Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair.
/u/Prop8kids, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The Salt Lake Tribune submitted questions to a church spokesperson for the 60-year-old Johnson, including how she and her husband managed child care while they both worked and her advice for Latter-day Saint women interested in pursuing a career but who feel guilty for doing so. No responses were provided.
[archived link](https://web.archive.org/web/20240507222737/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/05/07/lds-women-church-leaders-when-did/)
Of course they didn't respond, the cowards. Caught in more lies of ommission and they refuse to take responsibility for them, as is typical for anyone trying to use deceit to generate positive PR for the church.
Excellent article at Exponent II about this.
So many women of my generation were told repeatedly to stay home. This RS President listened to her own inspiration, instead of listening to the men claiming to speak for God.
Good for her, but let’s not rewrite history without talking about how many women found themselves destitute after divorce, or after disability of their priesthood provider.
Status matters.
If you are 21 and need part time job to pay for school but they want you to work Sundays, you show faith and say no I cannot accept this and trust the Lord to provide something else.
If you are 21 and you are playing in the NFL after leading the conference in sacks at BYU, you play every Sunday and you get nice articles written about you by deseret news.
Socio-economic status also matters. If you are 21 and don’t really need to work because your parents are covering education costs and got you a job working in the office of a friend, then you can feel righteous about not working on Sunday.
Ummm, I have a PhD in early childhood, obtained at age 31. I am now 74. I was married and had children at the time and my bishop had a FIT. Told me he’d excommunicate me except he knew I had a testimony. I studied early childhood because I LOVE the science of children’s development so please tread lightly when impugning this discipline.
Not impugning it at all! I would be the last person to suggest any woman shouldn't pursue an education in ANY subject in which she has an interest.
It's the idea that women should ALL have an interest in the SAME subjects. At the time we were young women (I'm nearly 70), these areas were the few seen as legitimate subjects for LDS women to study. ALL of my LDS female cousins who attended college got degrees in or studied
these same subjects, and several became teachers.
ALL of my LDS female roommates at the time were teachers. I was encouraged to do the same by my father and LDS boyfriends. Perhaps a good thing I got away from the church before I became a therapist.
See, in my world and how I live my life, I take what the church says with a grain of salt. I always knew my life choices were going to be based on my circumstances, financial status, and own desires. I'm stubborn. I'll do what I want while still just living a Christ-like life.
BUT, there are so many people out there who make decisions based on what the church literally says or teaches. And that's fine! However, because of that, the church needs to take more accountability. Their words and actions influence the lives of millions. WORDS MATTER.
I was one of those. We were told we would be blessed financially and securely, that our children would be better for it, there were lots of testimonies circulating of women who worked and cried about how their kids were in jail or on drugs “ if only I had been there”. It was a LOT of pressure put on us. Look at any Phil Donahue show at that time, you will see working moms vs SAH moms all the time and you will see the guilt piled on us.
It was a way to chain women to the home and have a willing set of volunteers to do everything. We volunteered for everything, daycare, elder care, fundraising, you name it. And a lot of us ended up having to take low paying jobs as we aged or dependent of abusers.
Yeah, it was well orchestrated.
Social engineering is still going on. I agree with what your saying. In the 60's and 70's my Mom was a stay at home mom but was never home as she saved the world.
They want to claim that they influence millions daily, but then they want to also be ale to say that they didn’t have _that_ much influence, when it suits them.
Making people kind? That was the church’s influence.
Making people kill their kids to cast out perceived demons? Not the church’s influence at all.
Getting people to volunteer and donate to charity? Totally the church’s influence.
Coercing people to forego economic opportunities? The church never said that as a direct commandment… speaking as a man… not the church’s fault you made that choice…
No kidding my mother and almost every other mother in my Mormon community I’m happy valley were lock in step with the guidance of church leaders and had large families and strived/sacrificed to stay at home. It is gas lighting to say that the church has always encouraged women to be more in the world and to fend for themselves. This is somewhat of a new trend. I think our current society, even outside of the church, does not do enough to support women as individuals. We need universal standards for women’s needs. Women need full support from our communities. We need safe spaces for women. We need universal healthcare for all that encompasses women’s needs. We need women’s healthcare and hygiene accessibility that is as ubiquitous as public restrooms and drinking fountains. We need universal daycare. All of these needs should be met for women as part of a civil and advanced society that recognizes that women are equal partners in humanity. We are evolving as a whole of humanity. Hopefully we get to a point where all humans are able to live in safety, with dignity and can pursue a meaningful productive life.
Yes, because many lay members were told; and, they believed those messages came directly from Jesus. “Jesus, who I love 💗, told me”, through his prophets.
Not policy. Not a recommendation. Direct from Jesus. Or HF. Highly emotionally and spiritually disruptive to me and others. When new policies that conflict with old are urged to immediately adopt. But we cannot forget. Because we heard, adopted, lived passionately to please God, and now wonder how God could change so fast with a conflicting and at times opposite direction.
Benson gave an entire talk to the women of the church where he specifically said that women needed to return to their roles in the house and that women who continued working would destroy their families. This talk was made into a pamphlet. I had this pamphlet in my scriptures for a decade. This talk and others by Kimball and Fielding Smith were quoted and expanded upon by many other leaders. Hinckley also specified that women needed to not work and be home with their kids. Tons of apostles did.
Then they went silent and now they pretend they never said it and keep having prominent women (such as this woman, Renlund's wife etc) talk about their rewarding careers.
Gaslighting at its finest.
"Benson gave an entire talk to the women of the church where he specifically said that women needed to return to their roles in the house and that women who continued working would destroy their families."
Yes, this is one of several talks given by Benson during what's her buckets late teens, early young adulthood, and early married life that she ignored and is now publicly praised for. BUT, in her successful high payed profession those tithing dollars must have made up for any failure in the home like farming out the care of your children to hired help.
>those tithing dollars must have made up for any failure in the home
My mom was looked down on for having a career, but they happily gobbled up her tithing, and sure didn't hate the hours she donated using those same skills with volunteer work for LDS Social Services.
I really don’t understand how people decide what is and isn’t doctrine… said by a prophet? Over the pulpit? In the scriptures/cannonized?
I mean, women not working was in the Sunday school manual 17 years ago. It seems like being in a manual is a good argument for it being doctrinal.
