R-E-S-P-E-C-T! Find out what it means to President Nelson!

In April Conference, President Nelson said the following to the men and boys in priesthood session:

Another way we can also do better and be better is how we honor the women in our lives, beginning with our wives and daughters, our mothers and sisters.

Here he echoed a number of previous statements he’s made about how important it is for men to honor and respect women. For example, in a 1999 talk, he said:

We who bear the holy priesthood have a sacred duty to honor our sisters. . . . We respect sisters—not only in our immediate families but all the wonderful sisters in our lives. As daughters of God, their potential is divine.

And in a 2006 talk, he said this:

[B]rethren, your foremost priesthood duty is to nurture your marriage—to care for, respect, honor, and love your wife. Be a blessing to her and your children.

And in a 1997 talk, he said this:

[S]ome temple marriages fail because a husband forgets that his highest and most important priesthood duty is to honor and sustain his wife. The best thing that a father can do for his children is to “love their mother.”

I’m encouraged that he’s made it a point to repeatedly remind men to be good to the women around us. But of course this isn’t the only thing that he’s said about women in Conference. Actually, when I first read the line from April Conference that I quoted above, it struck me as a little strange, because I was sure I remembered President Nelson saying some less positive things about women in Conference.

I looked back through all of his Conference talks since he was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1984 to look for things he said to or about women to get an overall sense of what he thinks of women. I thought this might be especially instructive given that, as has been much discussed on the blogs, President Nelson signaled his distaste for nicknames and shortenings of the Church’s name in a Conference talk back in 1990. Given this, it seems that we might pick up ideas about what he thinks about women more generally by also looking back at his Conference talks. Unfortunately, I found that not all of the things he’s said to and about women have been as nice as the quotes above.

The first pattern I see in his talks that I find troubling is that he’s praised women for being quiet about any complaints they may have. In his first Conference talk after being called, he praised his wife thusly:

Her sacrifices to bring our ten wonderful children into this world, teaching and training them, while always supporting me without a murmur through my responsibilities in the Church and in my profession, are monumental.

Again, a couple of years later, he praised her similarly for not complaining that he didn’t participate much in parenting:

Through our many long years of postgraduate study, professional responsibilities, and a growing family, she did not complain. Recently I overheard a conversation she had with young mothers enduring similar stress. They asked her how she had managed with ten children and a husband whose time to help was so limited. Kindness was reflected in her reply: “Through our struggling years I didn’t expect much, so I was rarely disappointed.”

Along similar lines, in a 1995 talk, he praised one of his daughters who had recently passed away:

Even though illness brought intense suffering . . . an angry word never fell from [her] lips.

It’s not only family members. In a 1991 talk, he praised Heber J. Grant’s mother for the same reason:

The example of Rachel Ivins Grant is inspiring to me. She never complained about her own deafness. Though most women in their seventies would be completely worn out while rearing six growing children of another mother, she undertook that task.

In a 2015 talk in which he repeatedly encouraged women to “speak up and speak out,” he told this story:

A superb stake president told me of a stake council meeting in which they were wrestling with a difficult challenge. At one point, he realized that the stake Primary president had not spoken, so he asked if she had any impressions. “Well, actually I have,” she said and then proceeded to share a thought that changed the entire direction of the meeting. The stake president continued, “As she spoke, the Spirit testified to me that she had given voice to the revelation we had been seeking as a council.”

At a superficial level, this is encouraging, as he’s telling of a woman whose insights were clearly important to the council she was a part of. But he’s also being so careful in telling it to remind us that the woman didn’t speak up until the presiding authority called on her, and by reporting the stake president’s validation of the importance of her thoughts, he reminds us again about how important the power structure is, and that the Primary president was only speaking up in ways approved by the presiding authority. I think this fits in with his praise of women who never complained, because this is a story of a woman who never shared her insight unless she was explicitly asked to. She knew her place.

President Nelson has also made comments along similar lines to praising women for keeping quiet where he praises women for not seeking power or acclaim or being concerned with their rights. In a 1989 talk, he said:

A faithful woman can become a devoted daughter of God—more concerned with being righteous than with being selfish, more anxious to exercise compassion than to exercise dominion, more committed to integrity than to notoriety.

Then later in the same talk, when speaking approvingly of a woman who set aside her law career when she had her first child:

Such a decision is made not in terms of rights but in terms of obligations and responsibilities. She knows that as she rises to meet responsibilities, rights will take care of themselves.

These bits that I’ve quoted all seem to be of a similar type to me because they all praise women for keeping quiet, for not taking up too much space or calling any attention to themselves.

The second pattern I’ve seen in President Nelson’s talks is that he praises women for their instrumental value to men more often than he talks about their intrinsic value as children of God.

In a 1999 talk in Priesthood Session, he spoke to young men about the instrumental value of women:

You young men need to know that you can hardly achieve your highest potential without the influence of good women, particularly your mother and, in a few years, a good wife.

In the same talk, he praised his wife because of the opportunities she had opened up to him.

Without her I could not have the highest and most enduring blessings of the priesthood. Without her I would not be the father to our wonderful children or grandfather to our precious grandchildren.

In a 2002 talk, he praised women for the work they do in reproduction:

Sisters received special gifts. They, according to the Lord, were empowered “to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, … for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; … herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.” Think of it: When a mother bears and cares for a child, she not only helps the earth answer the end of its creation, but she glorifies God!

In a 2003 talk, he reminded priesthood holders of the importance of getting married:

Only as an individual can you qualify for the ordinances of salvation and exaltation. And when your wife is sealed to you, her power and potential will increase yours.

