Editor’s Note: This is another (very welcome) guest post from Emily M.
The Book of Mormon mentions five women by name: Sariah, Abish, Isabel, Eve, and Mary. It refers, without naming, to various wives (of Nephi and his brothers, of King Lamoni, of Jacob’s philandering people); to an abused servant girl of a dissenting army leader; and to a conspiring, dancing daughter in Ether. We also have the wives who inspire the men to fight, and the mothers of Helaman’s army.
As a teenager I read the Book of Mormon. I knew it was true. The Spirit spoke to me through it. Still this lack of women bothered me. We can focus on the ones that are there, but so many of them aren’t, or don’t have names. And there are many men, minor characters, that do get named: Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher, for example.
This all boiled inside me one day in a BYU religion class. The teacher encouraged us to ask gospel or missionary-related questions at the beginning of class. He would, he promised, answer them all either straight out of the scriptures or else using recent General Authority quotes.
This particular day a girl raised her hand and asked, “What if you’re on your mission teaching a feminist and she wants to know why there are so few women in the Book of Mormon?”
Well, the teacher went off on feminism. He quoted 2 Nephi 13:12: “And my people, children are their oppressors, and women shall rule over them,” as a sign of the evils of feminism. He ranted about how an LDS book publisher had forced him to use equal examples of males and females in his recent book. A student raised a hand and said, “This even happens at BYU! Here, at BYU, in a writing class, I couldn’t just use he!
And so went the discussion. I got more and more upset as I listened to it. I was angry that the teacher saw using gender-neutral pronouns, an obvious need to me, as this harbinger of evil. I was angry that he lumped all feminism together with the far-left crowd, when really there was much good feminism had accomplished (voting, owning land, wearing pants).
But mostly I was angry because, even though I knew the Book of Mormon was true, he had dismissed this question that was my question too: why are there so few women in the Book of Mormon?
I ranted over it to everyone I met that week. I was still ranting when Sunday dinner with my family rolled around. “It’s a legitimate question!” I said. “The worst thing you could do when an investigator asks a legitimate question is go off on the evils of feminism.”
“I agree,” my dad said. “It’s a real question.” Then he diffused my anger with Moroni’s words, in Mormon 9:31: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”
I thought about this a lot. Dad had the right words for me. I looked up the scripture and read it over and over. It brought me peace that day.
Since then, the more imperfectly I have served in the Church, the less inclined I am to condemn anyone because of their imperfections, especially not people I honor as much as I do Mormon and Moroni.
I hope that one day, in the scriptures yet-to-be-revealed, we will have more stories of Book of Mormon women. I want to read the words the wives prayed as their husbands fought to protect them. I want to know the faith-inspiring life stories that strengthened Helaman’s army. I want to find out about Mormon’s wife, who saw with him “a continual scene of wickedness and abomination”and yet stayed faithful, raising Moroni in righteousness while Mormon commanded the Nephite army.
Nephi and Moroni tell us that one day we will stand face to face with the authors of the Book of Mormon. I hope we get a chance to meet their wives, too. I need to thank Mormon’s wife for sustaining her husband, and her son, as they carved out the words in my Book of Mormon.
Thank you Emily. I really enjoyed reading this, what a wise father you have. You have given me some scriptures to re-read and thoughts to ponder.
Beautiful.
Whenever issues like this surface for me, I am reminded of something my husband said once.
“You either trust the Lord, or you don’t”. I DO trust the Lord, and know only enough to know that.
This was lovely, thanks!
Emily, I love the imperfection idea.
Okay I am in my corner spouting of Courtney’s Feminist Doctrine here:
A Sister on my mission crossed out all the male pronouns in her scriptures and changed them to female. It didn’t sound right. After 8 years I started wonder why. What if the BOM wasn’t written for women? What if it was written for men? What if those pronouns were on purpose and not because of imperfection?
I only wonder because by all accounts that I can find, women in this church are called “divine” and “superior” and “next to the angels”. And I can honestly say that I feel that way as a woman of the gospel.
Sometimes women of the church want to ignore these blatant statements to be on par with men. Same as the men, literally equal. And I don’t think that is the point. A study of our Divine Nature (if you will allow me some YW jargon)points us in this direction. When we are satisfied with this truth we no longer desire to hold the priesthood, or be the bishop of the ward.
Perhaps the BOM was written to inspire women to support men in their humanity.
Just a thought…
Me again.
I just thought I might have one quote to back up what I just dropped here.
“But in the woman’s part, she is not just equal to man; she is superior!” Boyd K. Packer
And me again.
I am not promoting the idea that women don’t need to read the Book of Mormon, I am just speculating on the reasons why we do when it is literature geared toward men and masculinity.
This is Courtney saying “Read the Book of Mormon Women!”