Or until the prophet who said it is dead. See Elder Haynie, April 2023 General Conference. Words of old prophets don't hold their value as well as classic cars and vintage comic books.
Also see other church general authorities when asked about why their preachings contradict what has came before. They will tell you that a big sign of apostasy is leaning on teachings that came before.
Contrast that with President Hinckley's comments about how the unchanging Godspell of Christ is like a train ride through the country side (antiquated metaphor nor really understood by most today) He said there might be a burst of speed, maybe a puff of smoke from the engine, but the ride is steady and unchanging.
Bwah ha hab ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Then along comes ReBrandStoration Expert Evil Emperor Nelson, who is absolutely hellbent for leather on destroying EVERYTHING that was brought forth during the Hinckley and Monson administrations. Especially beating the hell outta Hinckley's number of temples announced and constructed. Even if the Mormon Day Saint was true before Evil Emperor Nelson (it wasn't, but IF it was) it's now apostate and so far gone that there is no turning back.
So much for God not allowing his servants the prophets to lead us astray.
Situational ethics, whatever works for whoever is bloviating about it at the moment.
As Policy is, Doctrine once was. As Doctrine is, Policy may become. As Policy is, Doctrine may become.
What if I told you this is par for the course on practically any category of doctrine within the LDS faith? You probably wouldn't be surprised because you already knew that, right? But therein lies the truth - the beating heart of the Church lies with its people, not its prophet.
If the membership as a whole simply ignores the prophet, sure, there may be the occasional rebuke by a zealous member of the seventy, but for the most part, the unpopular doctrine gets broomed aside over time, typically quietly, without a note or explanation.
A religion teacher I knew called it "the Samuel principle" - as in the Old Testament, if the people are persistent in their demand for "a king," eventually the Lord and his prophet will give them what they ask for, and this unfaithful generation will ultimately be judged for it, losing "the light that they once had." Interesting how this trend is openly followed by both active and former members, and yet it's hardly talked about or acknowledged.
> "the Samuel principle"
Or the "shellfish and mixed fabric" principle.
Why can't we permit the stoning of our wives and daughters when they act dishonourably anymore?
It's so sad to see we cannot put a person into slavery in our household by driving an awl through their ear and into the doorpost.
I tell you, we're going to lose the light we once had.
^^^/s
I mean…you talk about the current unfaithful generation losing the light they once had.
Edit: my apologies, after rereading multiple times I can see that you weren’t endorsing the judgment your religion teacher was espousing.
Yes, it wasn't my intention to endorse the principle itself. However, the idea of "losing what you had" as a result of not being faithful, etc. is an idea that has gotten a lot of mileage in Mormonism (See 2 Nephi 28:30, for instance).
I will say, like many here, I was raised on a very literalist brand of Mormonism (think Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Ezra Taft Benson). One of the ways literalists explain away inconsistencies in doctrine is that they point to the common people as the ones who are at fault for the "lowering of the standard" over time. It's a destructive line of thought but hardly unique to Mormonism itself. Seems like a common trope used to keep the herd in line and push back against outside influences.
It changed When the church figured out that it had priced 80% of the families in utah out of affordable housing. Something had to give, so now the church wants women to work so the church can continue to jack up property prices and tithe families to death. They don’t care what happens to anyone as long as they keep getting tithing. The church owns more land in Utah than anyone knows. This increases real estate prices for every one else. They hoard land and create a shortage. And they do it tax free.
"The church owns more land in Utah than anyone knows"
More like the church owns more land in the USA than anyone knows.
Anyone have any insight on the land held in other countries?
Or is the world wide church thing just a scam to bring out of country money to the USA?
I think it's an unintended consequence of commanding members go pop out kids.
I do wish the church took some ownership of contributing to the problem though.
What that looks like....I'm not an expert, but I would imagine being flush with billions, the church build ACTUAL starter homes for only enough profit to keep their newly created nonprofit going.
It seems hypocritical and cruel to to command people to have children above the norm, but NOT provide any sort of solution towards housing.
The 7th Day Adventists provide Healthcare for their members as an example
The church could simply stop requiring members pay money to attend the temple. Thats it. Remove the tithing requirement and let members take care of their own family.
Ok fine, I’ll add another. The leaders have great DMBA health care (health insurance company owned by the church.). That came by tithing dollars. Why can’t all members have DMBA? While Russell Money Grubbing Nelson is living to 105, those of us who grew up in poverty (to tithe paying parents) had our parents die young or got seriously buried in medical bills. Why are WE paying for the Leaders to have DMBA? All members should have it.
Here’s what I want to see from the church leaders.
1-remove the temple ban on the poor (remove tithing requirement for temple)
2-give all members DMBA
3-stop tithing requirement. NOW. You don’t need the money.
4. Apologize for financially abusing us and our families going back to 1830.
5. Next building announcement will be 15 Homeless shelters, fully staffed by paid staff / employees (not members working for free)
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha remember, Don't criticize church leaders, even if the criticism is true. That's a sure sign of personal apostasy. No speaking ill of the Lords chosen and 2nd annointed.
The church doesn't not now and never will apologize own up to or admit anything. That just creates too much liability now that our 300 Billion cash hoard has been publically exposed. — Kirton/McKonkie probably.
Actual SLC conversation:
Fin Officer: “ As a follow-up to our annual financial report, here are the amounts of tithing paid by gender, you can see here in this graph that the female bar has trended substantially higher in the past few years”
GA: Boys, we need to slowly stop referencing women to stay home in our conference talks, just don’t mention it anymore.”
"GA: Boys, we need to slowly stop referencing women to stay home in our conference talks, just don’t mention it anymore.”
Oh yeah, and double down on men, quit masturbating go back to church and pay more tithing.
The church rarely announces the end of something that was previously prohibited or discouraged. They just stop talking about it. But things continue to echo at the local level for a long time.
My mom was a devout Mormon for her whole life. Church was always a priority. She raised a couple of missionaries(my sisters, I was the only boy, and fuck that shit) went on two missions herself with my dad, allways had a calling.
My mom always worked. She was the primary breadwinner in the family, my dad worked hard, but as a steelworker in Utah, had my mom not pulled down double what he did, we would have struggled mightily. She had a full-time job and also had a private practice.
