LDS Men, Please Consider This
Something came to my mind a few weeks ago that I cannot shake. A perspective I admit I have never fully considered. A perspective that I feel strongly I need to share.
The message feels timely, as the Ordain Women controversy has been buzzing this past few weeks.
As I read the articles and social media posts, I couldn’t help but be stunned by the flagrantly unchristian, or even downright hateful commentary that has been posted regarding this movement. And so many from LDS men. It seems there may be a disconnect for LDS men regarding women and the Church.
I should note that this is neither an attempt to condemn nor condone the efforts of Ordain Women and similar groups, but simply a perspective I am now asking you, LDS men, to please explore with me.
My wife and I have 3 (beautiful!) little girls. They are 3, 6 and 8. I baptized our oldest daughter, Olivia, just last month. It was a beautiful experience–and I was very grateful to be in a position to participate.
During a morning run recently, I began thinking about the future of Olivia and my younger daughters in the LDS church. Without warning, my mind was flooded by images of a scenario where gender roles had been turned 180 degrees.
I suddenly saw my wife baptizing my daughter as I sat as the spectating spouse.
I saw myself as a young boy watching as my female friends received the power to act in the name of God, administer in ordinances, and prepare to preside in the home. I was explained that my duty as a male was to bear and take care of children, once married. And ideally stay at home and not pursue a career or other out-of-home ventures.
I saw rows of girls in sacrament meeting passing the bread and water.
I saw 3 older women behind the pulpit, presiding over the sacrament services.
I saw that women needed to preside at nearly all our church meetings and events. All callings and administrative requirements, such as finances, had to be overseen by the female leadership.
I saw myself privately entering a female bishop’s office to confess my sins — sexual grievances. Ack!
I saw the stands at General Conference with rows and rows of women (and a few men in the corner). 90% of the speakers were women, and nearly all of the the scriptural references and stories were about the amazing women / prophetesses of the days of old.
I saw our Prophetess stand up and share the messages God has for us.
I saw our Savior, a woman. I was told to become just like her — that my life should be dedicated to her.
I saw our family saying our nightly prayers to our Heavenly Mother.
In sum, I saw a church lead by women–worshipping a female God. And frankly, it made me pretty uncomfortable! At that moment, I wondered what value I/men really had to offer the Church. I admittedly was feeling a bit like a second class citizen. I wondered if I could sufficiently relate to a highly female-centric dogma as a male — no matter how many times I was reminded that I am important to the eternal plan of God. Candidly, I asked myself if I had enough faith to find peace that this seemingly inequitable hierarchy was indeed the plan of God.
As I stood in the road catching my breath, I was in awe as I attempted to process and understand this new perspective. I have taken the faith of my wife, my mother, my sisters and so many other LDS women for granted. More than I ever could have imagined.
I consider this unique experience to be a gift. A glimpse of what my daughters will be seeing as they begin to mature in this Church is invaluable to me as my wife and I do our best to raise and teach them.
I pray that this message isn’t taken as criticism or an unfair analysis of our church’s organization. This is simply an experience I feel is worth sharing with the hope of helping other LDS men gain a more informed and empathetic perspective of what some LDS women experience.
The end goal is the diffusion of any and all anger, frustration, judgement, or ill will toward the women who seem to be genuinely struggling with, or wounded by, this topic. The goal is to engender understanding, compassion, and love for our fellow sisters (and brothers) who are, like all of us, doing our very best to prayerfully follow our conscience–and ultimately our Savior. Only He is qualified to pass judgement. Our mandate is so simple, yet a seemingly endless struggle for us all: to judge not, that we may not be judged and love one another, as he loves us.
by Adam Smith
Read more on this subject here.
Great piece, Adam. I think it achieves the objective, too; to give some perspective to the men of the church, who can’t fathom that any woman would feel anything other than lucky to be in the church.
Very thoughtful, thank you. When speaking about some feminist issues with the LDS Church with my brother, his response was “Well, I just don’t care how other people feel about this.” It’s sad when people are lacking in empathy for others. If we are going to be Christ-like we do need to care about how other people feel.
I’m curious. The letter was written by Adam, but posted by Dayna. Could that be explained?
I agree with Adam about the unkind things that have been said — so very definitely out-of-place and inappropriate– but in on-line forums, where any and all can participate, differences of opinion seem to rapidly degenerate, though in these pages it hasn’t been bad. His “flip-side” view that occurred while he was definitely different. Where did it come from? He left that out.
