The church and Equal Rights for women

[2bizE]

Can someone please remind me of the church’s stance on ERA from the 1970s and if the stance has changed since then?

[moksha]

I am uncertain whether they would seek to use the Relief Society en masse to vote against women's rights today, however, the Church has let it be known that women should not sit on the stand unless they are giving a talk or a prayer.

Church leaders would recoil from the suggestion of equal rights for women more vigorously than a silver cross or a braid of garlic.

[RubinHighlander]

I was barely a teen in 77, but I'll never forget the name Sonia Johnson and how much the church demonized her for standing up for ERA. She and some others actually stood up and verbally opposed the church leadership in a general conference session and it shocked a lot of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson

[wtfluff]

I was barely a teen in 77, but I'll never forget the name Sonia Johnson and how much the church demonized her for standing up for ERA. She and some others actually stood up and verbally opposed the church leadership in a general conference session and it shocked a lot of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson

Yep. I remember my parents clutching their pearls while chatting about what an awful person Sonia Johnson was.

Dear Pele did I ever grow up in a weird, impenetrable MORmON bubble.

[alas]

The church would most likely come out against anything that legally required women to be treated equally. They have a habit of opposing rights being given to any group they personally discriminate against. In spite of religious freedom declaring that religions have perfect freedom to discriminate against any group they please, and that no law would have forced them to give blacks the priesthood or temple privilege, force them to give women priesthood, or allow gays temple sealings, they know that such groups getting legal equality under the law eventually causes public sentiments to want those groups to be given equality within religion. So, when women are equal to men in most ways outside of the church, people begin to see there is no reason to refuse to give women the priesthood, and they start to criticize the church for treating God’s children as if God loves some more than others. Better to live in a whole society that agrees with them that God loves white, straight, (rich) males the very mostest.

[Mayan_Elephant]

The church would most likely come out against anything that legally required women to be treated equally. They have a habit of opposing rights being given to any group they personally discriminate against. In spite of religious freedom declaring that religions have perfect freedom to discriminate against any group they please, and that no law would have forced them to give blacks the priesthood or temple privilege, force them to give women priesthood, or allow gays temple sealings, they know that such groups getting legal equality under the law eventually causes public sentiments to want those groups to be given equality within religion. So, when women are equal to men in most ways outside of the church, people begin to see there is no reason to refuse to give women the priesthood, and they start to criticize the church for treating God’s children as if God loves some more than others. Better to live in a whole society that agrees with them that God loves white, straight, (rich) males the very mostest.

Meh. Equity and equality for women seems to not be the new in thing anymore. That pendulum seems to have swung back to where it was swung before it was swung back to here again. One day they are all going to hell for having a priesthood and next they will all be going to heaven for having a place in the church for women and then minds will rechange to what they were already changed to before the change back.

[nibbler]

Can someone please remind me of the church’s stance on ERA from the 1970s and if the stance has changed since then?

I haven't researched it and my credit card was declined at the holiday inn but from what I remember the opposition was something along the lines of:

1) Women are already equals, they don't need this!
2) People are gonna do bad things because the amendment is worded poorly.

[alas]

Can someone please remind me of the church’s stance on ERA from the 1970s and if the stance has changed since then?

I haven't researched it and my credit card was declined at the holiday inn but from what I remember the opposition was something along the lines of:

1) Women are already equals, they don't need this!
2) People are gonna do bad things because the amendment is worded poorly.

Yeah, they said the same things about civil rights and gay marriage.

But among their excuses was also the idea that women need “special protection” for things like pregnancy, so, yeah it is better to just fire the woman than respect any limits imposed to protect the pregnancy. We can’t treat t like any other illness, because only women get it, so we can still fire women for it rather than protect them. They did NOTHING to give women any special protection, just made sure women were not given the same rights as men.

And it was rather obvious back in the 60s and 70s that women were not equal before the law, when a married man can have his own bank account, but a married woman has to put her husband’s name on it as co-owner. And she could have no bank account if she didn’t have money that was hers from her own job, but if she worked and her husband didn’t, that he could get an account in his own name. But none of that matters, because if we use the word “equal” for “separate but equal” then things really are equal, even if they obviously are not.