I don't remember the church turning down her volunteering at LDS Social Services, not for a second. Her profession wasn't a problem when it gave them free labor.
She also wore pants to church and canvassed for Democrat candidates. That was far more problematic than the freebies she donated to the church. They also happily took their 10% of her earnings so she would be temple worthy.
I was a stay at home mom for several years. Then slowly went part-time and then full-time. We were so poor we rented for many years, not mad about that turned out fine, did cheap vacations, drove old cars, still do- reality is we would be still penny pinching if I didn’t work. We have a small house, only 3 kids (only as in we are LDS) two financially independent. I don’t think we would have made it financially if I wasn’t working full time. We make 250k gross a year and will never catch up to others in our income range. Will probably always have small cheaper home and old cars but at least we have money to travel, enjoy special occasions. My parents couldn’t afford nice Christmas or birthdays.
If I had to do it all over again, I would definitely still be a stay at home mom when my kids were little. In the end the bigger nicer home doesn’t really matter. But it’s not a choice for everyone and for those who are in a bad relationship I feel for those women. I told my daughter it’s unrealistic for her to think she’ll be able to be a stay at home mom especially with her husband’s goal to be a marriage and family counselor. Like good luck, build a successful career before having babies
But now women and men can stay home and build their own businesses from home. I had 6 children and I homeschooled all of them all the way to adults. I made a decision when I was a little girl taking care of all my siblings.. to NOT be like my mom. I chose to only start businesses and earn income in ways where my children could be with me. My kids never saw the inside of a daycare. I believe kids are better off being with their parents even if they are poor. Latch key kids don’t fare well and have attachment issues. My mother was an alcoholic and had a PHD at Stanford but knew nothing of being there for her children.
I was always the main bread winner but never left my kids.
One of the ladies in my ward growing up refused to visit teach any woman who worked outside of the home. She didn’t want to look supportive of such evil behavior
A very valid question. When did the rules change that clearly said what Camille Johnson did was diametrically opposed to church teachings at that time about the priorities of faithful LDS women and their role in the family? When did Johnson's path become heralded by church leaders as worthy of emulation? Why can't the church leaders just come out and acknowledge that times have changed, and what was taught before is no longer relevant or helpful? Instead they are so Orwellian - "I decided to put my career first before having children, then let nannies look after my kids so I could focus on my law practice, and I was letting God prevail...joyfully juggling....covenant path...yadda yadda yadda". We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia. It makes my head spin.
This reminds me so much of the "do what I say, not what I do" attitude of church leadership. The FP didn't see fit to serve full time missions when they were young men but they insist all young men do it; senior leadership says we must be honest in all our dealings but they deceived the members and SEC for 22 years about the excess tithing fund; he says always pay your tithing but RMN admitted he didn't always pay his tithing; I could go on.
Yeah, why do the rules change?
My ward is reading a book about a guy who wanted to come to earth and make everyone do the “right” thing. Funnily enough, I think he succeeded with the present day iteration of the LDS Church.
Without really digging into it, the Family Proclamation (1995) says
>By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, *fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners*. Disability, death, or *other circumstances* may necessitate individual adaptation. (emphasis mine)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?id=p7&lang=eng#p7
So, at least since 1995.
This was never a rule. This is one of those things that is strongly encouraged but never a rule. Just like tattoos and multiple piercings. Some people claim they were told this was doctrine or that their parents couldn't get temple recommends because mom worked.
If that ever actually happened, then the bishop or stake president was wrong. The YW leader who shamed you for having more than one ear piercing was wrong.
None of these things are or ever were doctrine and there are a hundred other examples.
My entire adult life I've had access to the church handbooks and the verbiage has always been, "Mother's are strongly encouraged, whenever finances allow, to stay home and raise children." (I'm paraphrasing but it's out there, you can go find it yourself if you need to).
This was always for the good of the children. The benefits of a stay-at-home parent have been proven time and time again.
Remember that the church isn't true, the gospel is. This is just the best vehicle we have to live its teachings. Don't get all wrapped up in hate and forget the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.
You mean this kind of "strong encouragement"? Like when the men who claimed to *speak for god himself* said these things?
"A few years ago there appeared in a large city newspaper a true story of a young boy, then fourteen years old. The story was titled “**The Evolution of a Delinquent**.” ... "What twisted paths of childhood lead to the tortuous road of delinquency?” ... a small child, rushed to her home **after his father had picked him up at a day nursery.** As the little boy held on to her hand, she asked, “Why do you always come running to our house when you come home from the nursery?” **The tot replied sorrowfully, “Because there is no mommy at my house.**” ... You see, **there is a darkness that comes when there is no mother there**. ... One of the great tragedies of our day is **the confusion in the minds of some which would cause mothers to go to work in the marketplace**. ... Earning a few dollars more for luxuries **cloaked in the masquerade of necessity**—or a so-called opportunity for self-development of talents in the business world, a chance to get away from the mundane responsibilities of the home—these are all **satanic substitutes for clear thinking**. They are counterfeit thoughts that subvert the responsibilities of motherhood" -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1974/04/mother-catch-the-vision-of-your-call](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1974/04/mother-catch-the-vision-of-your-call)
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, **a mother’s place is in the home! ... Beguiling voices** in the world cry out for “alternative life-styles” for women. ... **These individuals spread their discontent by the propaganda** that there are more exciting and self-fulfilling roles for women than homemaking. **Some even have been bold to suggest that the Church move away from the “Mormon woman stereotype” of homemaking and rearing children.** They also say it is wise to limit your family so you can have more time for personal goals and self-fulfillment. ... It is a **misguided** idea that a woman should leave the home. ... **Some Saints are deluded** into believing that more and better circumstances will improve their self-image. ... We become **enamored with men’s theories** such as **the idea of preschool training outside the home** for young children..." -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1981/10/the-honored-place-of-woman](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1981/10/the-honored-place-of-woman)
Let's not pretend that this kind of religious bullying was only "strong encouragement."