A valid concern is that membership (or a group of members) is trying to steer the church. Were this any other organization, I’d agree, but the prophetic role and mantle that Pres. Monson (and the presidents before him) is a unique role. One temptation that seems to be all but said is that God is sexist. I don’t think that’s so — in fact, that’s impossible. Some might thing that, but they’re wrong.
Another concern is that there are things that are spiritually discerned, and only spiritually discerned, which come across as confusion or foolishness to the world (1 Corinthians 2:14). Is priesthood leadership one of them? It could very well be.
This whole thing about who’s in charge — men or women — is a distraction, because the Lord is, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then all bets are off and the organization is just another organization, but if the Lord is, and is intimately concerned about his children, then this church — his organization — is and will continue to be different. Most bishops and Relief Society presidents seem to get this — that the Lord is in charge, not them. The apostles also know this, and periodically have to remind new leaders. Nibley, in his talk/essay on Patriarchy and Matriarchy, also addresses the distraction issue of “who’s in charge” or “who’s holding the reins”, against the Lord’s way. Some remarkable things about the priesthood were said in this year’s World-Wide Leadership Training, which Sis Burton covered quite well in the BYU Women’s Conference this year, over which there has been a resounding silence in these pages.
The presumption often not quite said seems to be that there’s no revelation in the church, or the church leadership. That shouldn’t be in these pages, or in the lead-in posts.
It also has to be realized that in an open forum such as this, all sorts of folks can and will respond, from those who have left the church for any and many reasons, to members in the church who haven’t experience the spiritual confirmation of the principles and organization of the church, to any with an axe to grind, and even well-meaning but poorly-equippted (verbally) folk, who say things poorly, and a poorly phrased argument is not a good one to see. In this mix, it will be hard to cut a straight path.
Expressing doubt, or implying doubt about the way the church is run will attract a lot of those who have doubts, and may reify those doubts to them, to the extent that doubt may loom larger than faith. That’s unfortunate. Satan would certainly prefer that doubt would trump faith and knowledge, because that’s the kind of person he is. He would certainly be an expert in painting stories so good that even in the presence of our heavenly parents, one-third, or a third part, would rebel and leave, and he’s certainly been training all sorts of folks in his art, from what we see reported in the media. Those who post have to accept responsibility for raising and discussing doubt. Doubt in the church is resolved individually in spiritual experiences, not so much in group-think. I agree with Adam about being compassionate towards those who are struggling with issues, but fanning the flames of doubt — what does that accomplish? I’m surprised to hear myself saying this, since I’m a huge fan of knowledge (and doubt has a real and valuable role in the pursuit of knowledge), but just thrashing about in doubt isn’t helpful, and I certainly hope that those who post will ask themselves the questions about what they post (and respond): “is it true?” “is it needful?”
There are certainly emotional stories about heartbreak and dashed hopes. We’ve seen in the media how emotional stories can be used to advance causes for better, or for ill. Where this effort goes should certainly observed with caution.
In these pages, those who are are Saints should remain and behave as Saints. We do need to stand apart, and set a higher standard of behavior. If the Lord could be kind up to his last mortal day on earth, then so can we here in these pages.
Observer – I don’t see women and men trying to steer the Church.
I see women and men saying, “I am hurting. I am feeling left out. Please help me. The words you say, that I am loved and needed and respected, are not aligned with the actions you take and the environment I experience, and that disconnect hurts. Are you sure God wants me to feel this way? It doesn’t seem right.”
Revelation does not come unless we ask, and to ask, one must come up with a question. Sometimes we are so comfortable in our own zones that it doesn’t occur to us to question unless somebody else points it out.
LRC, see my errant response below (mis-directed to KK — apologies).
Observer,
Dayna is a regular blogger at D & S. Adam is not. So Adam emailed his post to Dayna, who posted it on the blog . . . because she has access to the back end of the site and Adam does not.
This is not the conspiracy theory you’re looking for.
I wasn’t looking for a conspiracy theory, I was simply curious.
Thanks for this piece. Adam’s pretty direct in stating that his intent is not to criticize or to cast doubt, but that he wants to plead for empathy, so that we may all try to understand another person’s experience rather than dismissing it outright or calling the person’s motives into question just because his or her experiences differ from our own.
I understand, Observer, what you’re saying about doubts being resolved individually, and I think that’s true for the most part. But I also think that it’s hard to resolve doubts without acknowledging them. Sometimes, even though a person may find peace by seeking for it, a person who’s asking questions needs empathy and needs to share what’s on his or her mind, because when a person voices an opinion or a question that might make others squirm, it’s been my experience that the person often gets shot down, called names, or met with uncomfortable silence. This can often cause a person to doubt themselves as well as the gospel, whereas reaching out tends to have the opposite effect. Sometimes a person seeking the peace that comes from God speaks out because he/she is seeking the courage to ask the Lord and/or his servants how to find it. Sometimes they feel unworthy or crazy for even having the questions.
Once you know someone understands you, it become so much easier to work through whatever you’re facing. In a recent conference, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland suggested that we be as candid in our questions as necessary. Doubts will not vanish by being ignored, and even those who have spiritual confirmations of their beliefs still might be seeking intellectual resolutions so that their brains can be as satisfied as their spirits. I believe empathy and love are very foundational parts of the gospel, even more so than the questions that get debated on this and other forums. I can see that it’s important for doubts not to loom larger than faith, as you say, but I would submit that love needs to loom even larger than doubts, faith, fear, being right, and all the other details. “On this hang all the law and the prophets.”
I agree with you that it’s hard to resolve doubts without discussing them. Discussion with caring leaders, home and visiting teachers and friends really, really helps. As you said, once we know someone understands us, it becomes so much easier to work through what we’re facing. As you mention about love, there was some counsel given in a conference (local or general, I can’t recall) that we as flawed mortal leaders should give as much correction as we have balm to heal it, which can be a tall order. However, I’ve seen it work.
I also don’t believe that the question of who’s in charge is as simple a dichotomy as you suggest. While we’d probably agree that revelation should be a vital force in the church and in our lives, Elders Holland and Uchtdorf both recently reminded us that the Lord’s servants can and do make mistakes. The Lord can be in charge, but he’s got to work with humans, and we have to listen to however those humans filter what they understand. Some in the church think that every word, remark, policy, and scripture is absolutely true doctrine, and some people are somewhere else on the continuum of “human thought” vs. “inspired revelation” continuum.
Even if others don’t think the same way as us, it doesn’t mean they’re headed down the opposite path. Someone can, to paraphrase Elder Uchtdorf, sin differently than we do (or even believe differently than we do), and still be living the gospel. It’s the same gospel and the same atonement, and it applies to everyone regardless of whether or not we all think the same way.
KK, this may not be as apparent to members as it is to leaders, but once I mention it, many may recognize it. Members try to take over classroom discussions (SS and RS/priesthood) frequently enough — sometimes it’s the teacher who has a hobby horse to show off. Bishops, RS presidents, on up have to deal with members who try to re-steer the effort of the unit (or whatever). Many times their efforts are well-intentioned, but misguided, and those who have been given the mantle of leadership and gift of discernment have to apply correction. Sometimes it’s not given kindly, sometimes it’s not taken well (despite bending over backwards on the part of leaders). Sometimes the correction is taken, sometimes it’s not, and either way feathers can be ruffled. Regardless, leaders have a charge to keep things from veering off the path. Sometimes it’s the most intelligent and prideful among us. Sometimes it’s the ignorant among us.
The charge to us as members is to have the Spirit with us, to guide us so we can recognize when inspired counsel and direction are given. Lacking that, patient instruction is left, just as the Savior had to. If there’s offense, our Savior certainly understands that, and the request is to forgive, because it heals us. Where there’s malice, well, that’s just bad, and damaging, regardless of where it comes from, but forgiveness is required. Carrying chips on our shoulders (or, as I put it sometimes, dead rats in our pockets) will damage us, and those around us.
Drat, KK, sorry, I was trying to respond to LRC with this.
