Elder Ballard addressed an audience at Education Week at BYU on August 20th, 2013. The topic of his address was the role of women where he reiterated that women have a separate but equal role to men, specifically, that the role of women necessarily excludes holding the priesthood. My response to this talk is addressed to Elder Ballard.
Dear Elder Ballard,
It is a rare opportunity to hear a talk addressing the spiritual power and role of women in the gospel, something I deeply yearn to know more about. Thus, I had great interest in your address at BYU’s Education Week. Despite my interest in the topic I found there to be inconsistencies in the way women’s roles were outlined. To me, this was a missed opportunity to speak to the women of the Church who bring a vast array of qualities and contributions to the gospel and especially for those men and women who wait for further revelation regarding the role of women within the Church. My hope is to communicate some of these thoughts to you in this letter.
At the outset of your address, you maintain that women are not second-class citizens in the Church. While there are women who may share your perspective, I find that I often feel like a second-class citizen in this Church. I also recognize that I am not the only woman who feels this way. There is a great article written by WAVE (Women Advocating for Voice and Equality) that outlines some of the reasons that this feeling of inequity is very real for women in the Church. The secondary status of women is particularly evident when our Heavenly Mother is erased almost entirely from our discourse, especially when She is absent in a discussion on women in the Church. I am unaware of any venue within the Church, whether through Sunday worship or otherwise, to learn about our Heavenly Mother. It is a rare occasion when I see any female representation or references to women in talks, lessons, and even within the Relief Society, an organization specifically established for women. I deeply desire to know more about women in our Church’s history, to learn more of our Heavenly Mother and to hear Her name spoken in the official discourse of the Church. Though our theology suggests that Heavenly Mother is a co-creator along with our Heavenly Father, it seems that even She is a second-class citizen within Her own house.
There is also a lack of female role models and leaders within the Church. Well intentioned, well meaning and generally kindhearted priesthood leaders cannot offset the reality that my opportunity and ability, as a woman, to serve as a leader in the Church is severely limited. Waiting in perpetuity to be invited to have my voice included in a counsel is fundamentally different than being an equal member with an equal voice in such a counsel. Being told I am equal and valued is different than actually being equal and valued. I think you illustrated this point when you stated:
“Women, your input is welcome but you need to be careful to not assume a role that is not yours.”
This statement suggest that even in the event I am in a position of leadership, and am extended an invitation to participate in a counsel, my voice is not considered equal within that counsel. Is it truly the position of the Church that because I am a woman, I am relegated to merely providing input, and can only hope that my priesthood leaders have heard and considered my voice and perspective?
Your statement additionally suggests an impropriety on the part of women who choose to vocalize concerns, opinions, or perspectives; almost suggesting that such behavior is out of line with Church hierarchy, and by implication, with the gospel.
In describing and outlining the roles of men and women, you quote the Proclamation to the Family.
“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”
This quote is often used to explain and uphold the idea that while men and women have different and separate roles, they are equal. “Equal” is used in The Proclamation and throughout Church discourse involving women and women’s roles but what is described in the Proclamation is not equal. I wonder how husband and wife are equal partners when a husband is to preside over the family. The definition of preside means to exercise guidance, direction or control or to occupy the place of authority, to occupy a position similar to that of a president or chairman. To be equal in this context would necessitate men and women presiding over their homes together. By definition, equality cannot exist when one person presides over another.
Clarifying further the differences between roles, you stated:
“Men and women have different but equal roles. A woman cannot conceive of a child without a man, just as a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family, without a woman. The creative power and the priesthood power are shared.”
It is true that from a strictly biological perspective both a male and female are necessary to conceive of a child. However, it does not follow that a man cannot exercise priesthood without a woman. Priesthood is used not just in the context of family but in the governance and in the ordinances of the Church. For a male, upon turning twelve and meeting certain worthiness criteria, he can be ordained to the priesthood and begin his journey in the Church with priesthood authority and responsibility. This requires no female intervention. Whether or not he ever marries or fathers a child, has no bearing upon his ability to be ordained to the priesthood and to exercise his priesthood. Under the criteria set forth in your statement above, while a man may not meet the full measure of his potential without a woman, a woman cannot fulfill any of her measure without a man. The ability for a woman to fulfill her measure is dependant upon criteria that can be completely out of her sphere of control. This dichotomy again illustrates the inequity and subordination of women to men within the context of the Church.
I cannot see equality in the “separate but equal” structure that was highlighted so frequently in your address. Placing motherhood as the primary role and responsibility for women is not only a disservice to women, but diminishes the equally important role of fatherhood. Placing priesthood as the primary role and responsibility of men, is not only a disservice to men, but diminishes (and in this case, entirely erases) the varying abilities and spiritual powers of women.
Elder Ballard, you directly ask the question, “Why do women not have the priesthood?” In response, you quote President Hinckley as explaining that it is God, not man, who determines who holds the priesthood. I know that this is the process and order for revelation. I also know that as a living breathing Church, further revelation can come, even on matters that seem closed to further revelation. At the dedication of the Manti Temple in 1888, the Prophet Wilford Woodruff declared, “We are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the Coming of the Son of Man.” It was two years later that further revelation came and resulted in the practice of plural marriage being discontinued.
Elder Ballard, these inconsistencies within the gospel regarding women are troubling to me and to many women close to me. It is frustrating that these issues continue to go unacknowledged and are actively invalidated despite so many men and women voicing their concerns. Further, it is frustrating that women do not have an official voice or avenue through which their voices and concerns can be heard. It also hurts me that my testimony of Christ is questioned because I feel unequal in this Church. Despite my love for the gospel, the Church and the people, it is a struggle to stay engaged with the Church when I am treated as a second-class citizen and when my concerns go unacknowledged and far too often invalidated. I do not know what further revelation pertaining to women might look like. I do, however, pray that these concerns will be heard and revelation on matters of our Heavenly Mother and the role of women in the Church will be actively and earnestly sought after.
In the spirit of mutual respect,
Christy Clegg
[You can read more about Christy’s feelings regarding female ordination here.]
Thank you Christy!
Beautiful.
Couldn’t have said it better.
One thing I’ve always believed about our Heavenly Mother, is this: how many people throughout history have said absolutely horrible things about God, our Heavenly Father? People may want Her talked about more, but what if that was never God’s plan, what if HE never wanted that? I mean, come on…do you really think that He wants His other half cursed at, trash talked, and character stopped to the ground? Maybe, just maybe She is more than that to Him, which is why the Church views her as so special and not one to be blasted in conversation everywhere. Something to think about.
Joann, I often hear this and yet we know there are many faith traditions and cultures that worship and recognize a feminine deity. Why would our God allow for that to occur, but not for the restored gospel? The platitude that “God doesn’t want Her name harmed” is a kind and sweet Mormon myth but it is only that–a myth, probably created by some gospel doctrine teacher years ago and it happened to take hold.
Can you not see that “protecting” women in this sense is nothing more than controlling women, or worse yet, proving to everyone else just how weak women really are. How about women do what they are good at, and let the trash talkers talk all they want?
Also, Joann, this myth compounds the problem for women: not only can women not identify properly with deity when you don’t learn about Heavenly Mother, but the divine example you do have is one of eternal subjection to male authority. It’s extremely disheartening.
Ya know, I find the comments and jabs ironic, given what my post was about. It’s people like you that keep women in a box.
But Joann, when we pack things away in boxes, we can keep them bright, shiny and sacred, right? (I’m being facetious.) For those who haven’t noticed yet, Joann’s real name is Brian.
Actually, sorry, Joann. For all I know, Brian is the name of your husband, and you are posting through his profile.
This is his wife! Leave me alone you jerk. I have never commented on this stuff before, and probably never will. It took a lot of courage for me to write my thoughts. I am a convert and am learning the church for myself. It took a lot of courage. Thanks a lot..
Joann, I’m sorry if you feel that your thoughts are being belittled. I respect your belief as to why we do not speak of Heavenly Mother. I really do. However, it doesn’t resonate with me, personally. I think it would be fine for the Church to say come out and declare that they had received a revelation and ____________ is the reason we do not speak of Her. But that hasn’t happened so we’re all just speculating. Right now, the speculation stays on the plane of myth. I, personally, don’t like to speculate in the realm of closing down discussion rather than opening it up.
The thing is, with this idea of protection, HF is protecting HM from her own children. Is that the role model we want to have for our sons? That their job is to keep their wives hidden from view, guarded so much that even the idea of children speaking with their mom is frowned on?
If my role is to be an eternal, co-creative companion to a perfected, loving spouse, I can’t wrap my mind around the idea that my co-creative powers, energy, ideas and life would be so fragile, so less-than-perfectly-able to bear some childish tantrums from my kids that my perfect husband would put up a shield between me and my daughters and sons.
Of course, I’m one who thinks the whole ‘don’t call your mom while you’re on a mission except for these specific days and times’ idea is incredibly stupid as well, so….
It is one thing to protect the ones you love, it another thing to lock someone away so no one can ever hurt them.
and honestly, as a mother, it’d be pretty pathetic if i abandoned my children because their friends were making fun of me. it would be even worse if i allowed my husband to cut me out of their lives on that basis. i think more of my heavenly mother than that.
I appreciate all of your replies. Like I said, this is my first time commenting on one of these, and obviously I sought it out to do research for myself on Church issues that confuse me. One thing I didn’t mention is how I really liked Christy’s post, and think it’s great your sending it to Elder Ballard. Another thing is that you shouldn’t judge me so fast; I am a convert, and Amy, I created my feelings on a woman God before joining our Church. No “gospel doctrine teacher” told me it “years ago” so please, don’t judge so quick. Another thing that I’ve come to realize through this is that I actually don’t believe in a God you all believe in, which shocked me. I’m sorry, it might be my upbringing “out” of the Church, but I think of God way higher than I do man. I don’t think he looks just like man, and I’ve finally realized the LDS Church does. I feel members put themselves high up next to God, and that erks me. One, you may be like God one day (I do believe this), but you are NO WHERE CLOSE. Please, respect Him enough to know that. You can’t do a crumb of what he does. One day, maybe, but not today. I have a HUGE problem with members of the Church getting so high on themselves, and I admit, this shakes my testimony. Talking about a Heavenly Mother like she is just like you and her kids are embarrassed by her, is a bit over the top. She could be the earth for all you know, and that’s a hell of a lot more than you can do, even if we can have babies, and monthly periods. I don’t know if Heavenly Father doesn’t want her talked about, but it was always the conclusion I’ve come up with before the Church; I haven’t ever heard about her really. As of now, She hasn’t really been talked about, and it all is speculation. If we believe in an all-knowing God, than we should believe that there has been a reason so far for her lack of recognition. And maybe this all is happening because He/She, together, in mutual agreement think NOW is the time. They know everything. You are helping them, sure, but they can make it happen by whatever means possible if that’s what They want. My final thought here is this, I really respect you ladies here (sorry men) for your dedication, willingness to learn and educate yourselves on the Truth, and it’s something that has caused me to want to learn more for myself, especially with the Priesthood and my role as a woman with it. Many, many scriptures talk of us being equal and that is something you can’t deny, and so I want to learn more. I love being a women and I love what my Heavenly Parents have in store for me. I love being a member of the LDS Church and it’s exciting to think of what the future holds.
Thanks Christy! This is perfect. When I read the talk I was of two minds… the fact that he was addressing this topic at all is proof that our agitation is getting noticed, so I am a little excited! On the other had, the way he addressed it was the retrench, emphasize gender roles, and equate motherhood with priesthood. So I’m disappointed, although not surprised. One step at a time, I guess.
Thank you! My first thoughts, upon reading his remarks, were of Heavenly Mother as well. She is our Mother Goddess. She doesn’t need protection from her infantile children. She will show herself unto those who seek Her. I found it ironic that Ballard could in one breath wax poetic about women not being second class citizens and in the next only mention male deities. I am a daughter of a Heavenly Father and Mother and I follow Their Son.
Thank you for writing this. Your concerns with this talk do well to voice the concerns of many others. As women, we do not have a voice within the church, so it is imperative for us to find places where our voices can be heard. I also feel like a second class citizen in my faith. It was a long time before I realized that those feelings did not come from my Heavenly Parents, but rather from the flaws of patriarchy.
Thank you for thoughtfully responding to this. I thought about writing a response, but I had trouble thinking of how to do so diplomatically. I don’t want to call elder Ballard a liar but how can these statements be true?, “0ne half of all teaching is done by sisters”? Has Elder Ballard somehow failed to notice that only 2 general conference speakers are female? Or that there are no female high council Sundays? “Much of the leadership is provided by sisters” which is why they preside over how many governing councils or local congregations? Um, zero. How many women are general or area authorities? Oh yeah, zero. Zero can somehow equal “much”?
“Many activities are directed by women”? Weird. I thought church policy required male priesthood oversight of all auxiliary activities. “Women on church councils provide balance” but only if you define balance as a ratio of 10 males to 3 females.
[slow clap] Well said.
Of all the difficult times I experienced or felt because I was a woman, a feminist — and not a man in the church — the most painful was what happened to me after a very heartfelt (and prayed over) lesson I gave in R.S. This was a year or so after Pres. Hinckley instructed that no one was to pray to Heavenly Mother. I never agreed with that, but I obeyed it. This lesson specifically mentioned both heavenly parents in the title, and there were at least two quotes from apostles about Heavenly Mother in the lesson itself. I knew this lesson would have to be carefully crafted (which in itself was ridiculous because of the title and the quotes), but I knew my audience well, and the pervasive strict control and rigid personality of my Stake. I had often pictured my Mother in Heaven listening during some very, very emotionally painful times as I prayed about something I felt only a woman could understand fully. I never addressed her at the beginning of the prayer, but I did picture her listening and understanding. While looking for some material to beef up the lesson that would be acceptable, I found a song which had been printed in the old Instructor publication around the beginning of the 20th century. It was a “female” version of “Oh My Father”, and the song was addressed to Heavenly Mother. It was printed in full view on the back cover. I thought I was “safe” to use it. (Who wouldn’t?) During the lesson I mentioned very carefully that although I had never prayed directly to “Mother”, there had been times in my life when I had pictured her standing next to “Father” as I prayed, and I felt she knew my heart. Other than that, I followed the lesson to a “T”. At the end of the lesson, I introduced the song and we sang it as a close to the lesson. In the interest of brevity, within a couple of hours, I had been reported to the Stake President (not my Bishop), by a very influential woman in our ward (her husband had been the Institute teacher for years in our area). I have no idea what she told him, but he called my Bishop and told him to take care of it. Said Bishop didn’t have the courage to talk to me, so he passed the job on to the sweet R.S.President. I know that she struggled with calling me for days, but more than a week after the lesson, she did call me, told me that my lesson was inappropriate and that the Stake Pres. and Bishop concurred “because we were not to talk about Heavenly Mother”. Neither of them obviously had even looked at the lesson, which was specifically about our Heavenly Parents (plural). I had felt wonderful about the lesson, and all this was going on behind my back without my knowledge, including the “reporter” ginning up my “offense” to other women in the ward. It was the only time in all my years in the church when I just totally broke down emotionally. I cried for a very long time. Didn’t they know me by now, and my dedication to the church? I had been both Ward and Stake Pres. of both Primary and YW, had taught Gospel Doctrine and R.S. for years. But the sin of acknowledging our Heavenly Mother so boldly (or so they judged), was simply unacceptable. After speaking with the Stake Pres., and the Bishop, both acknowledged that I really had done no wrong, and the Stake Pres. gave me permission to speak about it at my next lesson. I chose to hand out a small message that my offensive lesson (not the words I used) was really not offensive per the Stake Pres. — and left it at that. I taught that lesson, but resigned the position after that. I just didn’t have the heart. The betrayal by women who were so frightened was honestly very stunning to me, and I finally understood how separated I was from most of the women who had been raised to be frightened shadows of their real selves. It made me very sad, and it’s a sadness that stays with me to this day, although I quit attending meetings almost 13 years ago. I have daughters and many granddaughters who remain unaware of how much of their god-given power is lost to the drum beat of “obedience”.