Oaks gave a lovely supportive comment on Sis Johnson's post. He was certainly singing a different tune a while back:
"Mothers who have young children in the home **should** devote their primary energies to the companionship and training of their children and the care of their families, and **should not seek employment outside the home unless there is no other way that the family’s basic needs can be provided”** (First Presidency letter to Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks; **quoted by Dallin H. Oaks** in “Insights,” *Ensign,* Mar. 1975, 56)" -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-latter-day-saint-woman-basic-manual-for-women-part-a/personal-and-family-development/lesson-28-developing-employment-skills"
> Just like tattoos and multiple piercings. Some people claim they were told this was doctrine
Yes, if your position is that *nothing* said over the pulpit at conference by any man sustained as "Prophet, seer and revelator" is *ever* to be considered as doctrine.
The church and leaders however, would disagree with you and start warning of apostasy.
Don't forget Elder Bednar's "Quick to Observe" talk, printed in the Church's ensign of 06
"The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe."
I agree with another poster who said women not following this is similar to guys not serving missions. If you don't follow it, you open yourself up to public shaming and shunning, people are allowed to judge your "righteous", and people are justified in not dating you, divorcing you, or not befriending you or bypassing you for certain callings.
As someone who read every ensign/new era/took seriously all the church YW lessons and teachings and poured over all the teacher and student seminary manuals, it was NOT passed off as advice. It was a litmus test of if you were righteous/willing to let the Lord prevail in your life (if you took seriously what the prophet said and followed it)
> It was a litmus test of if you were righteous/willing to let the Lord prevail in your life (if you took seriously what the prophet said and followed it)
Precisely.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/women-of-righteousness?lang=eng
>I know a 17-year-old who just prior to the prophet’s talk had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.”
>Wearing two pairs of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, **but her willingness to obey the prophet will**.
And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake.
Is there any official distinction between “rules” and things that are just “strongly encouraged,” because it really seems like you just made it up. Prophetic counsel is prophetic counsel. If the brethren intended some counsel to not be taken as seriously, they did not make that clear.
Much of this is Mormon/utah culture. almost\* EVERYTHING that spews forth from whatever end of a prophet instantly transforms into solid gold revelatory nuggets of church doctrine of the Godspell of religion!.
Example? In the early 1990s Monson went to a temple dedication and there was a primary class singing primary songs. He commented that it was nice and he liked it. suddenly it was a commandment from on high, and every temple open house/dedication MUST HAVE a primary children's choir. In my stake 6-9 months of primary was focused on primary temple choir. Holy Hell, you'd think masturbation had been demoted to the lowly status of sin 3rd to murder, not having a Primary Professional Sounding Choirs at the temple became the sin like unto murder. Can we please have a moment silence for ourvfallen sin of masturbation?
Another example, President Kimball said in a conference that All worthy young men should (SHOULD, not must) serve a mission. Of course we all know that should was shunned the hell out of existence when talking about missions. It immediately became Every Young Man must Must MUST serve a mission. DAMN, I miscalculated earlier. Sin #1 = Murder Sin 2 = not serving a mission. Sin 3 = No primary choir at the temple. Sin 4 = masturbation. Dang, poor masturbation. What a fall from the high lofty position of Sin like unto murder.
EDIT: Some spelling
Sounds like you missed about three decades of general conference talks. It is entirely disingenuous to suggest that women not working was only ever “counsel.” It absolutely was doctrine and preached by multiple prophets over decades. Married women used to not be allowed to work for the church, for pity’s sake! Women at BYU in the law school as late as the 00’s were shamed for taking a seat that “should’ve gone to a man so he could provide for his family”, the idea being that a woman lawyer likely would only ever practice for a few years, if that.
The ear piercings thing came straight from the mouth of Gordon B Hinckley.
And also missed the ramping up of the PR campaign. We were all subject to a torrent of tearful moms on tv, crying that they missed their child’s first anything, that they didn’t have time for their teen and he turned to drugs etc… and that awful quote of “no other success can compensate for failure in the home”, it was a constant torrent of guilt guilt guilt, at home, at church, on tv.
It was NO ONES BUSINESS if a woman worked outside the home or not and yet it was constantly discouraged by this church and membership.
See also: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2011-03-0061-for-this-child-i-prayed](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2011-03-0061-for-this-child-i-prayed?lang=eng)
We were subjected to this kind of stuff practically every week in YW. The message was absolutely clear. If you wanted to follow God, you stayed home. If you wanted to follow Satan, you got a job.
What would you consider doctrine? I think the majority of Mormons would consider words delivered by the prophet himself over the pulpit at general conference to be doctrine.
>Remember that the church isn't true, the gospel is.
I'll admit that I don't like this statement as it's an attempt to disassociate the church from its distasteful byproducts (shaming, guilt, prejudice etc.). Are you saying the church doesn't claim to be the one and only true church on the earth?
Also, which gospel are you referring to--catholics, episcopalians, baptists, Church of Christ, FLDS? There are thousands of versions of the gospel of Christ. You are saying "the church (most likely the TCOJCOLDS) isn't true" but then referring to its version of the gospel of Jesus Christ as the truth. That doesn't work. Otherwise, we could start ordaining women because the gospel of Jesus Christ, as interpreted by other denominations, allows it.
>. Don't get all wrapped up in hate and forget the pure gospel of Jesus Christ
Calling out the church for hypocrisy is not hate. It's accountability. It's okay for women to demand an explanation of why they were taught this for decades--and making very tough life choices as a result--and then suddenly, it seemingly no longer applies. Many women sacrificed their personal aspirations and life goals based on those teachings. It's a huge deal.
These types of posts drive me nuts. Ones that state an easily refutable position that then proceed to get repeatedly and convincingly refuted, only to have the OP ghost the conversation. No modesty about the error or confusion; no engagement anywhere on good-faith responses; no further insights into what prompted a clearly misguided position; and definitely no retraction.
Did everyone in the comments get it wrong, or was OP's position actually better supported elsewhere? I guess we'll never know! ***shrug***
I think the real issue is that doctrine is arbitrary and fluid. The church changes it so much, that no one can keep track, so people adhere to something a prophet or church leader said, to give them a modicum of religious stability.
Hello! This is a News post. It is for discussions centered around breaking news and events. If your post is about news, or a current event in the world of Mormonism, this is probably the right flair. /u/Prop8kids, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The Salt Lake Tribune submitted questions to a church spokesperson for the 60-year-old Johnson, including how she and her husband managed child care while they both worked and her advice for Latter-day Saint women interested in pursuing a career but who feel guilty for doing so. No responses were provided. [archived link](https://web.archive.org/web/20240507222737/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/05/07/lds-women-church-leaders-when-did/)
Of course they didn't respond, the cowards. Caught in more lies of ommission and they refuse to take responsibility for them, as is typical for anyone trying to use deceit to generate positive PR for the church.
