If you’re new to Keepa, here’s what’s up: “The View from …” series is a collection of documents from the Mormon past of all eras, by Church leaders and local Saints, both men and women, who directly address the roles of women in the Church. The plan is to someday mine these documents for a better understanding of Latter-day Saint expectations for women: what has changed, what hasn’t, who teaches what, and so on.
Women in Leadership.
By Joseph F. Smith
There is no organization or government in the world so perfectly planned for the education of men and women to executive responsibilities as in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Government in the home and in the church constitutes an important part in the live of the people, and the government in the home I the basis of all successful government in church or state. In the home the mother is the principal disciplinarian in early child life, and her influence and discipline determine in a great measure the ability of her children to assume in manhood and womanhood the larger governments in church and state.
In addition, however, to home government, women often stand with their husbands in responsible places and share in some measure the success or failure which characterizes their husbands’ administration of affairs. In selecting men to occupy responsible positions in the church, it not infrequently happens that a useful and competent man is barred from consideration because of the deplorable want of fitness in the wife, and though a wife may not always bar a husband’s opportunities, she may, nevertheless, prove a great hindrance to him in the discharge of the duties that belong to his office. If our sisters could only realize how helpful they might be to their husbands who hold responsible positions in the Church, and if they would only take pride and pleasure in their husbands’ administration of affairs, the conduct of men in public office would in many instances be very greatly improved.
Men naturally love their wives and are often measurably governed in their views concerning men and public affairs by the judgment or prejudice of their wives. If such women are narrow in their views and base their judgment upon their own personal relations, which frequently have to do merely with trifling social matters and etiquette, it would be a very easy matter to lead husbands on to false and incorrect estimate of those with whom they have to deal in the graver matters of Church discipline. Our sisters are thus often placed in delicate position, where tact and wisdom are required, and if they have no fitness for the station they occupy, as companions of leaders in the Church, they frequently give offense and crate difficulties and obstacles which are almost impossible for their husbands at time to overcome.
Leaders naturally have to be judges, and sound judgments must not be based upon petty jealousies nor upon personal likes or dislikes. Neither should judgments be hasty or unduly considered, and for that reason the minds of such men should be free from that bias and partiality which may be insidiously and selfishly imparted to them by wive who have no proper conception of the broad and generous attitude which their husbands should take I public affairs. Women occupying such relationships to public leaders should be governed by the principles of right and wrong, and sympathetic instincts rather than by selfish motives or petty ambitions. The question with them should not be what they would do or would not do from a purely personal point of view, but what is right and what the Lord has required or may desire under given circumstances.
The word and the law of God are as important for women who would reach wise conclusions as they are for men; and women should study and consider the problems of this great latter-day work from the standpoint of God’s revelations and as they may be actuated by His Spirit, which it is their right to receive through the medium of sincere and heartfelt prayer. A woman without heartfelt devotion for the thing of God is no prepared to stand at her husband’s side and enjoy his confidence in the graver responsibilities that devolve upon him in the government of the Church. Husbands are justified in withholding their confidence from and in refusing to be influenced by wives whose worldly ambitions and want of appreciation of divine things lead them to contend for personal advantages and selfish gains. Wives of leaders should have a generous feeling for all that relates to the affairs over which their husbands preside. Such women should not be exclusive in their social relations, and should avoid the evils that frequently come from yielding to the influence and views of a small coterie that may have selfish aims and personal advantages to serve.
Men in responsible positions are called upon to serve the people, and their success is measured by the value of the service which they render. The companions at their side must also feel the necessity of rendering all the service they possibly can under the circumstances. Both men and women entering public service with the thought of the honors and distinctions it is likely to bring to them will be grievously disappointed and will grievously disappoint others. The paramount thought should be, the service that can be rendered. People are sensitive about the words and conduct of their leaders, and where words and conduct have so much to do with the happiness and welfare of others, they should be carefully guarded and rendered in the spirit of helpfulness and love.
Wives of leaders should never be flippant and light-minded in their conversation, but should realize that they represent in some measure the influence of the home of a leader among the people, and the influence of that home should be so exalted and pure, so helpful and inspiring that it may be an example and a guide to the entire community. They should endeavor to impress upon children the thought that the community in which they live naturally looks to the home of the leaders for exemplary conduct on the part of the wife and the children, as well as in the man whose leadership brigs him prominently before the people. It is wrong in mothers to speak lightly of or joke about the offices held by their husbands.
The children should be made to feel the gravity of the responsibility which their father is under, and should be taught to honor him in his position and give to him all the consideration that they would if the office were held by someone else. Whenever wives and children of leaders are indifferent to the offices which their husbands and fathers occupy, they have no proper conception of the dual obligation of the leader of the home and the leader in public affairs which they should have, in order to give the support which men have a right to expect from their families in the increased responsibilities which public offices place upon them.