Interesting thoughts Emily and you express them beautifully. I have sometimes wondered if women are not as visible in the Book of Mormon to protect them and to keep their names and their lives sacred and private. Even though the scriptures are the words of God’s prophets (men) I still relate to their words and they apply to me. It is interesting to consider.
There are six women mentioned by name in the Book of Mormon if you include Sarah.
2 Nephi 8:2
I am of the male persuasion. And, therefore may not be taken too seriously, but please allow me to interject my two cents in this discussion.
Sometimes we look at situations from our own perspective and not from the perspective of those who are in that circumstance.
If we look at the early days of the church, there was much prejudice against women and other races simply because of the culture in which people lived. It was a hard time to be alive. The physically stronger of our species was more likely to survive, and life expectancy was far less than it is now. I believe this was a similar situation in which the Nephites found themselves. I think gender roles were more strictly defined, as men being the breadwinners and women raising children and taking care of the home.
I don’t think they loved their wives and families any less than men do today. But, consider the type of lives they were living. I’m sure it was male dominated society. This is evident, even in Ether as we see how people were numbered:
Ether 15:2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.
Two million people were killed, and by the way, their wives and children were also killed.
So, I think this goes back to the original idea of imperfection. If they omitted the women’s names because of cultural bias, or just because women didn’t play as big of role in general society as they do in ours, it isn’t our place to judge. We weren’t there. The question we need to ask ourselves is: Is the doctrine true? If it is, does it matter if it was written my men, women, children, or whatever? Does it matter who had these spiritual experiences?
The Book of Mormon promises these blessings to ALL of us, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. If it is true then we need to heed Moroni’s council and not judge his imperfections. I know I have plenty of my own to worry about.
Love this, Emily. I love women who can question and wonder without doubting. I love that you found an answer satisfying to you. I’ll never forget what I learned from a coworker of mine, back in my BYU days. We were discussing a similar issue regarding the place of women in the church. She said, “I don’t know the answer, but I am confident that the only way I will find it is through the personal revelation I’m entitled to as a faithful member of the church.” That really struck me. I realized how tempting it is to take an antagonistic position towards the church, its leaders, etc when there are unanswered questions that cause us pain. But that antagonism precludes the very answer we’re seeking.
There’s a big difference between honest seeking coupled with a willing suspension of disbelief, and doubt/disloyalty. Thanks for a perfect example of the former.
And cjane, if you really want to ruffle some feathers in the bloggernacle, write a post based on your comments here. Love you!
Courtney–The whole \”women as angels\” concept bothers me. Why? Hmmm…probably because I\’m not an angel.
But, I think it also bothers me because it (culturally, at least) encourages women to view themselves as the saviors of their men, not supporters, not helpers, but saviors. A very scary (and presumptuous) role to play for both the woman and the man. Is there a way for women to be more \”angelic,\” \”superior,\” and more \”divine\” without those women reaching the logical conclusion that it is their responsibility to bring their men up to their supposedly \”higher\” level? It doesn\’t seem possible to me.
Round one. Ding!
Careful not to cause a threadjack here.
Mara- I think the more righteous a person really is, the less likely it is that he/she will feel like they are better than other people.
Here’s a Joseph Smith quote that I like: “As females possess refined feelings and sensitiveness, they are also subject to overmuch zeal, which must ever prove dangerous, and cause them to be rigid in a religious capacity–[they] should be armed with mercy, notwithstanding the iniquity among us.” (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 88-89).
In other words, our strengths can become our weaknesses, and vice versa. Mercy is a wonderful thing.
Thanks for the quote from your dad, Emily.
Love that quote Melissa, and it is so true. For that reason I tend to get nervous about sharing things, I don’t want to be, or seem, over-zealous.
Mara, what about women being the prototype of a Savior? Not the one who does the saving, but the one who inspires men to be saved? Does that work?
Emily-thanks for the discussion. (I will save my other thoughts for a post to come!)
Kathy- is that an order? Wink.
All–thanks for your comments and kind words. I have been away from my computer most of the day, so I am just now forming my thoughts about the discussion.
Karen-thank you. He is wise.
Sharlee-thanks
Justine–It really is that simple. We either trust the Lord or we don’t. Thanks.
Courtney–I missed out on a discussion with you here because I arrived too late! Oh well, I will read the blog version.
But I want to get my two cents in, even as a latecomer, so I confess that I am in Maralise’s camp. Talks on how wonderful women are make me uncomfortable. I have been known to rant about them, too. This is why: 1-sometimes, this “you women are so angelic” stuff comes off as patronizing. Not always, but often enough that it undercuts what they are trying to say. 2-I have felt that in some talks discussion of how great women are uses up time that could be spent on juicy doctrinal meat, rather than pat-yourself-on-the-back-honey milk. 3-The main reason is that I know myself. I am, to quote Aretha and paraphrase King Benjamin, a Natural Woman. I’m just not as great as all that. Nope, sorry. Got to repent all the time, just like the men. Don’t get me started on how women are supposed to have natural charity.
