Guest Post: Power Hungry
Lorie Winder Stromberg introduces herself this way:
“I’m a fourth-generation Mormon, seminary and BYU graduate (BA and MA), married in the temple with two children, ages 16 (a junior in high school) and 21 (a senior at Harvard). Because of my outspoken feminism, I am perpetually what I like to call the “Meals for the Dead Coordinator,” either compassionate service leader or on the activities committee. I’m also a free-lance editor. My husband, an attorney, was just released from the bishopric in our ward and now teaches the High Priests.
I date my feminism from 1973, when I was invited by a BYU Family Home Evening sister to attend a meeting of the Utah Valley Chapter of the Women’s Political Caucus. The discussion focused on The Equal Rights Amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1972 and was being ratified by the States. I was converted.”
Power Hungry
In “Why Don’t Women Hold the Priesthood? A Brief but Insightful Interview,” Betina Lindsey wrote:
“On a June morning in 1988, I was cooking pancakes for my eleven-year-old son and his friends after a sleep-over. Twelve-year-old David had recently been ordained to the priesthood and the other boys were asking how many times he’d passed the sacrament. While slapping a few more pancakes on their plates, I asked, ‘Why don’t women hold the priesthood?’ Their answers were as follows:DAVID: (age 12) ‘Men have better looks.’
ROBERT (age 13) ‘Some women have their priorities wrong and men are more distinguished.’
STRYDER: (age 11) ’My sister’s Sunday School teacher said giving women the priesthood would be like giving them an open-ended credit card.’
RICKY: (age 11) ‘My grandpa says maybe they’ll get it in heaven.’
ROBERT: ‘Women aren’t strong enough because it would fatigue them like when Jesus blessed people he would get weak.’
DAVID: ‘Yea, if women had the priesthood they might beat the men up.’
ROBERT: ‘And women have their times when they aren’t cooperative and I give you my permission to quote me.’ (He’s a lawyer’s son.)
ERIC: (age 8—interrupting impatiently) ‘Hey, you guys, let’s go play Power Lords.’
RICKY: (Hurriedly stuffing the last bit of pancake into his mouth) ‘Well, I think (long pause with a shake of his head) I don’t know why.’
End of pancakes. End of interview. Exit Power Lords.”
David’s comment, “Yea, if women had the priesthood they might beat up the men,” is revealing. In David’s mind, and the minds of countless others, power is perceived as devouring, as dominating and coercive. This is why feminists are derisively accused of being power hungry, as if wanting power were necessarily a bad thing.
And it is, if it is only seen as coercive and controlling. But I’ve spent too many years on the defensive. It’s time I owned the term. Perhaps I am power hungry.
And my question is: Why aren’t we all?
If by power hungry you mean I desire the ability not only to accept responsibilities in the institutional Church but to be part of defining what those responsibilities are, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Over the years, many Church leaders have asserted that we should be talking more about taking responsibility than exercising or demanding rights. This privileging of responsibility over rights for women is problematic. In a discussion with Margaret Toscano, she suggested that Mormon women seem to have plenty of delegated responsibilities. It is their right within the organization to oversee and establish their responsibilities that is lacking. Responsibility devoid of rights is servitude.
I’m weary of the false dichotomies that are set up for women in the Church. Both former Relief Society General President Barbara B. Smith and Russell M. Nelson have suggested that Mormon women ought to choose integrity over visibility, charity over charisma. What is wrong with having both integrity and visibility, both charity and charisma? Obviously, members of the Church’s male hierarchy don’t have to make such choices, so why should women?
If by power hungry you mean I believe women must have a voice in the Church, then, yes, I’m power hungry. In a panel discussion on working with women presented at the 1993 BYU Women’s Conference, several male panelists admitted that they were never forced to take women seriously until they became colleagues. While their emphasis was on a secular setting, the question and answer period exploded with faithful, mainstream Mormon women wondering how they could get their Church leaders to listen to them. It was obvious to me, and I said so during the session—women in the Church would never have a voice until, as in the secular arena, they were seen as colleagues, in this case spiritual colleagues, within the power structure of the Church.