I’m sorry about the rotten treatment you got from fellow ward members so concerned with maintaining the orthodox hedge about the law, Sue!
I’m sorry–
Interesting that the person who actually starting the whole incident was a woman. I think that many women choose to point the finger at the “priesthood” and men as putting them down, but in reality, women are definitely more likely to be the culprits. Too bad the lady that reported you to the stake president isn’t thinking more about her example and trying to become more like her heavenly mother.
This is wonderfully worded and very diplomatic. Are you planning to send this letter directly to the apostle? I hope you do send it to him and that you ask your stake president or bishop to sponsor your letter because that makes it more likely not to get sent back.
I also find it interesting that he did not address President Hinckley’s statement that “there is no agitation” for women to be ordained to the priesthood. Now that there is, what is the message? There is no need to agitate? It is inappropriate to do? Another inconsistency right there.
Awesome post! Thanks.
There is a painful irony in women asking men for the right to be equal.
Take your equality and don’t apologize for doing so. If that means you aren’t a part of Elder Ballard’s church, then it is his loss.
But so long as you care more for inclusion in his Church, then you are conceding his very point and will always be secondary.
Clear, reasoned, unapologetic and movingly honest post, Christy. All I can add is, Amen, and a reminder that the Equal in Faith fast for gender justice in religion is tomorrow. Please join us, either virtually or in person, and add a comment on the Equal in Faith Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/548948465166297/
Christy Clegg’s letter is absolutely beautiful. She captures the issues facing Mormonism and its relationship with women perfectly.
I never liked Ballard, even when I was a Believing Mormon; iron rod, straight and narrow kinda guy. This talk convinces me that I had good instincts.
I have always had problems with the rhetoric of “separate but equal” as used with reference to gender roles in the church. I empathize with the second class moniker. There are several groups within the church who are treated that way. Single adults, couples without children, those with same sex attraction, Democrats, etc. are all treated in many ways as second class. These are all cultural problems and not doctrinal. Revealed doctrine is empty as to explicit references to women’s roles within the church (though they are hinted at in the temple). Church leaders have attempted to give guidance, but their advice is tainted by the culture and times they live in.
Keep praying. Keep asking for better understanding of the doctrines. Perhaps the priesthood will be a part of the answer, but I don’t think so. Including women more in the counsels of the church would help. Their ability to see things differently would be a boon to all of us. Hopefully the brethren will begin using rhetoric that is less divisive and that more local leaders (where the bigger problem lies) will not feel they have to interpret what the brethren say.
I think the problem we are having here is that a group of men has taken it upon themselves to define women and, what’s even worse, WOMEN ARE STANDING FOR IT. When have women EVER gone into a men’s priesthood meeting and stood at the pulpit and spouted off their definition of manhood?: Like . . . NEVER. This inane and thoughtless practice of the men in the church will not stop until women cease to subject themselves to the authority of men. As long as women stay in the church, they are propagating the pattern of women asking for AUTHORITY WHICH THEY ALREADY HAVE. It is simply undignified to beg for a piece of what already belongs to you. It’s time to just say no to subjecting ourselves to others’ definitions. Women must have the gumption to define themselves or they will stay subjugated. And the church will continue to do it until women decide to leave.
Well said! Thank you very much for voicing the experience of many women so eloquently and diplomatically.
The subordinate position of women in The Church ultimately led to me leaving The Church after 30 years of full activity & serving a FT mission. It is great for me to hear someone express what I have felt so strongly & for so long.
This song really represents what we, as women, are doing when we don’t put our foot down AT LEAST as far as we as individuals are concerned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTRzvmxsci0
Christy is going to send the letter to Elder Ballard.
Yes! Sending in the mail tomorrow.
Christy,
I am so happy to hear this. Thank you for your eloquence and your strength.
Thank you!
i loved your letter, Christy and Sue, that was heartbreaking.
Thank you Christy. This confirmed many of the thoughts I had as I listened to the talk.
I have recently become interested in the role of women in the church, and listened twice to Elder Ballard’s talk in the hope that it might put my mind at rest about the status quo. It didn’t – for all the reasons you stated so well in your letter. I keep thinking about how the priesthood was extended to all worthy males and wonder if or when that would have happened if there hadn’t been agitation. I do believe that this is God’s church. I also believe that He allows us a fair degree of freedom to run it. Prophets are not sterile channels through which “the truth” emerges untouched. And that is the beauty of humanity.
I think that the brethren may think that they are offering an equal role to women. It is difficult to recognise culture, when one is immersed in it.
Much of my recognition of how NOT equal women are today in the church has come through reading “Daughters in My Kingdom”. When I see the power and influence women had before the middle of the twentieth century, I think they would be saddened to see how it has been reduced today.
Yes. These are great points, Nicola.
So proud to know you, Christy.
Christy, very impressive letter. I am happy to hear that you are going to deliver the letter. I am interested in reading any response you might receive. Great work.
Well written Christy. Elder Ballard said we do not have time to waste thinking about how to reorganize the church – with something as important as equality it isn’t a waste of time. I felt incredibly discouraged and misunderstood as I watched this talk. Do the leaders of the church think that Mormon Feminists want to hold the Lord’s work back? I don’t want to hold back the work. I want to fully participate. There is so much more women could contribute. Would anyone dare suggest that it was a waste of time to consider ordaining Blacks? Would anyone suggest it was a waste of time to consider reorganizing the United States’ electoral process to include women? Neither of these happened without agitation. When Elder Ballard quoted Elder Holland “What we know will always trump what we do not know” I wished I could say to him “Yes of course, but are you asking for us? Please, please ask. Tell us you are asking.”
This is a well written piece. It brings to mind though the thought that once again the prophets and apostles are showing just how uninspired they really are. If god or Jesus were truly directing the LDS church we wouldn’t consistently be reacting to things as they happen around us….by the very nature of the definition of a prophet, seer, and revelator the LDS church should be the most progressive organization because they would be getting messages from god about important stuff….not hemlines, masturbation, and wearing your garments.
There is another, though perhaps less desirable, possibility with this question of the position of women in the church. It may be that, along with the undeclared but suspected origins of the position towards blacks and the priesthood, the position of men toward women was made tradition in a similar manner. In pre-women’s-rights 19th century America the subordinate position of women in society was well entrenched – hence the suffrage movement. This male-dominant position transitioned into tradition in the church through easily explainable human perspectives and practices. Some of these perspectives have changed, the position towards blacks has shifted, but that of women lies entrenched in a supposedly God-given decree. It is curious to note, however, that at a present day temple ordinance work – the second endowment (washing of the feet) ordinance that is hidden from most membership, the woman officiates in an ordinance of laying her hands upon her husband’s head, exercising her priesthood, and pronouncing a blessing. So, women do exercise priesthood in certain roles today, though it is kept quite secret. Perhaps a more broad role will open up once a generation of General Authorities or so has expired. The other possibility that some may argue is that there is no Mother in Heaven, it is all made up anyway. This is not comforting at all, but it remains a possibility. I agree with Christy and Sue, in that IF She is there, She would not be timid or leave me comfortless. So, it remains a stubborn point for authorities to grapple with, and for women believers to painfully endure. I wish it were not so.
Throughout history the faithful have waited in patience and faith for more light and knowledge. Rarely did change come to them in a way (or in a time) that they themselves would have chosen or predicted. Surely the Israelite people would not have chosen to escape Egypt only after scores of others were killed by plagues, nor would they have chosen to wander for years in the desert. But when the people were humble, when they were ready, they were given new understanding. This story is repeated time and time again. A few of the early members of our church, when they learned of the concept of Zion, began to build it immediately, and were told that it was not the right time. Sometimes I feel like the Lord waits for us to reach the conclusion as a people that we need more knowledge, that we are ready for more doctrine, more truth, and then He waits until we are humble enough to accept it. But taking the patterns of the past into account, if God is constant, I have to believe that when He thinks we are ready, as a people, (not when WE think we are ready), there will be change. While I am not always completely at ease with the role that women do or do not play in the church, I absolutely have faith that in time, when we are ready, the Lord will illuminate the truth in a new way, a way that we have not envisioned, and that the cries of his saints will be heard. He does love us. He does not want his daughters to be in pain. When women were initially given the responsibility to organize the RS, the concept of women having any role in a church at all was dangerously progressive. We can be patient. We can do it! Line upon line, precept on precept. Are we really all ready, as a people, for the change that we want to see? If we fuel this discussion with hostility, the answer is a resounding no. I have often thought that this issue is one that will be resolved in time. But maybe not in my own time. Plenty of Israelites faithfully followed Moses out of Egypt, through the desert, and died before he ever made it to the promised land. If this doesn’t resolve itself in my lifetime, so be it. But I hope that I can help to set a tone of calm and patient expectation and faith for my children. Want to see change? Pray that the hearts of the members of the church will be prepared for change; that they will be ready to accept new revelation when it is given. And then be ready yourself. I’ll join you. Sorry for rambling. Please don’t take offense to anything I’ve said.
MMR. . .the LDS Church was the last major American religion to integrate black members fully into its priesthood. It will likely be the last to do so for women & gays. Line upon line? What does it say about the body of saints & their leaders that they are so behind on these issues?
I was at Education Week and was present for this address, and I sustain Elder Ballard as a prophet, seer, and revelator. If and when changes come in policy and culture, which I anticipate, I will continue to sustain my church leaders. I love them and am grateful for them. I know they aren’t perfect, but I know my time is better spent finding less fault in others and working on removing the beams from my own eyes. We should all probably spend less time doing this, and use any extra time we have in the simple doctrine: building faith, not losing it- repenting for what we do wrong- not giving or taking offense- humbling ourselves- learning more about Christ’s life and teachings and trying to be more like Him. In fact, I am going to turn off my computer and go do something for someone else. :)
I don’t really have an opinion, any more, on women and the priesthood. So why am I responding? I just want to say that for all the many, many, many infertile women and adoptive mothers ‘out there’, having a man constantly bring up the tired, old argument about: men have the priesthood; women bear children–
is beyond insensitive.