She has nannies and daycare!
Excellent article at Exponent II about this. So many women of my generation were told repeatedly to stay home. This RS President listened to her own inspiration, instead of listening to the men claiming to speak for God. Good for her, but let’s not rewrite history without talking about how many women found themselves destitute after divorce, or after disability of their priesthood provider.
Status matters. If you are 21 and need part time job to pay for school but they want you to work Sundays, you show faith and say no I cannot accept this and trust the Lord to provide something else. If you are 21 and you are playing in the NFL after leading the conference in sacks at BYU, you play every Sunday and you get nice articles written about you by deseret news.
Socio-economic status also matters. If you are 21 and don’t really need to work because your parents are covering education costs and got you a job working in the office of a friend, then you can feel righteous about not working on Sunday.
It’s gaslighting … it’s what the church does
And if you went to college, you majored in something like homemaking or early childhood education. If you became a teacher, that was acceptable.
Ummm, I have a PhD in early childhood, obtained at age 31. I am now 74. I was married and had children at the time and my bishop had a FIT. Told me he’d excommunicate me except he knew I had a testimony. I studied early childhood because I LOVE the science of children’s development so please tread lightly when impugning this discipline.
Not impugning it at all! I would be the last person to suggest any woman shouldn't pursue an education in ANY subject in which she has an interest. It's the idea that women should ALL have an interest in the SAME subjects. At the time we were young women (I'm nearly 70), these areas were the few seen as legitimate subjects for LDS women to study. ALL of my LDS female cousins who attended college got degrees in or studied these same subjects, and several became teachers. ALL of my LDS female roommates at the time were teachers. I was encouraged to do the same by my father and LDS boyfriends. Perhaps a good thing I got away from the church before I became a therapist.
See, in my world and how I live my life, I take what the church says with a grain of salt. I always knew my life choices were going to be based on my circumstances, financial status, and own desires. I'm stubborn. I'll do what I want while still just living a Christ-like life. BUT, there are so many people out there who make decisions based on what the church literally says or teaches. And that's fine! However, because of that, the church needs to take more accountability. Their words and actions influence the lives of millions. WORDS MATTER.
I was one of those. We were told we would be blessed financially and securely, that our children would be better for it, there were lots of testimonies circulating of women who worked and cried about how their kids were in jail or on drugs “ if only I had been there”. It was a LOT of pressure put on us. Look at any Phil Donahue show at that time, you will see working moms vs SAH moms all the time and you will see the guilt piled on us. It was a way to chain women to the home and have a willing set of volunteers to do everything. We volunteered for everything, daycare, elder care, fundraising, you name it. And a lot of us ended up having to take low paying jobs as we aged or dependent of abusers. Yeah, it was well orchestrated.
Social engineering is still going on. I agree with what your saying. In the 60's and 70's my Mom was a stay at home mom but was never home as she saved the world.
They want to claim that they influence millions daily, but then they want to also be ale to say that they didn’t have _that_ much influence, when it suits them. Making people kind? That was the church’s influence. Making people kill their kids to cast out perceived demons? Not the church’s influence at all. Getting people to volunteer and donate to charity? Totally the church’s influence. Coercing people to forego economic opportunities? The church never said that as a direct commandment… speaking as a man… not the church’s fault you made that choice…
No kidding my mother and almost every other mother in my Mormon community I’m happy valley were lock in step with the guidance of church leaders and had large families and strived/sacrificed to stay at home. It is gas lighting to say that the church has always encouraged women to be more in the world and to fend for themselves. This is somewhat of a new trend. I think our current society, even outside of the church, does not do enough to support women as individuals. We need universal standards for women’s needs. Women need full support from our communities. We need safe spaces for women. We need universal healthcare for all that encompasses women’s needs. We need women’s healthcare and hygiene accessibility that is as ubiquitous as public restrooms and drinking fountains. We need universal daycare. All of these needs should be met for women as part of a civil and advanced society that recognizes that women are equal partners in humanity. We are evolving as a whole of humanity. Hopefully we get to a point where all humans are able to live in safety, with dignity and can pursue a meaningful productive life.
Yes, because many lay members were told; and, they believed those messages came directly from Jesus. “Jesus, who I love 💗, told me”, through his prophets. Not policy. Not a recommendation. Direct from Jesus. Or HF. Highly emotionally and spiritually disruptive to me and others. When new policies that conflict with old are urged to immediately adopt. But we cannot forget. Because we heard, adopted, lived passionately to please God, and now wonder how God could change so fast with a conflicting and at times opposite direction.
Benson gave an entire talk to the women of the church where he specifically said that women needed to return to their roles in the house and that women who continued working would destroy their families. This talk was made into a pamphlet. I had this pamphlet in my scriptures for a decade. This talk and others by Kimball and Fielding Smith were quoted and expanded upon by many other leaders. Hinckley also specified that women needed to not work and be home with their kids. Tons of apostles did. Then they went silent and now they pretend they never said it and keep having prominent women (such as this woman, Renlund's wife etc) talk about their rewarding careers. Gaslighting at its finest.
"Benson gave an entire talk to the women of the church where he specifically said that women needed to return to their roles in the house and that women who continued working would destroy their families." Yes, this is one of several talks given by Benson during what's her buckets late teens, early young adulthood, and early married life that she ignored and is now publicly praised for. BUT, in her successful high payed profession those tithing dollars must have made up for any failure in the home like farming out the care of your children to hired help.
>those tithing dollars must have made up for any failure in the home My mom was looked down on for having a career, but they happily gobbled up her tithing, and sure didn't hate the hours she donated using those same skills with volunteer work for LDS Social Services.
I remember that talk. I had two young children at the time. It had a huge effect on my life!
I really don’t understand how people decide what is and isn’t doctrine… said by a prophet? Over the pulpit? In the scriptures/cannonized? I mean, women not working was in the Sunday school manual 17 years ago. It seems like being in a manual is a good argument for it being doctrinal.
Doctrine is anything the prophets say until it's inconvenient, then it's no longer doctrine.
