Last week we began a series of articles evaluating the prophetic nature of a warning by Apostle Boyd K. Packer issued in his 1993 Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council address. The previous article addressed how his warning about the dangers of the “gay-lesbian movement,” what today we call the LGBTQ+ Movement, is as relevant as ever because of the ways it manipulated language, distorted science, suppressed facts that don’t fit its narrative, the way it endangers the lives of people who identify as homosexual and transgender, and the lies it tells about religious institutions. In this article we will be addressing the second group he warned about – the feminist movement.
The Contradictory Emptiness of Feminism
Feminist as a word is totally devoid of meaning.
Think about it. What is a feminist?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the most influential American feminists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the very founders of First Wave Feminism, was once asked how women could avoid having children they didn’t want:
Stanton answered, “Woman’s perfect independence is the answer to the query. Woman must at all times be the sovereign of her own person.” A second woman asked, “What do we do when men don’t agree with us?” Stanton replied that men can be educated as to voluntary motherhood, that their passions can be controlled, and that women should stop stimulating men’s passions with dress, dance, and fashion with bare arms and bare necks. The Chronicle reported that “[o]ne lady asked a question which hinted at prevention by other than legitimate means.” The journalist wrote that “Mrs. Stanton promptly replied that such views of the matter were too degrading and disgusting to touch upon, and must be classified in the category of crime alongside infanticide.” Stanton’s solution was abstinence, which followed the core principles of the voluntary motherhood movement and its emphasis on women’s control of sexual relations.
Misappropriating Women’s History in the Law and Politics of Abortion, pg. 34
The first thing your attention may jump to the idea of preventing childbirths by “other than legitimate means,” which is a veiled reference to abortion. The second thing your attention may jump to is Stanton saying that abortion is degrading and disgusting and should be treated as a crime equal to murdering babies, infanticide. Stanton seems to clear place most of the control over childbearing in the stages of having sex, i.e. she suggested controlling sexual intercourse as a way to control having children and did not support elective abortion as a means of controlling whether you had children or not. This is not the slam dunk it may appear to pro-life advocates because the article has quotations form Stanton where she seems to imply her support for aborting children on eugenic grounds, i.e. as a way to prevent undesired genetic traits from spreading and as a way to supposedly perfect the human race through controlling who has children. This means that her position is, at best, one where abortions should be restricted except in cases of what she might have saw as eugenic necessity. Which is not to say that other prominent and influential First Wave feminist leaders didn’t oppose abortion totally. The article repeatedly mentions the famed poetess and abolitionist Julia Ward Howe as an example of such. (see pgs. 38-39)
Going back to the quote above there are some additional important issues worth recognizing. Stanton’s voluntary motherhood was the idea that women should not be compelled to be mothers against their will because they rightfully controlled their own bodies. And then Stanton suggested that if women wanted to have less children they should dress more modestly, dance more conservatively, and stop having sex strictly for pleasure.
To summarize: The position of one of the most radical First Wave feminists was that women shouldn’t wear revealing clothing, act in provocative ways, should practice abstinence, and that abortion should be heavily regulated as a crime equal to infanticide. Today we are told that if you oppose abortion in any form then you are not a feminist and if you championed the policies of some of the earliest and most important feminists then you are denounced as a “Right-wing/Conservative misogynist and bigot.” Take Dr. Monica J. Casper, a sociologist at the University of Arizona, for example:
Last Thursday, while driving my fifteen-year-old daughter to school, she asked, “Mom, why do men hate women?” …I struggled to find the right answer. As a scholar of gender, health, and reproduction, there were many ways I might have responded. But I could not say, “Men don’t hate women.” Because it’s not true. The twenty-five white Republican men who voted for the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, which would punish doctors who perform abortions with up to 99 years in prison, surely must hate women.
Anti-Abortion Misogyny: It’s Never About the Children
Never mind the bizarre logic that preventing the murder of women in the womb is somehow woman hating. You cannot make insanity logical no matter how much you try. Instead pay attention to the relationship this quote helps reveal between modern “feminism” and elective abortion. Contemporary feminists argue that if you want to limit or prevent elective abortions then you “hate women.”