KK, regarding the dichotomy: it may not have come across clearly. There is an overall cast of the discussions that I see here and in other blogs about it being “men”, or “men” vs. “women” even, which is rather disturbing for an LDS discussion. This is not the Lord’s way. We’re supposed to be united. Nibley’s piece talks about power struggles between genders, but points to “another way”, which is the Lord’s way. Recently, in our stake conference, our stake president spoke about political power and how we see people (in DC and elsewhere) grasping for power, prestige, money, and influence. He specifically mentioned that this was not how the Lord wanted his church run, and those kinds of people were not to be leaders in his church. Most leaders I know try to “keep the glass clean” so that they can receive the revelation needed to guide them and the people they’re responsible for. When I was made bishop, it hit like a ton of bricks that not only was I the bishop of every member in my ward, but everyone within the geographical area of our ward boundaries, which took in the downtown of a largish city in a the U.S. It certainly changed the way I viewed and interacted with people, and more than ever did I understand the Lord’s compassion for them. Extrapolating that to the prophet, who is over all the church and the world made me consider his office with much more reverence and respect. I was very grateful for my wife, who was good in counsel and support, and by extrapolation there also, I realized that the wives of the general authorities are not caricatures, but they are strong individuals as well. One current apostle’s wife was my Junior SS teacher, and she was impressive then in kindness and love, and how the Spirit was recognizably with her, even to a small child, so much so that I still remember.
While this may help soften the hearts of men, it seems to me that most men are apathetic or supportive of the idea of female ordination. Some of those who aren’t can be vitriolic which is disgusting. But advancing female causes in the church requires, strangely, more women to be open to the idea. This pew survey found that 60% more men than women supported female ordination. Somehow that monolithic gender experience you describe isn’t affecting women as powerfully as we might expect. Not that it’s affecting no one, or that those who it is affecting shouldn’t be respected, but at this point it doesn’t seem to be as simple as woman support and men oppose. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/01/12/mormons-in-america-executive-summary/
Not most men, but many men
My two canned responses when people bring up the Pew survey:
1. There are so many problems with that survey and the way it’s being used to argue against female ordination.
2. The Mormon church isn’t a democracy. It never has been. So I genuinely don’t get why someone would use that as an argument. We don’t care about opinion polls. The church is run by god, through prophets.
Right???
A candid reply to your canned responses:
1. “So many problems with the survey and the way it’s being used”? What are those problems?
2. To borrow from your wording, “The Church isn’t a democracy. It never has been.” So I can see why many people genuinely don’t understand why someone would use protest in an attempt to create the appearance of a widespread movement that aims to elicit a change in church policy and doctrine. It’s true that the church isn’t persuaded by opinion polls on major doctrinal or policy issues. But it isn’t generally persuaded by protests (no matter how peaceful) and fancy websites, either. Because the Church is, as you said, “run by God, through prophets,” the Church is persuaded, on major issues such as this, by revelation.
The survey is far from perfect, but it is very good data on LDS opinions. As good as any single isolated survey can be. I was not arguing a bandwagon fallacy that because so many people oppose female ordination, we shouldn’t have ordination, because who cares what people think, it has very little impact on the correct conclusion.
What I was saying is that this article is focused on persuading the wrong group. I have seen this pattern often in this debate. People assume that men oppose female ordination and women support female ordination. This has not been my experience. I think female ordination would be a great blessing for the church. Many men I know agree. Even more men don’t care one way or the other. The people who are most opposed to female ordination seems to be women. Millions of Mormon women live the very (inverse) scenario as the one Adam describes and somehow come out supporting (often stridently) the status quo. I’m not sure how they reach that conclusion, but I’m not sure that this scenario will be effective in changing the opinion of men when actually living this scenario has not been effective in changing the opinion of women.
I believe that one way to help soften the hearts of women on this issue is teaching a more nuanced understanding of revelation, and stewardship. The people who are most vehement in their opposition to ordaining women have very simplistic views on how revelation is received. Just my two cents.
Sorry you misunderstood my use of the survey so thoroughly, I’ll try to be more clear next time.
Christopher, if you were socialized as girls are, to be nice, and obedient, and not subversive, you might not value that survey response so much…
I’m sure you probably didn’t intend it to come out that way, Mere, but that’s probably not the response you were looking for. It’s pretty easy to read that response as meaning essentially, “Women who do not agree with advocating the ordination of women are not thinking for themselves.” I’m sure that’s not what you intended to say, but that’s how many people will likely read it. Given the data we have, I think it’s safe to say that most LDS women, having thought the issue through for themselves, have concluded they are fine with Priesthood ordinations being confined to worthy males.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think saying women are socialized to be obedient is saying women don’t think for themselves. Sorry if it came out that way. But having a man say “women have no problem with this” always irks me. I appreciate Christopher qualifying that he meant, this post is mis-directed. I don’t agree, I think men have an easier time saying they are for ordination, especially to a survey, it would appear really sexist if they didn’t. Just like it would look totally bitchy and subversive to women to say that they are for it.
That’s an interesting point and something I hadn’t considered, and perhaps it does account for some of the difference between men and women in a survey situation.