If by power hungry you mean I believe that women should not only be represented but should be an integral part of every major decision-making body of the Church, then, yes, I’m power hungry. I’ve often said that I’m passionately ambivalent about priesthood. I’m not fond of hierarchies and am leery of structures that promote them because they are almost always abusive. However, having power within an institution is preferable to institutional powerlessness, particularly if we are able as women to bring the consciousness of what it is like on the margins to the center of our religious community.
Positional power in the Church is granted primarily to those who hold the priesthood. This is particularly true above the local level. While a charismatic woman might have significant influence on the ward or, perhaps, even the stake level, thereafter positional power for women in the Church evaporates. Since, for the most part, we no longer recognize charismatic power in the Church—only positional power—can women have equal status to men in the Church without being ordained to the priesthood?
Recognizing the inequity inherent in an all male priesthood, Bruce Hafen tried to minimize its importance. In a keynote address at the 1985 BYU Women’s Conference entitled “Women, Feminism and the Blessings of the Priesthood,” Hafen listed several of the blessings that were available to both men and women in the Church. As if it were a mere trifle he added, “The one category of blessing in which the role of women is not the same as that of men holding the priesthood is that of administering the gospel and governing all things.” How could Hafen deliver this line with a straight face, and, perhaps even more disturbing, how could his audience of women listen to it in silence?
If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Aside from its administrative function, if priesthood is merely a sort of temporal permission to tap spiritual resources already available to the faithful, then it is superfluous. If, however, it truly is a real, bestowed power that can enhance our ability to bring comfort and peace and joy into the world, then, yes, I’m power hungry and un-ambivalently so. Who would not righteously want it?
Finally, if by power hungry you mean I want the ability to participate in a model of power based on partnership rather than patriarchy, based on empowerment rather than domination, then, yes, I’m power hungry. Scott Bartchy, UCLA professor of Christian origins and early Church history, gave a presentation at Sunstone in which he declared that Christ came to overthrow traditional models of power, which were based on domination, coercion and control. In their place, he offered a model of power in which power is used to empower. Power used to dominate, coerce or control will always burn itself out, asserted Bartchy. Only power used to empower is everlasting.
By now I’ve given sufficient weight to the word power in the term power hungry. Alas, I’ve neglected the word hungry. Just as by power I do not mean domination or coercion, but rather voice and influence and empowerment, so by hungry I do not mean gluttony. I’m talking about sustenance. I’m talking about a soul-deep yearning for a life-sustaining, sacramental meal to which all are invited.
Footnotes (I don’t know how to format them for blogger):
Betina Lindsey, “Why Don’t Women Hold the Priesthood: A Brief but Insightful Interview,” Mormon Women’s Forum, 1:1, October 1989, 5.
See Gordon B. Hinkley, “Ten Gifts from the Lord,” Relief Society General Women’s Meeting, September 28, 1985, published in Ensign, November 1985, 86; Patricia T. Holland, “A Woman’s Perspective on the Priesthood,” Tambuli, 6:5, June 1982, 21; Russell M. Nelson, “Woman—of Infinite Worth,” Ensign, November 1989, 20.
Russell M. Nelson, “Woman—of Infinite Worth,” Ensign, November 1989, 20; Barbara B. Smith, “The Legacy Remembered and Renewed,” Relief Society General Women’s Meeting, March 27, 1982.
“Relating to the Other: Building Bridges, Working together,” Moderator, Kate Kirkham; Panelists, Todd Britsch, Olani Durrant, Mack Lawrence and Steven C. Walker, BYU Women’s Conference, April 29, 1993.
Bartchy, Scott, “Jesus, Power, and Gender Roles,” Sunstone Symposium, Session 190, August 18, 1994.
Some of the material in this paragraph was developed during a discussion with Stacy Burton.
Power Hungry appeared in Issue 135 of Sunstone (December 2004) and is being reprinted here with their permission.
Awesome. I’m glad you embrace and redefine the phrase “power hungry” into something positive. I like the image of power to empower, power begetting power begetting power . . . Kris has referenced this article several times but I hadn’t read the whole thing yet. Thanks for posting it here.
Posted by Heather P.
Comment by Anonymous — April 14, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
All it would take is another Sister of Jared to re-establish charismatic leadership in the Church.
The real issue, and one I’ve noted from time to time, is that almost every experiment with mixed male/female leadership groups has ended up with participants bonding very closely with each other, invariably to an inappropriate extent.
So, aside from needing the Sister of Jared in our generation, we need a model where some of the participants do not fall prey to temptation.
That leaves only the issue of spiritual flavor (as good a word as any) and I don’t know if that issue matters or not (kind of like the way different circle patterns have a different flow or pattern to them, women holding power have a different one).
That leaves two issues I know about and one I can spot but do not fully understand.
Of the people I’ve met and thought they might be the Sister of Jared, one is dead, God took her for reasons I’m completely unable to understand. One was incidental, not directed, and the last I just ran across again, but I think she has submerged herself for more important things.
However, in my extremely limited experience, the brethren are completely unable to withstand the Spirit of God when presented in openess, assuming they are awake.
As for how to prevent people from bonding (even if they don’t break the law of chastity, many times the bonding causes severe problems), I’m still clueless, but I’m only an observer of some tangents. There are those wiser than I who must know more.
Peace.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 14, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
Good points were suggested here. To be power hungary is bacically having ‘voice’. Without voice, there is no power but with silence there is definitely a mode of adaptive behavior. Both men and women need voice but women especially need to be aware of voice as a change insurgent. But voice does not necessarily mean ‘demands’ or ‘exercising’. Rather voice is a source of liberation as empowerment. Do you feel that you have voice? If your answer is no, then you need to apprehend voice for your own dignity. Is it possible to have responsibilities without voice. Slaves had responsibility, but no voice. With voice, you gain visiblility and integrity, regardless of wherever you may be…in the home or church or in the community. Without voice, can you possess charisma or charity?
I do not believe that you can be power hungry without being hungry for ‘voice’. “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains”. But with voice…each link in the chain can be broken.
(This post does not necessarily apply to the church but it definitely applies to life in general).
Posted by bob
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 6:47 am
Lisa/Lorie-
Thank you so much for this post. It is beautifully written. I especially loved the part about how women should want to be able to exercise the priesthood to benefit and help others.
I think this very important distinction gets lost along the way, because men tend to say that women are power hungry to feed their own egos and selfish desires, when, in reality, many women in fact want to help others by using the priesthood, to bless their own children, to guide their own friends and family members, as their husbands and fathers have so graciously done.
Of course, women would get the secondary benefit of happy feelings and fulfillment through helping others, and so maybe women are power hungry for these feelings, but isn’t that the point?
It’s very discouraging how men demonize women who would like to share in the work and the benefits of helping others through priesthood leadership.
There are many men who angle and jockey for priesthood positions and callings to gain social recognition and to stroke their own egos, but you don’t hear as much about these men as you do about the feminist women who are destroying the foundations of the Church in their relentless pursuit of power.
Thanks again for the post.
Posted by Tess
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 10:28 am
The article struck a chord with me. I remember listening to a husband/wife combo speak in sacrament meeting. The wife mentioned that her husband was delighted with this opportunity to speak - he has held callings requiring him to speak frequently, always enjoyed it, and had missed it recently with their current calling. I enjoy (and am good at) speaking in sacrament meeting, too, but I’ll never hold a calling that will allow me to do so.