I am sure that part of this comes from my not really understanding who I am and what it means to be a woman. Enough way important people (Joseph Smith, President Packer, as mentioned here) have taught about feminine superiority that it must be true. I don’t see it right now, though, so it’s another issue I will trust on.
Jennifer–At one point I would have scoffed at that explanation (citing as my examples the New Testament and the Bible, which have plenty of protagonist women scattered throughout), but now I think you may be right. There’s something holy about anonymous nurturing that I am just beginning to understand.
Johnna–You are right! My stars, I’ve been citing it as five all these years. I stand corrected. Thank you!
I know nothing–The men are welcome here! For me, when I was struggling with this issue, the reasons various people gave behind the lack of women were not very helpful. The fact is, we just don’t know, and anything else is speculation. So, because we don’t know, we have a tendency to either guess at answers or attack the question as invalid in the first place.
This is why my dad’s answer worked so well for me. He didn’t guess at answers, or invalidate my question. He used Moroni’s own words: You may see mistakes I can’t. I might have messed up but I did my best, and please read the book anyway, because it is true.
You ask, “does it matter who had these spiritual experiences?” It did to me, until I applied those verses. Not enough that I didn’t know it was true, but enough that I wanted some peace about it. I am glad to have found it in Moroni’s humility.
Kathy–I love that–the only way to find answers is through personal revelation as a faithful member of the Church. That solves so much.
Mara–see above
Carrie–true.
Melissa-I have never heard that. Very nice balance to the more-common Joseph Smith quotes.
Emily wrote: “This particular day a girl raised her hand and asked, “What if you’re on your mission teaching a feminist and she wants to know why there are so few women in the Book of Mormon?â€
For a couple of years, I felt like a “got-talk-to gal” for the the missionaries or Relief Society president when they had an investigators/member with these questions. “Here — go talk to Deborah.” In pre-internet days, it was very easy to feel alone and slightly rebellious for having such concerns. I like your dad’s response — because it opens up a wonderful principal for understanding and forgiving lay leadership, too.
But I’ve often felt drawn to talk about the history of Relief Society in such moments. Every time I began to describe the turning of the key, the service endeavors (past and present), the writings of Eliza and Emmeline I felt such a enormous excitement about being a part of this church. Though I wish there were more Rachels, Miriams, Deborahs, and Marys in our unique scripture, I am enormously grateful for the women in this dispensation who deserve to have their name written in scripture. Wouldn’t it be something if we became as familiar with their stories as we are with Helaman’s?
Deborah– The “condemn me not” principle has a lot of uses.
And amen! I confess to not knowing our own Relief Society stories very well, but I would like to know them better. You are absolutely right. Thank you!
P.S. Deborah–To help my ignorance, I’m just wondering what’s your favorite resource for these stories? Do we have to go to primary source material for really good stories or is there someone who has done the legwork for us?
Thanks!
If you only read one book, I’d recommend:
Women of Covenant: The Story of the Relief Society
http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=3910816
Thanks! I will look for it.
First of all, I’d like the name of that religion teacher.
Second, and more importantly, I appreciate your sentiments. When I was younger I was far more, for lack of a better term, militant than I am today. However, I was never bothered by a perceived gender imbalancement in the scriptures. I was taught by a loving father who had an extraordinary understanding of scripture. I wish you had been in HIS class instead of raving professors class, you would have gotten a far better and more meaningful answer.
My kind father always stressed how the scriptures were practically feminist (to use a modern word) for the time periods in which they were written, how righteous women are portrayed with awe and respect. I saw him cry once because people so often misinterpret Paul’s words.
It’s because women are divine that they are not as prominent in our scriptures. It really is a form of protection for our forebearers. It will be wonderful to someday read their words and speak with them, but in the meantime, they will not be bandied about with the sullied and the weak.
It is partly because we are so aware of our own imperfections that women are considered divine. A constant awareness of the internal struggle with your own perfection is a mark a righteous soul. I understand and agree with Courtney’s line of thought.
I was just reminded of two women in the scriptures (although not in the Book of Mormon): Abigail, Old Testament, a woman who represents the Savior (metaphorically, as a type of Christ.) Her actions and words to David teach us the nature of the Atonement.
And then, Mary who was the FIRST person to see the Savior after his resurrection –not Peter who was entrusted with the keys of the Priesthood, not John the Beloved –Mary, a woman, was the first person the Savior chose to see after His resurrection, after the Atonement. He hadn’t even “ascended to His Father” yet and that’s who Jesus wanted to see. Wow.
So, to me, that’s pretty momentous.
“It is partly because we are so aware of our own imperfections that women are considered divine. A constant awareness of the internal struggle with your own perfection is a mark a righteous soul.”