For so many women (not everyone I know, but MANY) hormones make us anything but equal already. To pretend that we are equal when hormones create so much chaos in so many women–
I know of a lot more women than men who have hormone-related illnesses. Yes, men do have a very few, but women preponderate.
According to the logic of men like Brother Ballard, women who cannot bear children don’t count.
Great response, Christy!
I wish the church would just come out and say, “We don’t talk about Heavenly Mother because there are probably a lot of Heavenly Mothers, given that whole polygamy/principle-of-celestial-marriage thing. Frankly, it’s a can of worms we don’t want to open, but feel free to seek your own personal revelation regarding your relationship with your own Heavenly Mother.” Not that it would EVER happen… but I could respect that approach.
Why couldn’t we know about a lot of Heavenly Mothers? If there might be more than 1, why not talk about all of them? This is the nature of Deity we’re talking about. If there are many Heavenly Mothers, wouldn’t that be doctrinally important? One of the first restored truths was that the father and son are separate; that was so important it became the 1st article of faith. Shouldn’t female deities and their number be top of our list of questions?
Christy–thank you for giving generously of your time, might, mind, and heart to write this. Important.
I appreciated this article. It help articulate some of the frustration I’ve heard many women express. I do have some questions. I wonder about the wisdom in assigning greater value to those people who make the decisions. I sometimes wonder if that is how God sees things or if that is what the world tells us to think. Does God really value the decision makers more than the followers? That would seem to imply that God doesn’t value the disabled or the elderly.
I for one see a problem in our society in giving the decision makers too much value. It’s given us corrupt CEOs and business leaders, of both sexes, that get paid far more than they are worth.
So I like to think that God doesn’t value those that have Priesthood callings more than those that don’t. In fact, I can think a some disabled individuals, who don’t need baptism or to hold a priesthood calling, that I think God values more than the prophet or other leaders. So thinking that Priesthood roles are really more like tasks that get assigned out I think helps the idea of separate but equal make sense. Yes, woman could do the tasks of the Priesthood, but it hasn’t been assigned to them yet.
But I feel like the world keeps telling us that the person who gets to run the company is somehow better than the workers that make the company actually be a company. That’s not true.
I agree there are some women in the Church who probably should be given more responsibility. Some women have too many responsibilities in the Church. But it does take all of us to make it run. Some local leaders don’t always remember this and take on too much themselves or keep the responsibilities with too small of a group. Perhaps clearer guidance as to how the burdens can be shared is needed.
“I cannot see equality in the “separate but equal” structure that was highlighted so frequently in your address. Placing motherhood as the primary role and responsibility for women is not only a disservice to women, but diminishes the equally important role of fatherhood. Placing priesthood as the primary role and responsibility of men, is not only a disservice to men, but diminishes (and in this case, entirely erases) the varying abilities and spiritual powers of women.”
I totally agree with this, and everything else in your letter, and I thank you for writing and sending it to Elder Ballard. My only thought (or question) would be how to add something here about how being a woman is more than being a mother. I guess when we talk about placing motherhood as the primary role and responsibility of women I cringe a little bit, because I feel like that makes me invisible as a person because I am now a “mother”. There is so much more to being me than my reproductive abilities and the subsequent mothering that I do to my adorable progeny. That is a big part of who I am, because I have 5 kids, and right now it occupies every single moment of my life that I am not sleeping or at work. (well, even a lot of my time at work some days). But I am extremely hopeful that what everyone says about kids growing up and eventually life getting easier will actually come true and I can occasionally do something that is personally fulfilling for myself as a person/woman/individual that has NOTHING to do with the fact that I am a mother. I also hope that receiving the highest degree of celestial glory doesn’t mean that I have to procreate for all eternity. That doesn’t sound like celestial glory/heaven to me. I am holding out hope that my identity as a person and a woman doesn’t mean that I will forever be caring about everyone else around me and never getting to fulfill my own personal goals and dreams and desires. I love my kids. I love being their mother. But I also love the other parts of me as well, and those parts, the talents and abilities that God gave me, need some play time too.
k…calm your tits.
Sorry, but all discussion of female ordination aside, I actually do subscribe to the “myth” of Heavenly Father protecting Heavenly Mother, or just the fact that we don’t know more because we simply don’t know more.
Do we have all of scripture? Do we have everything from the plates? Do we know of the doings of the Israelites following their scattering?There’s tons we don’t know, and I do not experience and anger or disappointment not knowing about Heavenly Mother at this point. All things will be revealed. It’s not our place to dictate to God when greater truths should be revealed to us. It’ll happen.
But aside from that, will I go to hell and back to protect my wife and her good name? Absolutely. Sure, it might sound pleasant and folksy to assume that HF is just “protecting” HM, but what good man – and a perfected man – would want to openly submit his wife to scorn? It’s not about dominating a woman or seeking to control her because She can’t handle it. I’m sure She can handle it. But just as with my wife – I don’t want her to have to handle it. I don’t want to cause her pain, suffering, or trouble. I want to take the brunt of it and not make her deal with any of.