I felt both excited and despairing while reading this article. Excited because I agree with it. Despairing because there’s nothing I can do to make changes, and wishing doesn’t make it so.
Posted by Janey
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 11:04 am
Thank you, Lorie, for being an inspiration to us all - your “still, small voice” speaks with the power of the mighty rushing wind. Oh, that more would be in tune with it.
Stephen-”The real issue, and one I’ve noted from time to time, is that almost every experiment with mixed male/female leadership groups has ended up with participants bonding very closely with each other, invariably to an inappropriate extent.”
Maybe you need some more experience sharing leadership roles with women. Men and women are, indeed, capable of sharing leadership power without becoming “inappropriate” and do so every day.
Posted by LRC
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 11:41 am
Reading these comments makes me wonder why strong, talented women stay in the Church. This is not a perjorative question, but really, why DO you stay in the Church, where we’re taught that men have power over us, and that women are good only when they are caring for children?
I don’t have any daughters of my own, but I would be very wary of bringing them up in a Church that teaches these things. Because no matter how great of an example we can be as mothers, the doctrine does not allow us to be anything other than a support system for our husbands.
In other words, women are valued insofar as they fulfill the role that men in the Church have ascribed to them.
Please forgive me if this post is not skillfully written, I don’t mean to offend. But I struggle with these thoughts quite often, and would like to know what others think.
Posted by Stephanie
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
Maybe you need some more experience sharing leadership roles with women. Men and women are, indeed, capable of sharing leadership power without becoming “inappropriate” and do so every day.
Posted by LRC
I’m only commenting on observed problems with the LDS Church. I’ve done that a number of times, and I hope you are commenting in context of my actual experiences.
In that regard, I’ll note that I share a position at Church with my wife, and I assure you, nothing “inappropriate” happens. And yes, everyone thinks of her being in charge fo the shared position and me as being around to provide support.
At work leadership gets shared all the time without any problems at all. The same is true of a number of boards I’ve served on and the one I’m currently serving on.
Guess your statement is either that if people just “got out more” they’d see that the failed experiments in the Church don’t really exist? Or that we should run the Church more like a business? Or that when I restated my prior comments I should have pointed out that I had previously explicitly been referring to the Church and situations that have arisen there.
You probably would have meant the last comment if I had been clearer this time.
And, of course, I’m more than willing to read about models that you would think would work. We need one, that is for certain.
There are many men who angle and jockey for priesthood positions and callings to gain social recognition and to stroke their own egos, and they get a good part of a section of the D&C dedicated to them.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 12:31 pm
In response to Stephanie…
My husband and I have talked endlessly about this topic– I am a stay-at-home mom for the time being and have chosen to do so. I have no problem with women who are working– I intend to go back in the next year or two as my kids are getting older. I think that women should be free to choose what is the best for them and their families. This, if you read all the conference talks, Proclamation to the Family, etc.– makes me a “bad Mormon.” Only under certain circumstances (usually dire) should women work outside the home. The amazing thing is that I know more women who work than stay at home. (More “bad” Mormons?)
I’ve gotten to the point in my life where I refuse to be silent anymore. When, as the RS Enrichment leader, I was told that according to the handbook men were not supposed to help with the Nursery during Enrichment activities, I just about lost it. I spoke up and clearly stated my reasons for asking the EQ to help us– enabling all the sisters to attend the activities, encouraging husbands to see Enrichment night as a priority evening to spend with their children rather than a “free” babysitting night for them to stay late at the office or go out with friends, etc.– My objections were smiled at and I was referred to the Handbook. I refused to ask the mothers to come to the church to watch their own and others’ children. Needless to say I felt powerless. I don’t want to hold the Priesthood… but I do dislike feeling powerless to rectify something I feel is a silly rule, one for which there is no gospel basis. (Don’t even think of the “women are in charge of children” defense!) In our family my husband knows that Enrichment night is off-limits and he needs to be home. If he’s out of town I try to make other arrangements or I don’t go.
