally freeze your ass to the seat. Still, there were some GREAT things about homesteading but that might be off topic. Sister Beck would be proud that my mom did laundry for 11 in one of those old fashioned hand rolling wash bins. There were good things about our homesteading experience. Hell we had health insurance for the only time in my young life but damn it was hard. My mom capitulated to everything my dad said and gave birth to my youngest brother in the middle of BFE. As a child my dad must have sung the hand cart song one too many times because he HAD to be a pioneer. the traditional roles worked for my parents though. my mom wanted somebody to take all responsibility for family decisions and my dad wanted to be the ultimate patriarch. I wouldn’t want to be the patriarch of the family. Call me a pussy-whipped if you like but I depend upon my wife to make at least half of the important decisions.
I used to herd sheep on our homestead in British Columbia so I know a thing or two about them. Here are some thoughts from the Good Shepherd. I wasn’t a great shepherd but I was good enough. Mormonism is basically an easy way out. Women are supposed to follow the counsel of their husband (some disobey thank goodness) and men follow the brethren. Everybody has somebody else to follow. If you are a blind follower, it’s the church for you. Sister Beck’s speech was well received by my mom because it confirmed what she always believed. Work hard and above all else be obedient.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Forgive my rambling here…
That is YOUR experience hiker. Unfortunately, not everyone shares the same opinions as you do despite your experiences growing up. Your experience is not MY experience in the LDS church and bringing everyone in it down to one petty label (yours I guess is women=sheep men=shepherd?) is pretty ridiculous in my opinon, bordering on some serious implications. Do you also believe the same of other religions and people? Perhaps all Jewish people are stingy? That’s the way you are coming off, again just my opinion. What I don’t understand is why so many people, say ex-mormons believe it is ok share their opinions, but when it comes to someone else who may disagree they are told they are “incorrect” because “that wasn’t their experience”. Unfortunately OPINIONS can’t be categorized as correct or incorrect,likewise to personal experiences. And everyone doesn’t necessarily fall into one category or another, despite your experiences. I would add a little story about my experiences converting at 18 years old here but I figure I will just be written off again as someone whose experience is “exceptional” in the LDS church where it really isn’t…it is more the norm for where I grew up. Perhaps though, Utah is quite exceptional is it’s general weirdness? and everywhere else is pretty much the norm? Who knows.
K.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 am
Kris,
Did you read Sister’s Beck’s speech? It wasn’t about independent thinking.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:54 am
Kris,
Did you read my post from November 26th? Many Mormon women think independently but they do so in spite of the church. Mormon women are sheep because they don’t demand the priesthood?” And I never said squat about Jews and you no right call me antisemitic. I grew up in the church and know the doctrines and the members well. The church doesn’t teach women to go against the patriarch of the family. Yes, brave women have been excommunicated for doing so. The church teaches that the man presides over the family that includes his wife.
Kris if you are a devout Mormon, the main difference in our viewpoints is that you believe Gordon B Hinckley is a prophet and I don’t. To get a temple recommend you have to swear to your bishop that you support your church leaders and their teachings.
A devout Mormon claims that God tells His prophet how people should act, and faithful follow the prophet. The church is about being a good follower and that is great if you think the white old men in Salt Lake actually have a connection to God.
Kris, I never said that Mormon men were shepherds. Mormon men are supposed to be sheep too.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 am
Why is it so important to all of you to tear down and stomp on this religion? I have never seen this website until today and after looking through quite a few of the comments on here, both by the creator of this site and by visitors to it, I am curious as to WHY you spew so much hate and venom at this one particular religion? What satisfaction do you receive from being so ugly with your words? Maybe I am mistaken and you all hate other religions too?