LDS TED Talk posted today

Public forum to discuss interesting and helpful books.
amateurparent
Posts: 952
Joined: 19 Jan 2014, 20:43

LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by amateurparent »

The below TED Talk posted today. Chelsea Shield talks about gender. There are things we find acceptable in religion that would be intolerable in government or business. That double standard exists in all religions. She talks about her religion -- the LDS church -- abd her efforts to make changes from within.

I would be interested to get feedback from this group.

http://www.ted.com/talks/chelsea_shield ... 2015-11-12
I have no advance degrees in parenting. No national credentials. I am an amateur parent. I read, study, and learn all I can to be the best parent possible. Every time I think I have reached expert status with one child for one stage in their life, something changes and I am back to amateur status again. Now when I really mess up, I just apologize to my child, and explain that I am indeed an amateur .. I'm still learning how to do this right.
university
Posts: 150
Joined: 15 Mar 2014, 17:19

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by university »

As I just went on a gender rant in the Indeterminate Gender Thread, I thought I'd come here.

As someone sick of seeing liberal, well-meaning non-Mormons say things like, "It's a sexist religion, what do you expect?" And "Religious wackos are always going to be wackos" and "I don't get it. Why try to change things? If you don't like the religion, just leave." I really appreciated this talk and will be saving some lines from it, especially the part about finding a way to respect religions while also having conversations about the negative impacts of some of their policies/teachings (paraphrasing).

Thanks for sharing :thumbup:
User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2946
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by LookingHard »

Jokingly I was going to write, "I couldn't hear a thing she said because her sleeves were 1 inch too short." Then she brought it up in that it was going to keep her from being with her family after she dies.

I have loved hearing her every time I heard her on several podcasts. She is one smart person - not one smart lady - one smart person. She really had a good message. Several really good points. Did you notice she got a standing ovation? I would have stood also.
User avatar
Unknown
Posts: 191
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 16:59

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by Unknown »

What I want to know is what kind of members sent her death threats? I don't think any of the members I know would do that, even to the ordain women leaders. Those are the guys who should be excommunicated. Are they crazy? But, when she talks about that, I think an outsider might think the church was sending her death threats like some things I've heard about happening in Scientology. Either way, the fact that she's gotten death threats absolutely blows my mind and I'm actually a little skeptical, but I do know her death threats were not signed by the First Presidency.

I can see what a powerful experience it was for many women to wait in line at the priesthood meeting, I guess I just don't get why they would want to go to an all males meeting in the first place. Is there actually anything wrong with splitting up men and women from time to time? Should we not have Relief Society and Elders Quorum in different classes on Sundays? Should men and women sit together in the temple? Is it wrong to have men on one side and women on the other? Should there be no Boy Scouts? Should it be open to girls or should they just go to girl scouts if they want? I wonder, why did they want to get access to the men's meeting if they have their own women meeting and we come together for the majority of the conference session anyway? I guess it's more of a symbol that women want to do more and want to do some of what the men do. Was there anything like this that had to happen before women were sent on full time missions?

I think it's healthy to recognize that there are differences between men and women, and getting together with a group of men is good for a man. Same for women.
User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2946
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by LookingHard »

What I seem to feel from it is that many women feel that "hierarchical power" is so tied to the priesthood in this church, if they are ever to be even close to equal in decision making (and doing things like changing the temple ceremony to be less offensive to women, or changing how women in church courts have to confess details of sexual misdeeds in front of all males, or young women talking about sexual matters to a older man in private) then they are just going to have to have the priesthood to get that equality. No other way is going to make (or even see) the needed changes. My $0.02.

And as far as death threats - I can believe it, but I don't believe there are any that would follow through with it. I think that is much of the passive-aggressive behavior (or would it be aggressive-passive behavior?) that is common within Mormondom.
Ann
Posts: 2597
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by Ann »

I think this is true:
We've opened up space for more conservative women to step in and make changes.
More conservative men and women, but still.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11
university
Posts: 150
Joined: 15 Mar 2014, 17:19

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by university »

Unknown wrote: I guess I just don't get why they would want to go to an all males meeting in the first place. Is there actually anything wrong with splitting up men and women from time to time?
Hi Unknown :wave:
I could say a lot of things in response to your post but I think I'll just say this: Women at the time of the first demonstration were completely banned from entering the Priesthood Session. I believe this is still the case.

Men both today and then are not only allowed to attend the Relief Society's Session--they can enter with their wives, daughters, or by themselves---but some even "preside" over it and take an active role in speaking in it. Even though it's the "General Women''s Session" men still have a very powerful presence and influence in the meeting. Beyond this, the attendance policies are different. A husband wants to come see his wife speak? No problem. A wife wants to come see her husband speak? No, she's not allowed. She's a woman. And women aren't allowed at the Priesthood Session.

Also: at the time of the first demonstration, it was thought by most (or some, depending on who you ask) members that the women's session wasn't even official part of conference---that debate was starting. Elder Uchtdorf then referred to it as the first session of conference and then there was this big confusion about if the Women's Session was the first session of conference.