As far as teaching my daughter about life in the church… I’ll let you know when I feel I get it right.
Posted by Kirsten
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
Kirsten-
Why do you stay, though? I know I’m going to get pegged as anti-Mormon when I say this, but I just don’t understand why these ideas and practices promoting gender inequality are tolerated in this Church, and why women such as yourself tolerate the behavior you just described by men who dismiss your legitimate objections as a joke.
I think I have to agree with all the women who got thrown out of the Church for speaking their minds on this, but the men in this Church are never, ever going to change any of its discriminatory, secular practices if women keep silent and don’t do anything affirmative to change the way things are right now.
I’m not talking about giving the priesthood to women here. But there is a pervasive lack of acknowledgement in the Church that women’s issues and concerns are equal to the concerns of the men. This is wrong.
Because women in the Church have been intimidated into being silent instead of lobbying for meaningful changes, I think one of the only ways that men in this Church will consider changing the way things are right now is by looking to the way things are changing in a positive direction in society outside the Church. One of the things I find most difficult about this Church is that so many times positive changes are instigated from outside the Church, instead of the Church leading as an example of doing things the right way and treating everyone equally.
Anyway, I’m glad we have this forum to talk, but as Janey mentioned above, sometimes it’s too depressing to talk about.
Posted by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
Stephanie,
I too worry about the effect that the church will have on my daughters, and maybe more importantly, my son. I hate to think of them beliveing so much of the gender inequality that is so ingrained in our Mo culture.
But then I look at me. I was raised in the thick of it, and no doubt it has still affected me, but I turned out okay. I’m happy with my life, I had a great childhood. I don’t feel like it warped me into something unhealthy or unhappy.
Certainly I cringe when I think of a lot, A LOT, of the things I was taught as a child, or thought as a child about gender. And obviously this is really important to me. If it weren’t would I have started this blog, I think not.
However, the benefits (for me) outweight the drawbacks. This may not be true for everyone, and that’s fine with me. But I’ve got a lot invested in Mormonism. My heritage, my culture, my family, my faith.
As much as the negatives (the genders issues topmost) make me crazy. There are a lot of positives too. And if everyone who ever thought differently leaves, how will anything change?
Posted by Lisa
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 1:56 pm
Following up to Lisa: As much as the negatives (the genders issues topmost) make me crazy. There are a lot of positives too.
When the negatives outweigh the positives, people leave.
Posted by Ann
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
Kristen- It’s in the handbook that men aren’t supposed to run the nursery?? Hmm, maybe that’s why we had one woman be the nursery co-ordinator, and she arranged all help from the EQ, the HP, and even the YM, to get around some stipulation in the handbook. Your situation sounds completely frustrating.
Posted by Kristy
Comment by Anonymous — April 15, 2005 @ 6:25 pm
I think that lisa had a good point about staying in the church. That being said, I think that when we humans begin to stress what the genders have in common, true change will occur. Our commonalities are based in the human experience and on our shared physical features. We have flesh and blood, we have mouths and minds, we have souls and spirits to embrace but most important of all, we have voice, if not the vocal chords then we have sign language. Plus we have a rich life experience filled with our own and common struggles. And as I said above, true power comes with voice. I think lisa that your children will just need to be taught ‘voice’ and the importantance that voice has to affect change. I think that if a person has good self-confidence and self-esteem, she or he can not be intimidated into silence. Kirsten has found her voice (even though she was politely silenced) and with it…a good sense of being and her dignity intact. She just needs to keep her voice. I can’t say that the church is an enemy to woman but many women and men are enemies unto themselves. Perhaps Utah is a different land inside a different country in gender matters but 99% of the women I know (I live outside Utah) work outside the home and nothing ‘bad’ is thought of them, likewise, it seems clear that many women and men have found their voice, and they seem to put it to use. Wake up boys and girls and find your voice…don’t let conservative unenlightened males and females stifle your intellect and humanity. It all begins with you and with how you educate your children. True liberation comes with voice and action…we have nothing to lose but our own and common human chains.
