This post is part of the General Conference Odyssey. This week covers the Sunday Afternoon Session of the April 1998 Conference.
I liked this session. Lots of good talks, lots of things I remember. These talks are starting to feel almost…recent! How strange. President Hinckley announced a bunch of temples and said we would have a hundred of them by the year 2000. I remember how amazing that was. And I remember Elder Scott's talk on leaving behind negative cultural traditions. I've always been so curious about which specific things prompted him to give that talk! Elder Lynn G. Robbins' talk on anger is so good too. I've always remembered (though still not mastered!) the doctrine that "becoming angry is a conscious choice, a decision; therefore, we can make the choice not to become angry."
I also really liked President Packer's talk on the Relief Society. He talked a bit about priesthood power too. I feel like today we have more "official doctrine" on women and priesthood power that we've ever had. I know I have certainly learned a lot more about it than I used to know! But it's interesting that nothing President Packer said here contradicted any of the "new" (I don't know if it's really new or we just discuss it more?) things we've been learning. The fundamental doctrines are so consistent! Like this:
"However much priesthood power and authority the men may possess—however much wisdom and experience they may accumulate—the safety of the family, the integrity of the doctrine, the ordinances, the covenants, indeed the future of the Church, rests equally upon the women. The defenses of the home and family are greatly reinforced when the wife and mother and daughters belong to Relief Society.No man receives the fulness of the priesthood without a woman at his side. For no man, the Prophet said, can obtain the fulness of the priesthood outside the temple of the Lord. And she is there beside him in that sacred place. She shares in all that he receives."
This next part was intriguing to me. My first thought was "No one would say this now." But I don't know, maybe President Packer still would! He was not afraid of what people would think. Anyway, I'm sure this line of thought would bother some people, but I think it's so interesting! I want to try to figure out what he meant by it:
In the home and in the Church sisters should be esteemed for their very nature. Be careful lest you unknowingly foster influences and activities which tend to erase the masculine and feminine differences nature has established. A man, a father, can do much of what is usually assumed to be a woman’s work. In turn, a wife and a mother can do much—and in time of need, most things—usually considered the responsibility of the man, without jeopardizing their distinct roles. Even so, leaders, and especially parents, should recognize that there is a distinct masculine nature and a distinct feminine nature essential to the foundation of the home and the family. Whatever disturbs or weakens or tends to erase that difference erodes the family and reduces the probability of happiness for all concerned.
Earlier in the talk he said, "The tender hand of the sister gives a gentle touch of healing and encouragement which the hand of a man, however well intentioned, can never quite duplicate." That sort of talk bothers people too—"sexist idealization of women!" I can hear people complaining. But I don't know. Gender roles have always felt so exciting to me, like because I'm a woman I can just count on having certain inherent gifts and talents. Even if I don't FEEL like I'm naturally good at those things, I can trust that I can get good at them. That's very comforting to me. Plus (as I tell my girls all the time), I just feel like I got the best end of the deal, being a woman. Women are so blessed! We get the best roles of all! I'd never trade!
So, all that to say that I don't mind President Packer saying "there is a distinct feminine and masculine nature essential to the foundation of the home and the family." He wouldn't have said that if it weren't true. I'm glad we need both, and I'd like to know how to better fill my side—the feminine side. As he says, many things can be so easily done by either men or women; it's easy to think everything can be. So which areas do I need to make sure are uniquely mine? Where do I need to concentrate my specifically female gifts and make sure my "very nature" is being used to the fullest?
I don't know, but there was a time in our family recently when I was worrying and worrying about something. I couldn't stop fretting over it and turning a million solutions over in my mind. But as I prayed over it, I kept getting the answer "That's Sam's job. Let Sam worry about it." It felt so strange to have that be the answer, and I worried that I just wanted it to be the answer because it meant one fewer thing for me to take care of. But every time I prayed about it, I felt the same thing: "That's for Sam to do." I finally apologetically told him what I'd felt (I didn't actually want HIM to have one more thing to worry about!) and he was fine with it, but I still kind of feel like taking over on it myself sometimes! I have no problem with division of labor in marriage, but since so many things are left up to us and our preferences, it surprised me a little to get this pretty firm answer of "that's not your job." So maybe it really was one of those cases where our unique natures matter. And maybe there are more of those I have yet to discover! I'm curious what they are!
This next paragraph also stuck out to me because it was basically the theme of all three Stake Conference sessions we just had. Our Stake President emphasized a balanced life over and over again. He encouraged us to slow down, simplify, and focus in on the most important things—discarding any other things as necessary. So I've been thinking a lot about that, trying to evaluate our family life and if we need to make changes, and then suddenly here is President Packer saying the same thing:
At those times when parents feel smothered and just cannot do it all, they must make wise and inspired judgments as to how much out-of-home activity of all kinds is best for their own family. It is on this subject that the priesthood leaders, in council assembled, must pay careful attention to the expressions of the sisters, the mothers.
That makes it sound like here, in the area of "how the family should spend its time," is another place where it really is important that the mother's view be particularly prioritized—not just for some vaguely sexist cultural reason, but because she has an inherent, God-given sensitivity to what her family needs! I don't find that limiting at all. Intimidating, maybe! But I also find it reassuring—because it means God will help me develop my sensitivities as I try to exercise that gift. He's not going to tell women to do something and then not give them the tools to do it!
Other posts in this series:
