A few weeks ago, a man gave a talk in a sacrament meeting I was visiting. He spoke on a Come Follow Me lesson that included the book of Numbers. He said that Numbers could be a difficult book to read because of, well, all the numbers. But he said you could find God’s love there, too, and he used the example of when God commanded a census to be taken of all the Israelites and that each individual was counted and named one by one. His point, I think, is that this anecdote was proof that God values and loves us individually.
It was a nice thought, but I immediately flipped to Numbers chapter 1 and saw, with sinking heart, exactly what I expected to see. Only men over the age of 20 were counted in the census. Only men were named one by one. And the census was for a roster of potential soldiers. There is a second census taken in Numbers chapter 26 for the same purpose, as well as for dividing the land for their inheritance. The Levites were excluded from the soldier census due to their ecclesiastical responsibilities, but in the second census, each Levite male of one month of age or more was counted. With perhaps a very few exceptions, girls and women were not counted or named at all.
Not every insight from the scriptures has to be universal, but I am so tired of the lack of women and the lack of acknowledgment that women are missing. And women are missing and underrepresented everywhere: they are missing in our scriptures, in our lesson manuals, in priesthood quorums, in our church leadership on every level. They are missing in our General Conference speaker line ups, in our church councils, in our hymns and children’s songs. Women are missing in the temple ceremony, in our understanding of the afterlife, and in the Godhead.
These are all facts. And yet, we do not acknowledge them. When we pretend this inequity doesn’t exist or we fail to point it out, it sends the message to women and girls that they are inessential, that they are afterthoughts, that their personhood is subsumed under whatever male they happen to be attached to.
The man who gave the talk I referenced may not have noticed that an entire gender, plus children, was excluded in this census when he had his insight. As a man, he is able to take for granted that all words for humankind in the scriptures, except for the very few uses of “women,” include him. Women are so used to identifying with men and male characters and assuming that male-gendered language applies to us (except when it doesn’t) that many of us don’t recognize when we’re excluded, either.
I wonder, though, if he’d have had the same insight if the genders were reversed in these particular chapters. If the scriptures had said, “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every woman by name, one by one” (Numbers 1:2, NIV), if he was not explicitly included in the verse due to his gender, would he still have felt that it was an example of God loving all of us individually?
I have no doubt there are women who have had the same insight that this man did, despite their lack of inclusion in the gendered language. But men are not at all accustomed to inserting themselves into the gendered language of scripture and doctrine as women are. Their inclusion is so taken for granted, I doubt most men (particularly straight, white, cis men) have considered what reading the scriptures is like for people who are only marginally, if at all, included in the text, the speakers, and the stories.
Since basically all of our leaders fall into that category, I am pessimistic that acknowledgment or even awareness of this issue will improve on a church-wide level anytime soon. Until then, women will continue to sit through talks and lessons that assume “men” means “people” (except when it doesn’t).
23 Responses
Yes!! I’m tired of people telling me to mentally add “and women” to “men” in the Scriptures when they think it makes sense to them but not when it challenges male-exclusive leadership or authority.
I usually add “and women, probably” because I’m super cynical now
Amen! Excellent post, ElleK!!
Totally fair point.
Yes, nothing makes this double standard more obvious than reading the intro to Declaration 2 where it actually mentions male and female but then limits priesthood office to men still based on the idea that the particular sections of Doctrine and Covenants related to priesthood offices use the word men and male pronouns. However, Pres. Nelson has adamantly insisted, in recent years, women of the church study those exact sections to understand priesthood power. We are somehow supposed to simultaneously understand it does pertain to us while accepting it does not pertain to us. Never mind the fact that in any other circumstance it is understood women are supposed to mentally add themselves in any time scriptures address men generally, or use male pronouns. In this particular instance we are supposed to know it really is not supposed to include women in regards to priesthood office. While simultaneously saying, “But it still applies to you!”. It is exhausting, and infuriating that even the best intentioned men are oblivious to how often we have to spend mental energy just figuring out if we are being addressed/included or not.