I can legitimately call myself a feminist because I have view that are extremely similar to or exactly the same as First Wave feminists. I think people should dress more modestly. I think people should abstain from promiscuous sex. I think abortion should only be an option in a specific extreme instance and forbade totally otherwise. But according to Dr. Casper above I’m the very opposite of a feminist. Likewise, Stanton would not be considered a feminist today and doubly so for Ward with her total rejection of abortion. They would be considered enemies of feminism and attacked as such by the very people today who use their names as propaganda for vastly different causes.
So, feminism as a word is meaningless. If a word can mean both a thing and its opposite then it is a meaningless word because it tells us nothing, communicates nothing, means nothing. It a word can be so successfully manipulated that those who founded the very movement the word describes would be jettisoned as being opposed to it today then the word has no meaning. It has merely become one more buzzword that can be used to manipulate the emotions and beliefs of people without actually communicating anything substantial or developing any meaning. Today no one is a feminist because feminism doesn’t mean anything. It is impossible to know who is a feminist because anyone and no one can be a feminist.
The Destruction of Womanhood
Perhaps for the contemporary people claiming to be feminists, that emptiness is the point. Perhaps their goal is to void the word feminist of all meaning so that it can mean whatever they want it to mean, even if those meanings contradict one another. It is the only way they can both claim to be feminists while actively working towards their true goal – to destroy the entire concept of women, females, and femininity altogether.
Their goal isn’t just to destroy the family.
Their goal isn’t just to destroy motherhood.
Their goal is to destroy women.
Their very language – the effort to erase the words “woman” and mother, replacing them with a physiological terms such as “menstruating/birthing person” – serves the express purpose of annihilating womanhood altogether. It objectifies women by reducing them to nothing more than their bodily functions. They don’t even believe that nature and reality exist. Objectivity doesn’t exist, only what you think you understand about reality exists. Therefore women don’t exist, only the idea of women and that idea can be altered at will. Which is how you make it psychologically possible to look at a man and say that he is a woman. These people are so divorced from reality that they can’t even agree about what a woman is or if women exist at all. How are you supposed to have a discussion about the role and place of women, about feminism, with them in the first place? How can they be pro-woman when their ideology, their religion, obliterates womanhood and women altogether?
Well, you can’t. Which is how you get this:
I’m not a fan of Matt Walsh for a number of reasons. But this video perfectly illustrates the end outcome of contemporary “feminism” – a group of people who cannot even define what it means to be a woman which thereby allows anyone and anything, including men, to claim to be women. In other words, contemporary feminism has so completely annihilated the very idea of women, of females, that it has made it impossible to even define woman or female. Which means contemporary feminism has produced a society where it is impossible to be a feminist because it is impossible to figure out who or what is feminine, who or what is a woman.
The Political Outcomes of Contemporary “Feminism”
The so-called feminists and their cohorts claim that their stances are objective facts. But this is far from the truth. As Dr. Carl Jung explained, their pretensions to objectivity deny the reality that all their conclusions are based on their beliefs.
Scientific education is based in the main on statistical truths and abstract knowledge and therefore imparts an unrealistic, rational picture of the world, in which the individual, as a merely marginal phenomenon, plays no role. The individual, however, as an irrational datum, is the true and authentic carrier of reality, the concrete man as opposed to the unreal ideal or normal man to whom the scientific statements refer. What is more, most of the natural sciences try to represent the results of their investigations as though these had come into existence without man’s intervention, in such a way that the collaboration of the psyche – an indispensable factor – remains invisible. (An exception to this is modern physics, which recognizes that the observed is not independent of the observer.) So in this respect, too, science conveys a picture of the world from which a real human psyche appears to be excluded – the very antithesis of the “humanities.”
Dr. Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self, pgs. 7-8
Data, studies, statistics, experiments, and tests tell us little about reality or humanity. At best they provide us with nothing but a morass of possible facts, facts which then are filtered through the cultural beliefs of those doing the testing to state an objective “truth” about reality. We pretend as if these conclusions are correct and ignore the fact that they’re really subject to the vast cultural constructions through which the scientists in question understand themselves and the world. Remember when scientists once “proved” that African peoples are biologically inferiors and marginalized and suppressed any scientist challenging these claims as doing spurious science? How is that possible? Because the culture in which these academics live creates within their minds a schema, the mental framework that underlies the entire way they conceptualize the world, process information about it, and make conclusions concerning it. Racism was the assumed truth of reality, the cultural schema, so scientists interpreted their findings to prove it and to disprove anyone challenging it.