Thanks, Carina. I felt like I needed to read that tonight.
Well, here’s a haphazard response….
I am sure I don’t have anything to add, but I think that the phrase a “constant awareness of the internal struggle with your own perfection is a mark of a righteous soul” seems a little bit arrogant to me. It seems more of a mark of overzealousness and an overactive conscience. “I am struggling with perfection, so I must be a righteous soul.” hmmmm.
I heard on talk radio this week, a man say, “Mormon women wear a social and cultural burkha.” I was angry!! “Who does he think he is, that little measly mouth…….etc. etc.” Then I started thinking about it and started to recognize some truth. Yes, it is very hard to be in a culture of so many judgemental women when you don’t quite fit in. But, on the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be with any other women than Mormon women. They are, for the most part, strong, faithful, kind, gentle, and love the Lord. But Divine? Not even close. Do they have divinity in them? Yes. Somewhere.
Do we wear a cultural burkha that makes us all look the same on the outside? or demands that we act in a certain way? Who puts it on us, but ourselves? (Remember, also, that a burkha is also to protect).
Emily, now that you are older and have some distance from that class, would you handle the situation differently now? Would you speak up?
I used to deny my feminist sensibilities when I would begin every opinionated sentence with, “I’m not a feminist, but…”
A good friend pointed out that feminism is simply an awareness and concern over issues relating to women. I’m good with that.
Once I discovered the truth that one is not superior to the other–that in essence male and female are two halves that complete one another–I have learned to be more patient. I still speak out appropriately against imperfect injustices when they are expressed as policy or doctrine but are just plain wrong. (Most recent example: there is nothing in any handbook that dictates a woman may not give a closing prayer in sacrament meeting.) But I no longer have panic attacks and wonder if that’s all there is when I look out at the semiannual sea of suitcoats. I’m good with trusting God enough to get to that place.
I do look forward to meeting the righteous women of ancient times. But in the meantime I have discovered wonderful records of amazingly faithful and powerful women in the latter days–from the restoration and the trek west to today. Their stories inspire me. And I need to let that be enough for now.
Great post! Great discussion!
Dalene, is THAT why I had to give the closing prayer in sacrament meeting the other week?
I think you might be taking that statement wrong, Melonie. I don’t mean that we ought to be wearing our metaphorical hairshirts. I do mean that women tend to over-analyze themselves and their progression–and some become so gripped that they think they alone feel that way.
I guess I’m just trying to reassure my sisters that knowing you’re imperfect isn’t tantamount to failure. Self-examination is a good thing, but, as you suggested, excessive preoccupation with self can be limiting.
In any case, we’re harder on ourselves than we need to be. A wise former bishop of mine said that that was one of his most difficult struggles: trying to convince the sisters in his ward that they do enough, that they are good, righteous women.
De-lurking here…
Brother Jim Ferrell (of Peacegiver fame) says that an awareness of one’s own shortcomings - a constant awareness of our internal struggle, as Carina said - is a good thing. We are all, as natural women and men, “broken” and in need of the Atonement in our lives; being aware of our own imperfections is necessary to bring us to Christ. When we ARE in touch with our spiritual struggle, we have greater access to the Atonement. (After all, it only makes sense. The first step is recognizing that you have a problem…)
I think that goes along with what Carina is saying. If we agree with Brother Ferrell, and allow the knowledge of our imperfections to lead us to Christ (instead of just wallowing!), then self-examination is certainly a good thing.
Oh yeah… forgot to add. Self-examination can be a good thing, and (in this context) an awareness of our struggle with imperfection is CERTAINLY the mark of a righteous soul (as it is the mark of a soul who is turning to God and accessing the blessings of the Atonement).
I am afraid I can’t stay away from this topic! Sorry Emily, if I am way off your topic here.
I don’t understand, why when the Lord’s annointed says words of affirmation like “divine” and “superior” we not taking it at face value? Why are we still saying “we are NOT divine” we are “NOT superior”?
“You are literally a spirit daughter of heavenly parents with a divine nature and an eternal destiny” -Holland
“a sanctified investiture which none shall dare profane.†Talmage
“You women are so superior to men in so many ways”-Faust
“The women in our lives are creatures endowed with particular qualities, divine qualities” President Hinckley
The problem with this being that if we don’t allow ourselves to be elevated then we aren’t helping/inspiring anyone. President Hinckley once quoted “Man can not degrade woman without himself falling into degradation; he can not elevate her without at the same time elevating himself†-Alexander Walker
Or to paraphrase Elder Holland in last month’s training. We are tempted to deny ourselves good things like personal revelation, or in this case, truths regarding the divinity of woman.
We work so hard to teach our Young Women they have Divine Nature, and it’s tempting to become a bit cliche, but I really feel what Courtney is talking about.