Your post has good points, though it does leave out some of the greater understanding that comes from the temple. I know anyone might rightfully retort that just because the priesthood is exercised in its fulness through temple ordinances doesn’t make up for the lack of female priesthood for other ordinances outside the temple, but bear with me. It’s really important to understand that, and as we spend more time in the temple and study the doctrines associated with it, we realize that it isn’t just that a man can’t exercise his priesthood without a woman and a woman can’t have a child without a man. That’s silly. The priesthood is very much exercised in tandem and I have seen this countless times.
It’s a complicated issue, and I appreciate everyone’s comments and feelings about it. Open dialogue is one of the best things we have.
At present, there are two orders of priesthood in operation on the Earth, the Aaronic (or Levitical) Order, and the Melchizedek Order. The former is an appendage of the later, as both pertain to the salvation of God’s children. The order was originally called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God (D&C 107: 2-4). Thus, the Melchizedek order is the order of salvation. Women, without ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood are set apart to exercise priesthood keys in the Temple. To me, that means that there is a principle that has yet to be explained, but none-the-less exists. Men and Women, together, participate in the salvation of God’s children by exercising priesthood keys in the Temple.
Men and Women who enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage enter into an order of the priesthood (D&C 131:2). This is the Order of the Father, the order of exaltation. If priesthood is inherent in God the Father, as Elder Ballard says, then it is inherent in God the Mother. The blessing of this priesthood order is promised during the sealing ordinance and is only fully realized when a man and a woman, as husband and wife, have their calling and election made sure and are, together, ordained King and Queen, Priest and Priestess.
Look beyond the current constraints of understanding and find these higher principles of the priesthood. “Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven” (D&C 121:45).
1st of all, this man is an apostle of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Have some respect. 2nd, It’s too bad that you feel like a 2nd class citizen in the church, but I feel bad about things all the time and I don’t go around blaming other people or try to change years old doctrine that I don’t fully understand. Did it ever occur to you that there is something you are not understanding? That maybe an Apostle, a special witness of Jesus Christ knows more about this than you? Maybe all you women who are feeling this way need to look at yourselves rather than pointing fingers at the church and figure out what makes you so insecure about your lives that you are willing to create all this contention (really, a protest at the priesthood session of general conference?) President Hinckley said, “We are a peculiar people”. The church was organized by God, and it may not follow the norms of the world or it may not even seem “fair” to some. But if we have faith, believe and are HUMBLE we will find our place in the world, and feel good about it.
Thank you, Chelsea, for speaking for me and the vast majority of women in the church. Just, thank you.
It’s interesting to read Christy’s letter and the comments it generated. One thing I’ve noticed, especially in the church, if any are or have been offended, or seek to be offended, there is plenty of fodder for such. The Lord (Christ) has given instructions for that. A caution is that there is an attendant spirit that accompanies focussing on offense and being offended, which members should especially pay attention to. There are certain assumptions in play here, and playing from flawed assumption leads to flawed results, no matter how tight or well-framed the argument is.
Flawed leaders: For those that missed Elder Holland’s excellent talk last conference (April 2013), he spoke to this. If it upsets us when we encounter one, it might be that the Lord is upset, too, but he is patient with those he has called to his service. He is also upset when we don’t listen, but he is patient there, too.
Heavenly Mother: based on the experience we have as members and observing the women in the church, in particular the leaders who are remarkably strong and spiritual individuals, can anyone imagine that she has been trapped in some gilded cage by her imperious, misogynist husband? Absolutely not so! She is not one whit behind her husband! We might also ask ourselves how she feels about the disrespect that is shown here to that husband. Most importantly, as the mother of the Christ, how do you think she feels about the disrespect shown for her son, who went through everything for us, her other children? It’s his church. Can you imagine she doesn’t support it 100%? As for her remaining “hidden”, that’s an interesting question. For those who think that women aren’t to be listened to in council, you might have missed the recent missionary broadcast from the mission presidents’ conference. You might also have not read Elder Ballard’s excellent book, “Taking Counsel in Councils”, or missed the important things that are said there.
Priesthood: in the restored church, there’s holding the priesthood, and there’s the blessings of the priesthood, which go much further than simply holding the priesthood. If any here reflect upon the blessing they’ve received and have been promised in priesthood blessing and ordinances, I hope they understand this important distinction. There are two sections of the D&C that apply, section 84 and section 121. There are lots of misunderstandings about the priesthood, some of which are in Christy’s letter and some in the comments. The presumption that “simply” holding the priesthood opens up things not available to unmarried women is false. While being in a position where everyone sees what you do (passing the sacrament, blessing the sacrament, for the young men), it’s important to not lose focus on what that particular ordinance is about, which is likely the single most important ordinance in the church after baptism and confirmation. For those that think holding the priesthood is all so high and mighty, there are tight reins upon it, in particular worthiness. For those who actually might listen to the General Priesthood session, you might hear “service, service, and service” repeated and repeated, and worthiness, and following the Savior. If we do follow the Savior, it is really all about service. Tara nailed it in her comment. I’ve a mind to follow her in shutting off the computer after I’m done here and going out and doing service.
Revelation: Ezekiel 6 has some insights on the prophetic role, and receiving such direct instruction from the Lord. It is not for the faint of heart. Failure to follow prophetic counsel leaves us without foundation.
