Next month is the semi-annual LDS General Conference, and I was reminded by this fact that I haven’t done a conference-related post for some time. Well, I found another great moment in conference history.
I want to a briefly discuss a talk given in the April 1975 General Conference by Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone. In it, he condemned so-called “self-inflicted” sins like masturbation, homosexuality, drinking soda and studying controversial teachings like “Adam-God.” His talk was a pretty typical laundry list of LDS concerns circa 1975, but one comment got my attention:
Another problem: an overweight girl from Ogden went to see her bishop. In the purity and goodness of charity, trying to help the girl, he counseled her that it might be a good idea to lose a few pounds. Pitifully heartbroken, she went home and told her father. It had cankered her soul. The father, of course, negative toward the Church all of his life, waiting for something like this, sprung like a cat on the bishop’s back, and they came down to see me and wanted their memberships transferred out of the bishop’s ward. I asked them why, because I didn’t know all this background, and they said, “Well, our bishop suggested to our daughter that she might lose a few pounds and make herself a little more attractive.” Now I want you to know that I defended that great bishop. I said to this family, “You are wrong. That sweet bishop, out of purity and love for your daughter, felt and did that which he was impressed to do. I am sure it was a message from God to your daughter, and she let it canker her soul. The strange thing is that she was probably up in her bedroom the night before praying, ‘Heavenly Father, I am lonely. I need someone. Please help me. Help me to find someone so I won’t be so lonely.’” And yet oftentimes we are offended because a sweet bishop gives us some instruction which is hard for us to live.
So among the “self-inflicted” sins, Featherstone seems to include obesity. Though in fairness, perhaps his concern was less about the obesity per se, and more about the girl letting the bishop’s advice “canker her soul.” Still, I find his comments incredibly insensitive. Consider his assumption that, because the girl was overweight, she was “probably up in her bedroom the night before praying, ‘Heavenly Father, I am lonely. I need someone. Please help me.’”
For all I know, maybe that young girl was lonely. But this culture, which expects women to conform to an unrealistic and outdated feminine ‘ideal’, would be as much to blame (if not more so) for her loneliness as anything else.
There’s so much wrong with that quote… I smell arrogance dripping all over it. The irony is that Featherstone was a chunky fellow himself. It just highlights the misogyny inherent in the church.
Beyond the obvious issues that you pointed out, it seems so patronizing that this family had to go to some high church official for permission to attend church wherever they want. Legitimate churches don’t exercise that level of control.
The stereotyping is almost comical regarding the father who was “of course, negative toward the Church all of his life, waiting for something like this, sprung like a cat on the bishop’s back.” My impression was that the bishop was most likely negative towards fat women all his life , waiting for something like this, and sprung like a cat on the girl’s back. Ditto for Featherstone.
It’s also interesting that he admits that he didn’t know of the situation therefore most likely didn’t know this bishop. But he automatically assumed the bishop to be “great” and “sweet” while the girl and her father are “angry” and “lonely”. It’s classic propoganda
Wow, I love the church and all, but damn, this one’s hard to take.
“Sweet” bishop. Jesus.
@Dadsprimalscream:
“I smell arrogance dripping all over it.”
Fascinating, given the condescending tenor of your entire post. Don’t worry, though. Sheer hypocrisy smells great on you.
Hey Jon. It’s been a while I guess. Just wanted you to know that you’ve been making me angry every day since we became “friends” on FB. Come on, Jon. The church is perfect, the people aren’t. You know that. I’ve known you way too long to believe that you buy into all this crap. The sad thing is – I’m sure the fact that I’m even reading what you write, let alone spending my days pissed off while thinking about what you write, is music to your ears. Just had to get it off my chest.
By the way, I live down the street from Elder Featherstone. Your assessment of his character is way off base.
Courtney: First, I never made an assessment of Featherstone’s character. I don’t doubt that he’s a nice guy, but that doesn’t make his remarks in this talk any less ignorant or ill-conceived. Second, while I think neither the church nor it’s people are anything approximately perfect, understand that I was not making an argument about the church’s truth or falsity in this post. Obviously, Featherstone’s talk has little to no bearing on whether the church is true. And third, I’m (genuinely) sorry to hear that you’re angry. I don’t post these things to provoke anger, only to provoke thought and discussion. I’m glad you left a comment and I hope you’ll continue to follow the blog. The more LDS involvement in the discussions here, the better.
Take care. I hope all is well.
I wasn’t going to say anything, but I have to comment. “The church is perfect, the people aren’t” is a cop-out. Surely we should hold church leaders to a higher standard. If we can’t, then, why should we listen to them?
If the answer is “Because they speak for God” then we are holding them to a higher standard, because if their version of “God’s words” aren’t any better than what I think the words should be, I should listen to myself.
How about this for a phrase: Is the average member of the church getting closer and closer to perfect? Because if they aren’t, then the church is doing a piss-poor job at “Perfecting the Saints.” If they aren’t doing a good job, then something’s not perfect.
If the imperfect people are getting in the way of the perfect church, then something is also wrong, and meaningless platitudes aren’t the way to correct the problem.
I’d like to think the church had changed in the past 36 years, but my intuition tells me that the only reason we don’t hear this sort of thing today is solely because the church hierarchy knows it doesn’t have the unquestioned obedience it once had, and that the GAs words are scrutinised far more than they once were. The same misogyny and objectification of women that drips off the pages here is still alive and well in the current church doctrine, only slightly more well disguised.
What’s even more ironic is that this particular teaching of Mr. Featherstone would likely be lumped into the same category as the one Featherstone placed the Adam/God doctrine by the current church hierarchy. Every thing past GAs have ever said which is currently disfavoured magically is shoved into the category of “never-doctrine” regardless of how it was taught, preached, understood at the time.
I’m curious as to how many of the current teachings will be re-categorised as “just their opinion” in the future. I think the Family Proclamation is a likely candidate for that.
Pingback: Wednesday in Outer Blogness: Pi Day Edition! | Main Street Plaza