In fact, I probably worry I’ll become too arrogant! Because really, I am a daughter of God! That feeling has come to me so strongly, and it has changed my behavior. I don’t consider women to be “more” than men, but we are each endowed with our own unique strengths. I don’t want to rationalize my way out of those strengths.
I don’t think that saying I’m not the same as a man diminishes me in any way (and I haven’t really heard that thread of thought here, but I know it exists.) I have wildly different strengths from my husband, and I love it. I love it.
Thanks for the quotes, Cortney. I have never worried about Women in General, feminism, etc…but internalizing the principles you and Justine mentioned (above) has totally changed my life in the past 17 months. The confidence to love myself for who I really am has made all the difference. Someday I’ll tell ya about it. For now…amen, sisters.
Carina–Ah, no names :). He was teaching the gospel as he saw it, and I learned a few helpful things in his class. I did have some great religion teachers at BYU, who taught with sensitivity towards women.
Carrie–I love Biblical women! That’s one of the problems, to me, with the idea that Nephite culture would preclude inclusion of women in their records. If that’s the case, and they came from Jerusalem, why would there not be more parity between Biblical and Book of Mormon women? But again, to me that question is best answered with “condemn me not.â€
Melonie–A cultural burkha. How interesting! I will have to chew on that idea some more. It’s definitely there in some places. I love my ward right now because I feel like I can be my opinionated self and everyone likes me anyway. This is because there are a lot of other opinionated women, and even when we don’t agree we still express ourselves honestly. It’s very liberating.
To answer your question: I don’t know. I think I did say something then, but I don’t remember what I said. I think that now I understand how the Spirit teaches a little better. In that class, I don’t think he was in a state of mind to let the Spirit teach him the “condemn me not†principle. I think he was still bitter over having to revise his manuscript to be less gender-biased. But I was not in a teachable spirit, either. I was livid. If I were in that class today, and there was a good spirit, I would speak up. If there wasn’t, it’s possible that I might have the sense to keep my mouth shut. It’s also possible that I would speak up anyway.
Dalene–I do that– “I’m not a feminist, but…†I like the definition of feminism as “an awareness and concern over issues relating to women.†In its purest form that’s what it is; however, I can’t pretend that the far-left political overtones of the word “feminism†don’t exist. So I don’t really know where I am as far as self-identifying. I’m a strong and outspoken woman, whatever you want to call it.
Cindy–I also believe that a constant awareness of our internal struggle is a good thing. I like that quote.
That is one reason why I don’t gel with the “women as angels†idea. It seems too much like we are saying, “All is well in Zion! Yea, Zion prospereth!†or in other words “All is well with the sisters of the Relief Society! Yea, the Relief Society prospereth!†and thus the devil cheateth their souls and leadeth them away carefully down to hell . ( 2 Nephi 28:21) Okay, it’s harsh, but that’s what I think. I need to be called to repentance too!
Courtney–I don’t mind the wandering.
This is an interesting discussion…
To me “divine” is way different than “superior.” I fully acknowledge, believe in, and feel that my nature and destiny are divine. But I still need to quell that Natural Woman. To say that my divine nature is superior to male divine nature, that it’s more, that I don’t buy.
Part of this is because my husband is so clearly more unselfish and patient and [insert typical "womanly" virtue here] than I am. This is not false modesty; it’s truth. I don’t buy that I’m inherently more spiritual than he is. We have different and complementary strengths, and he has inspired me to be a more patient, unselfish person. I would be lying if I said it was the other way around.
All these womanly virtues that are supposed to flow naturally from me are things I have to work and sweat and pray really hard over. So whenever I read something like “women naturally have charitable impulses,” it does not succeed in making me feel good about myself. Instead I see the gap between where they say I ought to be, since all RS women are that way, and where I am. Grace fills that gap, but I’m not going to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Justine-I think I am still finding my own strengths, but when I find them, they don’t necessarily seem feminine. They just seem Emily.
Jamie–We’ll look forward to the story.
The smilies didn’t transfer over from the word processing program very well… ah well.
Courtney–why don\’t we believe them? I don\’t know. Why don\’t I believe them? I do. I believe that I am divine. I believe that I have different gifts than men and that those gifts are to be treasured as a part of my unique self. I have no desire to be male. But, I also have no desire, in being divinely female, to make males less than me. The act of placing females above males, to me, is a more extreme version of feminism than I am comfortable espousing.
That being said, I am listening. I don\’t understand why God would make a female \”superior\” to a male. Just like I don\’t understand why, historically, males have been seen as the superior sex. I don\’t understand why the general authorities would stress it. But, I\’m ok with being in the dark here.
Emily—did you used to be in the Provo 3rd ward? I just noticed a previous post of yours (I think), and your last name was Milner. We used to have an Emily Milner in our ward, and I just realized this may be you. I loved this post. Love the discussion that has come from it, especially because I think a lot of women have these questions, but don’t necessarily feel like there is an avenue to discuss it. I _love_ that scripture from your dad. Thanks so much for sharing it.
