Imagine you are part of a religion in which only women are allowed to serve in the majority of leadership positions. Men, because they are stronger and better at lifting things, do a lot of work, but it is always under the direction of women.
“Having women in charge of everything isn’t fair,” observe some men.
Women respond: “Okay, you may have a point. Wait a second while we ask God if men should be allowed to be in charge of anything. . . [time goes by]. . . Nope, God wants women in charge. Sorry.”
“It’s still not fair,” some men say.
Women respond: “Don’t you believe in God? God’s the one that set it up this way. Men need to accept their role. God made men stronger so you can lift stuff. It’s a complimentary relationship. We’re in charge of everything in order to give you more time to lift stuff. You need to be happy with that.”
“But being able to lift heavy stuff is a function of biology,” men point out. “Being in charge of everything isn’t, so the two aren’t the same.”
Women respond: “Look, God gave you the ability to make sperm. Women can’t do that. Without sperm, there wouldn’t be any children or families. So that’s how things are divided up. Men produce sperm and lift things. To balance things out, women are in charge of everything. Men asking to be in charge is like women asking to make sperm. It’s ridiculous. Men should be grateful for their beautiful sperm-making capacity.”
“But we’re being underutilized,” some men insist.
Women respond: “We’re already equal. We just have different roles. If men feel like they’re not equal, it’s because they don’t understand God’s plan. They’ve bought into what the world has been telling them. Men have the capacity to produce sperm and lift things, and women are in charge of everything. Women can’t have children without men, so men and women are equal partners, it’s just that women are the partners that are in charge of everything. Will it help if women promise to give more talks telling men how valuable they are? Here’s another idea: Why don’t men have their own conference where they can get together and tell each other how valuable they are? That should help.”
“We shouldn’t be defined by our ability to lift heaving things, we’re more than that,” other men say.
Women respond: “Why do men want to be the same as women? Can’t men see that there are biological differences between men and women? Men are clearly the only ones that can produce sperm. Women can’t do that. And men are stronger, so God clearly intended them to lift things. Men need to realize how valuable and sacred their role is. Women being in charge of everything is a service to men, because it gives them more time to do what God wants them to do.”
“But we want to contribute in different ways,” men say.
Women respond: “Being in charge of everything isn’t about power or control, it’s about service. Men should be grateful that women create space for them to concentrate on doing what God expects of them.”
“If being in charge in about service,” men say, “then we want to serve too.”
Women respond: “Sorry, if you ask to be in charge, then that means you must be seeking power or control, and that disqualifies you from being in charge.”
“But if we don’t ask, will we ever be given the opportunity to serve?” men ask.
Women respond: “Probably not, but that’s because God wants it that way. If she wanted things changed, she’d let us know.”
If this were reality, how long would it take us to see through these arguments?
See Ordain Women and lend your support: http://ordainwomen.org/.
Also see http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=6180 (recommended by several readers).
This is convincing *if* you think men and women are functionally indistinguishable, so just swapping out a few pronouns and ‘unimportant’ gender traits creates an exactly parallel situation.
But most of are comfortable with, and in fact prefer, women as women and men as men.
I prefer most women as women and men as men. What does that have to do with anything? And if you think “most” are content with the status quo (I question this, but, whatever…) does contentment make it right?
The arguments here are valid without assuming that men and women are indistinguishable (men really are stronger, generally, and they really do have the capacity to produce sperm). In fact these arguments *depend* on these differences. So there’s no need worry about any changes–men will still be men and women will still be women.
The only thing that is different in this scenario is that women are in charge. I’m fascinated by the fact that you seem to equate “maleness” with being in charge. . . If women were in charge of everything, they could easily point to men’s ability to lift things and their ability to produce sperm as the counterbalance to women’s “priesthood” and argue that things were equal (and it would be just as dumb of an argument as men claiming that because women can carry a baby that that is somehow equal to the priesthood. The proper comparison, of course, is that fatherhood=motherhood).
By equating “maleness” with being in charge, you’ve helped make my point. . .
We need to stop equating the two.
Love this post- hits the nail on the head.
Adam G seems to show why such a post needs to exist even if he can’t work up enough empathy to understand it. I don’t see how the post suggests men and women are functionally indistinguishable- as a matter of fact, it points out specifically ways they are not. Men are better at lifting- it’s true, in general. Men make sperm, women don’t- also very true, also a way we are functionally different. This is all about “men as men” and “women as women”. Why not celebrate the ways in which men and women are different by letting men do the things that God-given genetics lets them excel at?
Gender differences exist. No one denies that- though I suppose some argue they aren’t always as clearcut as church policy suggests (my husband is a better nurturer, I’m a better breadwinner). But the gender differences are no reason to not expand the ways that women can serve the church.
I care very little about priesthood ordination. I care a great deal, however, about breaking down a male-only hierarchy, not because my feminist sensitivities don’t like it, but because I think the church is losing out on a huge resource. Why can’t a woman be Sunday School president, or ward clerk? Why can’t a YW who needs to discuss issues of chastity speak with a FEMALE representative? Why can’t my college-educated sister-in-law help administer the needs of her stake and let her husband spend a few years of Sundays at home with the kids, since it’s been her turn with the kids and his turn in spend-sunday-away-from-family leadership for over 10 years now? I’m sure he’d be happy to have more home time, and she is more than capable of serving in a council, giving talks, and organizing stake resources, especially since her last kid is now in kindergarten and her days are much more flexible than his.
WARNING: Heavy topics here. Don’t read if you can’t handle.
Jenn- I am very new to the discussion of equality in the sense I never dared read or participate in any of these discussions. I grew up in an extremely patriarchal home, and in all honest to goodness thought I would go to hell or be harmed in some way for questioning anything. With some Heavenly assistance I am growing out of that. And because I know I am not the only one who experienced sexual abuses at the hands of others in the church who were otherwise seen as “worthy” male priesthood holders, I have to tell you that when I specifically read your comment about women talking to other women about “chastity” issues, my first response was “Hell yeah!” It is my personal experience and observation that physical, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse is so prevalent, occurs so frequently in the name and role of being the “priesthood holder” in the home, and is STILL not talked about or addressed enough.
We moved around a lot, and I watched bishop after bishop tell my mother that what she was experiencing, and we as family were experiencing was really mostly her fault, our fault, and what she really needed to think about was her eternal covenants with God and not break those. As a young woman I experienced similar discussions personally.
Even as recently as two weeks ago, I finally got the courage to confront a bishop who had been in frequent contact with an abusive ex husband, who does not even live in the same stake, left the church, and used their discussions in legal proceedings as proof that even my own patriarchal and ecclesiastical leader, someone in a position of a authority in a well known church, shares my ex husband’s views of me as a person and mother and therefore must be true. I commented that as my bishop I understood that his stewardship, assistance and revelation should be focused on me and not my (soon to be) ex husband, and I could not understand why he even felt like he needed to be in contact with him. The bishop’s response was “My responsibility is to the family.” When I asked what family he was referring to his comment was, “You’re not divorced yet, are you?”
If I was the only that experienced these kinds of things that should be enough to spark a discussion about equality and roles or even perceived roles within the church. The disturbing reality is that I am not the only one. It happens so often and THAT is why this equality discussion is so important, whatever form it shows up in, be it pants to church, questioning priesthood and leadership positions etc.
Sincere thanks to the author of this lite and humorous post about such a polarizing issue, and to Jenn for blessing my life and journey by sharing her insights.
God bless us all.
You said: “I care very little about priesthood ordination. I care a great deal, however, about breaking down a male-only hierarchy,”
But isn’t priesthood ordination integral to holding a leadership position? Are you suggesting that a person could be ward clerk and be able to carry out their role as effectively and with the same spiritual guidance and authority as an ordained person? That sounds even more subversive than ordaining women? (Which I absolutely support, but it IS subversive, in my view) How about doing away with priesthood ordination altogether? Or maybe I misunderstand…
“Are you suggesting that a person could be ward clerk and be able to carry out their role as effectively and with the same spiritual guidance and authority as an ordained person?”
Why yes, that is exactly what I’m saying, and I’m surprised that it would seem subversive or surprising to anyone. I don’t see reason a ward clerk, sunday school president, etc… would need the priesthood- “the power and authority of God”- to fulfill their duties in the mortal administration of the church. Women and men alike have the holy spirit and are guided by God in their actions- that is not contingent on being ordained. After all, women do a wonderful job of administering the affairs of the RS- though it currently has to be cleared by a male at some point, it wasn’t that way until the 70s in the church’s effort to bring everything under a correlated umbrella. Sister Missionaries accomplish much of the same thing Elders do, and could accomplish even more if given the chance. (Sister DLs, anyone?)
I could see the priesthood as necessary perhaps because of the keys and sealing power that comes with it, so the priesthood can be used for ordinances. But I do not believe the priesthood makes an individual more capable to administer the day-to-day needs of the church than simple faith and revelation could accomplish.
Though, I must use the disclaimer: I’m not active in the church, nor do I believe in the eternal nature or necessity of the priesthood at all. I think it’s a mortal construct to help make us better people, and it does a good job of that. So perhaps my opinion should be thrown out, but I sincerely hope even those who fully believe in the gospel and the priesthood could see that it is not the only medium through which God uses his children to do His will.
As a faithful man in the church from deep pioneer stock, I find this article offensive. Who exactly are these uppity men who want to be in charge of things? Don’t they know the priesthood can be only handled upon principles of righteousness? No wonder God doesn’t want them to be in charge. All they would do would be overbearing and abusive.
These men need to study the scriptures more. It was Eve that led Adam out of the garden. That divine patterns still follows today. If Eve had allowed Adam to rule she would still be waiting for him to finish this Halo 3 tournament and all of us would still be in the pre-existence. If only these men could see how valuable our role is, how much our Mother in Heaven loves us for who we are, and stop listening to the whiners from the great and spacious building, I’m sure they would finally find the peace and fulfillment they apparently lack.
I, for one, am very happy in my lifting role. I have way too much to do already. I am grateful for a wife you presides in love and righteousness. Please don’t bother me with your niggling concerns about equality. And for heaven’s sake, please don’t stir up my boys to think they are missing out on anything. I have a hard enough time as it is getting them to church.
As a woman, I would like to thank Dave K for demonstrating so clearly why men in this church have no need to lobby for rights.
You are loved and you are already equal!
You are clearly part of the chosen.
I love this.
I get really upset and angry and worked up when I think about the gender equality that I used to just accept as God’s will. I have had to delete two very well written, but overly-fiery responses thus far. I think I will just have to leave it at this.
I appreciate the analogy. Thank you!
“If this were reality, how long would it take us to see through these arguments? ”
Long enough to make me a little bit sad for humanity.
“Look, its not that we women *want* to be in control or have power. In fact, it is really burden. I mean do you guys *really* want to be bishop? I can tell you than none of us women do, but we do it because the Lord ask us and we love you, not because we want power. In fact, we are pretty sure that women have the priesthood because otherwise we would be too tempted to spend our days shopping, chatting, gossiping and nurturing instead of leading and serving. You guys are such natural leaders that you don’t NEED the priesthood like we do.”
Some men say, “Yes, but we are tempted by things like video games and not being involved with the children, working to much to provide. Wouldn’t the priesthood help us avoid those tempations?”
“Exactly! The provider role is soooo hard. Women having the priesthood *protects* you so you can provide for our families. Just think how horrible it would be if you had to go to work everyday and then come home and go to 2 or 3 hours of meetings. You would *never* see the kids! Thankfully, since we women are natural nurturers and many of us stay home we have more time and flexibility to administer the affairs of the church. Think of all those wonderful Mormon bishops you know whose children are all in school! When do you think bishoprics would meet if they were made up of men 6 am on Sunday morning? Obviously, you will agree with me that is just silly.”
“Oh yes and one other thing. Men have this awful way of abusing power. Women are clearly less prone. Just look throughout history. This is another way the Lord protects you men and the church by not giving you the priesthood. Just think of all the unrighteous dominion that might occur when men had the priesthood. I mean lets take something simple like worthiness interviews for youth. Can you imagine us asking our young daughters to confess sexual sins to adult men? That is just creepy! Since men are way more likely to sexually abuse children than women it is a matter of safety to make sure that women are in charge of these interviews. That is just one example of so many about why it would be hard to give men the priesthood!”
Men say, “Boy, I guess you are right. We really don’t have time to lead the church because we are providing. We get to learn and practice leadership in our jobs. It makes total sense that women should get those opportunities in the church. I see how that is MUCH more equal in the long run. Thanks for protecting us guys. You Mormon women really are incredible!”
Don’t forget that if we allowed men to share in the responsibilities, women wouldn’t feel special anymore and would stop coming to church and ignore their families.
As a man, I don’t want to be in charge anyway. Give me some family to move, but don’t put me in charge, I already have enough to do. Thanks, but no thanks…
My husband says he’ll leave the church if he is asked to have leadership. He knows it is against God’s eternal plan.
I think this definitely lays things out pretty well. Nice post.
The problem with this post is that the analogy does not really work.
First, it equates the power to give life to lifting heavy objects. The two are, of course, not even in the same league.
Along similar but not identical lines, the analogy implies that holding the priesthood is an issue of power (“being in charge”) and motherhood is an issue of performing needed but nonetheless menial tasks (“lifting heavy boxes”). This dual conception is fundamentally flawed.
Further, the analogy is built on the premise that priesthood is not given to women because they can bear children. I am not sure that is completely accurate, even if it is often put forth as a justification. This justification is not, as far as i can tell, an explanation that has been offered in revealed scripture. (It may make sense to individual members, but the mind and will of the Lord has not been revealed in that particular aspect.)
Now, as to the rhetorical question, “If this were reality, how long would it take us to see through these arguments?”, it assumes that the Church is not led by revelation but by near-sighted men. There, the author of this post and i have fundamental differences of opinion. I do believe that this Church is led by revelation. Consequently, if it was revealed, i would be completely fine with a setup that had women holding the priesthood exclusively. If the Church received revelation that this is the way to go, i think we would find an overwhelming majority of men supporting it enthusiastically… not because of worldly considerations regarding gender roles, but because it would be the revealed will of God.
The power to ‘give life’ is given to every mammal on earth–dogs, cats, rats… The power to lift heavy objects is only given to man. No they are not in the same league.