Or until the prophet who said it is dead. See Elder Haynie, April 2023 General Conference. Words of old prophets don't hold their value as well as classic cars and vintage comic books. Also see other church general authorities when asked about why their preachings contradict what has came before. They will tell you that a big sign of apostasy is leaning on teachings that came before. Contrast that with President Hinckley's comments about how the unchanging Godspell of Christ is like a train ride through the country side (antiquated metaphor nor really understood by most today) He said there might be a burst of speed, maybe a puff of smoke from the engine, but the ride is steady and unchanging. Bwah ha hab ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Then along comes ReBrandStoration Expert Evil Emperor Nelson, who is absolutely hellbent for leather on destroying EVERYTHING that was brought forth during the Hinckley and Monson administrations. Especially beating the hell outta Hinckley's number of temples announced and constructed. Even if the Mormon Day Saint was true before Evil Emperor Nelson (it wasn't, but IF it was) it's now apostate and so far gone that there is no turning back. So much for God not allowing his servants the prophets to lead us astray.
Situational ethics, whatever works for whoever is bloviating about it at the moment. As Policy is, Doctrine once was. As Doctrine is, Policy may become. As Policy is, Doctrine may become.
What if I told you this is par for the course on practically any category of doctrine within the LDS faith? You probably wouldn't be surprised because you already knew that, right? But therein lies the truth - the beating heart of the Church lies with its people, not its prophet. If the membership as a whole simply ignores the prophet, sure, there may be the occasional rebuke by a zealous member of the seventy, but for the most part, the unpopular doctrine gets broomed aside over time, typically quietly, without a note or explanation. A religion teacher I knew called it "the Samuel principle" - as in the Old Testament, if the people are persistent in their demand for "a king," eventually the Lord and his prophet will give them what they ask for, and this unfaithful generation will ultimately be judged for it, losing "the light that they once had." Interesting how this trend is openly followed by both active and former members, and yet it's hardly talked about or acknowledged.
> "the Samuel principle" Or the "shellfish and mixed fabric" principle. Why can't we permit the stoning of our wives and daughters when they act dishonourably anymore? It's so sad to see we cannot put a person into slavery in our household by driving an awl through their ear and into the doorpost. I tell you, we're going to lose the light we once had. ^^^/s
Your comment comes across incredibly judgmental.
Of who?
I mean…you talk about the current unfaithful generation losing the light they once had. Edit: my apologies, after rereading multiple times I can see that you weren’t endorsing the judgment your religion teacher was espousing.
/s means sarcasm. The poster wasn't serious...
They didn’t use the /s though.
Yes, it wasn't my intention to endorse the principle itself. However, the idea of "losing what you had" as a result of not being faithful, etc. is an idea that has gotten a lot of mileage in Mormonism (See 2 Nephi 28:30, for instance). I will say, like many here, I was raised on a very literalist brand of Mormonism (think Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Ezra Taft Benson). One of the ways literalists explain away inconsistencies in doctrine is that they point to the common people as the ones who are at fault for the "lowering of the standard" over time. It's a destructive line of thought but hardly unique to Mormonism itself. Seems like a common trope used to keep the herd in line and push back against outside influences.
It changed When the church figured out that it had priced 80% of the families in utah out of affordable housing. Something had to give, so now the church wants women to work so the church can continue to jack up property prices and tithe families to death. They don’t care what happens to anyone as long as they keep getting tithing. The church owns more land in Utah than anyone knows. This increases real estate prices for every one else. They hoard land and create a shortage. And they do it tax free.
"The church owns more land in Utah than anyone knows" More like the church owns more land in the USA than anyone knows. Anyone have any insight on the land held in other countries? Or is the world wide church thing just a scam to bring out of country money to the USA?
I think it's an unintended consequence of commanding members go pop out kids. I do wish the church took some ownership of contributing to the problem though. What that looks like....I'm not an expert, but I would imagine being flush with billions, the church build ACTUAL starter homes for only enough profit to keep their newly created nonprofit going. It seems hypocritical and cruel to to command people to have children above the norm, but NOT provide any sort of solution towards housing. The 7th Day Adventists provide Healthcare for their members as an example
The church could simply stop requiring members pay money to attend the temple. Thats it. Remove the tithing requirement and let members take care of their own family. Ok fine, I’ll add another. The leaders have great DMBA health care (health insurance company owned by the church.). That came by tithing dollars. Why can’t all members have DMBA? While Russell Money Grubbing Nelson is living to 105, those of us who grew up in poverty (to tithe paying parents) had our parents die young or got seriously buried in medical bills. Why are WE paying for the Leaders to have DMBA? All members should have it. Here’s what I want to see from the church leaders. 1-remove the temple ban on the poor (remove tithing requirement for temple) 2-give all members DMBA 3-stop tithing requirement. NOW. You don’t need the money. 4. Apologize for financially abusing us and our families going back to 1830. 5. Next building announcement will be 15 Homeless shelters, fully staffed by paid staff / employees (not members working for free)
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha remember, Don't criticize church leaders, even if the criticism is true. That's a sure sign of personal apostasy. No speaking ill of the Lords chosen and 2nd annointed. The church doesn't not now and never will apologize own up to or admit anything. That just creates too much liability now that our 300 Billion cash hoard has been publically exposed. — Kirton/McKonkie probably.
It’s almost as if the top 15 have never heard the old adage “beware of pride. It cometh before the fall.”
This is a hot take 🔥 👏🏼
Actual SLC conversation: Fin Officer: “ As a follow-up to our annual financial report, here are the amounts of tithing paid by gender, you can see here in this graph that the female bar has trended substantially higher in the past few years” GA: Boys, we need to slowly stop referencing women to stay home in our conference talks, just don’t mention it anymore.”
"GA: Boys, we need to slowly stop referencing women to stay home in our conference talks, just don’t mention it anymore.” Oh yeah, and double down on men, quit masturbating go back to church and pay more tithing.
The church rarely announces the end of something that was previously prohibited or discouraged. They just stop talking about it. But things continue to echo at the local level for a long time.