Excellent comment. This kind of inconsistent insanity is infuriating. The system, rules, and interpretations are always against women because church leaders get to pick and choose when to include women and when to exclude them. It’s the same with women not being able to give healing blessings, even though that gift of the spirit is supposedly available to all who follow Christ. There are so many instances.
Mikaela, this is so well said. I would love for you to write this up as a guest post. Thank you for sharing!
Ever notice the number of times scriptures in the Book of Mormon are addressed to “Brethren “? Can’t include myself in those verses, chapters and much of the whole book.
Well said, ElleK! In particular I appreciate your remark, “When we pretend this inequity doesn’t exist or we fail to point it out, it sends the message to women and girls that they are inessential, that they are afterthoughts”. I couldn’t agree more!
We aren’t agonizing over word choice just for fun or to find ways to be critical of others. No, the reason we ask people to notice and use more inclusive language is because without using inclusive language people are conveying (even if they don’t intend to) that certain people are less valuable that others. And the idea or message that people are worth less than others is incredibly harmful.
“As a man, he is able to take for granted that all words for humankind in the scriptures, except for the very few uses of ‘women,’ include him.” I love this!
Yes! Every word of this.
If you’re not already following “the man who has it all” on Instagram, DO!
Hmmm. I agree with a lot of this…but I do think it needs to be considered a culture of the world too. These habits of language are not exclusive to the lds church. Many governments, religions and households were this way…and some still are.
I don’t think that pointing out the faults fixes the problem…it just highlights. Instead of teaching women and girls the errors, why are we not just teaching them higher truths.
There is always room for improvement….for everyone. It is unfortunate that there are men who fail to see the where women are not included. But it is the same as my counselor telling me I am not fit to be a RS President because I was unwed with no children. The inequity is seeped through all sorts of cultural limits.
Yes! How often are women expected to see themselves in the masculine language as universal, and are then expected to exclude themselves when it comes to power and authority.
It would be nice if the church had actual resources or curriculum available to study the Bible from an academic perspective. Perhaps people wouldn’t read a book like Numbers and create ways to turn it into an emotional feel-good moment about God’s love. As you pointed out, that isn’t what Numbers is about. If a reader doesn’t understand who wrote a book of scripture and the purpose for writing it, then they are likely to completely miss the point of the scripture and end up causing pain as this man did by contorting the words to fit what he wanted them to mean and leaving out more than half of the people who were listening to his talk. I’ve stopped waiting for awareness and have started pointing things out – the male experience and masculine language are not universal. Because of this one male friend in my ward called me toxic and will no longer speak to me but I can’t stay silent any longer.
Men certainly don’t read the language as inclusive to both genders when it talks about Priesthood authority or presiding being the jobs of men. When the scriptures say, “…bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of all MEN”, I’m supposed to know that obviously includes me. But if they say, “Amen to the priesthood of that MAN”, I’m also supposed to know that it obviously *doesn’t* include me.
It’s confusing and frustrating and men never have to struggle with it.
One time my daughter, who is 8, said during family scripture study when she heard men and not women referenced, “I think they should write new scriptures”
Perhaps it’s time!
I’m a big fan of your daughter, Miriam. She’s got things figured out.
Amen, ElleK. Your post reminds me of an elders quorum lesson I was in recently where the teacher was reading a quote from a woman, and she referred to sisters or women or something, and he edited it to say brothers or men. I’m sure he meant nothing by it, but I found it infuriating for exactly the reasons you outline. I wanted to buttonhole him after class and ask if he was so vigilant about editing scriptures and words of church leaders the 99.9999995% of the time that they refer to men and not women. Of course I didn’t do it, because it’s the whole of the men in the Church, starting especially with the GAs, who need to get their act together, so it didn’t seem fair to blame him alone. But still, it’s infuriating.