In a 2008 talk, he made a similar point:

No man in this Church can obtain the highest degree of celestial glory without a worthy woman who is sealed to him.

In the 2015 talk in which he encouraged women to speak up, he strongly emphasized the instrumental value of women to men:

We, your brethren, need your strength, your conversion, your conviction, your ability to lead, your wisdom, and your voices. The kingdom of God is not and cannot be complete without women who make sacred covenants and then keep them, women who can speak with the power and authority of God!

Individually, these bits I’ve quoted are fine, perhaps with the exception of the one where he rhapsodizes about women glorifying God by having babies. But the general thread where he talks about women as being important because of what they can do for men is grating. Women are important because they are men’s tickets to exaltation. (My sister Kiskilili and Starfoxy of the Exponent once called the ticket fallacy.)

The third pattern in President Nelson’s talks is that he seems to think that all women are mothers, and not only that, but stay-at-home mothers of small children.

In a 1987 talk, he said to women:

Sisters, be patient. I know something of the pressures you feel. Your kitchens are too small. Your budgets are too tight. Demands upon you exceed your capacity to help all who cry out to you.

Again, in a 1989 talk, he said of women:

So much is expected of a woman. Often she is a detective; she must search for lost articles and solve on a daily basis baffling “who done it” mysteries.

Frequently, her eager audience requests her talent as a musician by calling upon her to sing—any time, any place. She is an artist, using crayons and coloring books, needles and thread, or other means to create works of art by her own hands.

He totally ignores the fact that some women may face pressures of parenting teenagers, let alone the pressures of employment.

In a 1999 talk in Priesthood Session, he said:

You fathers can help with the dishes, care for a crying baby, and change a diaper. And perhaps some Sunday you could get the children ready for Church, and your wife could sit in the car and honk.

Like the story that I quoted above, where the Primary president waited to be called on, this is superficially good. Although he clearly thinks all fathers are employed and all mothers are SAHMs, at least he’s telling fathers that they can be more involved in parenting. But the message is mixed at best. Fathers can help with the dishes and change a diaper. He’s not getting anywhere near telling men that we can and should own parenting just as much as women do. And this isn’t even getting into the last line, which strikes me as truly awful. If he really thinks that men are sitting in their cars on Sunday mornings and honking while their wives struggle to get the kids ready for church, surely he thinks it deserves more than this mild rebuke. But even if he doesn’t think it’s happening and he’s just joking about it, it seems to me that he’s normalizing this idea by bringing it up and then responding so weakly with a laughing suggestion only that they should switch places “some Sunday.”

Even when he’s acknowledged that not all women are, in fact, mothers, the roles he sees them in are definitely mother-adjacent. In a 1987 talk, he acknowledged women who aren’t mothers:

For you childless sisters and those without companions, remember the eternal timetable of the Lord is much longer than the lonely hours of your preparation or the total of this mortal life. These are only as microseconds when compared to eternity. Your willingness and worthiness are surely known to Him. The spiritual rewards of motherhood are available to all women. Nurturing the young, comforting the frightened, protecting the vulnerable, teaching and giving encouragement need not—and should not—be limited to our own children.

Nurturing, teaching, protecting, encouraging. These are all okay because they’re sufficiently mother-like. But not surprisingly, he doesn’t have much to say about things like exploring, inventing, discovering, or learning.

And again, in a 1989 talk, he said:

I honor women who are not mothers. They know that motherhood is but one of the realms of womankind. The virtue and intelligence of women are uniquely applicable to other realms as well, such as compassionate service and teaching.

With both of these statements, he seems to be making it pretty clear that he thinks the realm of life for which women are fit is extremely narrow.

And ultimately, in a 2018 talk, he quit even acknowledging that any women aren’t mothers and just echoed Sheri Dew’s approach:

Please note that anytime I use the word mother, I am not talking only about women who have given birth or adopted children in this life. I am speaking about all of our Heavenly Parents’ adult daughters. Every woman is a mother by virtue of her eternal divine destiny.

(Note that in this quote, the bolded words originally appeared in italics, but unfortunately, our site’s theme doesn’t mark italics in block quotes, so I bolded the words to approximate the same effect.)

It’s clearly very important to President Nelson that women fit carefully into the box marked mother. If they’re not fitting in it now, they should be planning on it by doing mother-like things. And they should most definitely be planning on it in the afterlife.

Overall, President Nelson’s words to and about women in General Conference are a mixed bag. I’ve focused on the things he’s said that I dislike the most, but he has also said things like the bits I quoted at the beginning, where he reminds men that being good to their wives should be more important than their jobs or hobbies. He once praised Eve for her “wise and courageous choice” to eat the fruit (even correctly relegating Adam’s choice to a “supporting decision”). But then he’ll also talk–in the same talk!–about how women are inherently more like Jesus than men. He’s a world-class pedestalizer for sure. On the one hand, he’ll quote D&C 132, of course carefully tap-dancing around the stuff that you just don’t say in Conference (at least not anymore), but then on the other hand, he’ll quote D&C 121 and remind men that we shouldn’t be abusive.

In the final analysis, I think when President Nelson tells men to honor and respect women, he means what he says, but he also means honor and respect with some asterisks. He doesn’t mean men should honor women like they would honor a superior, like they would honor a Church President, for example. He means men should honor women for the things women do for us. And he doesn’t mean men should respect women like we would fellow priesthood holders, but rather as those who perform a role that, though it may be important, will always be secondary. I think his view is summed up very well with another quote from the April Conference talk I started with:

Pray to have your heart attuned to your wife’s heart. Seek to bring her joy. Seek her counsel, and listen. Her input will improve your output.

Women are important to get input from, but men are still the decision-makers.