When it comes down to it, I think they are just afraid for the world to see them treat others as less than, but they don’t want to have to change that they treat others as less than.

[Mayan_Elephant]

Can someone please remind me of the church’s stance on ERA from the 1970s and if the stance has changed since then?

I haven't researched it and my credit card was declined at the holiday inn but from what I remember the opposition was something along the lines of:

1) Women are already equals, they don't need this!
2) People are gonna do bad things because the amendment is worded poorly.

Your description reminds me of why Obama and Clinton were opposed to gay marriage. I think that often the resistance is more about change being icky and yucky. Any excuse not to change will do.

[moksha]

I was barely a teen in 77, but I'll never forget the name Sonia Johnson and how much the church demonized her for standing up for ERA.

One benefit from being so damn old is that I attended that meeting in the Salt Palace where the Elders held up signs telling the Relief Society sisters how to vote on the various women's issues. The signs were a big help because the Relief Society sisters did not seem to track what was being discussed. Just as well, since these issues may have given them ideas unconducive to the Patriarchy. Besides, they were there to vote down women's rights, and that was undoubtedly explained to them in the Relief Society meeting.

[hmb]

I haven't researched it and my credit card was declined at the holiday inn but from what I remember the opposition was something along the lines of:

1) Women are already equals, they don't need this!
2) People are gonna do bad things because the amendment is worded poorly.

I remember this. I was taught that women were/are equals, but with different roles and responsibilities. One couldn't function without the other. (Never mind that the womenz thoughts and wishes require the A-Okay of men.)

[2bizE]

I find it odd that few women called to the general boards of primary, Relief Society and Young Women are the stay-at-home moms that the church has proclaimed women should be. They do not follow the prescribed path.

[Mayan_Elephant]

I find it odd that few women called to the general boards of primary, Relief Society and Young Women are the stay-at-home moms that the church has proclaimed women should be. They do not follow the prescribed path.

The Second Wives Club does not seem to fit the model either. That is an interesting observation.

[wtfluff]

I find it odd that few women called to the general boards of primary, Relief Society and Young Women are the stay-at-home moms that the church has proclaimed women should be. They do not follow the prescribed path.

The Second Wives Club does not seem to fit the model either. That is an interesting observation.

The Fluffy Conspiracy part of my brain likes to think that Young( )Ladies like Aunt Wendy are given a (secret-and-maybe-sacred) "Special Calling" to wait around for the wife of an apostle to die so that the aforementioned Young( )Ladies can be married to the grieving apostle and join the Top-Tier LDS-Inc. Second Wives Celestial Polygamy Club™...

[alas]

I find it odd that few women called to the general boards of primary, Relief Society and Young Women are the stay-at-home moms that the church has proclaimed women should be. They do not follow the prescribed path.

The Second Wives Club does not seem to fit the model either. That is an interesting observation.

The Fluffy Conspiracy part of my brain likes to think that Young( )Ladies like Aunt Wendy are given a (secret-and-maybe-sacred) "Special Calling" to wait around for the wife of an apostle to die so that the aforementioned Young( )Ladies can be married to the grieving apostle and join the Top-Tier LDS-Inc. Second Wives Celestial Polygamy Club™...

Well, you can’t expect someone as important as Oaks or Nelson to marry a widow who is sealed to someone else. No, they have to set the example of only marrying women they can be sealed to. That and they want to start their celestial harem. You know, “think Celestial.”

Speaking of which, my Relief Society gave me a give for my birthday. It is a necklace with a small charm that says “think celestial”. The charm can go in the garbage and I’ll use the chain for something pretty. Maybe even make me a small charm that says, “think terrestrial! save the earth from human parasites”

[Wonderment]

I find it odd that few women called to the general boards of primary, Relief Society and Young Women are the stay-at-home moms that the church has proclaimed women should be. They do not follow the prescribed path.

I never understood that either. Women are to remain silently at home and avoid the evils sending children to a day care setting, except when they are called to serve the corporation. That never made any sense.