Gabriel,
(Full disclosure: I am an ex-Mormon female.) Isn’t it odd how the revealed will of God sometimes closely parallels the societal norms of the times they were revealed in, or conveniently bows under societal pressure if it bucks the norms too much? Blacks and the priesthood, for example. Miscegenation, for another. Rescinding polygamy. Friendlier policies toward same-sex attraction and relationships. God, He’s totally up with the trends. I predict, based on this history, that female ordination is just about to break over the theological horizon of the LDS church. The leaders just have to come up with a great reason why God changed his mind, or why He never changed it but we just never understood he meant for women to hold the priesthood the whole time, or we weren’t spiritually ready for it, but now we are.
“First, it equates the power to give life to lifting heavy objects. The two are, of course, not even in the same league.”
No, it equates the power to create life with the power to… create life. Both men and women possess a part of that power.
Revelation is often not received until the people and the prophet have shown themselves ready to receive it. We have to be asking the right questions. We have to be showing the leadership and God that we are ready. Just because the current revelation doesn’t allow for it does not mean we need to just wait for the Prophet to receive new revelation. If we aren’t asking the right questions and showing we are ready, the revelation won’t ever come.
Frequently, at least looking at church history retrospectively, what we think is “revelation” and doctrine is actually just culture… and it evolves as the people show readiness to evolve.
Jenn, perhaps we’re reading the post very differently, because i don’t see it as saying that “producing sperm = creating children and giving birth to them”. I see it as saying that “lifting heavy objects = creating children and giving birth to them”. The issue of producing sperm comes up only further down, as a biological pairing to lifting heavy objects. I continue to not be impressed by the analogy.
As to “what we think is ‘revelation’ and doctrine is actually just culture”, we’ll just agree to disagree. I believe revelation to come from God, not from culture. And if there are practices in which we are wrong, eventually they will be corrected. Some correction requires revelation. Some doesn’t. I believe this is the type that does.
Oh, whereas I’ve heard the arguments geared against women enough to have seen “lift heavy objects” was equal to “nurturing and raising children” and “making sperm” was equal to “having a womb”. Frequently the “making babies” argument isn’t pulled into the discussion immediately because not all women can make babies in mortality (aside from the fact that they need a man’s help for that bit too), but ALL women can nurture.
I agree that true revelation isn’t culture-based. Hence my use of quotation marks around “revelation”- what we often think is based on revelation/doctrine may not be. I have yet to see convincing proof that this isn’t one of those, especially since Joseph Smith seemed to have a very different idea of women’s roles in the church than that current practice.
Gabriel, I am a woman who has gestated and given birth to four children. They are now 27-18. I actually think that creating sperm is = to creating children and giving birth to them. My husband’s ability to create sperm without even thinking about it is very similar to gestation. We were both there for the conception. We we both there for the 9 months. Yes, I was pregnant, but I still got up, dressed, went to work, attended church, shopped, and everything else humans (male and female) do on a daily basis. I may have been tired from time to time, but it is not as if women sit around basking in the glory of “creating life”.
Pregnancy and childbirth just happen. I have no special gestating talent. During the 4X9 months that I was pregnant both my husband and I lived our lives as parents, citizens, and doctor & teacher, respectively. At the end of the 9 months, we went to the hospital, I labored for less than a day, and then we both went home and started to parent. Yes, it was momentous for both of us, and yes it hurt like hell, but it really wasn’t an event that keeps me from accomplishing anything else in the world.
I don’t believe that my part of parenting takes any more effort than should my husband’s.
Gabriel, I’m offended by your insinuation that the tasks that have been divinely designated to men are “menial”. I find great meaning in helping move heavy objects, and I regularly see the appreciative smiles on the faces of those whom I help. While the world attacks manual labor as passé, undesirable, or old fashioned, those who understand the Gospel know that it is in fact a crucial part of the plan of salvation and the way we men fulfill the measure of our creation.
Gabriel,
I agree. I am still searching for a pro-female ordination article or blog that doesn’t assume or imply that the General Authorities are in the wrong and that they need the literati of the bloggernacle to lead them gently to the truth. Others mock, taunt and ridicule LDS leaders and members who hold views which oppose their own. Still others (like this one) set up flawed comparisons and analogies.
Old Geezer,
That’s a fair request. There have been dozens of blog posts on this topic recently. Some have been snarky, but most are rather serious. I’ll try to point you to one if you can give me some more information on what you’re looking for. Specifically, considering that current church practice is to restrict women from priesthood service, and that the most recent church statement on the issue describes the practice as coming from the Savior’s scriptural example, what exactly would be a “pro-female ordination article or blog that doesn’t assume or imply that the General Authorities are in the wrong”?
Gabriel, I chose the analogy carefully:
producing sperm (men) = growing babies (women)
lifting heavy objects (men) = “nurturing” and doing things like vacuuming, cleaning toilets and changing diapers (women)
Clearly only men can produce sperm, and clearly, in general, men are better at moving heavy objects (and some even have a testimony of it, see Trevor’s post above). So, because men have the sacred power of sperm production and are better at lifting things, to make things equal, God put woman in charge of everything. . . Why isn’t that the same as saying that because women can give birth and are better “nurturers,” men should be put in charge of everything?
Old Geezer, I agree in the sense that it’s not black and white. . . the church can still do a lot of good, and can still be valuable, and still be wrong in certain respects. . . I don’t think God was a racist until 1978, and then “changed his mind about black people.” I think the church (and particularly its leadership) were wrong on that issue in 1977, and then corrected the problem in 1978. It’s the same with sexism now. That does mean that people still can’t find a lot of good in the church. . .
Brent, please see my reply to Jenn on the issue of the appropriateness of the analogy.
Of course, whether women should be ordained to the priesthood does not hinge on the appropriateness of your analogy or on my being soundly not convinced by it. So even if you came up with an analogy that was deconstruction-proof, it does not change the fact that at the heart of this matter is an issue that is both procedural and substantive: a) It is procedural because the change will only happen through the approved channels. People blogging about this or that is not the appropriate channel. A cultural shift (as Jenn suggests) is not the appropriate channel. b) It is substantive because our belief in revelation is core to what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. This includes personal revelation but also revelation to the whole Church as received by the presiding quorums, and particularly the Prophet. Every practice and doctrine in the Church hinges on that premise. That does not mean that every practice is correct or that every doctrine is correctly understood, but it does mean that the Lord will honor those whom He has anointed to lead the Church. And that by following the standards they have set, we will be led in the right direction.
So in essence, to me it’s clearly an issue of our own attitude about the Church as a divinely led institution. I trust God to make things right when they are wrong and to keep the Church going in the right direction when it is. Thus, i await patiently in Him for all things.
Why is a cultural shift not the appropriate channel? A cultural shift has preceded every other major modern revelation, and many of the ancient ones (like the gospel going to gentiles). For a religion that professes the importance of personal revelation, we sure like individuals to fall in line and not ask questions.
Pointing out that you don’t agree with a prophet is not necessarily disrespecting/dishonoring them. But I didn’t see this post as doing either- this post seemed more like a response to all the fallacies used by those arguing against female ordination (an argument the prophet has pretty much stayed out of).
I appreciate you haven’t used those and are going with the much more sound “it doesn’t matter if it makes sense, I trust the prophet and don’t worry about the rest”. Which is fine. But not necessarily the right way for all people. After a study of scripture and church history, if I feel the church would benefit from a change, and I feel through personal revelation that “agitating” is in line with God’s will for me as an individual, then I feel obligated to push for that social/cultural change.
Gabriel, I think you’ve stated your position well. I don’t agree (not surprisingly). I think God expects a lot more of us than to simply wait until we’re told what to do. I think it’s up to us (all of us, bloggers included) to build a church that reflects what we (all of us) believe about deity, the world, and our place in it.
I agree, Brent. Over and over, in the Book of Mormon, we read of people who wouldn’t ask for what they wanted of God and He, in turn, chastising them for not asking. The Jaredites sat on the shore for four years before finally asking and, importantly, telling God what they wanted of Him. Ask and ye shall receive is a common theme in our scriptures.
I haven’t read any scriptures in the Book of Mormon in which someone seeks–let alone receives–“personal revelation” to tell church leaders that their doctrinal teachings are wrong.
Brent, is it the members duty to determine the course of the Church? I don’t remember any person not set apart to a position being asked to provide direction for any part of the Church. This is the Kingdom of God, not the democracy. To attempt to direct it, whether through criticism, ridicule or debate places us at risk of “steadying the ark.” We don’t provide the blueprints, God does that through his prophets and apostles. Is it our church or His church? Isn’t his house a house of order? And if the church is to prepare us for God’s plan, which is better, to wait on the Brethren, or work everyone up into a lather on an issue when you don’t even know if that is the direction God wants us to go?
I love these two articles/posts:
http://dannikanash.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-my-generation/
and this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/a-mormon-glass-ceiling-shattered/2013/04/09/f1fc9406-a10a-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html
Especially this part: “I can feel the umbrage bubbling even as I write this, but religious people should take comfort in the Mormon affirmation that God responds to us. The progress that we make as a human family-as incremental as it may be-charts God’s course.”
Great stuff, Brent! For an interview with a member of a similar church, see here. :)
I love how Satan has made us all feel like we can pressure God into giving us what we want. That is all i see here in these arguments. One day women will have the priesthood and gays will be allowed to marry in the temple. Society is pushing both pretty hard. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to women having the priesthood. If if happens, so be it. Happy Day, yada yada yada. (i just don’t see it in the way people wish it to be.) The problem i see here is that people say things like”
“Why can’t a woman be Sunday School president, or ward clerk? Why can’t a YW who needs to discuss issues of chastity speak with a FEMALE representative?”
This is like saying, “God, i have an idea how you could be better at what your doing. I know you know a lot but i’ve been around and think this woman/man would do a better job here instead of the one you called.” Frankly anyone who sits in church and says this person would be a better bishop or (insert calling here) in this ward is ridiculously misguided by which spirit they chose to listen to. I’ll go ahead and hint that its the one that leads them slowly down the path to hell and sadness. I can have the priesthood. i can hold all those “highly coveted” callings. Do i want them? No. Do i seek after them. No. Will i except them and do as the Lord asks? Yes. I suggest we stop whining and do the best that you been asked and not try to put your agenda in place of the Lord’s will.
I think we should all remember that men actually are anointed to the leadership in the temple, even though women, of course are anointed and ordained to the leadership in the flesh because that’s how God wants it. Men will have leadership in the next life, when they will only have leadership over their own spirit children (and never over any actual living women).
Ever since Adam ate the fruit, we’ve known the men are meant to lift boxes and Eve is meant to have all the leadership. Uppity men should stop trying to point out that the Fall of Adam and Article of Faith 2 mean that **neither** was to be punished beyond the changing of the flesh and need for a savior.
And stop pointing out that the Eve-God story is the only reason that men are directed to serving their wives not God in the temple. Sheesh. Do you not know that this history is sacred and not to be trifled with?
They should STOP trying to force God’s hand — if the Goddess doesn’t want to direct the 15 to make the policy so that men can practice leadership in the flesh, well, then, GOD HAS SPOKEN ON THE POLICY AND NEVER CHANGES HER MIND ABOUT POLICY. NO POLICIES EVER CHANGE.
Love this post, Brent. And thanks for the links you shared, Heather, they were really great.
You know, since becoming a parent, it’s given me a totally different perspective on God. Since he’s, you know, our dad, and all. And should be the perfect parent. Can you imagine parenting in the way some people imagine God to be parenting? Never listening to anything your children have to say? Ignoring them when they tell you that you’re hurting them? Not responding to their wants and needs? Saying the only way you’ll love them is if they obey your every word, totally mindlessly?
I’m sorry, but if that is truly how God parents, I want no part of that God, I cannot respect that God. I cannot fathom raising my sweet son like that. I cannot imagine wanting to be part of a family that is so rigid and uncompromising. My son knows he can always ask for or tell me anything and I will absolutely take those things in to consideration. His hurts will always be attended to, even if sustained after I told him not to climb on the couch. He will always be encouraged to make his own path, to be his own person, to find his own happiness–even when it looks vastly different from what I have found or created myself.
Just sayin’.
peterj,
I tend to not see this as “pressuring the Lord” but “ask and ye shall recieve, knock and it shall be opened unto you”. What does “petitioning” God look like? On that we may disagree. We have a long and well-documented history regarding the relationship between changes in significant church policies and doctrines and the actions/inactions of membership. Or maybe you are saying all those saints in Brazil who pushed and questioned regarding their exclusion to the priesthood and the temple were all just pressuring the Lord? Maybe Emma Smith “pressured the Lord through Joseph” to give the Word of Wisdom. How about the woman who touched Christ’s robes? You call it pressuring, I call it being anxiously engaged in caring about our religion. I call it thinking carefully about what is the gospel and what is cultural non-sense. In all of this we have very little rationale for wondering why our great grandmothers enjoyed a scope of excercise of blessings and organizational autonomy that have been increasingly restricted and denied women. We went from mothers laying on hands with fathers to heal and bless their children to women being banned from praying in Sacrament meeting. We went from Joseph calling the RS a “kingdom of Priests even as in Enoch’s day” and “turning over the keys” to being scared even to have a discussion of what priestesshood might look like. Doesn’t that seem an awful lot like Joseph ordaining a black man or two and then all of sudden having blacks excluded from priesthood followed by generations of doctrine justifying the ban (now dismissed as “folk doctrinces). We went from “the First Presidency declares that Jospeh institute d the ban on blacks and the priesthood” to “there is no evidence Joseph ever said such a thing” to Brigham Young recieved a revelation to no revelation can be found to justify the practice.
I totally respect your and other people’s right to simply back the status quo based on trust and the principle of obedience, but please lets not pretend that there isn’t clear historical precedent for an alternative way of understanding the relationship between God and revelation to the church. There is no need to assume or charge that this type of discussion is breaking covenants, “speaking ill of the Lord’s annointed” or trying to subvert order in the church. None of us here are going rogue and ordaining women. I think we fully realize that if the change is to come it must come through legitimate channels and definitely through revelation of some type – either new scripture or authoritative reinterpretation of current scripture and history. Pointing out that the current lay justifications for excluding women from the priesthood are doctrinally and logically flimsy isn’t any different from fighting against the awful “folk doctrines” swirling around during the priesthood ban. It is others who look at this and assume some sort of attack of brethren or attack on the church.
Nicely said Rah.
Thanks for the post. If we consider the scriptures, we see that Deborah was a prophetess and gave counsel from God to men and women alike (see Judges 4-5). and Phoebe was a deaconess. Joel prophesied that in the last days God would pour out His Spirit upon men and women, and that they would both prophesy (see Joswel 2:28-29.) The apostle Peter quoted this same Scriptures of the Day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:16-18).