Courtney, I look forward to your post. In all my ruminations I have come up with the same–The Book of Mormon is written by, about, and (at least directly) for men. And that’s OK–I mean, so was Moby Dick (not comparing the two, except that clearly there is so much in both for women, even if its not directed to them) I would love to read a record that would directly address motherhood issues– thank goodness for Segullah.
Okay, this is going to be long, so hang on to your hat!
First, with regard to the idea of the superiority/inferiority/equality of women:
From a historical perspective, the idea of woman as saint, as innately more pure and religiously sensitive than man, is a carry-over from the Victorian Era. The term “angel in the house†comes from an immensely popular poem by Coventry Patmore published in 1854. Here’s a brief excerpt from this work:
Man must be pleased; but him to please
Is woman’s pleasure; down the gulf
Of his condoled necessities
She casts her best, she flings herself. . . .
And if he once, by shame oppress’d,
A comfortable word confers,
She leans and weeps against his breast,
And seems to think the sin was hers;
This image of woman as “the angel in the house†pervaded the literature and popular culture of the time. The ideal woman was pious, submissive, charming, graceful, self-sacrificing, and pure. Of course, she was also viewed as mentally inferior. Women of this era couldn’t vote, couldn’t sign a contract, couldn’t even own property. Everything in a marriage belonged to the husband—even the children. So women may have been seen as saints, but they were saints with little brains and no legal rights.
I do not believe in the inherent moral superiority of women. Yes, women have divine natures, but so do men. Yes, through love and kindness and righteous living, women can inspire others to want to live with greater honor and dignity, but so can men. I resist generalities in general. If someone were to ask me: who is better, men or women? I would say: which woman? which man?
With regard to the word “feminist,†a friend and I recently decided that since it has become such a loaded term, we would come up with an alternative. So now we call ourselves “equalists.†That doesn’t mean we think men and women are equal in the sense that they are or should be the same; just equally important, equally vital to God’s purposes.
Now, back to Emily’s original post. I, too, have mourned the scarcity of female role models in the Book of Mormon (in all scripture, actually). None of the common explanations cut it for me (particularly not the “for their own protection†theory.). The fact is, as I Know Nothing pointed out, these were very patriarchal societies. Women simply were not valued in the same way that men were. This doesn’t mean that those writing the scriptures were wicked or somehow “wrong.†It simply means that they were caught in their own cultural paradigms—that they had not yet received the further light and knowledge that Heavenly Father is always eager to give his children, but only when they are ready for it and when they have progressed to a point where they realize they need to ask for it. This in no way shakes my testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. In fact, it strengthens my admiration and love for a Heavenly Father who has such respect for our agency that he allows us to exercise it, even to our own detriment, so that we can learn and grow and eventually become capable of receiving Eternal Life.
Anyway, I love Emily’s father’s response. Yup, we all get to forgive each other for being human.
This discussion reminds me of a funny story. One day, my friend’s 5 year old daughter closed her prayer with “A-woman” instead of amen. She thought if it could end with a man, why not a woman?
I do think that not having the names of women in the scriptures is a matter of protection, because look what has happened to some of the women we do know. Take Mary, the mother of Jesus for example. Statues of her are worshipped, people flock to see her image in a tree, tortilla shell, mold on a bathroom wall, etc. Her name is taken in vain. I can’t imagine how she must feel to see herself being worshipped instead of her Son. What about Eve? She has been scorned for centuries by the world. I also wonder, what we would do if we did know the names/stories of the prophets’ wives in the Book of Mormon? Would those women be picked apart, scrutinized, judged, their lives debated and criticized as has been done with Emma Smith? Why would Heavenly Father give us the names of more of His daughters when He has seen what has happened with some of the ones He has given us? It makes sense to me. Plus, like Deborah mentioned, we have countless women from the early days of the church up to now that we can learn about and learn from. How much do we know about them? I sure don’t know that much. They have remarkable stories, and I think we can learn so much from them; it will be more productive to learn about the women that we do know about then to worry about the ones we don’t. We will find out about them when we are supposed to; it will be so wonderful to hear their stories! Until then, we have plenty of righteous women to look up to.
So, were Eve, Esther, Mary, Elizabeth, Sariah, Abish, etc., simply not deemed as worthy of protection as all the unnamed women in scripture?
Maralise–You say it so well. I agree.
Elizabeth–Yes, that was my newlywed ward! It was a great ward. Good people. I looked at your blog–are you Becca’s sister Liz? I always admired your family for being anchors in that ever-changing ward. (especially your dad! What a great choir director. He could have been so sick of music callings, but he just went for it and really made it a great experience.) Glad you liked the post.
Salma–I look forward to reading it too.