I agree that wives to play a part in considering men for certain callings in the church. By the same token, husbands play a part in considering women for certain callings in the church. I don’t think I can comment beyond that on the content of President Smith’s article without sounding old fashioned, judgmental and sexist.
Wise decision, IDIAT. 🙂
“the influence of that home should be so exalted and pure, so helpful and inspiring that it may be an example and a guide to the entire community”
I don’t mean to sound cynical, but tell me, please, did his wives have household help?
Knowing some of the marital history of President Smith, this just hurts to read.
The wisest choice here seems to be ‘no comment.’
The fact that you posted this today and then it was announced that women would be on those leadership committees in the church is just so ironic.
I’d never have passed – too flippant and light-minded!
This is probably a strange perspective, but I get why this was written/said at the time.
Cut through all the cultural assumptions in this, and it boils down to one thing: spouses of people who are called to time-consuming and difficult callings are also called to be patient, generous, and charitable. How hard would it be to be a bishop or Relief Society president if your spouse is constantly harping on you about not spending time with them?
Maybe it’s because I’m a single mom with young kids, and can’t even attend Tuesday night activities because of my home responsibilities, but I can see how demands at home would impede (and supersede) demands of a calling.
This is a call to see those callings as opportunities to serve and give as a couple, rather than as rungs on a ladder of church success. How is this a bad thing?
SilverRain, it isn’t a bad thing as you’ve framed it. Some would probably not see it as a bad thing no matter how it is framed.
Others have problems with it because it suggests that a woman cannot play a leadership role in her own right, but can only support and influence her husband — following a husband’s lead is not quite what many people would consider “leadership” in the generally accepted meaning of that term. You’ll see on close reading that there is nothing in this article that even hints at what you’ve said about being, say, a Relief Society president — this article is wholly about male leadership and the ways in which a wife can/should sustain that male leadership, not about a woman’s leadership and her husband’s role in supporting her in that calling.
And then of course, there’s the angle that gives me heartburn every time it’s suggested: What about women like you and me who have no husbands to support and sustain in their leadership roles? Are we forever barred from even this remote form of leadership that JFS allows for women? Or are we just so invisible that it never occurred to JFS that we could lead somewhere, anywhere? You are at least that “principle disciplinarian” that he mentions in the first paragraph — but what about me? In the definition of leadership that JFS gives here, I have no obligation, privilege, duty, possibility, opportunity to influence anything. My role is to be silent and always do as I’m told.
You might not like that framing, but it’s a logical one to extract from this article, especially when it is titled “Women in Leadership” and not “How Wives Can Support Their Husbands’ Leadership.”
Fortunately, this is only one data point of the many that I’ve already posted and that remain to be found, relating to the place of women in the Church. At this point, I’m only gathering and report — I don’t plan on debating or drawing conclusions for quite a while.
Disappointing that JFS seems to expect that women’s concerns will naturally be “trifling social matters,” “petty jealousies,” or “the views of a small coterie,” and worse that only married women seem to be fit for leadership (and then, only indirectly through their husbands). Not unexpected, given the man and the era, but disappointing.
Especially given all that, though, I thought it was wonderful to see the recommendation that women study the word and law of God, and the problems of the latter-day work, “as they may be actuated by His Spirit, which it is their right to receive.” I can think of several other traditions where I’d expect to hear similar attitudes about cliquish and petty women used as a reason why women shouldn’t study the word and law of God.
On a different note, I was amused by the “God planned this church, so Mormons are the best at everything” attitude I perceive in the first paragraph. I tried to rephrase it in terms of other things the church teaches people to do, but I couldn’t get through “There is no organization or government in the world so perfectly planned for the education of men and women in public speaking…” with a straight face. As beneficial as it is to give everyone some experience, it’s not like it’s God’s own perfect educational plan.
This was a product of it’s time. The most flattering takeaway is that supportive spouses can make life easier for those in heavy callings. I grew up hearing a lot of the ideas in this article (and I’m only mid-thirties), especially that men in our family did not have the opportunity to serve in prominent callings because of the volatility and outspokenness of their wives. To be honest, it wasn’t always viewed as negative.
I’m glad we’ve moved past the concept of all women naturally having tendencies for frivolities and cares of social standing. Involving female leadership in the executive councils suggests that women are being valued as significant leaders themselves, not just support for their husbands in leadership capacities. One of the female leaders in the last conference even gave her appreciation for her husband’s support in her calling. We’re making progress.
It is interesting how much wives are still viewed as a reflection of their husband’s calling. We had a stake RS meeting where the keynote speaker was an apostle’s wife. Somehow I don’t think the husband of a general female leader would ever be considered a prominent individual for a priesthood meeting, merely due to his association with his wife. I could be wrong, though….
I agree that it’s an unfortunate title, but I’m also basically with Silver Rain.