The schema of contemporary “feminists” denies the existence of individuals, women, men, femininity, masculinity, and the family. It isn’t so much that they are liars or even engaging in intentional deception (self or otherwise.) It is that the way that their brains function cannot process this information in any other way than to justify what they believe and how they live. They have excised the possibilities of family, individualism, the scientific realities of binary sexes, etc. from their minds as anything other than socially constructed tools of oppression and implanted the ideas of “feminism,” LGBTQ+ ideology, collectivism, and authoritarianism (because the “feminist” solution is always to empower the government to enforce the “feminist” position by law.) Therefore any facts they gain are interpreted through this schema and are forced to fit within their anti-woman, anti-man, and therefore ultimately anti-human, worldview. Having so stripped humanity of its base biological realities, having destroyed the family which has been the basis for community and society since before the dawn of history, the person stands naked and alone, a victim in mind and body ready for the ravaging:
Under the influence of scientific assumptions, not only the psyche but the individual man and, indeed, all individual events whatsoever suffer a leveling down and a process of blurring that distorts the picture of reality into a conceptual average. We ought not to underestimate the psychological effect of the statistical world picture: it displaces the individual in favor of anonymous units that pile up into mass formations. Science supplies us with, instead of the concrete individual, the names of organizations and, at the highest point, the abstract idea of the State as the principle of political reality. The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the State (raison d’état).
…The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed and educated as a social unit, accommodated in the appropriate housing unit, and amused in accordance with the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses. The rulers, in their turn, are just as much social units as the ruled and are distinguished only by the fact that they are specialized mouthpieces of the State doctrine. They do not need to be personalities capable of judgment, but thoroughgoing specialists who are unusable outside their line of business. State policy decides what shall be taught and studied.
Dr. Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self, pg. 8, paragraphization added.
The “feminists” know that breaking down the pillars of society – church, family, individuality – will result in a weakened society where the State dominates with absolute power every aspect of the human experience. They know that the State will replace the individual as the purpose of existence and the dictator of life. They know that what we think, what we know, what we do, what experiences we enjoy, how we dress, how we eat, how we sleep, how we interact with others, and every aspect of existence will be poured down our throats and into our minds until we are filled up with their doctrines and in pours out of us, surrounds us, and drowns us in the overflow. They know this and want it because they imagine themselves as being the ones operating the levers controlling the hoses from which such filth flows. Those who believe them become both their fools and their tools which others use to claim, accumulate, and maintain power.
The Social Outcomes of Contemporary “Feminism”
The outcome of contemporary “feminism” is to produce a beleaguered, miserable, anxiety ridden, depressed woman whose joy in life. As Drs. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers demonstrated in their study, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness:
By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective wellbeing, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men.
Women today have better jobs, higher pay, greater education, more labor saving technologies, and more power in politics and society and yet they are significantly unhappier than women living in 1970 who had far less than all of these things. As Stevenson and Wolfers note on page 5 of the study, both men and women even work less both in their jobs and in their homes, which means that the source of female unhappiness cannot be because they’re now doing more work (home labor plus workplace labor) because women are actually doing less work than ever before in both sectors while also making more money than ever before.
These findings were confirmed by Drs. Alex Bryson and David G. Blanchflower in their study The Female Happiness Paradox. While noting that the information gained by researchers could vary by time of day and season of the year, they still found that overall women everywhere are unhappier than men and have been getting unhappier over the decades:
Using data across countries and over time we show that women are unhappier than men in unhappiness and negative affect equations, irrespective of the measure used – anxiety, depression, fearfulness, sadness, loneliness, anger – and they have more days with bad mental health and more restless sleep. Women are also less satisfied with many aspects of their lives such as democracy, the economy, the state of education and health services. They are also less happy in the moment in terms of peace and calm, cheerfulness, feeling active, vigorous, fresh and rested.
