Ordain Women

[Whistler]

Good points, bob. Additionally, has the fact of some historical LDS women having the priesthood been forgotten? I feel like no one mentions that anymore (of course, I don't read much on this issue anymore, either). There *is* historical precedent; it *isn't* an unchanging truth that men only should have it in the LDS church. {See, for instance, this well-sourced chapter.}

I highly recommend this book for anything feminist-y and church related. To anyone at BYU (or just with HBLL access) who prefers physical books to reading online, there are a couple copies that are pretty freuquently circulated. The copy I borrowed may have set off security every time I walked through the sensors (daily, because I worked there), but it was worth having the security guards get to know me personally.

I especially recommend The Grammar of Inequity (Chapter 9), while Sister Missionaries and Authority (14) was straight up eye-opening (did you know mission calls had different language in them for elders and sisters? I didn't).

The entirety of this book is a great read if you have the chance (and it's all there in that link—so you have the content there).

It took me a while to get around to it, but I really enjoyed reading Chapter 9! The author is sensitive to recognizing that while our traditional religious language isn't very inclusive, she doesn't fault people for using it, but it would be awesome to change it.

[Portia]

Thanks, Whistler, that's helpful. I mean, there's quite a bit on extra-Church protesting, and there's the Genesis Group. The Genesis Group was Church-sponsored, it's important to note: its leaders were actually set apart (the idea for the Group, the article says, actually came from then-Elders Hinckley, Monson, and Packer). So I'm not sure that's as clean a similarity as it might appear at first glance to organizations like OW.

What I'm obviously driving at is this: there was plainly plenty of private agitation within the Church relative to blacks and the priesthood. The Brethren clearly felt pressure from members to explain and resolve the issue. I am not sure that OW is taking an analogous tack. There are lots of members of the Church who would really like to critically visit some of these issues—why no women Sunday School Presidents? Why is Ward Mission Leader strictly a priesthood calling? Could we have women high councilors? Could we please ask about some of the language of the temple ceremony? These are private concerns that lots of people share. There are lots of incremental steps that we could be taking. Even "Let women attend Priesthood Session" is one of those incremental goals. But OW is focusing too much on the end goal.

But calling your group "Ordain Women," presenting that goal as the be-all-end-all, and then protesting at Conference is a) not the way to win popular support from Church members, and b) not the way to get positive attention from the Brethren. They are playing their cards all wrong, and it's really a shame. They should take a page out of the NAACP's litigation strategy in the 50s and 60s: lots of small cases, building on one another, until they could get Brown v. Board. OW can't get Brown v. Board yet, and by insisting on that and then throwing their arms up and wailing when the Church (very predictably) says "No," they're not winning much support among the lay members of the Church.

This would just get people excommunicated. It got people excommunicated TWO YEARS before the ban was lifted in 1978, when many of the Brethren were clearly already contemplating the ban being gone. How in the world would this actually help?

I'm not interested in incremental changes like female Sunday School presidents or being "allowed" to attend a broadcast of Priesthood Session. (I attended in my very liberal YSA ward in the Midwest. Compared to the real social consequences my feminine forebears have faced, a couple raised eyebrows is nothing.) I will be satisfied with nothing less than a recognition of the scriptural injunction:

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Despite the faux-King James-y language, this touches something very deep and visceral in me.

Not "all are alike unto God, black and white, but don't use our bathrooms."

Not "all are alike unto God, Jew and Gentile, but don't come near me with your filthy bacon."

Not "all are alike unto God, male and female, but don't fight for your rights if you have two X chromosomes."

I assume you are a white, college-educated male with LDS heritage. I think unless you are part of a minority group, it's hard to articulate what systematic inequality feels like.

[mic0]

.They are playing their cards all wrong, and it's really a shame.

Same could be said of the church's PR strategy. It is really a shame they are so slow to realize and actually deal with social issues within their own organization.

[bobtheenchantedone]

First of all, it's not a protest. Please quit calling it such. There will be no signs, no slogans, no shouting, and allowing yourself to think of OW as protestors allows you to "other" them instead of thinking of them as your sisters in the LDS faith (for that they are; 75% of the women who participated in the October demonstration go to church at least 3 times a month).

Second, no matter what OW does, there are going to be people who think they are going about it the wrong way. And no matter what you think of this action, it was certainly a factor in some small changes that have taken place since then.

Third, I'm guessing you know exactly two things about OW: they demonstrated at conference, and they want women ordained to the priesthood. From that you are assuming that they are a tiny minority group with an outrageous goal and no other point in view. It's actually a very structured organization with committees, long-term and short-term goals, and several other events and steps in the planning. Their numbers are actually growing - that post Violet and Amity linked to was a woman explaining how the PR statement actually convinced her to take part in the April action. They already have more signed up to go this year than went in October.

Finally, as I mentioned before, women holding the priesthood is actually not that farfetched of an idea. Women had it in the past, both in ancient and modern times. It's not too big a leap to think that they'll have it again.

[bobtheenchantedone]

.They are playing their cards all wrong, and it's really a shame.