Even Paul, who espoused cultural norms which are no longer relevant regarding women, wrote that there is no more male nor female, but we are all one in Christ (see Galatians 3:28). Unless the Church can demonstrate that women can be treated equally–with equal respect, voice, and value–in the Church, which is certainly cannot, then it must change. Woman absolutely must be included in disciplinary councils for women as advocates. Many survivors of sexual and/or physical abuse who have been called into Church disciplinary councils have left the Church.
I have served under the direction of men for decades and can tell you that few of them treated me as anything more than a servant. I have served as a ward and stake RS president several times and have observed terrible abuse of priesthood power and the marginalization of women–enough to write a book. But then, if I did, I would be excommunicated, as Lavina Fielding Anderson has been, and would never be allowed back into the Church unless I lied and said that Church leaders are also right in every situation.
Surely, the Lord must grive to see his daughters suffer so.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Jared, dude, you need to at least get your logical fallacies straight before you start accusing other people of them. I really wish the arguments I satirize were straw men, but unfortunately it appears that there are a large number of church members actually believe them: a) Women have the “sacred power” to have children and that somehow justifies the priesthood being restricted to men, and b) women are inherently better “nurturers” by their nature, and therefore should stay at home and be housewives (make dinner, cook, clean, change diapers, etc.). These arguments appear in multiple forms on the church website. . . maybe you should inform the church of your straw man theory?
So what you are saying is that your depiction above is not an exaggeration, misrepresentation, or distortion of the argument you are depicting? Either way I think we need less satire of each other’s positions and more recognition that this is a complicated issue and intelligent, believing people with good intentions can stand on both sides of the issue.
I’m not sure there is a sensible way to defend the notion that the priesthood = motherhood (it doesn’t, fatherhood = motherhood), or the notion that women are “nurturers” (and should therefore be second-class citizens in the authority structure of the church). . . And, of course, the argument that being valuable is the same as being equal (slaves were valuable, they were not equal. . .) is particularly indefensible, although it keeps showing up in conference talks. . . (There may be other arguments for sexism in the church that are more “sensible” but I didn’t address those. . . (at least not directly).
Thanks for the post. I have been a casual observer of various posts on this subject throughout the bloggernacle. I have read as much as I came across, which is not a small amount.
My first thoughts were that I am missing some experience in the church that everyone seems to be talking about. I grew up in a mormon family and was ordained a deacon at 12. Now in my 30’s I am a high priest. Never ever have I witnessed any degradation or suppression of a woman’s opinion in church settings simply because they don’t hold the priesthood. I have never witnessed or heard a woman express that they feel inequality due to feeling closed off from the priesthood. Maybe this is a problem for certain parts of the church but not all. I have always been taught to value and listen to a Sister’s opinion on all matters when it is given. Acting in any other way is contrary to what a priesthood holder is required to do. It really does not sit well with me to think that some priesthood holders are setting themselves up as better or higher or ‘in charge’.
For that reason, I am pleased to see this discussion from the basis that we can talk about giving all people the respect they are due and giving them their place as sons and daughters of God first and foremost, all with potential and unique skills; some gender specific and some not.
I also believe that there is a place for asking such questions in the church, and even a place for some form of activism in terms of presenting questions to the Brethren for consideration to seek revelation on. However, this kind of assumes that they have never thought of the questions by themselves or sought to address them. If God was to reveal that All worthy adults, men or women, can receive the priesthood I would be fine with that as I don’t think this diminishes anyone’s role or sense of purpose.
I do have one observation though, those who are pushing and lobbying for this change, or at the very least lobbying for the question to be asked by the Brethren, it doesn’t feel like they would be happy or accepting if Thomas S Monson stood up and said the Brethren had all spent a long time praying about it and received a revelation that women should not hold the priesthood.
If a revelation came of that nature stating no change will occur, would you accept it and sustain it? Or would you hold to your belief that this is wrong and that the Brethren are wrong?
Would you be prepared to leave the question alone? Would you be able to exercise faith in these leaders statements and decisions?
I for one don’t believe that collectively those who govern the church are sexist, misogynistic or against women in any way. I use that word ‘collectively’ because there will no doubt be some more old fashioned views on women’s role in life and church, but overall I don’t see it having any sway today. I also don’t believe they would not be prepared to ask such questions. However, I can see that some would not accept the answer when it came if it was contrary to their own feelings.
I think there is also the potential for this question to really derail and distort one’s ability to live a christ-centered life. This has the potential to become a real problem, for example, they won’t be able to worship and enjoy partaking the sacrament because it’s eating away at them that it’s not a YW passing it.
There will need to come a point where the question is put to bed. Will we all be willing to accept the decision when it comes, no matter what it is?
” It really does not sit well with me to think that some priesthood holders are setting themselves up as better or higher or ‘in charge’. ”
Priesthood holders are not setting themselves up as ‘higher’ or ‘in charge’–they actually are higher and in charge. That is how the hierarchy is set up. We can give our opinions all we want and the priesthood holders above us can listen (or not) and choose to act in a way that we would like, and have prayed about, with our organizations, that affect us personally (or not). We, as women, have no real say. We cannot go against their final decision without being accused of not supporting our leaders and that leader is always, ultimately, a man.
“Never ever have I witnessed any degradation or suppression of a woman’s opinion in church settings simply because they don’t hold the priesthood.”
This statement is like a white person saying that racism can’t be real simply because they haven’t noticed racism. Here are some subtle ways that women’s opinions are often less valued because they don’t hold the priesthood:
Female missionaries will have male missionaries in charge of them, but men will never have female missionaries in charge even though up until recently female missionaries were generally older and more mature – what message does that send to 19-year-old men about how they compare to 23-year-old women?
And how many men take notes through GC and then close their notebook as soon as a female speaker stands up? That’s common, and it shows no respect for female general authorities.
Or consider the fact that men in authority over women often instruct women on how to dress, without anything similar coming from the other side. Or how the only women to ever be in authority over men are primary presidents, and even then most primary teachers are women. We know that even being placed in roles of authority changes how individuals view one another from psychological experiments where subjects were assigned as prison guards over other subjects, so why wouldn’t being assigned a role of leadership over women change hoe men view women?
In fact, a lot of people in the church still teach that a man is the head of the household because he has the priesthood and that being head of the household means “breaking the tie” anytime husband and wife disagree – even though that defies current counsel from leaders and ensures that a man get his way in every decision.
And have you noticed how many congregations still set up sacrament meeting with youth speaker -> female speaker -> male speaker, as if they’re building up to seniority?
Maybe you have only known the best male members of the church – men who treat the words of female conference speakers as seriously as the words of their male counterparts, men who include women in every single leadership decision that affects both men and women, men who don’t discriminate in the order in which men and women speak in sacrament meeting. Men who readily accept counsel, direction, and leadership from women with the same respect and humility they show to a male leader – without putting the woman on a pedestal or handling her with kid gloves, but with the respect that her leadership merits. Maybe you have truly never encountered any of the problems above.
But it’s more likely you didn’t notice because your male privilege protects you from having your opinion dismissed or qualified simply because of your gender. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Willful ignorance is a different matter.
I am neither ignorant or willfully ignorant. I never said the problem doesn’t exist but in my experience, even asking female members of my family they have never experienced it. I guess this is now your cue to say my female family members are obviously brainwashed and suppresing their real feelings. Plus if you think that being a man/priesthood holder gets my opinion recognised you are wrong. I’ve counselled in various callings and the presiding authority has done something different from my suggestion. In many instances I was never asked.
It’s amazing how you can read my post above and only pick out what you disagree with.
Plus the real point of my post was that if you get the ear or the Brethren and they seek revelation and it’s opposed to the position you are expressing would you accept it?
This is not a question to criticise but to genuinely understand the position. I haven’t read anyone say they will accept what the Brethren say even with revelation being claimed.
It seems like you are so forcefully pushing for the priesthood that no other answer would be acceptable to you.
As I said I have no problem with priesthood being extended to anyone, a
The brethren sought revelation about the blacks receiving the priesthood for many, many years and did not get a clear answer until 1978. They said many times in conference that they could not see a time when black men would be allowed to have the priesthood. In the new scriptures the title to the section of the revelation allowing it says that there is no specific revelation that can be found in church history that blocked black men from having the priesthood.
It says many times in the temple that women will have the priesthood. When that will happen, I’m not sure, but it will happen. I expect the brethren to say that women cannot have the priesthood for…I don’t know how long (years, surely), but it will happen eventually. Will I accept the answer that they give? Yes, because it’s either that or leave the church. But if they say no, I will take it as not yet until they say yes.
LDS ruminations,
This is something that we hear a lot – “I haven’t experienced this so it must not happen, or at least only very rarely”. As a Mormon guy who understands your perspective and appreciates the tone and openness in which you asked the question let me try and give it a worthwhile response.
First, you must agree that your personal sample size is pretty small. If you have moved around a lot you have been in maybe 10 wards in your life. It is definitely statistically possible that you happened to fall on 10 wards in which there were no really egregious incidences (that you witnesssed) of women’s voices being suppressed within church governance. However, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a substantive problem. If your experience is one data point and it is worth extrapololating then it might be a good idea to ask about all those women out there who have examples of when it has happened to them! Those are data points as well and we should take them seriously. Then add in the data points of other men who have watched this happen. Is it true that your experience and others don’t provide enough data to measure the full distribution of the problem (ie is it rare or is it common)? I think that is fair. But we don’t know how common it is, isn’t a very satisfying response, especially when it is really easy to find stories of women whose input is dismissed and who are excluded from important decisions (that impact not only women but also men).
Second, I think you envision the inequality as only incompassing some egregious and intentioned act – bishop who tells a woman to shut up, or who asks women to leave the room or who constantly ignores women leaders requests when filling callings. While these are, of course, awful examples – which again exist – there is a more insidious and systematic way women’s voices are excluded. They simply are not there. For example, think of PEC. There is not a single woman officially on PEC. The RSP “may be invited” and there has been a very recent move to increase the prevelance of invitations to the RSP as well as an effort to push more decisions out to the ward council where there are a few women present. However, think carefully back on your church experience (if you have much visibility into PEC). Really how often was a woman present? 20% of the time? 30%? 50%? Now think for a moment. The YMP is a member of PEC. But wait the YWP is not? See the systematic exclusion? Now take this to the level of the high council, a church body that helps directly regulate the affairs of the stake. How often are women even in the room to provide their insight, be involved in the decision making process etc.? Yep, almost never! Now lets think about one of the most serious governance issues in the church – church discipline – disfellowship and excommunication. Not a single women participates in these deliberations except as someone who is under discipline or maybe a witness. Worse, women can be excommunicated by a bishop. Men (with the priesthood) can only be excommunicated by the high council. This is a HUGE gender inequality in how women’s voices and decisions excluded in the church. AND IT MATTERS. We have a long history for example of seeing women disciplined differentially than men. For example, well documented cases when a man and a woman commit a sin together. The women is exed and the man is not. We KNOW from hard science – done in experimental settings – that groups making such decisions are systematically influenced when the person being judged is of the same gender (they are more lenient). Mixed gender commitees tend to reduce this bias, single gender groups exacerbate it. Much of htis type of bias is subconscious and happens without particular intent. So its not like Mormon guys have to be evil to have this happen. They just have to be human. And they are!
Staying on the science kick for a moment. Here is good evidence from a BYU researcher that shows when women are in a minority within a counsel or group discussion they speak less and are payed less attention to. Basically, that IS ward council even when all the women are present! Again we have systematic churchwide supression of women’s voices just due to the structure of our councils! This doesn’t even include if there is active gender stereotyping and bias going on. I don’t know about you but my father and his generation (many of whom are bishops and stake presidents now) definitely hold active gender bias. For example, my father totally believes that women’s decision making is suspect due to their more emotional nature. The very fact that you, yourself, have “never seen” in 30 years of priesthood activity a single instance of women’s voices being disregarded or supressed is NOT because it hasn’t happened, but because you simply haven’t noticed. If you aren’t noticing it, how are you combatting it? Again, this doesn’t make you a bad guy. I am a trained PhD in sociology and therefore have a more honed radar for these types of dynamics and I still fall into gender bias traps! Just think how someone, well-intentioned as you are- who can’t even see it must sometimes fall into these traps.
All the good social science evidence shows that suppression of minority voices and viewpoints can be combatted with more equal representation and power of the genders within group settings. We know that decisions are better with more diverse groups, especially gender diverse groups and especially when decisions that direct impact women (whether workers, consumers or congregants) are involved. This is just a fact. This is why the structure of the church decision making is doomed to fail in providing not just equal voice for women but anything near equal outcomes for women no matter how “sensitive we are” and no matter how much we profess “equality of participation” as a value. A look throughout the history of the church show LEGION examples. Women excluded from praying in sacrament meeting for a decade, the design of the women’s garment, the church’s beyond spotty history in responding to spousal and sexual abuse and the list goes on. These are IMPORTANT outcomes that impact the real life of members. Is the church getting better on some fronts? Certainly, but we are FAR from being better than the evil, awful “world” when it comes to these things. In fact it is clear that we lag. (Utah has the highest incidence of rape of any state but one of the highest non-reported rape for example). There is NO way we can achieve our stated value of equality between the sexes without changing the structure of the church. It just cannot happen. There is no known example of where this has happened and the evidence directly from the church is that we are no exception.
Hope that helps. My encouragement to you is to look around your ward and within your stewardship and think actively about how you can more systematically include women’s voices AND give women more actual decision rights within their stewardship. Once you start looking for these I think you will find plenty of room for improvement, become more senstative to women’s needs and perspectives and feel like you are actively contributing to helping better build Zion.
Love in Christ,
rah
“I’ve counselled in various callings and the presiding authority has done something different from my suggestion. In many instances I was never asked.”
Was the presiding authority male? I suspect they were. There is no place in the church where a woman’s opinion could possibly override a man’s. Your opinions may not be asked or they may be disregarded, but the fact you can one day aspire to be the presiding authority who then gets to disregard or not ask the opinions of others is what marks a difference between you and women. A woman would never be in a position where she could disregard the opinion of a priesthood holder in a church capacity. She would never be in a position of leadership over a priesthood holder. And she couldn’t make decisions in leadership for the RS, YW, or Primary autonomously- even those must go through priesthood clearance and can always be overridden.
If the females in your family are mormon, then they HAVE experienced it- they just didn’t notice it. It is inherent in the organization. I’m not saying they are brainwashed or suppressed, but they’re accustomed to the status quo. I once was too.