… As a result, we now find strong evidence that males have higher levels of both happiness and life satisfaction in recent years even before the onset of pandemic. As in the past they continue to have lower levels of unhappiness. A detailed analysis of several data files, with various metrics, for the UK confirms that men now are happier than women
The Female Happiness Paradox, pg. 2 pdf version
Back in March 2020, Pew Research released the American Trends Panel Wave 64 survey that it had carried out collating mental health with both sex, age, (18-65+), and political identity (“very liberal” to “liberal” to “moderate” to “conservative” to “very conservative”) with some startling outcomes. Analyzing the data, Dr. Zach Goldberg discovered not only were “Very liberal White women” far more likely than conservative White women to have been diagnosed with a “mental health condition,” but that the ratchet effect of increasing mental disorders is generational in nature:
The first thing you probably notice is that a stunning 56% of liberal White women under the age of thirty have been told they have mental health problems! But I also want you to notice the trends. In every category those 65 years of age or older were less likely to be diagnosed with a mental health disorder, with White female conservatives being the lowest at 5.9%. Why does this matter? Remember that our previous studies showed that women have been getting steadily more unhappy and showing more and more signs of ill mental health since 1970. Overlay that knowledge onto the patterns we see in this chart with the increasing ill-mental health of women.
Here we see the oldest generations, born before 1970 (65 years before the study was 1955) and those least influenced by the ideologies of contemporary “feminism” have the greatest positive mental health and lowest rate of mental health disorders. The next generation, those that would’ve been born after 1970 and would’ve been more heavily influenced by “feminist” ideas, increases significantly, with 26% of White liberal women being diagnosed with a mental health disorder. This trend increases each generation just as each generation is increasingly indoctrinated into “feminist” ideals, with the modern generation with the most indoctrinated into “feminist” doctrines rendered the most damaged and deranged. While this process is most obvious for women, it still holds true for men who adopt “feminist” beliefs, 33.% percent of which have been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. Compare that to conservatives, those least affected, effected, and infected by “feminist” beliefs, where only 27.3% of women (just over half of the White liberal number) and 16.3% of men (less than half of the White liberal number) are diagnosed with mental health disorders.
You see “feminism” produce misery even in the church, especially among the more Leftist members. Take, for example, this reaction from “feminist” Latter-day Saint women to an address by Elder Packer. The “feminists” found his teaching that the, “thing that is of most worth for a woman in this life to live the gospel. To be the wife and the mother of the children of a worthy holder of the priesthood” to be, in their words, “profoundly painful,” and, “heart-wrenching,” because, “everything I have done in my life, my education, my work, my relationship with God, my attempts to become like Christ do not qualify as the most worthy thing…My life to this point feels as though it has been dismissed. This is incredibly depressing to consider, that twenty-five years of my life are less worthy because I don’t have children.”
Notice how she has spent 25 years of her life denying one of the primary purposes of creation and chasing money and career as the things which bring meaning to her life and then blames Elder Packer when the things she has wasted her life upon fail to produce the happiness and meaning “feminism” promised. She blames Elder Packer, and the Restored Gospel generally, for this because her schema prevents her from seeing the truth. Instead of humbly repenting and transforming her life to do that which fulfills the measure of her creation and brings joy to life – create a family – she pridefully attacks Elder Packer for speaking the literal Gospel Truth and stripping her of the cloak of errors she has used to justify her actions and hide form herself the true cause of her misery. The comment section is full of the same, people who attack the church for teaching truths that reveal the misery that “feminism” has created. It is a sad and stark warning about the dangers of worldly indoctrination.
Yes, I understand that feminism is but one in a whole basket of politically Leftist “liberal” ideologies that lead to ill mental health and disorder. Not everything can be blamed on it alone. But the correlation here is a powerful one. Leftist “liberal” ideals of politics, family, economics, abortion, and gender can and are often all gathered under umbrella terms, such as “feminism.” Thus “feminism” can rightfully be used as shorthand to describe all these Leftist ideological beliefs as they relate to and have an impact upon women. And the results of these Leftist ideologies, of “feminism,” are now baldly apparent.
The products of “feminism” have been to increase the anxiety, depression, sadness, loneliness, and unhappiness of women even as they have more political power, make more money, and work less. “Feminism” has increased the emotional, mental, and social suffering of women year after year decade after decade, with no end in sight. . And now its trying to exterminate the concept of women entirely. I guess that is one way to hide your failures. If women don’t exist then they can’t be depressed, right?
Yet, these are the simple facts, actual reality about what “feminism” has done to the lives of women and girls for more than half a century now, facts which science cannot begin to explain. Most likely because the explanations contradict the schema of academics so much that they cannot reconcile reality with the utopia promised in their propaganda.