Same could be said of the church's PR strategy. It is really a shame they are so slow to realize and actually deal with social issues within their own organization.

The Church is playing its cards exactly the opposite of how it should, in fact. This April demonstration was slated to get less media attention than the October one, but ever since the statement the media has been super interested again.

[No Dice]

I think unless you are part of a minority group, it's hard to articulate what systematic inequality feels like.

Certainly true as a general principle. That said, it seems clear that a significant majority of even the people in the Church who know what "systematic inequality feels like" don't agree with OW, no? And you're still ignoring my larger point, which is that grandiose ideological divisions aside, there are still tactical/PR decisions to be made here. I'm suggesting that other minorities who face systemic (I think you mean systemic) inequality have confronted it in ways that might be more likely to produce change.

Anyway, I imagine there are plenty of college-educated, LDS-heritage white males in the OW ranks.

Same could be said of the church's PR strategy. It is really a shame they are so slow to realize and actually deal with social issues within their own organization.

Well, maybe. I mean, I doubt there's a statement the Church could have released that said both "No, you can't come to Priesthood Session, sorry" and also appeased OW. So when OW members are dissatisfied with the Church's statement, I'm not sure that's really compelling evidence that Church PR blew it. I happen to think that the Church clearly got the better of this exchange (though in fairness, I'm more inclined to take the Church's position, so that's probably itself not compelling evidence that OW blew it either).

I mean, this is like a tug-of-war, right? OW/non-traditionalists at one end, traditionalists at the other. Clearly a lot of people in the middle. When OW says, "We're going to go stand outside the Conference Center and ask to get into Priesthood Session" and the Church says "Not going to happen, so please don't," I'm not sure that it's the traditionalists that are losing people. I mean, yeah, Joanna Brooks jumped in with both feet, but you don't need to be getting her. You need to be getting the Tally M.'s and the No Dices of the world—people for whom the gender imbalances in the Church are really troubling, but who aren't about to endorse OW's agenda whole hog.

First of all, it's not a protest. Please quit calling it such ... they demonstrated at conference ... Finally, as I mentioned before, women holding the priesthood is actually not that farfetched of an idea. Women had it in the past, both in ancient and modern times. It's not too big a leap to think that they'll have it again.

Whoops, sorry. Genuinely didn't realize that OW was deliberately avoiding that characterization. That said, news media have called it "protest" all over the place (ABC News, HuffPost, Daily Beast, and essentially all the local outlets, from what I can tell). And of course the Church called it protest too. None of those organizations speaks for OW, obviously, but it's probably worth mentioning that it seems most everyone outside of OW thinks it's a protest. And the line between a demonstration and a protest is pretty thin. Walks like a duck and all that.

Another question: Do we have evidence, ancient or modern, of women ordained to priesthood offices as individuals? I read through the Quinn chapter in Women and Authority and couldn't find anything (i.e., plenty of stuff about women holding the priesthood, being priestesses or prophetesses, giving blessings, being members of a quorum, or being ordained with their husbands, but nothing about individual ordinations to priesthood offices that other men held—was the idea that the Relief Society would have its own offices?). I'm not sure I totally buy the whole "this is just a reversion to prior practices that we've mostly forgotten about," at least not in the sense that blacks and the priesthood was. That said, maybe I'm splitting hairs.

[Portia]

I don't think that the majority of practicing believing women care about equality as a foundational principle / want to be "agents unto themselves." You're correct, systematic was a typo for systemic, but the inequality in the LDS Church is not only "characteristic of a system," but "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical."

I don't view handholding and kumbaya as acceptable if something is morally wrong. I guess for me, injustice is not something to be incrementally fixed. I don't speak for Mormon Feminists, though. No one really addressed the question, "if women are ordained, would sexism in the Church still exist?" My answer -- "hell, yes!" It's as much cultural as doctrinal.

I think that you're already in a position of a power by virtue of your sex/race/class within this social system, so that it's easy to say that all is well in Zion, or whatever. I am not sure what causes some people to accept injustice and others to bristle at it. A combination of personality, values, and background, one would assume.

You know what, if Thomas Monson said that, "Can't come to Priesthood Session, sorry," himself, I would give him major props. This is probably where I split most markedly from the believing Mormon Feminist women and their male allies. I don't think that sexism in the Church is a divinely inspired system that will change if we ask nicely. I think that it's a reflection of a patriarchal culture, morally wrong, and that if there is a divine Creator, werf agrees with me.

Just like I believe racism is categorically, unequivocally wrong, and that as a white person, it would be incredibly patronizing of me to try to give a black person an explanation of why they were treated no better in a purported inspired religion than in the society of the day. "Because they were racist."

Relying on precedent just seems incredibly lame to me. Like when chauvinist male authors are like "name one Great Female Author" (from some time period). And then you realize, huh, if few to no women are literate, then they're underrepresented. I don't care if some hippie dippie historian can find a woman who was ordained to the Mormon Priesthood.

Didn't stop the Anglicans. They changed, and the conservatives split and had their own organization.