I would accept revelation from the brethren saying woman can’t have the priesthood as “this is how it is…for now”. I would see that our church isn’t ready. But I wouldn’t give up hope that someday it could change. Unless I receive personal revelation to back off of the topic, I will continue to push for a social mindset shift. Thankfully our church leaves itself room for evolution. I will always hold out hope that the Lord will someday want to give the priesthood to the women, and someday we will be ready for it.
It is curious to me that you describe the church as “our church,” but your username links to a blog in which you describe leaving the church. Why act like you’re a believing member when you’re not? I can’t help but see that as an attempt to deceive.
It’s not an attempt to decieve- not a word of my comment is inactive. And yes, after 28 years in the church, with 2 parents, 4 siblings, and over 30 nieces and nephews still in it, I still have a vested interest. I would love to return to it someday. It was my culture and my tribe for all of my life, and it will take more than a few months of having doubts and not attending church to completely distance myself- I suspect it will never happen because I still care very deeply. It still REALLY matters to me, and I will do everything in my power to make it so the “feminists, intellectuals, and homosexuals” still in the church have a place there. I DO believe God guides the church, to an extent, but I also see it as a projection of those within it. It is an amazing tool for good and I absolutely hope God and the mortal leaders of the church will lead it in an evolution to be better and better, to work for more people.
I’ll admit, I don’t advertise myself as “apostate” because I know the assumptions people will automatically make, and I know they’re wrong. My path doesn’t fit into a nice clean label of “inactive” or “unbelieving”- there is so much more to it than that. I also don’t hide my backstory- if anyone wants to know my mind my link to my blog is right there. If I wanted to hide it, I would. But I also don’t bring it up if it doesn’t seem relevant or would distract from the discussion.
Mormonism is still my church- I did my time, I paid my dues, I invested in it emotionally enough to claim that right. It’s permanently in my blood. If the church could accept me, doubts and all, I’d still happily attend and be a bigger part, but it’s been made clear to me: sinners may be welcomed, they can be reformed; but doubters have no place. That doesn’t mean they don’t care though.
This is such a great comment: ” I DO believe God guides the church, to an extent, but I also see it as a projection of those within it. It is an amazing tool for good and I absolutely hope God and the mortal leaders of the church will lead it in an evolution to be better and better, to work for more people.”
I didn’t ask to be Mormon, I was raised that way. Being Mormon is a lot more than just religious beliefs–is comes close to being an ethnicity (with ties to family, friends, life events, etc.). For a lot of people, “leaving” Mormonism is kind of like trying to leave a spouse by getting a divorce (which doesn’t work, by the way, if children are involved, because you end up having to have a relationship with your ex–a different kind of relationship, but a relationship nonetheless). It’s interesting to me that the church tried to trademark the word “Mormon” and the application was rejected by the Patent and Trademark Office in the U.S. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Reserve). The church doesn’t get to decide who is Mormon or not (because, in a literal and legal sense, they don’t control the term). As for trying to “change” the church, it’s just a matter of standing up for principles that I believe in.
Jenn, thanks for your thoughtful response.
It makes me sad that you believe “it’s been made clear to you that doubters have no place.” If that has been made clear to you, then it’s been by imperfect people, not by the Spirit. As a currently serving bishop, I can tell you that if you were in my ward I’d rather have you coming than not coming. I suppose if you were the type to raise your hand six times in Gospel Doctrine every week with an irascible comment about pants in church or gay marriage, then that would get old and maybe we’d talk about that. But I’d want you there!
I think most church members have things they just don’t get. I have lots. I also have a law degree, which of course trains my mind to tease things out and wonder and dismiss illogical arguments. There’s plenty I can’t explain. Women and priesthood, sure, it falls under that category. But I have an undeniable witness that this is God’s church. And I know a big part of being here on earth is to gain faith. So I have faith and I trek onward, hopefully upward too.
I think of all my ward members and the things they struggle with. Maybe you struggle with doubts and you think that means you don’t belong. Well there are guys in my ward who struggle with pornography and they think that makes them not belong. There is an international couple in my ward that struggles with marriage issues, and she thinks that makes her not belong. There is a single mom who struggles with money, needs and has received a lot of welfare help, but just won’t follow my instructions on basic budgeting stuff, and she thinks that makes her not belong. I could go on and on. I think Satan wants us apart, atomized, self-absorbed so he can bring his superior intellectual firepower to bear on us while we’re unsupported by others or the Spirit. That’s why he tries so hard to make us think we don’t belong at church.
In my experience, I resolve my doubts not by thinking about them, writing about them, and looking for intellectual answers-although these pursuits have value. I resolve my doubts about God and the church by trying to keep the commandments, and especially by serving people. Doing my home teaching, reaching out to youth who are having a hard time, cleaning an old lady’s yard, mourning with a family who just lost their grandpa. Basic, basic stuff. But the basic stuff is what will bring us back to Christ, together.
One of the blessings of being a bishop is that you get to see the effects of the gospel from 40,000 feet. Those who carry out the basic commandments become happier. Their problems don’t disappear, but those people become better able to face them, their family relationships improve, their countenances literally brighten. Those who focus inward and cannot abide simple counsel don’t progress in that way. I have an unshakable testimony that one can get on the road to happiness by simple things–reading the Book of Mormon daily, praying daily, going to church weekly, and paying tithing. For those who commit to do these things with an honest heart, everything else eventually takes care of itself.
Elder Holland’s recent talk from conference seems right on point. Just come back and rely on what you do know! Stick to the basics and see if it doesn’t make you happier.
I can appreciate the focus on serving people, and for many members this works (this is one of the things that makes the church “real”: https://dovesandserpents.org/2013/03/48-mcs-whats-real-deconstructing-john-dehlin-my-thoughts-on-religion-part-i/).
On the other hand, it’s important to recognize that the church creates many of the problems that it claims to solve (i.e. by convincing youth that masturbation will send them to hell, it creates the guilt–and fear–that drives them into the bishop’s office, etc.). It has done some serious damage to LGBT folks (shock therapy at BYU, for example) and continues to do so in many ways (by refusing to acknowledge that gay people exist, for example, by referring to them as “individuals that struggle with same sex attraction”). Sexism continues to take its toll in all sorts of ways, and so on. The church is able to deliver spiritual experiences to many indivduals inside a fairly insular (and homogenous) community of those that are willing to believe the same thing, think largely the same way about the world, etc. For folks that have never been married, are divorced, don’t buy into the culture, don’t see the world in the same way, etc., it’s a much more difficult fit.
Hollands talk, while a step in the right direction (in some respects), has it’s problems: https://dovesandserpents.org/2013/04/on-hollands-epistemology/.
Unfortunately, this comment almost completely ignores my points, choosing instead just to list concerns about church doctrines and practices. I would suggest that completely misses the point. Do the simple things and reach out to others, and the Spirit helps resolve our concerns. I consider myself reasonably smart and have been exposed to lots of discussions like these, but I’ve learned much more from the quiet whisperings of the Spirit than I have from all the brilliant blog posts I’ve ever read.
As for the church being a “difficult fit” for the unmarried, divorced, or those who “don’t buy into the culture,” well, that just isn’t the church I know. I understand that some people FEEL like they don’t belong with those “insular and homogeneous” Mormons. But that’s an incorrect feeling that Satan uses to drive us apart. Again, he wants us alone, frustrated, trying to work out these hard problems with our own limited intellectual powers. And ideally, he can convince a person of faith to stay away from the church that Jesus created, stop reading the scriptures Jesus prepared for us, stop serving in the ways that Jesus taught–all because there are difficult-to-understand doctrines, or members who seem closed-minded, or painful experiences caused by imperfect people. And then that person’s faith is in serious jeopardy indeed.
“If that has been made clear to you, then it’s been by imperfect people, not by the Spirit.” That, I definitely agree with! God and I are on great terms.
In truth, Brad’s three comments on this thread are perfect examples of what makes me feel like attending a Mormon Church is not right for me right now.
-Things like “Why act like you’re a believing member when you’re not? I can’t help but see that as an attempt to deceive” just shows that I’ve been flagged as “unbelieving”, and that means distrust and assumptions about bad motives. The church has an “us and them” mentality, and I can’t be a part of “us” so long as I’m one of “them”.
-Your list of things that make people feel unwelcome at church- all were from mistakes people have made. This idea runs deep in the members of the church : disbelief is like a sin, like pornography addiction. It only happens when you make mistakes. If I had followed the rules better, I would have a testimony. Doubts or unorthodox beliefs are something to repent of. In Mormonism, belief is as important as actions- sometimes, moreso.
I can’t control my belief- like everyone else, I am at the whim of the evidence (including spiritual evidence like prayers and spiritual promptings) that I’ve been given. I can control my actions, but that will never be enough for true believers, until I can will myself to conform my beliefs, even if that means moving from a belief system that works well for me to one that doesn’t yield as positive of results.
-The many subtle implications about the things I must not have done right, in order to not have the same truth as you. I didn’t serve enough, I was too self-absorbed, I didn’t pray hard enough, I didn’t have the right sincere intent. If I had “committed with an honest heart, everything would take care of itself”- which could only mean I’d have a testimony of Mormonism (since “everything would take care of itself” could never mean I found a truth aside from the correlated gospel of mormonism).
-The many subtle implications that because I don’t believe in the eternal exclusive truth of Mormonism, I am missing out on happiness. The things that make me feel the least welcome in mormonism are the assumptions about my happiness or my relationship with God. This God likes me not just for my potential but for who I currently am. Though he drives me to improve, He likes where I am. I feel that daily. I spend more time daily communing with my vague undefined God than I ever did when I thought I knew exactly who he was and what he wanted for me. I have been happier- and I mean, deep, self-loving, productive happiness- since my faith crisis than I had in the last decade of full mormon belief. My marriage is stronger. I have less concerns about my children’s future. I find more joy in giving. I am more driven to be compassionate and Christlike now than all the sunday school/RS attendance of my youth was able to accomplish. The fact that I am feeling that outside of Mormonism makes me less welcome within it. It threatens the “universal and exclusive” nature of the Gospel.
Now, please don’t think I’m saying my truth is better than yours. I’m only saying my current truth works better for me than my former truth worked for me. If mormonism has yielded different results for you, then good! I can support that. My worldview allows for individuals having differing paths without one invalidating the other.
As I said earlier, I believe Mormonism is a wonderful tool for good. For those it works for, it can work SO well. It IS the true church for, say, my brother. Or perhaps for you. If it is serving its purpose of making families, of teaching service, of making people examine goals and actions and consequences… then wonderful! But it stopped working as a tool for me the moment I started seeing it as just A mechanism of finding truth and happiness, rather than THE single source of truth and happiness. And there are many for whom the tool/mechanism doesn’t work- and I’m ok with that, and would be happy to support them in finding a tool that does. But if it is working, or has potential to work, for those still within it who are struggling, then I want to support them! If my voice can make it so people can stay within their current faith and not go through a faith crisis like I have, then hallelujah! Show me where I can help.
Because while internally, I’m in a much more peaceful place now, externally, I have had to leave the community of my youth, I’ve broken my mother’s heart, I’m having to learn at the age of 28 how to live in an unmormon world, I have to deal with every person I used to love and respect now making assumptions and judgments about my faith and my path. I don’t want that for everyone- I would love to see Mormonism work and embrace those for whom it is still a good tool to find happiness and peace. Ideally someone could live a life of peace and integrity WITHOUT estranging half the people they love. :/
As for Elder Holland’s talk- part of me loved it, because I know it spoke to many people and I hope it helps them. I felt a sincere love from him and a desire to heal a lot of hurting hearts. But part of me hears it and thinks “I’m pretty sure I’m the intended audience and yet it doesn’t feel like he’s talking to me or my experiences at all”. It just confirmed that those who fully believe that Mormonism is the One Truth will never be able to understand where I am or how I got here, that false assumptions about paths like mine are too deeply ingrained in Mormonism.
If I have wish for one take-away from my long rant here, it’s this: never make assumptions about those whose path is different from yours. If you want to welcome people, welcome them for who they are, not who they might someday be if they could just be more like you.
Gosh, Jen, you are assuming a lot about what I think about you and about what other Mormons think of you. I promise you are mistaken about much of that. I don’t know you, of course, and quick comments on a blog aren’t exactly a window into anyone’s soul. But have you considered that maybe people aren’t “flagging” you and looking down on you nearly as much as you think? Or have you considered ignoring people if they do look down on you without justification? Some of my ward members look down on me. Okay, that’s their right. Doesn’t change my relationship to Heavenly Father or what He’s taught me.
You wrote: “[W]hile internally, I’m in a much more peaceful place now, externally, I have had to leave the community of my youth, I’ve broken my mother’s heart, I’m having to learn at the age of 28 how to live in an unmormon world, I have to deal with every person I used to love and respect now making assumptions and judgments about my faith and my path. I don’t want that for everyone- I would love to see Mormonism work and embrace those for whom it is still a good tool to find happiness and peace. Ideally someone could live a life of peace and integrity WITHOUT estranging half the people they love.” Let’s pursue this in a thought experiment. Let’s say that I decided to abandon my wife and kids, and move to Australia, live in a commune to find sexual fulfillment, or become a better rock-climber, or whatever. Or let’s say that I just wanted to go stare at the sun 24-7, with all the attendant hurt that would cause to me and those who love me. Then let’s say I used your paragraph above to explain my actions, stating that “internally, I’m in a much more peaceful place now.” How would you respond? Would you feel like you had any authority to point out to me that my decision was likely to lead to unhappiness? What if I told you that I knew that deep down inside you were “flagging” me as a person who’d made a lousy decision–thus proving that you’re intolerant? (I’m trying not to offend here, just following your rationale to its logical conclusion.) What would you say to me?
Brad, I did make some assumptions, it’s true. It’s based on real experience. Some was based on your own words- after all, this thread started because you assumed I had an intent to deceive. Your words, not mine. And, in your defense of yourself and trying to say my assumptions are wrong, you went ahead and solidified them further: likening my path with abandoning my family and joining a sex commune. You aren’t really strengthening your case that my assumptions are incorrect- you actually proved them further. You think you are welcoming, but your words are as full of judgment and misunderstanding as any who make doubters feel unwelcome.
I know that many mormons don’t look down on me. Brent, for instance, and any other number of people on this blog and others who accept that I believe differently from them but that the path I’m on doesn’t mean my thoughts are invalid. There are full believing members who don’t approve of my choices, and while I can’t say I’m happy about that, so long as they don’t start making assumptions or putting me into a clearly labeled “apostate” box, their opinions are still valuable tome.
As far as assumptions I made about you, I’m sorry if they were wrong but I have yet to see any evidence they are- your words made it clear in your first comment to me and continued to make it clear in your responses. You say you’re not trying to offend me, but you are “just following my rationale to its logical conclusion.” If you think your argument demonstrates either my rationale or the logical conclusion, then my assumptions are correct: you just don’t get it.
As for the “external” problems I’ve had since leaving the church, I listed: leaving behind a community (because I’m not welcome in it), my mother choosing to believe that my path will only lead to unhappiness, and others judging and making hurtful (untrue) assumptions about me. These are all things out of my control.
You, however, equated these problems with abandoning my family for selfish reasons (a sex commune, seriously?!). Can you see why I don’t view you as having much “authority to point out to me that my decision was likely to lead to unhappiness”, when you obviously can’t wrap your head around what my decisions and options even are?
I may not agree with my mother about my path, but she has shown an effort to understand me, and that makes her opinion and authority count for much more. It took a little time but we got around many of the assumptions she had about “apostates”. I still can’t get around one of her assumptions, that this path can only lead to unhappiness. She’ll go on being sad about that, and I can’t control that. I hate that it has hurt her. But she’d also be unhappy if I continued going to church if I didn’t believe. The reason she is unhappy isn’t because I’ve let her down or because of any of my actions, it’s because our gospel has so firmly ingrained in her that you can’t be an unbeliever and be lastingly happy. She is waiting for the other boot to drop. I don’t know at what point she’ll stop waiting, and just believe that I’m being authentic when I say “so far this is working better for us”.
There is no option I can choose that will change the external turmoil I’ve gone through because of my change of beliefs: there is no winning. Nor should ANYONE make their decisions based off of a desire to please people or conform for the sake of conforming.
If a good friend were to make some colossally bad choice, like ditching your family for a sex commune (if we really want to go down the path of this awful incongruent analogy) rather than saying “you made a bad choice” and trying to “save” you by assuming I knew what you were going through, I’d realize that you must have been through something out of my experience. I’d ask you why, and bring up my concerns. I’d figure you knew more about the situation than I did. I’d also have to recognize that something in you must have been very unhappy in your prior situation for you to make a choice like that, and I’d try to fix those issues before dragging you back to your former life and telling you to just try harder to be happy and stay put.
Jenn:
Obviously I insulted you. I didn’t intend to do that, and I apologize if I was inartful in my comment. Contrary to your statement, I absolutely did not equate your behavior with going to a sex commune. The point I was trying to learn was whether you would apply judgment to any choice made by another person. My assumption was that you would agree that going to a sex commune or staring at the sun for the rest of your life was a bad idea, and then we could perhaps find some common ground on how to communicate effectively and kindly with someone when we believe that person has made a bad choice. I think more effective, kind communication would be valuable, and I get the feeling that the LDS Church is striving for that. I am.
As I read your comments, it seems to me that what really galls you is that a bunch of Mormons think you’re an “apostate.” Leaving aside for a minute whether the term is kind, or diplomatic, I really don’t understand why that bothers you so much. Okay, so mainstream Mormons generally believe in a bunch of doctrines that you don’t believe in anymore. That means they disagree with you. Maybe they think you’ll suffer eternal consequences. Some might even say that you’re an apostate. But you do the same thing. You believe in a bunch of doctrines (homosexual marriage, priesthood for females, and what have you) that mainstream Mormons don’t believe in. You disagree with them. You think they’re wrong, but instead of calling them “apostates,” you call them “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” and so forth. So why would be so upset with them when you’re doing the same thing? And at a more elemental level, are you upset with everyone who thinks you’re wrong about anything? What about the billions of people who would categorize you as an infidel? I’m just puzzled by how upsetting it is for you to think that somewhere a Mormon is has judged you mistaken because you left the church. That’s particularly the case because I kind of assumed that this blog was a place to exchange ideas, ideas that differ from person to person. Of course we will sometimes think one another wrong (or “apostate” or “racist” or “sexist” or “misogynist” or, as Brent put it, “a-holes”). But that’s why we discuss these things together, to exchange ideas and experiences and hopefully help each other. When someone thinks I’m wrong I’m interested in why. That’s why I’m here, reading the opinions of people who don’t agree with me.
I really do appreciate your answer to my question, even though I know you found it “awful” and “incongruent.” You wrote:
If a good friend were to make some colossally bad choice, rather than saying “you made a bad choice” and trying to “save” you by assuming I knew what you were going through, I’d realize that you must have been through something out of my experience. I’d ask you why, and bring up my concerns. I’d figure you knew more about the situation than I did. I’d also have to recognize that something in you must have been very unhappy in your prior situation for you to make a choice like that, and I’d try to fix those issues before dragging you back to your former life and telling you to just try harder to be happy and stay put.
Here’s what I glean from your statement:
1. It appears you don’t like being told you made a bad choice, and you wouldn’t even say that to a friend who made a colossally bad choice. Okay, but lots of people don’t agree with that and I hope you can see why.
2. You really don’t like people “assuming they know what you are going through.” Okay, but is that really such a horrible mistake, on the spectrum of bad human behavior? And don’t you do that to others in your writing?
3. You’d ask your mistaken friend about their experience and perspective and “bring up your concerns.” It sounds like if they were you they might be offended by that.
4. Then you’d try to “fix your friend’s issues,” but without “dragging them back” to their family. I have to think if your friend was as sensitive about criticism as you are, then they’d be pretty angry if you did that.
I guess we all have to decide what we’re going to judge in others. You judge Mormons for being judgmental, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. They judge you for being an apostate, bad-choice-maker, or whatever. My hope is that we all try to understand each other a little better and be a little more Christlike.
Conversation is a good thing.
I think it’s interesting that you seem to be looking for some backstop or justification for judgment. I think there’s a difference between sharing pesonal experiences, offering advice when it’s appreciated, etc. and moralizing about others’ beliefs. . . and I think there are some asymmetries that you aren’t considering (or don’t want to consider). . . For example, I defend gay rights because I see a group of people that are being marginalized and harmed. . . I don’t care what members personally believe (and I don’t and won’t attack them for those beliefs) BUT I will challenge the right of anyone (church members included) to do harm to other people based on their beliefs. For me, that’s the essence of personal liberty. We are free up to the point where our beliefs begin to restrict the freedom of others (or harm others)–e.g. my rights stop where your nose begins (that sort of thing). Personally, it is amazing to me that ANY church member honestly believes that they’re doing the right thing when they try to impose their beliefs on others in harmful ways. . . (nobody has that right, not in a functioning democracy that is committed to religious freedom, afterall, if I can use my religious beliefs to prevent someone else from marrying today, then why can’t they use their religious beliefs to keep me from marrying tomorrow–and as Mormons that’s something we should understand pretty well, given our history). So, in my mind, it’s not just reciprocal name-calling. I’ll defend the beliefs of Mormons (and any religious group, really), but I won’t defend attempts by one group to impose their beliefs on others. That’s what it comes down to.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. One of the problems with online communication is things can come off as more heated than they meant to. Sorry if I sounded upset. I’m not. I am a tad frustrated, and it’s not entirely your fault, since this is just the straw that broke the camel’s back (earlier this week I got pretty much the exact same accusation on the FMH blog- that I was dishonest to not say I was apostate, even though the blog post and my comment were not about the church directly in any way and my comment was only supporting the post written by a TBM. Yet because I didn’t warn people about my “apostate intentions”, I was “dishonest”. It’s a recurring very frustrating theme.)
I am bothered by being thought of as apostate not because people are recognizing that I lost my faith (Which is true), or even because people don’t agree with me (that’s also true)- that, I can deal with. No, I find the “apostate” label unappealing because I know too well the assumptions that go with it. I feel like a walking strawman, a caricature of all their misconceptions about what makes someone lose their faith. For instance, you said “You judge Mormons for being judgmental, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.”… See? Another assumption. Another FALSE assumption. I still LOVE mormons, I LOVE mormonism, I defend the church and it’s people much more than I criticize it. I don’t think I know a single real-life mormon I would call racist or sexist, and I admire the way the church and most of the members are trying to love and understand homosexuals. I honestly see so much progress and I hold out a lot of hope for the future. Again, this is one reason I hang around the bloggernacle. I see good people, good hearts, and good goals here. And it’s generally productive if I can get around certain individuals throwing their misconceptions at me all the time.
It doesn’t bother me that people judge me or disagree with me, it bothers me that they so completely don’t understand me, that they don’t even know what they are judging or disagreeing with. Disagree with me all you want, just don’t assume you know me. Express concerns, that’s fine, but it won’t count for anything unless you show any effort to try to get to know me, where I am, how I got here, where I am going. Know me first, THEN judge me based on facts, not assumptions.The second I feel like a strawman, my hackles raise- I’ll admit, I’m sensitive about it, because it happens ALL THE TIME. If you want to judge me for being overly sensitive and perhaps a bit snarky- heck, I’ll take it. Based off of just this thread I can understand that perception. But thus far your judgments of me seem to be based on things that you don’t know, that you CAN’T know, because you haven’t even tried. You aren’t judging me, you’re judging a misperception of me.
I have not been offended by people expressing concerns- as a matter of fact, when I came out publicly as “retiring” from mormonism, quite a few friends posted their concerns (often not in the gentlest language- but I understand why people feel so passionately) and I reached out and thanked them individually and told them I hope they never feel they can’t talk to me; I value their opinion, appreciate their concern, and I recognize I will need all the support and help I can get to stay grounded on this new foreign path I am. So long as they actually bother to learn where I am coming from, their insight is valuable to me.
You said:
4. Then you’d try to “fix your friend’s issues,” but without “dragging them back” to their family. I have to think if your friend was as sensitive about criticism as you are, then they’d be pretty angry if you did that.
If I went about it the way you- or many of the members of the church focusing on “reactivation”- did, this fictional friend might be offended, and they might be right to be. And in truth, any attempts I made to “fix it” by matching it to MY ideal would probably be counterproductive.
By “fix my friends issues” I don’t mean “make it the way I want it”. I mean, figure out why it was hurting him, figure out what might need changing, remove some of the pain points, show him it has improved since he left, give him a reason to return. None of this could happen if I hadn’t bothered to first try to understand him. Which is why this line of yours stood out:
“That’s particularly the case because I kind of assumed that this blog was a place to exchange ideas, ideas that differ from person to person.”
If your intention was to understand me or exchange ideas, there are much easier ways than declaring how I’m wrong before even knowing what I might be wrong about. You disagreed with “my idea” (of not being a faithful mormon) without me even bringing it up. It’s not like I stated my thesis then had to defend it in a reasonable debate; rather I’ve been trying to either defend or disassociate from a thesis you seem to have invented for me, one that doesn’t seem to apply.
Brad said: “In my experience, I resolve my doubts not by thinking about them, writing about them, and looking for intellectual answers-although these pursuits have value. I resolve my doubts about God and the church by trying to keep the commandments, and especially by serving people. Doing my home teaching, reaching out to youth who are having a hard time, cleaning an old lady’s yard, mourning with a family who just lost their grandpa. Basic, basic stuff. But the basic stuff is what will bring us back to Christ, together.”
Doing the basic stuff (service, reading scriptures, prayer…) can be done from our church or another church or from home and still feels great and would give me a testimony of our Heavenly Father and brings the spirit of the Lord into my life. Ignoring the issues that are in the church does nothing to resolve them, and people seem to be looking more and more at them and choosing another way (current and prospective members). By having more discussions and blog posts about them, maybe someone that can do something about them will notice. Maybe then they will work to get them changed to create a more accepting, inclusive, loving church.
LDSruminations,
Couple quotes from you:
“Never ever have I witnessed any degradation or suppression of a woman’s opinion in church settings simply because they don’t hold the priesthood.”
and,
“I am neither ignorant or willfully ignorant.”
The first statement, of course, belies the latter. However difficult this may be for you to hear, yes, you are ignorant on this topic, and probably willfully so. . .
Two examples:
https://dovesandserpents.org/2012/02/20-mcs-half-a-church/
and read the comments, particularly this last one:
“It really does hurt, knowing that you are kept out of certain aspects of your own religion simply because of your sex.
I had an experience at BYU that exemplified this for me. It was small, but painful for me. One Sunday, I was up by the stand to talk to the Bishop about something. As I stood there I noticed the young man (my age) arranging the sacrament table was having difficulty straightening the cloth, so I reached over and smoothed the corner on my side. He stopped and looked at me and told me that I couldn’t help. As if my very touching of the Sacrament table cloth might contaminate it. I suddenly felt so unworthy and shameful, simply because I am a woman. This boy wasn’t mean. But he was very clear that I, as a woman, had no place in any part of that Sacrament ritual or preparation. That it would be wrong for me to be. He seemed frightened that the very fact of my touching that cloth might have destroyed the sanctity of the Sacrament. It was sickening. And even thinking back, after several years have passed, it makes me both furious and terribly sad.
I know there are many people in the Church who do not feel as I do. They are not hurt by the divisions and the differences. But for me, it is extremely painful to be told I am an equally valued member of the human family, a daughter of a Divine Being, but then, in practice, to be segregated and separated and excluded. For no reason but because I am a woman instead of a man. It is incomprehensible to me. And very hurtful.”
Next time the sacament is being passed, look at who is passing it, and then look around and find the young women of the same age. . . and then tell me, how “equal” things are. . .
And the idea that women would ask men to go to God on their behalf is ridiculous (and illustrates the problem). I would hope that women would trust their own spiritual instincts, their own sense of spirituality, their own relationship with deity, and if what a bunch of men (however well-meaning they may be) tells them something that runs counter to what they know to be true about equality and fairness, then they need to have enough faith in themselves and in their ability to sense the divine to conclude that the men are wrong. . . it’s really that simple. The kind of God I believe wouldn’t want them to do anything less (and would be disappointed if they did).
I second everything rah wrote in the last post!
I also think Rah’s post in response to mine is the best and most helpful.
As I have said in each of my posts I’m all for priesthood ordination for women and especially their inclusion in all decision making processes.
I also don’t think so highly of my own opinion to exclude the idea I could be wrong.
Thank you Brent for this fun and poignant approach and for the many comments here. I have questioned the status quo for genders for over a decade and felt for a time that I needed to leave it be. There was a comment above suggesting that seeking to shift the culture could be equated to murmuring and not sustaining church leaders-that coming up with ideas for how to more fully involve women in the work of administering Christ’s church implied that we are being prideful and demeaning the intelligence of those in positions within the church in which they could have stewardship, inspiration and influence over some of these practices. I think it is important that constantly check our attitudes for pride (i.e. my ideas, beliefs, experiences are more important/valid/better than yours) and I am impressed over all by the comments here.
I have also been ruminating quite a bit lately over the implications of the church being led primarily by lay people. We are all flawed. We all bring our culture and understanding to our roles in the church. And many of us do know question practices because “that’s how it’s always been” and we assume that it is doctrinally sound and based upon revelation. There was the conference talk several years about how a family cut the ends off the ham “because that’s what my mother did” going several generations, unquestioningly. Finally they tracked it down–great grandma’s pan was too small.
I feel that there are many, many practices that we assume to be the “way things are supposed to be” (divinely appointed) rather than just “the way things are.” When those in positions to question or alter practices are all male, naturally practices which reduce the opportunities, “status,” and influence of women within the church are far less likely to be reconsidered or altered. That for me is why we need to have these conversations (sans pride).
Small example: I was recently agitated about how the “women’s sessions” of General Conference are handled in the church’s publications. They always at the back of the conference edition of the Ensign though they happen first and every other talk is placed in chronological order. Then on the “Gospel Library” app, they aren’t included at all. Is this doctrinal? Is this how God wants it to be” Absolutely not. It’s probably tradition from earlier times when women were given the “back of the bus” more often for the Ensign. For the app, perhaps an oversight of the software engineer (who I will assume is male). So, my options are: A. be mad and get offended B. tell myself that there must be a good reason for it C. contact the necessary folks to point out the issue (where at least with the app, I suspect they will correct the issue).
I told myself at first that its not that big a deal and I shouldn’t get too worked up. But then the impression came to me of Emma Smith. As a wife in those days, and wife of the prophet in particular, she may have talked herself out of bringing up all sorts of topics. However, she did point out the mess of the male leadership that she was having to clean up and now we have the Word of Wisdom. She didn’t submit and scrub over and over. Her husband, who I believe was a very inspired man, might never have noticed without her input. Likewise, the RS might never have come about had the women not formed their own (non-Church sanctioned) group first and then Joseph offered them to be officially organized within the church. As a new young women’s president (and there I was thinking that my feminist views would keep me from getting to be with those impressionable teenagers) I now feel more responsibility to respectfully respond to these small issues as they come up.
I agree with many of the comments above that we ought to be “anxiously engaged” to create the change we want to see happen. And then, if we as a people are sufficiently ready and it is within the will of the Lord, it will happen. I certainly do not think that the Lord would reveal any major changes in women’s status or traditional practices to leaders without some preparation–from the concerned faithful or from their own experiences. We must become respectfully engaged if we hope to see change happen.
A predominant attribute in the lives of our pioneer ancestors is the faith of the brothers. Men by divine nature have the greater gift and responsibility for building homes and physical labor there and in other settings. In light of this, the faith of the brothers in being willing to leave their homes to cross the plains for the unknown was inspiring. If one had to characterize their most significant attribute, it would be their unwavering faith in the restored gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The heroic accounts of what these pioneer men sacrificed and accomplished as they crossed the plains is a priceless legacy to the Church. …Our men are not incredible because they have managed to avoid the difficulties of life-quite the opposite. They are incredible because of the way they face the trials of life.
During the last three years, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have sought guidance, inspiration, and revelation as we have counseled with priesthood and auxiliary leaders and worked on the new Church handbooks. In this process I have experienced feelings of overwhelming appreciation for the essential role that brothers, both married and single, have historically played and now play both in the family and in the Church.
Specifically, it is intended in the new handbooks that bishops, sensitive to existing demands, will delegate more responsibilities. Members need to recognize that the bishop has been instructed to delegate. Members need to sustain and support her as she follows this counsel. This will allow the bishop to spend more time with the youth, young single adults, and her own family. She will delegate other important responsibilities to priesthood leaders, presidents of auxiliaries, and individual women and men. In the Church the role of men is highly respected. When the father receives a Church calling that requires significant time, the mother will often be given a less-demanding calling in order to maintain balance in the lives of the family.
Love this. Thanks, Brent!
This argument is ridiculous. First of all, it is all “Theoretical” and is full of illogical thinking. God is male and is not a female. Christ is a male. Switching roles to form this “reverse psychology” argument is as ridiculous as it would be to switch the roles of the Savior being female. Christ is male, was intended to be male from the beginning and it would be ridiculous to switch otherwise to a female Savior. Again, women who fight for priesthood power are looking for just that, POWER! They want control and it is even evident by the viewpoint of this site stating “women are in charge”, etc. Women don’t want to accept their role. Men could equally do a similar argument and start ridiculing women for being able to have a baby in the womb or wear lipstick/lip gloss. Would it be valid for a man to argue that as such? NO! So I have some counsel for all women. Accept that the Savior made the decision. It wasn’t just us men, it was the Savior (and yes he is a man). To defy the Savior’s decision is to reject him. Do you really want to go down the road of rejecting the Savior’s decision. Do you want to claim it wasn’t the Savior’s decision? If so, then you are calling prophets liars. You then are officially in Apostasy if you take that stance. So, be careful what you are doing when you oppose the Savior’s decision to only give men the offices in the Priesthood.
Your arguments are faulty and illogical. The role of God is male and female. Our Heavenly Father could not and would not be God nor have Godly power without his female companion. Priesthood is not complete without the counter part of Priestesshood. They are essentially both the same power defined by the gender of the person exercising it. Yes, our roles as male and female are different. That does not preclude women from formally exercising God’s power. Bearing children is a biological function, wearing lipstick is a cultural gender role. The priesthood is neither and we know from the temple that women are not excluded from the priesthood. Currently our church does not have women act in that role. That does not mean that it is impossible or not meant to be.
Justin, how do you know that priesthood was intended to be male only from the beginning? At one point priesthood was only Levites and descendants of Aaron. Then it was only males who were not of African descent. To say that it could not be extended to women, that Jesus has made the decision, and that it is final, denies that power of continuing revelation and prophecy that I assume you believe in. Prior to 1978 there were equally authoritative and specific statements from the brethren that the children of Cain would never hold the priesthood in this life. But that turned out, for whatever reason, to be wrong. I think you should be more humble about what is possible given the history of change and given your belief in a living prophet. If the canon is closed and all the decisions have been made then the function of prophet is purely that of a figurehead and and administrator. Is this what you believe?
As for the power argument, do you apply that equally to a twelve year old boy who wants the Aaronic Priesthood, or an 18 year male or older convert male who want Melchizedek priesthood? Are they power hungry or do they wish to serve?
I think you are suffering from a lot of overconfidence that the status quo theologically in Mormonism is an eternal status quo. There is plenty of reason for a faithful believer to at very least have more humility about this. There is certainly no reason to contentiously ascribe evil motives to your sisters. That is not an example of the behavior I would expect the influence of the Holy Ghost to produce. You would do well to listen to the recent interview of Kate Kelly at mormonexpositor.com . I think with better information you stance, as well as your heart, may soften.
Justin, God is actually both male and female in Mormon theology. The Celestial kingdom can only be inherited by sealed eternal companionships consisting of both male and female.
Justin, dude, I think it’s pretty clear that Jesus gave the priesthood exclusively to Jewish men, so unless you’re a Jew, I think you’ve got some explaining to do. . . anyway, we were making fun of your comment on another site and I think we’ve got it figured out:
Q: “Wait, why would it be ridiculous to have a female Savior?”
A: “Because he’s not a woman, how can you not understand this basic fact that because I have a penis, I must therefore project my penis upon my god-figure? It’s like little-man syndrome writ large – instead of having a big truck or a big boat, this dude has to have a big, bad, penis-swinging god.”
With respect, I think the coarseness of this comment really does not help your case, and might in fact give insight to the problematic lack of spirituality underlying your views on this matter. I am discomfited to read language like this in a discussion of the power delegated by our Savior.
Brent,
Perhaps the comments to this post suggest a topic for a forthcoming MCS discussion: what it is about LDS worldviews (does this arise in other religions as well?) that specifically promotes the conscious disempowerment/abdication of the individual’s own conscience, moral perspective, and responsibility for deciding how to effect changes in society. Because, of course, any expression of opinion — including *every comment on this thread* — can be condemned as “ark-steadying” of one sort or another. The meme “If God sees something awry, God can correct it, so your efforts are ark-steadying” applies equally well to assignment of priesthood duties and responsibilities and to anonymous web postings. If God doesn’t like your OP, God can comment or afflict you with boils or plagues of frogs or appear to you. Look at Saul on the road to Damascus.
I suspect — but haven’t yet sussed out exactly what — that there’s something structural in the way the LDS Church builds its authority hierarchy that causes people to think that they’d be wrong if they said something that appears wrong and feels wrong actually needed to be fixed.
I believe that if you thought about it quietly for a while, you might come to the conclusion that sussing out the wrongness of the LDS “authority hierarchy” actually isn’t very beneficial for anyone, especially you.
There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus did have females apostles in his lifetime and after his death. Not to mention how in the LDS church we ignore stories like debroah.
So . . . God is a man, so male is authority, so male-you has authority and women don’t, so you’re gonna “counsel” the women like it’s your natural place to do so, but hey, at least you didn’t say “demand” or anything like that, because that would be overtly disrespectful instead of just blustering and dismissive.
The fact that you feel like it would utterly break reality to envision women doing different things than the things you think women should do says more about you than it says about actual reality. Like the people who think that books about dragons still need concubines and sexism “for realism.” Like it’s some kind of immutable part of the fabric of what is.
Please listen to the others who are correcting your “facts.” And then please try, just try, to make this not about you and the challenge it poses to your male-self worldview, or if you can’t do that, at least acknowledge that’s where your reaction is coming from.
As I recall it wasn’t a ‘Mother In Heaven’ that revealed ‘Herself’ to Joseph Smith…ever. Nor do I ever remember any Woman/Mother in Heaven or otherwise, restoring anything or the ‘keys’ of anything…….ever.
Maybe if Joseph had studied and learned about her, then prayed to HER instead of father, we might have… or if he was in a matriarchal society where a mother authority figure would make sense for him. It’s not a surprise that those who only look for male authority only FIND male authority.
Now that I’ve said that (It wasn’t a ‘Mother in Heaven’ etc…..).. Can you tell me why that is?
When that revelation comes (first through a ‘man’ called from God (again a male figure, but to be eternally whole has to have a female companion) to act in God’s name, having that ‘authority’ to convey the authority of the Priesthood to Women (please notice I’ve tried to remember to capitalize ‘Woma(e)n’), then on that day I will support that revelation.
Gosh he really does work in mysterious ways!!!!!
Guys! Watch out, God may take the Priesthood away from all men and give it to just the Women. Worse things have happened……
At least so far we men cannot deliver babies… Whew am I glad about that! Hope it stays that way!!!
Let me sum up Will’s comments: “God is clearly a MAN! (says a bunch of men)”
Sean, thanks for the comment. I agree with you about there being something about the structure of the church that encourages almost a complete transfer of responsiblity for (and control of) one’s spiritual life from the individual to the institution. It’s something that I think is unhealthy. For example, if you ask a devout member of the church what THEY think about God, most of the time they’ll just repeat back church doctrine (or what they believe church doctrine to be). The church comes front-loaded with an “is-it-true-or-false” question, and once the individual answers that question affirmatively, then it’s just a paint-by-the-number-march-in-line sort of thing. . . One of the most insidious explanations I heard is that God gave us free agency so that we could freely decide to surrender our agency back to him in the form of obedience (and that that is the ultimate gift we can give God, because it’s something he would never take from us). It really is a problem. In my opinion, part of the solution is realizing that every individual is responsible for their own spiritual lives, and that the church, as an institution, is there is help them. . . in other words, the purpose of the church is to help us, not the other way around.
Yeah it could be a male conspiracy. Or maybe God did say it… Choose wisely.
If you think God didn’t set it up this way for a reason, then you also don’t believe the rest. Why trouble yourself, just go be Episcopalian.
Let me sum up Thatcher’s comments: “Maybe God wants it this way, maybe he doesn’t, but we’re in charge, so if you don’t like it, find another church (says a man who’s part of the problem).”
Come on, that’s dishonest at worst and at best sloppy thinking. Answer this: Could it be that God did reveal and intend for gender roles to be the way they are? Whether he did or not, could it be? If you believe in revelation at all then the answer is, yes, it could be. Now you just have to decide if God did or not. And if God didn’t intend it then what are the ramifications? I think the ramifications are an uninspired church and I don’t have time for an uninspired church. So if I didn’t believe I might as well be Episcopalian or whatever.
So… I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit and I was reading on Margaret Young’s blog about the blacks and the priesthood and the recent “correction” about the official declaration in the updated version of the scriptures. She puts forth a clarification about the (in)fallibility of the prophet that I think applies directly to the conversation about the possibility that women’s relationship with the priesthood could have been intended to be different
(see an amazing article chockful of Mormon historicity in Dialogue by Linda King Newell here: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N03_23.pdf)
Here’s the section from Margaret Blair Young (BYU professor and wonderful human being):
Finally, let me make a bold suggestion. I suggest that we Mormons have chosen the wrong paradigm to describe how the church functions under prophetic leadership. We seem to have gone with the Wilford Woodruff statement used to defend the manifesto, since he was speaking to people who had suffered and even gone to jail over polygamy:
[T]he Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty (Official Declaration 1).
Since we have multitudes of instances where one prophet contradicts another, it’s likely that President Woodruff’s statement has a particular context and is confined to that. Armand Mauss, in a comment on February 22 at the Juvenile Instructor blog stated: “[T]his claim seems to have originated as a kind of guarantee from Wilford Woodruff in 1890, as he tried to reassure some of the apostles and others who questioned the legitimacy (or necessity) of the Manifesto. That was a fairly specific context, and no one at the time seemed to take it as a universal gospel principle. I never heard of it as I was growing up during the first half of the 20th century, as I said, but it began to occur (totally out of its original context) with increasing frequency as part of the “retrenchment” era after the 1960s to reinforce the ‘follow the prophet’ mantra that is now so familiar to us.”
