When I was a missionary, I watched General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) at a church with other missionaries, most of whom were male, and was shocked to realize that male missionaries saw the very scarce women’s talks as bathroom breaks.
Until then, I had always watched General Conference at home, either alone or with my family or with female roommates. My mission was my first experience watching a General Conference broadcast at a church building, and my first time seeing adult men stand up and excuse themselves when the only woman speaker of the session arose to speak.
After our most recent General Conference, Exponent guest writer Leah Steelman pointed out that two of the three women speakers seemed to encourage this male bathroom break behavior by announcing in the first line of their talk that they were directing their message to specific demographics of church members that excluded adult men—children in one case and youth in the other. Only three of 35 speakers were women, and two of those women explicitly told men, “You don’t have to listen to me!”
I see where these female General Conference speakers are coming from. Of course the Young Women presidency wants to speak to youth and the Primary presidency wants to address children! That makes sense. Those are the demographics in their stewardships. The problem is that there are too few women speakers to begin with. If a couple of the 32 male speakers decided to address their remarks to a specific demographic, there would still be many more of them left to speak to the rest of us. Not so for women.
In fact, one of those 32 male speakers at the last General Conference did just that! Elder Steven R. Bangerter announced in the first line of his talk that he was directing his remarks specifically to youth, just like Sister Andrea Muñoz Spannaus did after him. (See guys? You didn’t have to hold it clear until Sister Spannaus’s turn! You could have taken your potty break early!) That still left 31 General Conference talks by men that included adult men in the intended audience, compared to only one talk by a woman.
We need General Conference talks that address the unique needs of specific demographics in the church, and with about 35 talks delivered at each General Conference, we certainly have ample time to direct some of these sermons toward certain demographics instead of trying to make every talk about everyone. And the women leaders who serve in presidencies with stewardship specifically over children or youth or women are uniquely qualified to address the needs of these particular demographic groups in their talks.
But we also need men to listen to women. We need men to hear women, and learn from women, and respect women. We need men seated in their chairs, pondering women’s words and insights, gleaning gospel truths from their sermons, feeling challenged by their perspectives and inspired by their teachings.
We need men to hold it until the rest hymn.
How can we have both? How can we make space for one or two or even more women to address their talks to specific demographic groups that may exclude adult men, while still having other talks by women directed to adult men or to the church as a whole?
The answer is simple. We need more women speaking in General Conference.
6 Responses
This is a confusing topic for me because it isn’t discussed much at church. For example, we once had a gospel doctrine teacher tell us about apostasy during our reading of Alma the Younger. In that lesson, he informed us that apostasy is publicly speaking out or teaching contrary to priesthood authority. A woman asked if speaking out against the RS General President would be apostasy, and was told no. So the women leaders are fair game for public criticism? I was left reeling. Bishop refused to comment.
So if we aren’t required to sustain the sister general presidencies, then why are we asked to give them sustaining votes? And if their word isn’t binding on the brethren, is it binding on just the women and children, or not binding to any of us?
I have yet to meet the leader who could or would answer these questions, so I remain confused about it. Your article is the closest thing to an answer I have found. Maybe by addressing youth specifically, she is staying within the parameters of her authority by making her counsel applicable only for teens? Or is it all moot and she has no actual authority because she is a woman?
Your comment intrigues me so i went searching for a definition of apostasy. After poking around, I feel like your gospel doctrine teacher has a very narrow definition of apostasy that he either made up or he heard from someone else that made it up. Apostasy is actively turning away. Speaking up isn’t apostasy.
See this definition which is in line with a lot of other ones I read:
Apostasy, the total rejection of Christianity by a baptized person who, having at one time professed the Christian faith, publicly rejects it. It is distinguished from heresy, which is limited to the rejection of one or more Christian doctrines by one who maintains an overall adherence to Jesus Christ.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/apostasy
Thank you for looking up that definition, Mimi. It doesn’t hurt my feelings at all to know I am a heretic, not an apostate. Although, depending on what one defines as “doctrine”, maybe I’m not even that…just ornery and not putting up with falseness any longer. Another judgement maybe that most often comes from the outside view instead of ones inner view?
I would be so intrigued to see a female leader of the church address her remarks to the men of the church. Granted, they generally do not have stewardship over the men… but I think wiggle room could easily be found (to the husbands, to the fathers, to the young men, etc.).
I can easily think of examples of male leadership addressing only the women or only the men in the congregation. Time to do a deep dive to see if I can find the opposite!
Oh the topics a woman could speak on geared directly to the men, and young men of the church! I bet her talk would not get past the vetting process they have. I’d love to see it done.
Turn in one to be vetted and then give another. I doubt they would pull her off. I’m sure it would be the end of her membership but wouldn’t it be fun to see the patriarchy turn apoplectic????