[Portia]

I thought that the survey tables in this post were very revealing about racial attitudes among Mormons in the late 1960s. I don't really understand how people resolve that cognitive dissonance.

[No Dice]

People wish that things they don't believe are God's will were actually his will all the time.

[Portia]

People wish that things they don't believe are God's will were actually his will all the time.

So God's a sexist?

[No Dice]

You're right. The fact that people wish for things that they believe aren't God's will means that God's a sexist. I am crushed under your logic.

[Marduk]

I don't even know what you originally said. I can't parse it out.

[No Dice]

Let me try again.

Some people have an idea of what they believe God's will is. Say, a close relative will die soon. But they really want something else—say, the relative would live. They wish that it were God's will that the relative would live, even though they've figured it's not.

So when Portia says that she can't understand how people worked through the cognitive dissonance of a) thinking that it was God's will that blacks were restricted from the priesthood, but b) wishing that that weren't so, my point is that happens all the time. Living in an imperfect world and believing in a perfect God makes for some pretty sweet cognitive dissonance.

But maybe the comment just boils down to "Man, I just don't get how people can genuinely be believing Mormons." In which case we were at impasse long ago.

But apparently this all means God's sexist? I am lost also.

[Yarjka]

But apparently this all means God's sexist? I am lost also.

In the same way God was a racist, but apparently He changed His views on that. So we can have hope that God will cease being sexist sometime in the future.

[Portia]

I went to my first LDS Church event in about six months last night -- the R.S. anniversary dinner. Having been the president of my local chapter, it's hard to describe my disappointment that there was a male chaperon. Let a group of grown women run their own events.

To those women who are going to be out there in the thick of things, I salute you. Take heart that the Relief Society started by the initiative of women themselves. It wasn't so long ago that they had their own newspaper, building, granaries, and a strong leader in Belle Spafford recognized in the country at large for her humanitarian efforts and 30+ years at the helm.

This just isn't worth engaging for me anymore. I do think that although there are wonderful people in the Church, the organization is sexist and racist and homophobic and exhibits all sorts of other discriminatory practices which I can't in good conscience condone. To turn a cliché on its head, a very imperfect and flawed Church has some darn-near perfect adherents and I hope for their sake that their organization catches up.

It's been a long five-year journey, but except for my brother's homecoming speech this Sunday (although he left after nine months due to disbelief and depression, he was told to focus on the positive), I hope to break ties completely. This is a cause that will have to be taken up by my confrères et consœurs.

[mic0]

To turn a cliché on its head, a very imperfect and flawed Church has some darn-near perfect adherents and I hope for their sake that their organization catches up.

I know this is largely unrelated to the topic at hand, but I came almost to this exact conclusion a couple days ago.

[Portia]

To turn a cliché on its head, a very imperfect and flawed Church has some darn-near perfect adherents and I hope for their sake that their organization catches up.

I know this is largely unrelated to the topic at hand, but I came almost to this exact conclusion a couple days ago.

The fact that you live in a cool city, seem happily married, and are studying something that interests you is very inspirational to me. Even though I don't know you well.

If anyone just needs to vent, email or PM me. :-)

[UffishThought]

This just isn't worth engaging for me anymore.

Didn't you come to that conclusion quite a while ago, Portia? It seems like every week or so you bring up another church issue you're dissatisfied with, and then swear that you're done forever now. Which is fine, and I know that the church is still part of your growing-up years and thus your identity, but I can't tell if you're going back and forth on the being done, or if you're just reiterating in case some of us have missed the fact that you don't believe it anymore.

[Portia]

This just isn't worth engaging for me anymore.

Didn't you come to that conclusion quite a while ago, Portia? It seems like every week or so you bring up another church issue you're dissatisfied with, and then swear that you're done forever now. Which is fine, and I know that the church is still part of your growing-up years and thus your identity, but I can't tell if you're going back and forth on the being done, or if you're just reiterating in case some of us have missed the fact that you don't believe it anymore.

That's fair. I think I mean more specifically the issue of women in the Church. It's probably the case that my viewpoint has diverged too far to contribute too much. (I do find the mainstream interpretation of God's will for women to be sexist, truthfully.)

It's frustrating to see people I care about be hurt, but we each have to tend our own garden, I've decided. Not really a strength of mine, but something I'm working on.

[vorpal blade]

Yellow, it is an interesting thought, and one I've had myself. However, if that narrative has truth to it, I think there is an obligation for church leaders to reveal that the dialogue has taken place, and that that is the instruction that has been received. Genuine harm is happening because of their silence, and they ought to speak on the subject, instead of just relegating it to the church PR team.

Here you are calling church leaders to repentance for their silence and relegating public announcements to the PR team.

I disagree that someone who is not my priesthood leader should be calling me to repentance. That is where we disagree. I follow the admonition of the scriptures, you...not so much.

Here you are calling me to repentance for calling you to repentance. If you were my priesthood leader, or church leader, you might have a point. But I know of no scripture that says we shouldn't call one another to repentance unless the person we are calling to repentance is our priesthood leader or church leader.

I cannot wait to hear you give your scriptural evidence that you are following the admonition of the scriptures while I am not.