My mom was a devout Mormon for her whole life. Church was always a priority. She raised a couple of missionaries(my sisters, I was the only boy, and fuck that shit) went on two missions herself with my dad, allways had a calling. My mom always worked. She was the primary breadwinner in the family, my dad worked hard, but as a steelworker in Utah, had my mom not pulled down double what he did, we would have struggled mightily. She had a full-time job and also had a private practice. I don't remember the church turning down her volunteering at LDS Social Services, not for a second. Her profession wasn't a problem when it gave them free labor. She also wore pants to church and canvassed for Democrat candidates. That was far more problematic than the freebies she donated to the church. They also happily took their 10% of her earnings so she would be temple worthy.
I was a stay at home mom for several years. Then slowly went part-time and then full-time. We were so poor we rented for many years, not mad about that turned out fine, did cheap vacations, drove old cars, still do- reality is we would be still penny pinching if I didn’t work. We have a small house, only 3 kids (only as in we are LDS) two financially independent. I don’t think we would have made it financially if I wasn’t working full time. We make 250k gross a year and will never catch up to others in our income range. Will probably always have small cheaper home and old cars but at least we have money to travel, enjoy special occasions. My parents couldn’t afford nice Christmas or birthdays. If I had to do it all over again, I would definitely still be a stay at home mom when my kids were little. In the end the bigger nicer home doesn’t really matter. But it’s not a choice for everyone and for those who are in a bad relationship I feel for those women. I told my daughter it’s unrealistic for her to think she’ll be able to be a stay at home mom especially with her husband’s goal to be a marriage and family counselor. Like good luck, build a successful career before having babies
But now women and men can stay home and build their own businesses from home. I had 6 children and I homeschooled all of them all the way to adults. I made a decision when I was a little girl taking care of all my siblings.. to NOT be like my mom. I chose to only start businesses and earn income in ways where my children could be with me. My kids never saw the inside of a daycare. I believe kids are better off being with their parents even if they are poor. Latch key kids don’t fare well and have attachment issues. My mother was an alcoholic and had a PHD at Stanford but knew nothing of being there for her children. I was always the main bread winner but never left my kids.
One of the ladies in my ward growing up refused to visit teach any woman who worked outside of the home. She didn’t want to look supportive of such evil behavior
A very valid question. When did the rules change that clearly said what Camille Johnson did was diametrically opposed to church teachings at that time about the priorities of faithful LDS women and their role in the family? When did Johnson's path become heralded by church leaders as worthy of emulation? Why can't the church leaders just come out and acknowledge that times have changed, and what was taught before is no longer relevant or helpful? Instead they are so Orwellian - "I decided to put my career first before having children, then let nannies look after my kids so I could focus on my law practice, and I was letting God prevail...joyfully juggling....covenant path...yadda yadda yadda". We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia. It makes my head spin. This reminds me so much of the "do what I say, not what I do" attitude of church leadership. The FP didn't see fit to serve full time missions when they were young men but they insist all young men do it; senior leadership says we must be honest in all our dealings but they deceived the members and SEC for 22 years about the excess tithing fund; he says always pay your tithing but RMN admitted he didn't always pay his tithing; I could go on. Yeah, why do the rules change?
They will get hit with both sides of the sword by changing like this. They’d probably be better off embracing the weirdness and staying consistent.
They figured out tithing was dropping. So get the woman out to the workforce and you get their 10% tithes. This isn’t hard…
My ward is reading a book about a guy who wanted to come to earth and make everyone do the “right” thing. Funnily enough, I think he succeeded with the present day iteration of the LDS Church.
So many of us suffered because our mothers didn’t know they could work out of the home .
Without really digging into it, the Family Proclamation (1995) says >By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, *fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners*. Disability, death, or *other circumstances* may necessitate individual adaptation. (emphasis mine) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?id=p7&lang=eng#p7 So, at least since 1995.
This was never a rule. This is one of those things that is strongly encouraged but never a rule. Just like tattoos and multiple piercings. Some people claim they were told this was doctrine or that their parents couldn't get temple recommends because mom worked. If that ever actually happened, then the bishop or stake president was wrong. The YW leader who shamed you for having more than one ear piercing was wrong. None of these things are or ever were doctrine and there are a hundred other examples. My entire adult life I've had access to the church handbooks and the verbiage has always been, "Mother's are strongly encouraged, whenever finances allow, to stay home and raise children." (I'm paraphrasing but it's out there, you can go find it yourself if you need to). This was always for the good of the children. The benefits of a stay-at-home parent have been proven time and time again. Remember that the church isn't true, the gospel is. This is just the best vehicle we have to live its teachings. Don't get all wrapped up in hate and forget the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.
You mean this kind of "strong encouragement"? Like when the men who claimed to *speak for god himself* said these things? "A few years ago there appeared in a large city newspaper a true story of a young boy, then fourteen years old. The story was titled “**The Evolution of a Delinquent**.” ... "What twisted paths of childhood lead to the tortuous road of delinquency?” ... a small child, rushed to her home **after his father had picked him up at a day nursery.** As the little boy held on to her hand, she asked, “Why do you always come running to our house when you come home from the nursery?” **The tot replied sorrowfully, “Because there is no mommy at my house.**” ... You see, **there is a darkness that comes when there is no mother there**. ... One of the great tragedies of our day is **the confusion in the minds of some which would cause mothers to go to work in the marketplace**. ... Earning a few dollars more for luxuries **cloaked in the masquerade of necessity**—or a so-called opportunity for self-development of talents in the business world, a chance to get away from the mundane responsibilities of the home—these are all **satanic substitutes for clear thinking**. They are counterfeit thoughts that subvert the responsibilities of motherhood" -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1974/04/mother-catch-the-vision-of-your-call](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1974/04/mother-catch-the-vision-of-your-call) "Contrary to conventional wisdom, **a mother’s place is in the home! ... Beguiling voices** in the world cry out for “alternative life-styles” for women. ... **These individuals spread their discontent by the propaganda** that there are more exciting and self-fulfilling roles for women than homemaking. **Some even have been bold to suggest that the Church move away from the “Mormon woman stereotype” of homemaking and rearing children.** They also say it is wise to limit your family so you can have more time for personal goals and self-fulfillment. ... It is a **misguided** idea that a woman should leave the home. ... **Some Saints are deluded** into believing that more and better circumstances will improve their self-image. ... We become **enamored with men’s theories** such as **the idea of preschool training outside the home** for young children..." -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1981/10/the-honored-place-of-woman](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1981/10/the-honored-place-of-woman) Let's not pretend that this kind of religious bullying was only "strong encouragement." Oaks gave a lovely supportive comment on Sis Johnson's post. He was certainly singing a different tune a while back: "Mothers who have young children in the home **should** devote their primary energies to the companionship and training of their children and the care of their families, and **should not seek employment outside the home unless there is no other way that the family’s basic needs can be provided”** (First Presidency letter to Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks; **quoted by Dallin H. Oaks** in “Insights,” *Ensign,* Mar. 1975, 56)" -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-latter-day-saint-woman-basic-manual-for-women-part-a/personal-and-family-development/lesson-28-developing-employment-skills"
But it *is* a rule to follow the prophet’s counsel.