The Divine Woman
At this point you must be wondering why “feminism” has caused more than half of those who believe in it to develop mental health disorders. There are only theories to explain this, but I’ll give you mine (based on my own schema of course.)
“Feminism” produces deranged and broken people because it denies basic biological and eternal truths about women, womanhood, the importance of families, and the source of joy in life. And it has done so from its very origins. The contemporary “feminist” movement is rooted in paganism, witchcraft, and Satanism. And if that sounds like a “right wing nutjob conspiracy” then read this JSTOR article from “feminist” author Jessa Crispin about the historical origins of the “feminist” movement:
When women like Woodhull and other feminists were taunted as witches, as Satanists, as demonic, they embraced these labels with pride, according to the anthropologist Kathryn Rountree. An early socialist American magazine based in Kansas that argued for women’s liberation took the title Lucifer: The Light Bearer. So yes, they were on the side of the devil here: Eve was a hero bringing enlightenment, the serpent was a truth teller, and together they fought against an authoritarian and punishing god. As the historian of religion Per Faxneld has documented, this was a shared experience with many freedom fighters, as various socialists and revolutionaries also embraced the figure of Satan as the ultimate symbol of rebellion and liberation. This push helped re-establish a hard line between church and state, dismantled arguments against allowing women freedom to participate in public life whether through career, politics, or education, and disempowered and marginalized Christian orthodoxy from western culture.
Feminism’s Hidden Spiritual Side, links in the original
The purpose of the “feminist” movement from the start has been to attack and destroy Christianity while embracing Satan as a hero and promoting paganism and Satanic beliefs to replace Christianity as the religion of the masses. It is therefore no wonder that “feminism” produces deranged and broken people. Satan is eternally miserable and he “seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 Nephi 2:27) An ideology based on the ways of the most miserable being in existence can only ever lead to misery. “Feminism” denies and is the direct antithesis of the source of eternal joy – the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ – and wickedness has never produced happiness.
In contrast to the falsehoods of “feminism,” consider the teachings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, which very clearly explain who a woman is and what it means to be a woman.
From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
…The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. …By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
From the church statement Women in the Church:
As a disciple of Jesus Christ, every woman in the Church is given the responsibility to know and defend the divine roles of women, which include that of wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, and friend. They stand strong and immovable in faith, in family, and in relief. Women participate in councils that oversee congregational activities throughout the world. They also have, by divine nature, the greater gift and responsibility for home and children and nurturing there and in other settings.
Apostle James E. Faust has taught:
I speak this evening about what it means to be a daughter of God. The new declaration of the Relief Society begins, ‘We are beloved spirit daughters of God.’ To be a daughter of God means that you are the offspring of Deity, literal descendants of a Divine Father, inheriting godly attributes and potential. To be a daughter of God also means that you have been born again, changed from a ‘carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness.’
Apostle M. Russell Ballard has taught:
…Although there is nothing a woman can do that has more far-reaching, eternal impact than to rear her children to walk in righteousness, motherhood and marital status are not the only measures of a woman’s worth. Some women do not have the privilege of marrying or rearing children in this life. To the worthy, these blessings will come later. Men and women who do have the privilege of rearing children will of course be held accountable for that priceless, eternal stewardship. Although there is simply not a more significant contribution you can make to society, to the Church, or to the eternal destiny of our Father’s children than what you will do as a mother or father, motherhood and fatherhood are not the only measures of goodness or of one’s acceptance before the Lord. Every righteous man and woman has a significant role to play in the onward march of the kingdom of God.
All of us, men and women alike, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and are entitled to personal revelation. We may all take upon us the Lord’s name, become sons and daughters of Christ, partake of the ordinances of the temple from which we emerge endowed with power, receive the fulness of the gospel, and achieve exaltation in the celestial kingdom. These spiritual blessings are available to men and women alike, according to their faithfulness and their effort to receive them.
Then Apostle Ezra Taft Benson taught:
One apparent impact of the women’s movement has been the feelings of discontent it has created among young women who have chosen the role of wife and mother. They are often made to feel that there are more exciting and self-fulfilling roles for women than housework, diaper changing, and children calling for mother. This view loses sight of the eternal perspective that God elected women to the noble role of mother and that exaltation is eternal fatherhood and eternal motherhood.