It’s been said that Christ’s treatment of women during his mortal ministry was radical for the culture that existed in that time and place. He first announced his divinity to a woman. He first announced his resurrection and ascension to a woman. He commingled and communed with women engaging in adultery and offered forgiveness, not condemnation. He healed women and girls physically and emotionally. He saw to the needs of his mother while he was in the process of dying.
In Gethsemane, Christ took upon himself all the pains, sickness, sorrows, and consequences for sin for all women in all ages. He took upon himself all breast and uterine cancers, all endometriosis, all menstrual pains, all the pains of morning sickness, childbirth, miscarriages, SIDS, PPD, and menopause. He took upon himself all anxiety and depression. He took upon himself all disappointments and pains caused by our singleness, by our infertility, by our spouses, by our children, and by our widowhood. He took upon himself the consequences of our infidelities.
Having borne all pain and sin for all women, (not just you or me), it’s fair to say that Christ understands the plight of women better than women — individually or collectively.
(Once when Joseph Smith was complaining about his plight, Christ reminded him that, the “Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?”)
It was this same Christ who, when he organized his Church in his day, in the Nephite dispensation, and in this last dispensation, choose twelve men to lead it.
It was God the Father who decreed that there would be men and women, and that women would bear children and men would not.
It was Christ who commanded his prophets to take the censuses written of in Numbers.
It was Christ who commanded plural marriage when it was practiced anciently and in modern times.
It was Christ who has delegated Priesthood ordinations and offices to men, and Priesthood authority and blessing to women and men.
It was Christ who has decided what information so far to release about our Mother in Heaven.
It was Christ who revealed to prophets to write what they wrote, and how they wrote it.
We don’t know why He did these things as He did them. He hasn’t told us (yet). But the lack of explanations for all things is an essential aspect of developing faith and trust in Christ.
So, when you say, “And women are missing and underrepresented everywhere: they are missing in our scriptures, in our lesson manuals, in priesthood quorums, in our church leadership on every level. They are missing in our General Conference speaker line ups, in our church councils, in our hymns and children’s songs. Women are missing in the temple ceremony, in our understanding of the afterlife, and in the Godhead,” first, I will disagree with much of this. But it seems that perhaps you have forgotten that, “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.“
It seems that perhaps your issue isn’t so much with the Church, which Christ organized and leads, or the leaders of the Church, whom Christ chose. It seems that you simply can’t accept how Christ has chosen to organize and implement the Church, the Plan of Salvation, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, and the eternities. I find this very odd. And discouraging.
If you know better than Christ how to do things, art thou greater than he?
This viewpoint is fascinating to me as it’s perfectly in-line with the pervasive Christian view that the Bible is the inerrant word of God: basically, if it’s in the Bible, it’s absolutely God’s will, and God dictated every word (and try not to worry about the contradictions or mistakes therein). But as Mormons, we know better. We know that it passed through many hands, that meanings changed and things were lost, that it was a product and record of largely good but imperfect men. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t have many truths or that it doesn’t have immense value, it just means that humans and history are messy.
This is essentially the lens through which I see the Church. I don’t believe that Christ told an angel to threated to kill Joseph Smith unless he practiced polygamy. I don’t believe that Christ wanted Black people excluded from the priesthood or temple blessings until 1978. I don’t believe Christ instituted patriarchy. I don’t believe that Christ commanded the church to exclude gay people’s kids from being blessed as babies or being baptized, or that he then commanded the church to quietly rescind that policy 4 years later. I believe we’re led by imperfect men who get in their own way a lot of the time, who are filled with love but also with fear, who get things wrong sometimes like all of us do.
As you wrote so beautifully, Christ was revolutionary in his treatment of women. Perhaps no women were among the original 12, but Mary Magdalene is called apostle to the apostles, Junia and Phoebe were deacons mentioned in the Bible, and there is extensive evidence that men through the centuries tried to exclude or minimize women’s leadership and contributions. Women led the church and kept it alive after Christ’s death. For over 100 years in our own church, women gave blessings and anointed with oil, but that was taken away by men.