Getting wound up in false dichotomies, straw man arguments and other arguments of false premise just wastes time and effort, distracts us from the reason we’re here on Earth, and plays into no one’s hands except the one who has hated us from the beginning, continues to hate us and will continue to hate us until there are no willing hearers or followers left. Which is entirely up to us. Following Christ can teach us, and as long as we have the Spirit with us, we have even more. There are many unanswered questions, and focusing on them will leave just ashes in our mouths. Far more than the number of unanswered questions are needs of those around us that are not being met, and we are the only hands the Savior has on the Earth to do so. In particular, for those who have the Spirit in their lives, to perform inspired service blesses both the recipient and the doer.
CORRECTION: Ezekiel 3, in particular verses 17-27. Sorry about that.
I have appreciated being enlightened by this very popular topic. My thoughts always lead me back to our understanding of the plan of salvation and our knowledge that this a short time here on earth. Not every aspect of the fullness of the gospel, and its members, will happen during a mortal mministry. I have read opinions from women who feel they should not be considered equal because of their “parts” or ability to procreate. I find this disheartening. Men simply cannot and will not ever be able to carry and nurture a life the way a woman is physically able to. I would not consider this unequal, certainly, it is not the same. Procreating is a biological blessing that men simply will not nor ever have. Is that unequal for them? For those women who have hardships conceiving, this life on earth is just that, only on earth. One day we will be perfected and the trials we face wil be no more.
I also meant to ask, sincerely, if your son asked why he was not able to birth a child would you feel sad and cry for him the way other women have described their grief towards their daughters wanting to bless the sacrament? I understand that one is biological however, do you not believe this is by design? Why are men not given this ability?
AJ, the way you’ve framed this is indicative of the problem. Imagine an organization in which women run EVERYTHING and in which your son feels excluded. If I were to take your son aside and explain that he shouldn’t feel left out because his body is capable of making sperm, and that that is something that women can’t do, would that be helpful? A women’s body can grow a baby = a man’s body can make sperm. Motherhood = fatherhood. Male institutional authority in the church (both spiritual and administrative) = ? (this question mark is the problem). Equating an institutional role (men are in charge) with biological characteristics (ability to make sperm, carry a baby, etc.) makes no sense.
AJ, I don’t think the comparison of a mother crying with her daughter over wanting to bless the sacrament with the son wanting to bear a child is an accurate, apples-to-apples analogy. However moving it might seem, I think it is a misleading parallel.
Brett, reducing the problem to a series of equivalences doesn’t help. The particular talk referred to by Sis. Clegg (by Elder Ballard) actually speaks to many of the very issues covered here, and he also specifically says that we don’t know it is so (how priesthood roles are assigned). However, if we don’t trust our prophet(s), if the accusation is is that they are misleading us, what are we left with? Unhappiness, and if it’s done against the promptings of the Spirit, a very bleak unhappiness, as is described in the Book of Mormon.
Drat: correction — “we don’t know _why_ it is so”
“We are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the Coming of the Son of Man.”
Excellent quote by Wilford Woodruff for this context. Do you have a source?
Presuming this to be a valid quote from him, and since Wilford Woodruff also authored the Manifesto, it’s obvious that he took correction from the Lord well. Taking correction from the Lord is important for members, and as well as leaders. There are examples in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Lord giving correction to his leaders and calling them to repentance.
Thank you, Christy, for expressing so beautifully what I’ve felt in my heart for years. It’s uplifting to me to know that I am not alone in my questions. I’m weary of being told I don’t have enough faith if I wonder why women don’t have a greater role in the Church. So many of these things in the church that marginalize women seem to be born out of culture or a product of “the times” but have no doctrinal basis.
For example, I am an accountant. Do you know what calling I would do a great job with at church? Ward financial clerk. But wait, because I am a woman, I will NEVER be the ward financial clerk. Callings like this should have nothing to do with gender. It’s hard for me to believe the Lord doesn’t want my service unless I’m teaching Primary children (which I love, but I have other skills I could give, too!). And when we say women are in charge of their own organizations, could they please REALLY be in charge of it? For example, I wrote the Primary Program for years. After I wrote the program, I gave it to the Primary President to be approved. To me, the Primary President is the leader of the organization, and her approval should be enough. But no–after the Primary President approved it, we had to send it to the Bishopric to be approved. Is the Primary President the leader of our organization or not? Why do the decisions of the Primary and Relief Society still all have to be approved by men?
I especially appreciate your response to the “separate but equal” paragraph in the Proclamation to the Family. How are we equal partners in our family if my husband presides and I am the presidee? I am SO THANKFUL for the man I am married to who doesn’t subscribe to these domineering, presiding, women-subjugating attitudes. If a man can be a feminist, then he is a Mormon feminist. He’s not afraid to share his views during those priesthood lessons where the men get told again and again how they preside over the home. (Did you know men have meetings like this? I had no idea! My husband said they have them all the time. While the women are having lessons about being dutiful presidees and sustaining the priesthood, the men are having lessons about how it’s their divine role to preside over us.) After reading all the sexist comments on the Deseret News website in response to the story about Kate Kelly requesting tickets to the priesthood session, I was even more grateful for a husband who gives examples of women in Elder’s Quorum when he’s asked to name great leaders.
And you know what? I was so happy and started crying when I saw a woman finally giving the prayer at conference, but then I was also saddened that I even had to be excited. Why can’t things like this just be the norm???