Would we not all be better served by acknowledging that the Prophet is exclusively entitled to the mantle of leadership over the Church, and that he will always do the best he can to transcend his own culture and tradition in serving God, though not every utterance he makes will constitute the mind and will of the Lord? I would far prefer President Lorenzo Snow’s description of Church governance:
“Seventy years ago this Church was organized with six members. We commenced, so to speak, as an infant. We had our prejudices to combat. Our ignorance troubled us in regard to what the Lord intended to do and what He wanted us to do . . . We advanced to boyhood, and still we undoubtedly made some mistakes, which . . . generally arise from a . . .lack of experience. We understand very well, when we reflect back upon our own lives, that we did many foolish things when we were boys . . . Yet as we advanced, the experience of the past materially assisted us to avoid such mistakes as we had made in our boyhood. It has been so with the Church. Our errors have generally arisen from a lack of comprehending what the Lord required of us to do. But now we are pretty well along to manhood . . . When we examine ourselves, however, we discover that we are still not doing exactly as we ought to do, notwithstanding all our experience. We discern that there are things which we fail to do that the Lord expects us to perform, some of which He requires us to do in our boyhood. . . . While we congratulate ourselves in this direction, we certainly ought to feel that we have not yet arrived at perfection. There are many things for us to do yet.” 6 April, 1900
And to that, I say amen.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/welcometable/2013/03/official-declaration-2-plus/
I’m not convinced that it wasn’t a pretty good characterization of what you said (and then repeated). The point is that many of us are tired of the sexism and we want it to change. . . In many ways, God is a reflection of us, particularly when it comes to building a church. I don’t buy into the “all-or-nothing” argument, so I’m comfortable questioning things that don’t seem right to me.
The question was: Could it be that God did reveal and intend for gender roles to be the way they are? or do you believe in revelation? From what I gather, since you say “In many ways, God is a reflection of us, particularly when it comes to building a church”, you believe that God is a human construct. Therefore there is no revelation because God is just a “nice idea”, one that we made up. So we can make God up in a new way that we like better.
If you don’t believe that God exists independently and that God reveals things to us then you should do whatever you want.
Questioning is important and appropriate, but be rigorous in your questioning and logic.
Thatcher, you appear to be chiding me for not buying into a logical fallacy. You present two options (either there is “no revelation” or god exists independently and “reveals things to us”). There are many more options (e.g. a group of people build a religious community and are able to tap into divine inspiration 20% of the time, or 90% of the time, or maybe one individual is able to tap into the divine in one situation, and then that event is mythologized over time, so that only 30% of it is now historically accurate, or 50%, or 80%, or maybe a church organization is more aligned with the divine will at one point in time than at another, etc.). The possibilties are endless. It may be in the best interest of the church to push the “black-and-what, all-or-nothing” approach, but it’s not a good foundation for logical thought. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (and this is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma).
It’s a pretty simple question that you won’t answer, and it fits into any of your scenarios without causing a dilemma. Of course you are anticipating my next questions which your arguments do address. I assume that you do think that there can be revelation from what you said but at the same time you won’t answer the question directly, why? Have to go, but looking forward to addressing your other arguments for a “partially true church” next.
Brent,
I agree with you that, “There are many more options (e.g. a group of people build a religious community and are able to tap into divine inspiration 20% of the time, or 90% of the time, or maybe one individual is able to tap into the divine in one situation, and then that event is mythologized over time, so that only 30% of it is now historically accurate, or 50%, or 80%, or maybe a church organization is more aligned with the divine will at one point in time than at another, etc.). The possibilties are endless.” These are the churches that don’t have prophets or divine revelation. I’m interested in the church that teaches the truth, all of it that has been revealed. I can’t accept anything less. BUT, if I were going to choose among the partially true churches, where would I start? Which partially true church would I choose, how would I go about the choice? Why would I choose to be a Mormon? Why did you choose it?
Brent,
Let’s do this. I’m ready. Let’s take an idea and pull the string step by step. We’ll explore every logical fallacy, every ramification. I’m not afraid of where it will lead. If you don’t want to answer my questions, ask me and I will answer. We’ll go back and forth.
Sure, okay, I talk about one of the first assumptions that deserves some attention here: https://dovesandserpents.org/2011/07/02-mcs-our-god-is-too-small/
The basic problem is that we simply assume that “feeling the spirit” or having a spiritual experience is God communicating with us AND that God will, of course, communicate the same thing to everyone. We could argue about what spiritual experiences are or what meaning we should assign to them, but let’s skip that and just talk about the fact that people have very different religious experiences. Based purely on this observable fact, why should I believe that God communicates a consistent message to everyone on the planet? I know people, for example, that have had very powerful, life-changing spiritual experiences while championing gay marriage. . . and other people that have had very powerful, life-changing spiritual experiences while working to keep discriminatory marriage practices in place. . .
So, based on your example would you say that God inspires conflict?
It appears, based on my experience, that people have different spiritual experiences (and assign different meanings to those experiences). Beyond that, I think WE create the conflict when we assume that our own spiritual experiences are more valid or more “true” that the spiritual experiences of others (and then attempt to impose our view of “truth” on others in various ways).
“Beyond that, I think WE create the conflict when we assume that our own spiritual experiences are more valid or more “true” that the spiritual experiences of others (and then attempt to impose our view of “truth” on others in various ways).”
I’ll admit I’ve tuned out of this conversation for a bit, but THIS- this is dead on. Well said, Brent.
Still looking for common ground here. Is there right and wrong?
Of course. If I read between the lines, what you seem to be asking is if the notion of morality disappears once one steps out of the shelter of absolute truth claims. If anything, just the opposite generally happens. It becomes clear that we’re “all in this together” and that no one really know anything, so all we have are each other. . . so empathy, the golden rule, caring, mutual support, relationships, it becomes even more valuable (and oddly enough, THAT is about the only thing that all major religions have in common).
Interesting. I just read an article today about Bonobo chimpanzees and how they had all those things in their society. The Bonobo and the Atheist it was called. Do you believe that these basic traits developed de novo of necessity or that they have a divine source?
There is, of course, no way to answer that question. That’s what I mean by a “decision” to believe (or not believe). . . and then bracket that decision in a way that makes it tentative and avoids dogmatic assertions of having “the truth.” Given that our knowledge is bounded by our own experience, it makes no sense to fight over what are essentially “decisions” to believe (or to have faith) in certain religions (or in other “answers” to the big questions of life).
What is the nature of God? Are we the children of God?
I think it is interesting that you like to say “of course”. Isn’t that really a testimony of certainty, equivalent to saying “I know…”? I think it is disingenuous for you to rail against “absolute truth” when you seem to espouse absolute certainty in your “truth”.
I’m curious what makes you a “Mormon”. From what I can tell you don’t share the same concept of God or anything close. The scriptures are a minefield of damaging edicts and contradictory statements. The ordinances are of no worth because the priesthood is not God given. The only commandments are the same ones that I can glean from observing a troupe of chimpanzees. And, no one can know anything for sure, except perhaps the stuff that you say is “of course”. God inspires people in diametric opposition. It’s a mass of confusion. The natural end to such doctrines leads no where good in my deeply held spiritual belief and from anything I can tell logically.
I believe, as I’m sure you’re familiar with, that there is a truth out there that is absolute, all truth can be brought together in one, mathematical, physical, spiritual, all of it. We are better off the closer we can understand and align ourselves with it. That doesn’t mean it is easy, fast or pleasant in the process but ultimately it is what it is regardless of what we want or think. And it will eventually be obvious that it is the only way to complete happiness. And I do believe in revelation both organized and personal and I believe I have experienced both. I have advanced from faith to knowledge on a few points.
So if you are so far afield from what is “Mormon” doctrine, why do you stay? I’m not asking you to leave. I’m wondering what testimony supports that association? Why put the new wine of ordaining women in the old bottle of Mormonism? As far as I can tell you are farther from Mormonism than Catholics, most Protestants or even Jews or Muslims.
In the end there shouldn’t be animosity only love, and that is my basis for conflict on so many issues. I am here on this and other similar sites because I love my daughters who are exposed to them and are understandably confused by the sophistry. I love you and others too (though it was my daughters who led me to it). I love the confused everywhere and hope to help and stand as a witness in all places including in cyberspace. I oppose gay marriage not because I hate gays but because I love them. When my kids were young they wanted to run into the street but I would not let them despite their indignation. Of course I don’t have that same authority here but I am a member of society and laws do have effects on the whole of society. It is my firm belief that gay marriage leads to unhappiness for the individuals and for society in general. It is my right and my duty to exert my influence in the direction I think is right. You and they exert your influences and I exert mine. I will probably lose the gay marriage issue in society like so many other issues, in the short run. I don’t believe that the Church will ever ordain women but I stand ready to accept if God says so. Are you that flexible?
Hey Thatcher, excuse me for butting in. I’m enjoying the conversation. I’m reminded of an article I’ve found extremely helpful (although even the author concedes that it’s not really an “either/or” proposition, but simply a helpful way of looking at different kinds of people within the Church). Have you ever read “What the Church Means to People Like Me” by Richard Poll? He’s one of my Mormon heroes.
Anyway, this is the talk in which he coins the terms “Iron Rod Mormons” and “Liahona Mormons” and I was curious if you had ever read it before. It might help in understanding different kinds of Mormons. I’d say it’s a required read if your goal here is understanding and having a productive dialogue.
Here’s a link:
http://www.zionsbest.com/people.html
Thanks for that link, I enjoyed it. I’m not sure which I would be considered. I suspect mostly Iron Rod but you would be surprised maybe to hear that I gave a talk in sacrament meeting 15 Years ago entitled “I don’t know the church is true”. Much to the chagrin of many members. I was the Elder’s Quorum president… My point was that many members say “I know the Church is true.” When I can tell by the spirit and their works that it just isn’t the case. I talked about Alma 32 and voiced that I appreciated the colloquial meaning of “know” in this instance but that it could be confusing. I then bore testimony of the few things I knew and the many things I believed. I have plenty of questions and plenty of plausible answers that are consistent with the things I know and the things I believe. So I have no reason to get exercised over them.
Strange world isn’t it? Such a diversity of beliefs, such a wide variety of spiritual experiences, and small groups of people everywhere that think that their experiences are unique and that they are God’s chosen people, that their experiences are more authentic or more valid than those of others around them. . . it’s a world where people kill each other over beliefs they should realize can’t be proven one way or another, where parents disown their kids in the name of religion instead of really loving them. . . it’s a world where, yes, apes are often more moral than human beings. . . the only thing I’m certain of is what I’ve seen and experienced, and I allow others the same privilege. . .
Yes it is strange. I was hoping to hear more from you on the topic though. Even by your own criteria some sorting of the small groups of people could be accomplished. Such as those that kill each other and those who don’t. Those who disown and those who don’t. And why do you want to change the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is it because you love the Church, not the people but the Church itself? Because love of the people and addressing error that they are bound under can be accomplished and is probably better accomplished by drawing them out of the Church and allowing the tapestry of falsehood deflate and disappear like an old balloon.
I am a latecomer to this discussion, but I would be interested in hearing Brent’s answer to this question. Brent said earlier, “Given that our knowledge is bounded by our own experience, it makes no sense to fight over what are essentially ‘decisions’ to believe (or to have faith) in certain religions (or in other ‘answers’ to the big questions of life).” So why is Brent so concerned about making changes to the doctrines of the LDS church? Apparently not to bring it closer to the “truth,” since Brent doesn’t appear to believe that any one of us, or any group of us, can determine the truth given our narrow experiences. So why?
Brad, you said (in the comment stream above): “Unfortunately, this comment almost completely ignores my points, choosing instead just to list concerns about church doctrines and practices. I would suggest that completely misses the point.”
I think you make the mistake of assuming that I haven’t been where you’re at? I get it. Jenn gets it. Doing, serving, enjoying the benefits of the community. . . it’s all great (and the spiritual experiences that come along with it are great). But it’s important to see the blind spots that being “in” in the community creates (all the really “dumb”–and hurtful–explanations for why people leave, failure to realize that for many–if not the majority, given rates of inactivity and exit–the church doesn’t work, the groups of people that the church marginalizes and excludes, the things I listed above (latent racism, sexism, etc.), etc. For many people, these things impede spiritual progress and keep people from having the same spiritual experiences that you clearly value (and many leave and find the same spiritual experiences elsewhere that you find in the church). These observations are a direct response to your assertion that people who aren’t happy in the church should just pray more and get involved in service projects.
Exactly!
It’s true, all the policy changes in the world may not solve some of my spiritual questions. BUT I would see more value in sticking it through, in staying despite my doubts, if my concerns about doctrines and practices were addressed.
Before, when I fully believed in the church and the priesthood, I still felt marginalized. I was a feminist, liberal, straight-ally, Relief Society Secretary who worked fulltime and left the stay-at-home-parenting to my husband. Canning and scrapbooking never excited me, and Sister Beck’s talk about “mothers who know” made me feel about 2 inches tall even though I am a great mom and have great kids. Sister Dalton’s recent talk about virtue unintentionally hurt people I love. The church’s policy on homosexuality are still deeply hurting someone I hold very dear to me. Sunday school is torture because of the complete disregard for historical context, and for the correlated manuals that don’t match history. The RS manuals consistently left out pieces of church history that I see as so important, as worth discussion, as something that shouldn’t be hidden. I don’t want my daughter to someday think the skin on her shoulders is capable of driving boys to sin. Our culture is full of hurtful things that get between people and Christ’s true message.
When I believed the church was true, I put up with all of these things. I would speak up from time to time, but they didn’t guide my belief. When you believe, you make all the other little pieces that don’t fit, that are part of culture instead of doctrine, lower priority. Unfortunately, when my belief disappeared, these things were all that was left. It didn’t leave much to stay for. The good aspects of the gospel- and there are many- I can practice on my own, with more energy and focus now than I had before when I was trying to make all those little pieces fit. If we could fix a lot of these issues, it may not change my belief entirely but I could attend church each week and the positive of attending would outweigh the negative.
Brad, you wrote above (quoting Jenn):
You wrote: “[W]hile internally, I’m in a much more peaceful place now, externally, I have had to leave the community of my youth, I’ve broken my mother’s heart, I’m having to learn at the age of 28 how to live in an unmormon world, I have to deal with every person I used to love and respect now making assumptions and judgments about my faith and my path. I don’t want that for everyone- I would love to see Mormonism work and embrace those for whom it is still a good tool to find happiness and peace. Ideally someone could live a life of peace and integrity WITHOUT estranging half the people they love.” Let’s pursue this in a thought experiment. Let’s say that I decided to abandon my wife and kids, and move to Australia, live in a commune to find sexual fulfillment, or become a better rock-climber, or whatever. Or let’s say that I just wanted to go stare at the sun 24-7, with all the attendant hurt that would cause to me and those who love me. Then let’s say I used your paragraph above to explain my actions, stating that “internally, I’m in a much more peaceful place now.” How would you respond? Would you feel like you had any authority to point out to me that my decision was likely to lead to unhappiness? What if I told you that I knew that deep down inside you were “flagging” me as a person who’d made a lousy decision–thus proving that you’re intolerant? (I’m trying not to offend here, just following your rationale to its logical conclusion.) What would you say to me?