Sharlee-I like the history of the “women as angel†idea. And the idea of “which man†and “which woman.†Heck, I like it all. You are wise.
Anon–Hmmm… On my mission to Catholic Ecuador, I also wondered what Mary would think about all the prayers directed to her. And yet I have to agree with Sharlee’s question. Are the Book of Mormon women who did get a mention less worthy than all of the protected ones?
Thanks to everyone! It has been a great discussion.
I don’t know why some women were chosen to be mentioned and some weren’t, and the reasonings behind that. However, the idea that they were left out because it was a patriarchal society doesn’t really make sense to me, because what explains their reasoning for picking the women that they did name? Why was Abish’s name given, but not the name of the queen? If it was really the society of the time that decided who was to be made mention of, why would they give her name (wasn’t she a servant?), but not the name of the queen, who was a much more influential and powerful person and who had an incredible spiritual experience? It’s not consistent- why would Nephi write the name of his mother, but not that of his wife? Because of that, it shows me that God had a hand in it. It’s probably a combination of the two. We are given things on a need-to-know basis, so for now we just have to trust that God knows what He is doing.
I’m enjoying thoroughly this discussion. Here are some comments from a well-meaning brother who also asks not to be condemned for his imperfections. I meant to add just a few lines, but this became something longer, which I hope will be worth your reading.
Re: “We also have the wives who inspire the men to fight, and the mothers of Helaman’s army.” I won’t repeat what I’ve explained elsewhere about the mess I made of my life a while ago because I just want to note here that for the last 8 years God put a wonderful woman in my life who has fought hard for my well-being. Frequently, especially in the early years, she fought *me* for it. I finally — thanks to God’s grace, her fighting for me, and me giving what I could to that fight — am being well. Because of a *woman’s* fight. I’d say she fits “And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul [me] unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!” (D&C 18:15) if she were yet LDS, but I have hope for that also.
Carrie, your comment #13, “I think the more righteous a person really is, the less likely it is that he/she will feel like they are better than other people” reminded me of this from Jos. Smith, “The nearer we get to our Heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs.”
During my repentance, I’m learning from the compassionate people who help me what miraculous changes can be accomplished by looking upon others’ imperfections as opportunities to serve them instead of as targets for scorn. I’ve come to suppose that is why God allows others’ imperfections/sins to become apparent/harm others: so that the others will understand the depth of the need for this service. “When we are willing to restore to others that which we have not taken, or heal wounds that we did not inflict, or pay a debt that we did not incur, we are emulating His part in the Atonement.” – Boyd K. Packer
I’m delighted and encouraged by the sense of forbearance that seems to be developing here towards weaknesses in others. Just recently I realized that BY must have developed great humility to serve as he did. To perform in his position, either he had a self-grandiosity which could only be sustained by denying his evident weaknesses, or had to recognize them and either by crushed by their super-public exposure or become humble so that the global slings that came his way would have no pride-target to hit. I suppose he was self-aware enough to require humility to continue his service, but how difficult any slice of pride would make it in a life filled with public notoriety and scorn! The forebearance I sense here makes it easier for others both to continue in the service they now can give and to recognize and correct their faults.
A couple thoughts from others on this:
“One of the greatest indications of our own spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to the weaknesses, the inexperience, and the potentially offensive actions of others.” (David A. Bednar, GenCon 10/2006)
“Movements born in hatred [even of perceived wrongs] very quickly take on the characteristics of the things they oppose.” (J. S. Habgood ) As Christ taught in the Americas, contention *per se* is of the devil (3 Ne 11:29-30).
“Evil multiplies by the response it seeks to provoke, and when I return evil for evil, I engender corruption myself. The chain of evil is broken for good when a pure and loving heart absorbs a hurt and forbears to hurt in return. Deep within every child of God th Light of Christ resides, guiding, comforting, purifying the heart that turn to him.” (Dennis Rasmussen, “The Lord’s Question,” pp 63-64)
As an unworthy recipient of this kind of love and forbearance, I know that it is the best way to bring about a Christlike change of nature.
This is *not* to say that is the end — it is the beginning. Sincere forbearance can soften a heart to understand, finally, the injury that his (my) wrongful actions cause. But — and this is not fair, but it is the way God set us to live on this earth; Christ’s sufferings for those who killed him also weren’t fair — the forbearance leads to the change of nature/conversion we seek.
Pres. C. Terry Graff’s words on re-activation can be borrowed here,
“To have the fellowship of the saints while we are working on our problems is a great, great blessing. President Gordon B. Hinckley visited our stake several years ago and dedicated a chapel. He said that an appropriate message might be if there were a large sign on the outside of the building that said, “Smokers [or Sexists] Welcome.
