At the FAIR Conference a few days ago, a rare standing ovation was given for Sharon Eubank, Director of LDS Charities, who gave a bold talk on women in the Church. The title itself is bold, but appropriate to her message and personal experience: “This Is a Woman’s Church.” The transcript of the talk is available, and you might be able to watch the video also, though the server seems to too slow for us out here in China, where access to foreign websites is often unbelievably slow or blocked altogether.
Find out what Sharon had to say that brought the audience to its feet. She brings several important thoughts together and reminds us of some of the basic elements of the LDS experience. This is a valuable presentation for both women and men.
Kudos to FAIR for a great 2014 conference. Wish I could have been there!
29 thoughts on “A Standing Ovation for Sharon Eubank and “This Is a Woman’s Church””
The very best headline regarding the Kate Kelly fiasco still trumps any speech by a token representative:
Mormon church excommunicates woman for asking if the Mormon church is sexist.
The best headline because it's wrong?!?
It's 3 weeks since Kate Kelly submitted her appeal. Why is it taking so long? Has Heavenly Father forgotten how to reach his seers, prophets and revelators?
I see where you're coming from. I mean, it's not like the First Presidency has anything else to do, and of course, celebrities take precedence over everything else.
No, the best because it's hilarious and true.
Oh look! Those prophets, seers and revelators are trying to reach out to god if god isn't in a talking mood just yet.
I know, right? All these years I've wanted to attend Relief Society and admire the nice table cloths adorned with flowers and receive the occasional home backed good at the finish of the meeting. Instead, I am relegated to the last room available in the church (often the stage in the cultural hall) sitting on hard, metal chairs wondering why the good brother is reading straight from his lesson book.
Well, the solution to that one is modeled by the Brethren: send out a survey!
And, if you can't wait for that to get results, bring a GD table cloth and some flowers by the power of the priesthood. I'm sure Sister Eubank will be delighted to sing your praises for such inspirational leadership.
It feels like Gollum is trolling this board under the guise of "Anonymous."
Did you figure that out by the power of discernment, Pierce, or did you need a survey, you adorable little hobbit, you?
But, seriously, is it more disturbing that the church is in a schism during a complete vacuum of leadership or that it gets pointed out by Gollum? Either way. I feel for you.
Agreed, Pierce. This particular Anonymous is not discrediting anything but himself.
Ha, I'm just waiting for the "other one" to come in and reaffirm what this one just said.
Don't know whether I'm "the one" or "the other one" but I find it interesting that you prefer to discuss me than the dereliction and, frequently, abuse of leadership while women are leaving your church in droves.
They've had enough and they're leaving, guys, whatever Sharon Eubank or Kathryn Skagg or Mormon Women Stand have to offer as alternatives. And regardless of what scripture you quote or how many angels you can talk into dancing on the head of a pin.
The good RS Presidents can probably stem the tide for a while but how long do you guess?
Do you have a good source for the numbers of Mormon women exiting the church?
Enough that the leadership is too paralyzed or afraid to respond to the Kate Kelly appeal. Instead your prophet had to engage this survey to try to figure out how to address the disaffection in the general population.
The church is losing gay members, women members, young members and now missionaries are bailing on their missions by double digits. And many more who are intimidated by family consequences show up without a shred of belief left.
Of course you realize I can't site any hard numbers since the church isn't forthcoming with even the faithful who pay tithes to support it. So neither you nor I can do more than observe what happens in our own wards and draw anecdotal conclusions. But if the church sent 1000 surveys to the 4.4 adult members it claims in the US that would be a sample size of less than half of one percent or not worth the postage it cost to send them out so that, in itself, should tell us something about their honesty.
Perhaps your statements are rather bloated then, especially as it concerns the effects that the Kate Kelly decision, as well as supposed abuse, has had on female members.
Personally, I do not know anyone who has left the church over this issue, and I live in a heavily LDS area. So my anecdotal conclusions seem to be quite different than yours.
People leave the church, and perhaps more do now than it ever has been. But I don't believe they are leaving in droves over social issues.
You offer a lot of conjecture and opinion, but not enough to support the triumph in your voice, IMO. I also find it very amusing that you are criticizing the first presidency for not following some sort of time frame that you have established for them, and that the only reason for that is because of fear. Strange accusation.
Fact is, absent the church's willingness to be forthcoming about real membership numbers and acknowledging the heavy intimidation factor ensuring that a certain percentage will put up a good show for family and employment long after belief is gone, either of us could be right and both of us could be wrong.
I'm curious, though, why you choose to gloss over the excruciating delay on Kate Kelly's appeal. What do you see as the upside of the Brethren looking like they can't get come to a conclusion or that they prefer to remain aloof when there is this open wound that has set saint against saint and left so many wondering where the leadership is? Isn't the essence of leadership being present when the need is great?
Either of us could be right or wrong, but traditionally it's the person making accusations who needs to back them up with solid numbers. So if you don't have them, perhaps it's wise to limit what you say.