In a different address, Elder Benson also taught:
I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings. Solutions for you who are in a minority are not the same as for the majority of women in the Church who can and should be fulfilling their roles as wives and mothers.
It is a misguided idea that a woman should leave the home, where there is a husband and children, to prepare educationally and financially for an unforeseen eventuality. Too often, I fear, even women in the Church use the world as their standard for success and basis for self-worth. President Kimball once said that Latter-day Saints need “a style of our own” pertaining to clothing. We must also have “a style of our own” pertaining to success and self-image.
Some Saints are deluded into believing that more and better circumstances will improve their self-image. A positive self-image has little relationship to our material circumstances. Mary, the mother of our Savior, was of most modest circumstances, yet she knew well her responsibility and took joy in it. Remember her humble exclamation to her cousin Elisabeth: “He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” (Luke 1:48; italics added.) Her strength was inward, not from outward material things.
As now Prophet Russell M. Nelson has taught:
My dear sisters, whatever your calling, whatever your circumstances, we need your impressions, your insights, and your inspiration. We need you to speak up and speak out in ward and stake councils. We need each married sister to speak as “a contributing and full partner” as you unite with your husband in governing your family. Married or single, you sisters possess distinctive capabilities and special intuition you have received as gifts from God. We brethren cannot duplicate your unique influence.
We know that the culminating act of all creation was the creation of woman! We need your strength!
Attacks against the Church, its doctrine, and our way of life are going to increase. Because of this, we need women who have a bedrock understanding of the doctrine of Christ and who will use that understanding to teach and help raise a sin-resistant generation. We need women who can detect deception in all of its forms. We need women who know how to access the power that God makes available to covenant keepers and who express their beliefs with confidence and charity. We need women who have the courage and vision of our Mother Eve.
Finally, I will close these samples with a quote from the Sister Patricia T. Holland, wife of Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland. The quote is taken from an article she published through the official church magazine, the Ensign:
[A]ll of us are Eve’s daughters, whether we are married or single, maternal or barren. We are created in the image of the Gods to become gods and goddesses. And we can provide something of that divine pattern, that maternal prototype, for each other and for those who come after us. Whatever our circumstance, we can reach out, touch, hold, lift, and nurture—but we cannot do it in isolation. We need a community of sisters stilling the soul and binding the wounds of fragmentation.
Final Thoughts
The teachings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ layout what a woman is, what her purpose is, and what her blessings are for fulfilling those responsibilities. Women are female humans not just because of the biological sex of their bodies, but because gender is an eternal character of the human spirit. Each woman is a literal spiritual Daughter of God, meaning her spirit is female and God is the Father of her spirit. Women have absolutely necessary roles serving their God, their family, and their community, in that order. The essential role of women is to be wives and mothers just as the essential role of men is to be husbands and fathers. In families, men and women are to lead as equal partners, fulfilling the different necessary labors of family life as helpmeets for one another. Women should be educated just as well as men, but the primary job of a healthy, fertile woman is to mother children in a marriage to a man, to build a family, and to make family the center of her life. Because labor has to happen for anyone to survive, it is the responsibility of a healthy man to work to provide for their family.
In fulfilling all these essential responsibilities, women will find their greatest possible joy in life as they serve those around them in charity and faith. They will have happiness and peace in this life and in the life to come. The ultimate destiny of all women who follow God and keep His commandments is to be glorified in the eternal realms side-by-side with her exalted husband, he a King, a Priest, and a God and she a Queen, a Priestess, a Goddess. The eternal experience of exaltation, of godhood, is the Divine Family.
No wonder then that so many “feminists” are so miserable. By denying their very nature, identity, and purpose they deny the source and wellspring of happiness in this life and the Life to come. By denying their womanhood and family they lose the very meaning of life itself. The “feminists” substitute the things of the Earth that moths do consume, that rust does corrupt, and which get left behind when life ends – i.e. the money and accolades of the world – for the enduring and eternal truths and communities of Heaven – the Resurrected Self and the Eternal Family. With such self-hate and denial of the things of eternal value, unhappiness and misery are the only outcomes the “feminists” could ever hope to have. The cure for their misery is the very thing they reject the most, the unadulterated Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.