Our church is not revolutionary in its treatment or inclusion of women. Given the differences between our times, we don’t come close to comparing with Christ’s example in this regard.
I don’t think God or Christ micromanages every detail of this or any church. I think the male leaders of this church see through a glass darkly just like the rest of us do. So in answer to your question, no. I don’t think I know better than Christ. But I also don’t believe that the leaders of this church enact Christ’s will 100% of the time, either.
You have my full concurrence that, as a Church, we do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, nor that of any mortal women or men. “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” Similarly, Joseph Smith was frank in saying “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”
Apostle James E. Faust further stated that, “We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators.” So I regret if I gave the impression of advocating for inerrancy.
Having said that, “We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Indeed, it is doctrine that “the Book of Mormon [is] the most correct of any book on earth.”
Additionally, “We believe all that God has revealed.” And particularly important to this discussion, we believe, “all that He does now reveal.” This clause of Article of Faith 9 seems to get lost in many conversations today.
We also believe that “The Lord will never permit me [Wilford Woodruff] or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” Some think this statement by President Woodruff is anachronistic. But I can cite a minimum of 25 other instances across the whole history of the Church where leaders have publicly taught the same sentiment, including as recently as last October: “We are distinguished as a Church to be led by prophets, seers, and revelators called of God for this time. I promise that as you listen and follow their counsel, you will never be led astray. Never!” (Elder Ronald A. Rasband)
Thankfully, it is also true that, “we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” Stay tuned!
But apparently, He has not yet revealed the things that are great and important to you. For example, I personally believe that, at a minimum, women who are exalted in the Celestial Kingdom will hold the Priesthood. How could they not? Referring to exalted women and men, the Lord said, “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” Gods. All power. The power of God is the Priesthood. It’s inescapable that exalted women will have it. But, will there be women who receive it prior to exaltation? I haven’t a clue. It has not yet been revealed.
Christ has cautioned us against getting ahead of not only ourselves, but also getting ahead of Him. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.”
And so the Church is as Christ would have it be at this moment.
But therein lies the rub. You don’t believe it.
You said that you, “don’t believe that Christ told an angel to threated [sic] to kill Joseph Smith unless he practiced polygamy.” But Joseph Smith “told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.”
You said that you, “don’t believe that Christ wanted Black people excluded from the priesthood or temple blessings until 1978.” But Brigham Young and subsequent prophets believed it. And Spencer W. Kimball and all the apostles in 1978 believed that it would take a revelation to end it. We don’t know the “why’s,” but these were certainly serious tests for many people. And mortality is all about testing and proving.
You said that you, “don’t believe Christ instituted patriarchy.” Of all the meanings of the term “patriarchy,” I’m not sure to which you refer. But it is doctrinally clear that the Godhead is a Priesthood quorum, while our Father and Mother in Heaven are the head of the heavenly family, just as it is on earth.
You said that you, “don’t believe that Christ commanded the church to exclude gay people’s kids from being blessed as babies or being baptized, or that he then commanded the church to quietly rescind that policy 4 years later.” But that’s what President Nelson very publicly said is what happened. He added that the original policy, and the revised policy were both motivated by love and came by revelation. He said the original policy was intended to not cause the children of gay parents to be pitted against their parents regarding baptism. The revised policy was intended to ensure parity in the treatment of same-sex parents compared with similarly-situated heterosexual parents. Again, this episode was a very serious test for many people. Christ said, “we will prove them herewith.”