Also interesting to note that while church leaders have clarified that men are not the Priesthood but hold the priesthood, and that women can have access to Priesthood Power, the men's session is not referred to as the "General Men's" Session like how the women's session is. It is referred to as the "Priesthood Session."

And Ordain Women was pushing for female ordination.

You can have your own opinions and beliefs about why things are the way things are in this church in regards to gender roles, but do you now see why to some this session is representative of gender inequality and power discrepancies between the genders? And why the supporters of Ordain Women would be compelled to try and attend it?
User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7602
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by SilentDawning »

I watched it all.

She spoke well -- here are my impressions

1. I agree wholeheartedly we hold religion to a different standard than corporate America as she said. Things we do in religion would get us fired in a non, or for-profit corporation. I have my own set of standards for religions that make certain claims, but it puts them to a higher standard, while Chelsea Shields seems to imply we hold religions to a lower standard on certain issues, like gender equality.

2. I admire her for standing up on Ted and talking about her approach to effecting change in the church. That is risky behavior in our church. I'm sure she will face some sort of consequence, either culturally, socially, and maybe administratively if she crosses lines repeatedly.

3. I liked her reasons for encouraging the crowd to agitate for change in their respective religions. She made a strong case for change in religious institutions because attitudes developed in religions do impact society, such as Prop 8, and the Equal Rights Amendment.

I disagreed with a few things she said, or felt they needed more qualification.

1. I think she misrepresented us to all those non-members. She said that because she wore a sleeveless top she would not get into heaven. I'm not convinced that we teach that anywhere. Perhaps if you extrapolate and say that she is not wearing her garments, and thus, not keeping temple covenants, but for an undendowed person I am not sure that is true. She made a couple other comments like that which I think were too simplified and likely created a more extreme picture than we really are to the non-members there. Assuming they were non-members.

2. She didn't say she was with Ordain Women, but I believe she is. She claimed responsibility for the changes regarding more women in decision-making roles, even if not priesthood because of Ordain Women's religious action. I am not sure if that is entirely true. I believe it contributed, but the church would not give credibility to a group like Ordain Women, whose leader they excommunicated, nor would they want to be seen as changing as a result of internal agitation. For all of our talk about humility, I find the leadership to be kind of aloof when it comes to such things.

But I leave myself open that the work of ordain women, sentiment in society, and apparently some growing attitudes about gender equality in the church, may have something to do with it. I just don't think it was necessarily wise of her to claim responsibility for the change. She might have used some weasel words to prevent appearing to be making assumptions.

Overall, good talk, ground-breaking in our church. I wonder how the Brethren will react to it, and what personal consequences she may face as a result. Being outspoken regarding contrarion ideas is risky -- as Elder Holland said -- you can have your own opinion, but try to take other people with you and then we have a problem. Her talk could be construed as "taking others with her" and with that entails risk. I admire her for shouldering it.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
amateurparent
Posts: 952
Joined: 19 Jan 2014, 20:43

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by amateurparent »

When there is a Scout Campout, a woman isn't required to attend in order to make sure standards are being followed. Society has a long history of women being the civilizing force, so why wouldn't it be required to a woman to be at scout camp in order to stop stupidity from happening.

A man is required to be present at Girls Camp. I've always been told it was for safety and to have priesthood blessings available if needed.

If men traditionally offer protection, and women traditionally increase civilized behavior, how come they are not both required in gender-specific youth activities?
I have no advance degrees in parenting. No national credentials. I am an amateur parent. I read, study, and learn all I can to be the best parent possible. Every time I think I have reached expert status with one child for one stage in their life, something changes and I am back to amateur status again. Now when I really mess up, I just apologize to my child, and explain that I am indeed an amateur .. I'm still learning how to do this right.
User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2946
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: LDS TED Talk posted today

Post by LookingHard »

amateurparent wrote:When there is a Scout Campout, a woman isn't required to attend in order to make sure standards are being followed. Society has a long history of women being the civilizing force, so why wouldn't it be required to a woman to be at scout camp in order to stop stupidity from happening.

A man is required to be present at Girls Camp. I've always been told it was for safety and to have priesthood blessings available if needed.

If men traditionally offer protection, and women traditionally increase civilized behavior, how come they are not both required in gender-specific youth activities?
Very good question. I presume your answer would be patriarchy. I would add, "undo fear of sexual relations coming out of the situation." If the CHI used to say, "Don't ride to a church meeting alone with a member of the opposite sex", then how are you going to be able to control yourself when you see a Sister taking a shower in the outdoor shower just a few feet away?

But on a practical level, it is hard enough getting some men that like to go camping to camp with a bunch of fart-enthralled 1213 year olds.

I lean a bit more towards making this more equitable is to have the men nearby the camp, but not in the camp. There are some boys that do need to get away from (helicopter) parents for a bit and unwind in the woods now and then.
Post Reply