I’ve always found it interesting that for most of the Book of Mormon, when they are counting people, they are counting men. In Ether 15:2, it says that two million people had been killed, but then it clarifies: two million men, AND their wives and their children. In Mormon 6:7, he talks about “my people, with their wives and children.” As a single woman, I clearly would fall through the cracks of either a Nephite or a Jaredite census.
But when Jesus comes, and they record the size of the crowd in the last verse of 3 Nephi 17, it says there were about 2,500 souls: and they were men, women, and children. My personal opinion as to why that part of the record is different is that Jesus counts all the people, and he directed them as to how to record that crowd.
I like Mormon an awful lot as an author, but in this case, I love Jesus for not having on the cultural blinders that Mormon did.
My younger sister always tells her kids that “other people are allowed to be wrong.” Following this advice allows her extremely bright, articulate children to not make obnoxious donkeys out of themselves whenever another child (or grownup!) doesn’t know something that they do.
And another story: I was at my friend’s house the other day, and her dog was so excited to see me that she licked my arm. I said through clenched teeth, “don’t lick me.” The resident 4-year-old asked why, and I said that I was allergic to dogs. Later on, I showed him the red spot and hive where the dog’s tongue had touched my skin, because he hadn’t seemed very clear on what “allergic” meant. When my friend saw this, she gave me an expression that said she was sorry that she had a dog I was allergic to. But I actually really like the dog, and as long as I remember to wash my hands (or arm, as the case may be) after contact with her, I’m usually OK. I told her that if the most I ever did to irritate others was to make them go itchy, I would be very lucky indeed.
Anyway. Sorry if this is too preachy or too long. I grew up pretty poor, and I sort of love Joseph F. for growing up even more poor, and for growing as much as he did in his life, given his limitations. I’ve seen plenty of leaders– and families of leaders– male and female, whose cultural blinders included a sense of entitlement, cliquishness, and/or materialism which grated on me. I think that because of my personal history, I’m responding to his critique of that much more than to the inherent sexism in this piece.
I do wonder what Joseph F. Smith thought the duties of the husband of, say, the relief society general president were.
I’m totally serious in wondering this, by the way, not being snarky at all—would he have given (effectively) the same counsel to such a man? I don’t know enough about JFS as a person to know.
David, up until this time (1903), the husbands of the general Relief Society presidents had been Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and George A. Smith.
I have a hard time imagining him advising any of those men to sustain their wives or to watch their frivolous associations.
Don’t know what he would have said to the husbands of ward and stake Relief Society presidents, though.
JFS comes from a different time, and a different life.
I’m also not one of those who thinks that if a person speaks to a wife’s role to support her husband they have to necessarily also talk about a husband’s role to support his wife.
I like your post here, Ardis, for two reasons, unrelated to each other. First, for the flavor of cultural mores that differ from ours now, and second for the value I might be able to glean and apply to myself.
I don’t like or not-like that framing. But when I am reading something from a devotional perspective (rather than a historically-oriented critical one,) I generally try to choose to frame things I hear, (whether from a past cultural outlook, or a present one,) in a frame of what I know of God, of reality, and giving the benefit of doubt in intention.
To the historical perspective (of women supporting husbands and not vice versa,) I think “hmph. Interesting how things have changed.” Kind of like when I read Nancy Drew again.
But I don’t want to let the possibly critical aspects overshadow the things I can learn and prepare myself for: whether I get a spouse or not, I can remember the burden placed upon my bishop, for example, and try to make sure that I appreciate the sacrifices of his wife and children.
I’m also guessing that his use of “frivolity,” etc. was targeted to a very specific (and likely well-known) set of circumstances.
I do know that often, husbands & wives are called in together to be extended callings such as bishop, stake president, RS president, etc. This makes sense to me.
Yep, times have changed. Myron Tanner (1826-1903) had been out of town for a while. He had just returned and was walking down the main street when people started greeting him as “Bishop.” He was one of the last people in Provo to know about his calling.
In our stake (and past ones I’ve been in) we do this for pretty much any calling – nursery to high priest group leader. For a stake called position (i.e., one where a stake representative extends the call), most of the time the spouse is called in first to be asked if he or she has any concerns about that person serving in a calling. Then the wife or husband receiving the call is called in and the calling extended if the spouse has no concerns up front.
Specifically to this article, we really have to let go of any presentism when reading Pres. Smith’s comments. It’s too easy to read something written in the distant past and become judgmental.
I read this article and it sounds like Pres. Smith is saying essentially that when a man is called to a calling, the wife is called too. Maybe not “officially” but certainly by virtue of their relationship and the covenants they have made the each other (and to God, if applicable). This doesn’t mean the wife of a bishop is also a bishop but she serves just as much, either directly or in support. She can also be blessed as much for the service. The same is true of the husband of a relief society president or a primary president or a public affairs committee chair or whatever the calling is. Many church members recognize this (even if it’s not doctrine) but it doesn’t hurt to clarify. I see this article as simply a call for unity in marriage.