My experience in speaking to LDS women on this issue has been that they have a more fundamental opposition. My wife posted a facebook link to a pretty innocuous mormon feminst link. Her wall was sieged by middle aged LDS women who had to correct her lest she become “one of them.” I had a female college professor complain to me about General Conference because so many talks had to be devoted to explaining basic things to all those “problematic feminist complainers.”
I think these feelings are more entrenched than simply a reflection of niceness. I think so many LDS women oppose ordination because at a young age they had to face the inequality in the face, and in order for them to continue on as active members of the church they had to develop strong rationalizations that allowed them to abide the unequal status quo. (This certainly agrees with what Mere is saying about the effect of socialization.) Over the course of decades those rationalizations become embedded into identity. Men, on the other hand, have always had the privilege of engaging the issue in only a detached way. When they confront the inequality they simply let it go. It might not make sense to them, but they don’t face it daily, so there’s no reason for them to rationalize it to themselves. From my experience this seems to account for the increased female opposition.
I feel bad calling Adam’s piece misguided because there certainly are many men who could benefit from this intriguing perspective, but if the goal is to create more sympathy for increased female involvement in the church, I think the focus needs to be on how to change the minds of women, especially older women.
I know this kind of gets off the original post, but the original caught my imagination and got me thinking.
Christopher, it could also be that men and women who don’t believe in female ordination have an understanding of the nature of men and women and the role of priesthood, and are perfectly happy with the Lord’s direction and the organization of his church. There were enough revolutionary changes brought about with the Restoration that female ordination, had it been on the Lord’s agenda, would have been just one more item in the newness of the Restoration, but it was not there, nor has it been since. (Yes, I understand that there were “laying on of hands” during the early church by women, etc.)
By refusing to ask the question of why they are perfectly happy with the direction and organization of the Lord’s church, you are limiting your ability to understand.
Interesting question, but I haven’t refused to ask questions.
haha I wish. Do you realize less church work = more time to do other things. I don’t want my church callings but I do it because I believe in the church and helping others. Best.
Good piece and perspective. Maybe I missed it, but this view that Adam is sharing is one rather about the feeling that women who wish to have the priesthood feel, not all women in the church in general. My wife and many other women I have spoke about would feel completely otherwise to the second class citizen I think he is trying to portray.
Great that it’s working for you. But how about some grace/sympathy/kindness/charity for and towards those for whom it’s not working? The Good Samaritan knew how to extend compassion to those in need. The rest of us have a long way to go.
Standing back and saying, “Well it’s not a problem for me,” doesn’t do anything to extend the arm of fellowship and it *might* even be construed as implying, “Well, it’s not a problem for me, so why can’t you get over it and get with the program. If you can’t align yourself with the majority and stop wallowing in your pain, there’s something *really* wrong with you.”
And, unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of people more than willing to lecture those who are hurting and asking for help, or who would turn aside and avoid them completely.
What would Jesus do?
Thanks LRC for the reply. I think you missed the fact that I was pointing out this was a view not for all Mormon women. I by no means was trying to belittle those that feel it to be hard, hence why I said it was a good piece and perspective. Never was this to say this is not a problem for me or others. What if I was one struggling and stated that fact that it doesn’t represent other’s feelings? You don’t know me, nor do you correctly understand my statements so please don’t assume that it’s working for me. If you want to get to know me, then let’s sit down and have a conversation, not through petty forum arguments.
If you want to argue, I won’t respond because it doesn’t get anywhere.
God bless you LRC and your passage.
I thought the post was about Adam’s feelings for his daughters. Not anything else.
Sure. But just because “not all women” in the church feel this way doesn’t mean that “no women” do.
I love this imagery, it reminds me of the word that Wonder Woman is from. Haha! Thanks for posting.
Oops, I meant world*, not word.
Thoughtful and compassionate. Thanks for sharing, Adam.
Thank you for this post, Adam. It’s refreshing to hear from a male member of the church who has taken the time to look at faith from a new perspective.
Thanks for this message, Adam. You beautifully described what we women do deal with every time we go to or interact with the church in any way. I’ve never necessarily wanted the priesthood myself, but there have been many, many situations where I’ve wished I could have gotten a priesthood blessing from a female, could have had a female leader, could have more knowledge of our Heavenly Mother, could have more examples of females in the scriptures, etc.
There simply comes a time you must leave the church. It hurts and always will.