This illustrates SO much of what is toxic about the church. What is your point here exactly. The fact is that members are often assholes to those that question or leave (e.g. they make assumptions about “worthiness,” they make character attributions, they assume that the person is weak, they assume that the person isn’t spiritually “sensitive” enough, or hasn’t prayed enough, they take them out of wills, they exclude them from family gatherings, and on and on and on). And when someone who has honest questions about faith and belief and are treated like this, it hurts. And your response is to say “well, I could have told you that staring at the sun was going to have consequences.”
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent guy, and I’ll take you at your word, so please try to work through this. When you look at somebody and make judgments about their behavior, their happiness, and likely consequences, you are setting yourself up as more informed and wiser than they are. In some instances, for example, like staring into the sun, it might be okay to claim that you have superior knowledge and to try to use that to dissuade somebody else from doing it. When it comes to issues related strictly to belief, however, it takes a considerable amount of arrogance (and a certain unwillingness to think critically about what you’re doing). For example, when I taught in high priests group a while back, I asked the group how many thought that God was a polygamist. There were twelve individuals in the class, and it was an even split–6 for and 6 against. I have no doubt that those on each side looked at the other group and made judgments about them (they didn’t understand the doctrine, they hadn’t read enough, etc.). Does believing God is a polygamist have consequences? Does believing that God isn’t a polygamist have consequences? Unfortunately, if the group that thinks God is a polygamist is in the majority, and ostracizes those that don’t, then yes, it can, but the consequences are manufactured and have nothing to do with one’s spirituality. They have to do with how we treat each other. And much of the “consequences” people experience when they doubt or question on a larger scale is exactly the same.
I think Brad’s point is that excuses for all kinds of behavior are the same. The way that you can distinguish that his proposed behavior is a mistake is the same way that others think yours is. What’s with all the indignation and offence? No one is trying to offend, as far as I can tell. Brent, why do you ascribe nefarious judgement to your poor High Priests answering a question you put to them. Is there really that much hate in the Church? I haven’t experienced it. Maybe you’re both projecting?
Nefarious judgment, whah??
Equating heavy lifting to motherhood just proves how little you respect women and motherhood. I recommend reading anything from Julie Beck to help anyone appreciate the eternal, divine, and unique importance of motherhood. We all love our mothers, of course, but do we really appreciate the magnitude of this calling?
“Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny.” -Glen Pace, BYU Devotional 2010
I love this post, except this part:
This may not be the intention, but this at least implies that God really has answered this question. There just isn’t any direct evidence for that. I doubt you disagree, so maybe I misunderstood?
Either that, or PEOPLE think God has already answered the question when really they’re just repeating the answer they want- making assumptions that God agrees with them, without bothering to ask.
Wow. Thank you for this post. I feel that I am on the fence with this subject. I love being a mother and I have never questioned the way the church is organized. I have been taught that women hold the priesthood, but we don’t have the “keys” or rather authority to use it. I also have been taught that men only hold the priesthood through their wives. However, if that were the case, how is it that my unmarried 12 year old son can have the priesthood? This post has brought up interesting questions and things for me to ponder. As mentioned above, I wonder why I am content with the current status quo. Thank you for this open and honest post.
This post is brilliant.
Amazing what a little bit of pride will do to people’s minds.
This post is totally and completely incorrect. You can argue endlessly whether it’s a perfect comparison or not but what you should really be asking is whether you believe that Thomas Monson is a true prophet? Do you believe he has been called of god? Do you believe he receives revelation and guidance from god? You cannot say yes to any of these questions and still support women being ordained with the priesthood. This is about an extremely small percentage (barely 10%) of LDS women that aren’t content with a man fulfilling his god given role to lead. This small, small minority that are not in tune with the spirit and are missing the whole point of this issue.
D&C 1:38
“38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
It is gods will that men, be ordained to the priesthood and fulfill leadership positions therein. If Heavenly Father reveals to Thomas Monson that women are to be ordained then of course i will whole heartedly support it. But you cannot try and pretend that you “fallow the prophet” and yet support such ridiculous groups such as Ordain Women.
I repeat, “fallow the prophet, he leads the way.” This is not about equality. This is about faith. Or in that 10% lack thereof.
“a man fulfilling his god given role to lead”
The fact that we have people running around–people that claim, no less, to speak for God–that still believe this is PRECISELY the problem. Thanks for identifying (or should I say exemplifying it?) so candidly.
Judging from your name (Brent) I would be willing to guess you are a man. As such if you read my comment you would understand it was not referring to you. Your opinion (which is incorrect) is not relevant as you obviously have no faith and are not (i hope) an LDS woman. As such thank you for your reply which does indeed exemplify the people or persons my comment refers to. Godless and faithless.
Did ordaining blacks deny whites fulfilling their god given roles to lead?
Uriah, I don’t know you personally, but I suspect that regardless of belief, the church isn’t served well by sexist, judgmental assholes, at least not when they post their thoughts in public forums. . . and do people still call other people Godless (I didn’t think that was still a thing). . .
I suspect that no one, in the LDS Church or out, is well-served by anyone who calls someone else a “sexist, judgmental asshole.” Sheesh.
True, but on the other hand, I’m not the one running around on public blogs nattering about how men have a “divine right to lead” and telling people they are faithless and godless, I’m not sure what other words to use. . .
Brent,
Apparently you must be highschool age if your only option to reply is to start calling names and making assumptions.
For someone who “knows” that all supposed truth is subjective to what we (or i) decide it is you have a strange way of fallowing your own beliefs. If we fallow your paradigm no one should listen to anything you say as it is what “you have decided is truth”.
Your earlier comment completely ignored the point of my first post. You claim to affiliate yourself with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and yet you assert your opinion that it is a problem that there are “people running around claiming to speak for God.” Assuming you stand behind what you say you have no belief in a true prophet who receives devine (“Devine” is a term used in our[?] religion meaning “God given”) to revelation. And as such I’m at a loss to explain what you are even doing here. As “Thatcher” expressed so eloquently i don’t understand “what testimony supports your association with the LDS church.”
I have no animosity towards you i only wish to understand why you are attempting to change church policy when there are other options that seem to coincide with what you claim to believe?
Trying to hide behind God doesn’t make it any better. . .
I find it interesting that you would use the word “hide” when you continue to hide and evade answering direct questions. I repeat. Why are you attempting to change church policy when there are other options that would seem to coincide with what you claim to believe? Is the point of your article to change church policy or are you questioning for the sake of questioning?
Long story short…..if you don’t like the way the LDS church is run no one is forcing you or the women of the church to stay in it. There is the Door. There are other churches that you can find that suits your every little picky needs.
I have much respect for your opinions Gary. I believe that we should support the prophets as being messengers from God. This reminds me of the time before blacks received the priesthood. For years upon years, those of African decent waited for the blessings that were available to a select group. I do not doubt that some members of the church questioned the policy of not allowing all races and lineages to have the priesthood. When the prophet received this revelation in 1978, there was much rejoicing. I wonder if they were told to leave the church for their doubt, as you have done so above. Perhaps the gospel of Christ is about love and acceptance, not rejection due to questioning the status quo. Asking for additional understanding is not a lack of faith. In fact, ignoring invitations to abandon our faith keeps us strong and is a clear indicator of our faith in the gospel. We are told “ask and ye shall receive”. We are simply asking.
I love the “if you don’t like it, you can leave” line. It’s one of favorite TBMisms. How about this? Lets start treating women as equals, which starts with pulling our heads out of our asses and realizing that institutional authority is not equivalent to different biological characteristics, which is the point of this post, and then if you don’t like it, you can leave? Or we could behave like adults, that’s always an option?
And I used the word hiding on purpose. . . How many times did blacks hear, “we’re not racist, it’s just the way God wants it.” At least these folks could have owned it, admitted the obvious, which is that, yes, they were being racist (because what they were doing was the definition of racism), it doesn’t matter whether they thought they were being racist for Jesus or not. . . Same today, if you believe that men have a divine right to authority over women, then at least own it. . .
I’m fine with the Opinions. Just because one society deems acceptable doesn’t mean it is. Brent honestly your just a troll that’s all. Like I said if you hate politics change your party, if you don’t like your religion change that also, if you don’t like the stains in your pants Brent change those too But those are all personal decisions you can’t force people opinions. Maybe there will be a paradigm shift but until then stop trying to change things that are way out if your element.
Gary, I’ll make you a sign (you can stand out on the street corner with it): Sexist for Jesus. Please tell me that in 20 or 30 years you’re not going to be like some of the old farts down here in the South still convinced that God is a segregationist? Or at least tell me that you’ve moved past Brigham Young’s assertion that God was in favor of killing any white person that married a “negro”?
Thanks for the intelligent argument proving all you have up your sleeves is Ad hominem type comments. Learn to use your words and not the little boy cursing type. Next time pick a subject you know more about and be articulate with your language. It will come across as a less of a whining conversation with emotional arguments and more of an intelligent fruitful discussion. I’m all up for Platonic views but without committing fallacies like you’re doing in your arguments. I said what I needed to say in my previous comments be my guest and re read them and truly think and reflect on those. I made the arguments for simple minds to be able to comprehend.
You mean your attempts to explain how the church really isn’t a top-to-bottom patriarchy (and how women are actually equal, and if they aren’t, it’s because God wants us to be sexist, and how God can’t be sexist because he’s God, etc.). . . you mean those brilliant, well-thought-out arguments, the same arguments that have been articulated by men running institutions that have been controlled, top-to-bottom, by men for the last 100+ years? Those arguments? You know, I’m shocked that I wasn’t persuaded by them. . . I laughed out loud at your complaint about logical fallacies, right before you called me “simple minded.” For the love of God, please at least consult a web site or something on logical fallacies so that you can avoid using one right after complaing about them. For my part, I’m not claiming to be engaged in a high-minded conversation, I’m just flat out making fun of ya’ll. . .
Glad you know how to google those big words :) have a good one Brent you bore me.
You’re awesome, Gary. I love it when people take the time to loiter around my blog posts, and then, as a bonus, take the time to leave posts telling me they’re “bored.” Let’s just summarize. You show here on my blog post, make a few lame-ass arguments that every TBM everywhere knows by the time they’re big enough to behave themselves in primary, show absolutely no ability to engage in any sort of reflective discussion (beyond just parroting the party line), and then claim I’m boring (and I didn’t even mention all the personal attacks). . . Well played, sir.
Justin,
I agree with the others who are confused by your interest in changing a religion you have so much disdain for? Why should you care? If it’s as corrupt as you are saying, leave it alone. Why give the priesthood to women if it’s not a valid priesthood, as you seem to suggest?
Sorry, Justin… I meant Brent. He seems to feel like religion is just a man-made construct and has nothing to do with God. If that were the case, I don’t think I’d be very interested. I could just join a club. It’s not my place to “steady the ark”. Sure, I should ask God on personal issues, but I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to tell the Lord how to run his church. And, if the church was in apostacy, as Brent seems to claim, who would benefit from it’s priesthood anyway. The power isn’t in service opportunities, it’s in the saving ordinances. If that’s not backed by God, why would anyone want it?
Brent, If you got what you wanted, how would we explain the Patriarchal order established from Adam until Christ? LDS church history aside, it does not fit with Christian history. What is going to stop us from praying to heavenly Mother after that? She would be just as good a prayer target as God. If we are including LDS doctrine, how will we explain all the events in the premortal life centered around males? I understand the sympathy card in this argument, but lets be honest, we are going to need to find a new religion outside of scripture-supported Christianity if that is our demand. And I think we all know the LDS church is not going to ordain women. Best explanation: “My thoughts are not your thoughts saith the Lord” which of course is no explanation at all, but perhaps a little nudge to help us accept things we cannot understand.
Some women want to be ordained to the priesthood of God without that principle being revealed by God. They claim that without the priesthood, they are being denied the opportunity to be in charge in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is not true. First and foremost, a woman is called to be a mother. Motherhood a woman’s highest divine role. Although not given the keys to the priesthood, she needs to know and understand the priesthood in order to teach all of her children, not just her sons. Her children need to be worthy and know how to use the priesthood power in their lives.
There are organizations in the Church run entirely by women and other organizations that have both men and women in leadership positions. Every Ward Council meeting includes women. They have a voice and are heard.
When a man is called to a leadership position like bishop or stake president, his wife is also interviewed. It is a lot of work to be a bishop’s wife. Even though not formally called, a bishop’s wife helps to lead the ward, providing guidance and help to the bishop. She is given divine help to best know how to help her husband and the ward.
God has revealed many different roles and positions a women can have in His church. All of these callings require leadership and taking charge of yourself, your family and others.
What I get from this topic is that people are thinking we can negotiate with God and pressure the prophet to submit to man and not God. Maybe God will one day change the direction, maybe in this life or maybe in the next. We are commanded to obey God and follow the prophet. I truly wish there wasn’t a battle brewing among good people. This is tearing things apart where we should be building up the kingdom of God.
“We are commanded to obey God and follow the prophet.”
Scott Parkinson, that sounds an awful lot like “shut your mouths, turn off your brains, and get in line/fall in rank”.
George Albert Smith said “The Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.” http://www.fairlds.org/authors/misc/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done
The unthinking “follow the prophet” fundamentalism also doesn’t match well with what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young taught:
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them even if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves” (Millennial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595).
“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” -Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p.150 1862
“I have often said to the Latter-day Saints — ‘Live so that you will know whether I teach you the truth or not.’ Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are NOT of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray! But I say to you, live so that you will know for yourselves whether I tell the truth or not. That is the way we want all Saints to live” (Brigham Young, 1874, JD 18:248).
By any means, you shouldn’t assume that the status quo represents the mind and will of God. There are plenty of cases in the past where the church has corrected course and further light and knowledge was sought and received. I’m grateful for an evolving church. As President Uchtdorf reminded us in the recent general conference, we don’t have a perfect church, nor is it run by perfect beings. Thus, there’s always room for improvement.
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2013/05/terryl-givens-on-prophetic-mantle-myth.html