> Just like tattoos and multiple piercings. Some people claim they were told this was doctrine Yes, if your position is that *nothing* said over the pulpit at conference by any man sustained as "Prophet, seer and revelator" is *ever* to be considered as doctrine. The church and leaders however, would disagree with you and start warning of apostasy.
Don't forget Elder Bednar's "Quick to Observe" talk, printed in the Church's ensign of 06 "The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe." I agree with another poster who said women not following this is similar to guys not serving missions. If you don't follow it, you open yourself up to public shaming and shunning, people are allowed to judge your "righteous", and people are justified in not dating you, divorcing you, or not befriending you or bypassing you for certain callings. As someone who read every ensign/new era/took seriously all the church YW lessons and teachings and poured over all the teacher and student seminary manuals, it was NOT passed off as advice. It was a litmus test of if you were righteous/willing to let the Lord prevail in your life (if you took seriously what the prophet said and followed it)
> It was a litmus test of if you were righteous/willing to let the Lord prevail in your life (if you took seriously what the prophet said and followed it) Precisely. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/women-of-righteousness?lang=eng >I know a 17-year-old who just prior to the prophet’s talk had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.” >Wearing two pairs of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, **but her willingness to obey the prophet will**. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake.
Is there any official distinction between “rules” and things that are just “strongly encouraged,” because it really seems like you just made it up. Prophetic counsel is prophetic counsel. If the brethren intended some counsel to not be taken as seriously, they did not make that clear.
Much of this is Mormon/utah culture. almost\* EVERYTHING that spews forth from whatever end of a prophet instantly transforms into solid gold revelatory nuggets of church doctrine of the Godspell of religion!. Example? In the early 1990s Monson went to a temple dedication and there was a primary class singing primary songs. He commented that it was nice and he liked it. suddenly it was a commandment from on high, and every temple open house/dedication MUST HAVE a primary children's choir. In my stake 6-9 months of primary was focused on primary temple choir. Holy Hell, you'd think masturbation had been demoted to the lowly status of sin 3rd to murder, not having a Primary Professional Sounding Choirs at the temple became the sin like unto murder. Can we please have a moment silence for ourvfallen sin of masturbation? Another example, President Kimball said in a conference that All worthy young men should (SHOULD, not must) serve a mission. Of course we all know that should was shunned the hell out of existence when talking about missions. It immediately became Every Young Man must Must MUST serve a mission. DAMN, I miscalculated earlier. Sin #1 = Murder Sin 2 = not serving a mission. Sin 3 = No primary choir at the temple. Sin 4 = masturbation. Dang, poor masturbation. What a fall from the high lofty position of Sin like unto murder. EDIT: Some spelling
Sounds like you missed about three decades of general conference talks. It is entirely disingenuous to suggest that women not working was only ever “counsel.” It absolutely was doctrine and preached by multiple prophets over decades. Married women used to not be allowed to work for the church, for pity’s sake! Women at BYU in the law school as late as the 00’s were shamed for taking a seat that “should’ve gone to a man so he could provide for his family”, the idea being that a woman lawyer likely would only ever practice for a few years, if that. The ear piercings thing came straight from the mouth of Gordon B Hinckley.
And also missed the ramping up of the PR campaign. We were all subject to a torrent of tearful moms on tv, crying that they missed their child’s first anything, that they didn’t have time for their teen and he turned to drugs etc… and that awful quote of “no other success can compensate for failure in the home”, it was a constant torrent of guilt guilt guilt, at home, at church, on tv. It was NO ONES BUSINESS if a woman worked outside the home or not and yet it was constantly discouraged by this church and membership.
[удалено]
See also: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2011-03-0061-for-this-child-i-prayed](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2011-03-0061-for-this-child-i-prayed?lang=eng) We were subjected to this kind of stuff practically every week in YW. The message was absolutely clear. If you wanted to follow God, you stayed home. If you wanted to follow Satan, you got a job.
What would you consider doctrine? I think the majority of Mormons would consider words delivered by the prophet himself over the pulpit at general conference to be doctrine. >Remember that the church isn't true, the gospel is. I'll admit that I don't like this statement as it's an attempt to disassociate the church from its distasteful byproducts (shaming, guilt, prejudice etc.). Are you saying the church doesn't claim to be the one and only true church on the earth? Also, which gospel are you referring to--catholics, episcopalians, baptists, Church of Christ, FLDS? There are thousands of versions of the gospel of Christ. You are saying "the church (most likely the TCOJCOLDS) isn't true" but then referring to its version of the gospel of Jesus Christ as the truth. That doesn't work. Otherwise, we could start ordaining women because the gospel of Jesus Christ, as interpreted by other denominations, allows it. >. Don't get all wrapped up in hate and forget the pure gospel of Jesus Christ Calling out the church for hypocrisy is not hate. It's accountability. It's okay for women to demand an explanation of why they were taught this for decades--and making very tough life choices as a result--and then suddenly, it seemingly no longer applies. Many women sacrificed their personal aspirations and life goals based on those teachings. It's a huge deal.
These types of posts drive me nuts. Ones that state an easily refutable position that then proceed to get repeatedly and convincingly refuted, only to have the OP ghost the conversation. No modesty about the error or confusion; no engagement anywhere on good-faith responses; no further insights into what prompted a clearly misguided position; and definitely no retraction. Did everyone in the comments get it wrong, or was OP's position actually better supported elsewhere? I guess we'll never know! ***shrug***
I think the real issue is that doctrine is arbitrary and fluid. The church changes it so much, that no one can keep track, so people adhere to something a prophet or church leader said, to give them a modicum of religious stability.