“We have found in our activation efforts that that welcome and acceptance and love is so valuable, and not pressure for them to give up their habits first. When we extend that unqualified welcome and love, we can create an atmosphere where the Holy Ghost can bear witness to their hearts. And herein is the spiritual key to activation [or helping to drop any un-Christlike trait]: like missionary work, simple teaching, fellowship, and a humble testimony allowed the Holy Ghost to bear witness and re-create the conversion process.” (GenCon Leadership Session, 4/1985)
I’m sorry to say that I never valued women (or men) so much as after I received from them what literally proved to be life-changing and -saving help. Somehow, sadly, realizing the value they are to me opened my eyes to how valuable they are absolutely — much like the Protestant congregation that foreswore further anti-mormon activities after LDS volunteers rebuilt their Katrina-destroyed chapel.
As I *begin* to understand becoming Chrislike, I see three levels of His commandments regarding others. The first two are (1) to serve all, which leads to (2) loving all.
The third level more closely embodies the at-one-ment. Christ explained the atonement while He worked it out in Gethsemane,
“I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word [...] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:6,20-23)
God’s love is the surest, most constant, form of joy (1 Ne 11:22-23). Once filled with it, we’re able to absorb the offences of others because we have a sure, stronger source of sustenance that others can’t take away. And we naturally seek to share it with them so they can be free of their bitterness also.
I’m learning that we can serve and love others from an emotional distance but to become at-one-ment-ed with them requires an intimacy and a humility that I hadn’t foreseen. As I ponder now how to become one with each person, I naturally eliminate the causes and excuses I used to maintain an emotional distance and now seek their well-being instead. I also find myself more comitted not just to helping but to helping them change their natures to become Christlike. (Yes, I note that Christ spoke of oneness among believers and Paul warned against becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, but don’t we hope that all/any will believe?)
This oneness can reach its highest form in the potential women and men have together. As Erastus Snow explained,
“I only repeat what he says of himself; that he created man in the image of God, male and female created he them, and he called their name Adam, which signifies in Hebrew, the first man. So that the beings we call Adam and Eve were the first man placed here on this earth, and their name was Adam, and they were the express image of God. Now, if anybody is disposed to say that the woman is in the likeness of God and that the man was not, and if vice versa, I say you are both wrong, or else God has not told us the truth.
“I sometimes illustrate this matter by taking up a pair of shears, if I have one, but then you all know they are composed of two halves, but they are necessarily parts, one of another, and to perform their work for each other, as designed, they belong together, and neither one of them is fitted for the accomplishment of their works alone. And for this reason says St. Paul, “the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.” In other words, there can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way. I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female.” (Journal of Discourses, 19: 270 - 271. Full text may be read here: http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_19/JD19-266.html)
And so this is the true fault in sexism, in contention, in racism, or in any other thing that separates people rather than making us at-one. Christ died and rose to effect this at-one-ment among the believers, who will live *together* on a glorified Earth. Any action by a man or by a woman that denigrates instead of exalts the other denies, ultimately, the purpose of Christ’s atonement.
“And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.” (Mni 8:26)
manaen, thank you for so many lovely thoughts to ponder. What a group of words to treasure!
I just came upon this post and I wanted to add this story.
A friend of mine (a man, by the way) was the Primary chorister and one of the little girls complained that all of the Primary songs were about men.
So after that, he had them sing, “We are as the Army of She-laman.”
I didn’t read all of the comments because there were so many, so maybe my thoughts have already been mentioned by someone else…
There is a beautiful book you should read, called “Eve and the Choice Made in Eden” by Beverly Campbell. It really sheds light on our worth as women and the beautiful role we play here.
An institute teacher I once had suggested this: maybe the reason there are not very many women mentioned in scripture is the same reason we know almost nothing about our Heavenly Mother - maybe our Father holds women so sacred, He doesn’t want them mentioned for the possibility of their names being defamed. Look at what people have done with His name and how little He is valued or recognized by many people.
Maybe just a thought, but I felt peace with this.
Ashley, thanks for your comment! I think whatever brings you peace is good. It’s good to have various answers to questions like this, because each answer doesn’t work for each person.
I have heard that line of reasoning before, and while it may work as regards Heavenly Mother’s name, it doesn’t quite gel with me in terms of missing womens’ stories in the Book of Mormon. The idea that women are too sacred to have their stories told in scripture is just depressing to me. I want to read those missing stories! I want my own story told! Does my desire to tell my own story make me less sacred than the women who didn’t get their stories put in?
For me, peace comes more if I can acknowledge the possibility that this lack of women in the Book of Mormon might be an error, an oversight, one that will be corrected when all truth is restored.
In reconsidering this issue, Emily, (and this may have already been mentioned) the Bible was really compiled by a bunch of 4th century politically minded men who were looking to set the standard of doctrine that most suited them. That could explain a lot?
Justine, very true of the Bible, and also of the Book of Mormon, really. Mormon and Moroni edited according to the doctrine they needed to teach, not the stories I would find most interesting.