Posted by bob
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 3:36 am
http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/index.php/2005/04/15/91 fits into more on my thoughts on patterns.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 8:18 am
Anonymous said: “I’m not talking about giving the priesthood to women here.” Why not? Isn’t the question of women and priesthood ordination central to the discussion of gender equity in the Church?
Posted by lorie
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 1:03 pm
Hi, Lorie. It’s Lowell Brown. It’s been too long! I enjoyed your post and someday when I have time and energy will respond with the cordial and sincere opposition you’ve come to expect from me. In the meantime it’s just good to see you’re “in there, pitching,” and stirring us all up to think a second time about some profound issues.
Posted by Lowell
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
Lorie-
I’m not speaking for anonymous, but i don’t think giving women the priesthood is necessarily the central issue to gender equity in the Church.
Perhaps men and women will never be equal in the church until they both are allowed to exercise the priesthood, but I think that too many people use the excuse that we haven’t received revelation allowing the church to extend priesthood to women as justification for continuing to marginalize women and prevent them from serving in positions that don’t require the priesthood.
Women don’t need the priesthood to act as independent leaders in the church, and to have their own voices. Certainly, extending the priesthood to women would change a lot, but I think there are plenty of opportunities right now to create gender equity in the Church that are being ignored while we wait for a revelation granting women the priesthood.
Posted by Tess
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
As to the question, “Why do you stay?” I must admit it isn’t the Church with a captial “C” that keeps me going each Sunday. It’s the gospel itself and the numerous spiritual experiences I’ve had over the years. I constantly tell my hubby that I cannot wait until his generation is in the General Authority pool. I think that when you were raised makes a big difference. My husband’s parents weren’t forward thinking by any means– women’s issues really didn’t exist– but because of the education and experiences he has had (coupled with being married to an outspoken feminist!) have made him someone sensitive to others on many levels. I do my best to teach my own son the value of all people– he can tell you all about Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton at six years old… I hope that someday, if he were to become a Bishop, he would remember all his dear old Momma taught him about how girls and boys are both very important and need to be heard.
I think there is a lot of fear with men in authority positions (Bishop, Stake Pres.) that they might do something wrong. My experience with the “handbook thing” and the Enrichment nursery was so frustrating. Instead of acknowledging my desire for the women to all be together, the fear was that if they went against the handbook’s guideline for mothers to look after the children in the nursery that they would somehow be “in trouble.” They– ironically enough our RS President went along with this- couldn’t see past the letters on the page to the “governing themselves” idea of modifying to meet our ward’s needs. I have to remind myself that these people are human with their own interpretation of the right thing to do. I was the Primary Pres. once in a ward in Cambridge, MA where we had a fantastic, forward-thinking, listening Bishop. (sigh!) In Ward Council, while discussing our organizations, he simply asked, “What would be best for the Primary children?” Not, “what does the handbook say?” or “I need to ask the Stake Pres.” He was more concerned with the children directly than anything else. He was one who recognized the value of all voices: men, women, children, married, single, divorced, etc.
I hope and pray that more leaders of this nature cross my path…
Posted by Kirsten
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
Lorie,
Thanks for the post! I love your power hungry piece and am looking forward to seeing the (unfortunately) watered down version in the forthcoming issue of Exponent II.
I wanted to bring up a question. Last week, we were having our graduate student institute class, and were talking about the possibility of women one day getting the priesthood. Armand, a 75 year old retired professor of sociology and serious scholar of Mormon studies said, “If women get the priesthood, men will put up a token resistance and then back off and let the women do all the work. The men would disappear from church activity.”
What do you think of this reasoning? Surely the majority of men wouldn’t disappear! I think it’s difficult for those in positions of power to give it up. I would imagine it would take centuries before women were equally represented in church leadership positions.