You said that, “Our church is not revolutionary in its treatment or inclusion of women.” But you ignore how revolutionary the Relief Society was and is; that the Church supported the education of women to become doctors from its earliest days and still supports and invests in the education of women around the world today; that Latter-day Saint women were essential contributors to the Suffrage Movement; that Utahn Seraph Young was the first woman in the United States to vote under equal suffrage laws; that women engaged in plural marriage eloquently and forcefully defended it in the U.S. Congress; that women run Church-owned companies; that a woman runs LDS Charities – one of the largest charitable organizations in the world; or that women sit on every, single executive council in the Church, including the Priesthood and Family Executive Council, the Missionary Executive Council, and the Temple and Family History Executive Council, among others. These three councils comprehend and execute the entire mission of the Church.
You said that, “I don’t think God or Christ micromanages every detail of this or any church.” But President Hinckley was clear that, “No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. At the outset in considering matters, there may be differences of opinion. These are to be expected. These men come from different backgrounds. They are men who think for themselves. But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice. This is to be expected if the revealed word of the Lord is followed. I add by way of personal testimony that during the twenty years I served as a member of the Council of the Twelve and during the nearly thirteen years that I have served in the First Presidency, there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed. I have seen differences of opinion presented in these deliberations. Out of this very process of men speaking their minds has come a sifting and winnowing of ideas and concepts. But I have never observed serious discord or personal enmity among my Brethren. I have, rather, observed a beautiful and remarkable thing—the coming together, under the directing influence of the Holy Spirit and under the power of revelation, of divergent views until there is total harmony and full agreement. Only then is implementation made. That, I testify, represents the spirit of revelation manifested again and again in directing this the Lord’s work. I know of no other governing body of any kind of which this might be said.” This sounds very much like the Lord is interested in the details.
You said that, “I think the male leaders of this church see through a glass darkly just like the rest of us do.” You put “the rest of us” on the exact same plane as “the male leaders of this church.” These fifteen apostles are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. It is their calling to see things that “the rest of us” cannot see. It is their calling to be the voice of warning, the voice of counsel, the watchmen on the tower.
My posing of “art thou greater than he?,” was a rhetorical device. And your reply is telling: “So in answer to your question, no. I don’t think I know better than Christ. But I also don’t believe that the leaders of this church enact Christ’s will 100% of the time, either.” However, this is the Church as Christ has organized it. And these are the leaders that he has chosen. Perhaps you don’t believe this. The implication of your reply is that, while you don’t think you know better than Christ, you probably do think that you know better than “the male leaders of this church.”
I suggest that your response cements my original thesis that, “It seems that you simply can’t accept how Christ has chosen to organize and implement the Church, the Plan of Salvation, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, and the eternities.” And in this sense, perhaps you do think you know better than Christ.
I wonder if you realize this comment is over twice as long as my original essay. While you obviously disagree with my thesis, the fact that you have quoted or named 7 men (excluding Jesus) in your rebuttal makes my point as well as anything I could have written.
I will not be responding point by point. I used to believe, like you, that every decision the brethren made for the Church came directly from Jesus. While I now believe church leaders certainly can be and often are inspired, I no longer believe that they have a direct telephone line to Jesus. They’re human. They make mistakes, and sometimes big ones. I don’t think that negates whatever divine calling they have. You’re welcome to your own opinion, and I won’t call you a heretic if you don’t share my own.
I’m not sure how you came across my post, but I honestly hope you stick around and keep reading. There are many people sitting in the pews with you who have the same feelings I do, many women who feel marginalized in the church. I have received a few unsolicited lectures from my male leaders about how my views are wrong or invalid (though none of them quite as verbose or well sourced as yours), and I can tell you that each instance left me feeling much worse. If I could give any advice to ward/stake priesthood leaders about how to respond to women’s concerns, it would be to listen. Hear us out. And then say, “I’m so sorry. That sounds really hard.” No excuses or justifications or telling us that we think we’re better than Jesus. And then do what you can in your sphere to make things a little better for women and girls. For some actionable suggestions, check out Women At Church by Neylan McBaine, available at Deseret Book.