On the subject of Mormon prejudice, here's what then-LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley had to say about not giving LDS women the priesthood to David Ransom, on the Australian Broadcasting Company news show "Compass":

David Ramsom: "At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?"

Gordon B. Hinckley: "That's right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organization. Probably the largest women's organization in the world of 3.7 million members. And the women of that organization sit on Boards. Our Board of Education--things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organization of the world where they grow and if you ask them they'll say, 'We're happy and we're satisfied.'"

DR: "They all say that?"

GBH: "Yes. All except, ah, oh, you'll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that."

DR: "You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?"

GBH: "I mean that's a part of His program. Of course it is, yes."

DR: "Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks?"

GBH: "He could change them, yes. If He were to change them that's the only way it would happen."

DR: "So, you'd have to get a revelation?"

GBH: "Yes. But there's no agitation for that. We don't find it. Our women are happy. They're satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife."

GBH: "Are you happy?" (to his wife . . . )

Mrs. GBH: "Very happy!" (laughs)

(David Ransom, interview with LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley, on Australian Broadcasting Company news show "Compass," at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/hinckley.shtml)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 07:00PM by steve benson.

Funny how his comment seemed to be placing women on a lower scale than men, I can't quite put my finger on what he says that gives me that feeling, but it just seems condescending, like "we priesthood holders let those silly women actually talk to us and lead each other."

In my mind it is the use of "they". Over and over, "they" and "them". People who want equality say We. Inclusive versus separating.

Many of us want equality.
Vs.
They don't want to elevate their station.

And then obviously saying "our women" like they are possessions.
And "We don't find it" seems to be referring to the men not hearing the agitation.

But then I have a hair trigger for sexism after having so much of it shoved down my throat.

DR: "So, you'd have to get a revelation?"

GBH: "Yes. But there's no agitation for that.

That statement is perfect. He's essentially stating that change isn't inspired, it's only when there's enough "agitation" (or uproar, or downright governmental demand) that they get off their ass and make a change.

The church promotes what has been commonly called benevolent sexism. Essentially, it is the idea that women have qualities of purity and sensitivity that men lack, and, as a result, women require special protection.

On the surface, it appears that women are placed in this role due to the allegedly high regard in which they are supposedly held. However, the viewpoint is actually pretty condescending in that it suggests women (i) need protecting; (ii) are dependent on men; and (iii) are not well-suited to address challenges and problems men commonly handle.

But, I guess we should be more accepting given that Sister Hinckley didn't mind.

There's a few things about the church I'd like to "agitate".