Why am I not quibbling over the time that it is taking for church leaders to respond to Kelly's appeal and for her to make it public? A couple of reasons I suppose. I don't have a basis for comparison. I don't know the whole back-end process of of receiving an appeal, considering it, receive inspiration on it, come to a consensus, and process it out. There is the media circus to consider, as any decision on it will be exploited by secular news and the bloggosphere. Maybe she made a really good case and it is difficult to determine. Perhaps there are many things demanding their attention and her appeal is being dealt with in the order it was received.
I don't know. So why would I have my feathers ruffled? Why would anyone but Kelly?
Even though she has done everything she can possibly do to draw attention to herself, the fact remains that this has less to do with how the apostles are leading the church as a whole and more to do with Kate Kelly's very personal–albeit public–circumstance and excommunication.
To me, that is a very strange thing to be so personally concerned about.
Yup! I guess they have malls to open and apartment buildings to plan.
Meanwhile, it's 4 weeks since Kate Kelly's appeal and at least a week since the survey went out. Hope they get some "inspiration" in time for GC.
And as for not being abel to discuss what an organization is not forthcoming about, just curious, would that include the Mafia too?
"Yup! I guess they have malls to open and apartment buildings to plan"
Nice strawman. I guess no matter how much sense it makes, folks like you need to find a way to support their derision.
Your last question doesn't even make sense, though it looks like another poor attempt at a jab. Church leadership doesn't owe you, Anonymous, an explanation regarding Kate Kelly's appeal. It's nobody's business but hers and theirs, despite how much she wants to exploit her experience.
I know this isn't quite the same as the Kate Kelly thing, but just to give some context, when I got married my wife had to get a sealing cancellation from her previous marriage. From my perspective it was a pretty clear case- her previous husband had been abusive. Clear grounds for a cancellation. Nevertheless, it took something like 6 or 7 weeks to get a response. I can imagine that Kate Kelly's case is not so clear cut (how 'bout that alliteration? 🙂 ). Given that, I'm not surprised that we haven't heard anything after 4 weeks. I don't expect the First Presidency to give her special treatment just because she caused a media stir, so I imagine they are taking it in the order received, deliberating for a normal amount of time, etc.
A wonderful talk. I read it straight through. Thank you for posting the link.
That is a disappointing title for a talk because I thought it was Gods church. And now I find out it is a woman's church? Talk about disappointing.
I already find the church pretty feminist, basically accepting the man bad/woman good premise. Woman's conference is a celebration of woman. Priesthood is a call to repentance.
The Friend had a section in the back about being a dentist with a female dentist as the example. Really, I want my daughters to think of getting a full time professional degree? So their children can be raised by who? So they can delay marriage how long. Utter rubbish.
Yes, it is a woman's church. It might be better though to reject the world and be Gods church.
Who cares about Kate Kelly. Apostate got ex'ed and tried to get media involved. Big deal. The NYT cares so we are supposed to care? If your loyalties are to the world and their paradigm you are going to run into trouble.
I think conference really asked us which way we face, presenting the worlds views to Christ or Christs ways to the world.
Did I read or misinterpret from anonymous you don't want your daughters educated so their children will be taken care of by who? So if their husbands die or get horribly ill they won't have any skills to provide for the family? Am I on or off the same track here? Education is always a plus for women. I've lived through a tragedy, supported two children for long years, and it sure made sense that my parents sent me to school.
I am not anti mormon. Nothing could be further from the truth. The comment I was questioning was actually an angry comment, and I was trying to decipher it. If that's not even possible, then there's definitely some deeper issues here. Further, in today's time many men are finding themselves the primary caregiver, and I find nothing wrong with that.
My son has a 3 year old autistic son, and it worked out for the better that he be the primary care giver. What ever works, do it. The world is too complicated to buy into stereotypes. And yes, the Mormon church is for every body. I simply made some comments about a talk given that I found empowering because things weren't quite like that when I was being raised as a female in the church. You could most definitely find strong female role models, and wonderful guidance, but there wasn't the huge encouragement for sister missionaries and education, like we have now. And women were always encouraged to stand tall, and follow their dreams. I do, emphatically, encourage both male and female equally to have strong goals, and to pursue dreams that allow them to have good employment.
Giving full respect for all presidents of the church, I've always found it odd that a president would come out and tell his members how they should think politically. Looking back on those times, it's more than shocking. Another thing, this site is controlling my computer. I should have never signed up. It's way too invasive. I am a member of the church, know what I believe, but the members almost get in my face during elections. Not the reason I want off. Just a thoughts.
Sharon Eubank seems to be just another liberal, feeding the church to the wolves of the NWO, for globalist mandate of the many, by the few. The church I grew up in valued free agency and the protection of it by the Constitution as a first priority.
Eubank has most recently encouraged church membership to aid and abet Muslims fleeing Russian vs ISIS conflict, even as these 'refugees' are terrorizing the villages of Europe and Sweden in considerable number. Germany is particularly hard hit by invitation of Merkel, while German descendant Glenn Beck personally vets 3000 families on his dime for entry into the US. Is Uchdorf running this show or what? Islam is the enemy of Israel, threatening to kill the infidel (Americans/Christians/Mormons) So we feed them??????? I would be wary of Eubank. She has the whole of the general authorities on board with the UN and WHO, both of which would celebrate the day the US Constitution is sundered.