Men, what do you think? Would you become inactive out of laziness if women got the priesthood?
Posted by Caroline
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 7:30 pm
What do you think of this reasoning? Surely the majority of men wouldn’t disappear!
You can learn a lot by following other churches and what is going on with them and in them.
The LDS Church is unique in the envolvement and engagement of men in the life of the Church. That is a topic that is often discussed in pan-church circles.
When that has been brought up in various parts of the bloggernacle, people just get angry, so I left it out of my post.
Ask yourself just what do men get out of serving in the Church? The social status is not as rewarding as a minor uptick at work. I’ve known a number of bishops who would have gotten farther, socially, if they had spent the 5-7 years of service on their jobs rather than as bishop.
As for things like Elders Quorum President … I’ve done that. No status whatsoever, a lot less than the Primary President or the Spiritual Living teacher, a lot of work. Ward clerk positions? I’ve even known bishops to lie to get people serving in them.
Other than teaching gospel doctrine … oops, that isn’t a priesthood calling … and being bishop, there isn’t much.
Now, picture your husband as bishop. Picture him spending more time with his first councellor, an unmarried woman, than he does with you and the children. (Substitute in a ward where the Relief Society President was a co-bishop, or one where the Young Women’s President was used in lieu of a second counselor to the bishopric if you want more examples).
In spiritually and emotionally charged encounters.
Mix the Relief Society and the Quorums. Now, ask yourself how many men would do their home teaching if a woman would do it for them if they didn’t get it done.
Ask yourself how many people turn down Primary callings as it is.
Why does Armand’s comment strike anyone as strange in that context?
When I’ve posted that we dwell in a fallen world where the celestial balance is lost, that wasn’t some gentle dig at the women in the Church.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 16, 2005 @ 10:45 pm
I should note, one more time, that the last time I talked with anyone who had talked with the prophet directly on womens’s issues (she was in charge of the womens’ conference at BYU at the time) he had stressed how important it was for women to exercise leadership and how the Church desperately needed that.
The major limiting factor in the growth of the Church is adequate leadership. That, more than anything else, is the critical shortfall.
It is not as if the Church is a bus with the prophet as the driver behind the wheel.
The Church is more like a collection of a thousand barges linked together and driven by windpower, with the prophet as the navigator calling out guidance.
Anyway, my thoughts.
Comment by Stephen — April 16, 2005 @ 10:52 pm
Stephen
I, personally, am not so concerned with men and women meeting together in bishopric meetings. Men and women mix all the time in the outside world - socially, professionally, etc., and many seem to manage that without tearing each others’ clothes off. I’m not sure why you think including women in these meetings would sky rocket adultery. If this really did turn out to be a problem, perhaps one solution would be to call couples to serve together - co-bishops, co-first counselors, etc. Then the spouses could keep their eyes on one another.
I’m also unclear as to why you think men would not do their home teaching if women were also doing it. Are men (in your mind) really that lazy? Do they really not care about blessing the lives of others and being obedient to God?
Also, you mention that the major limiting factor in the growth of the Church is adequate leadership. If priesthood were extended to women, we would immediately double the number of potential priesthood leaders in the Church. Wouldn’t that only benefit those branches across the world that are so desperately in need of priesthood leadership that they have 20 year old missionaries serving as branch presidents?
BTW, I like your image of prophet as barge navigator
Posted by Caroline
Comment by Anonymous — April 17, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
Caroline,
No doubt that Men and women mix all the time in the outside world - socially, professionally, etc., and many seem to manage is true. I manage just fine at work.
However, there is a long history of failure and problems in the Church when you put together men and women. Some things have not been tried, such as co-ed missionary partnerships, others have been, with many failures. I’m not arguing that it should be that way, just that it has been.
For the most part, only a few callings are “co” callings right now. Relief Society Presidents, for example, or Bishops, need very supportive spouses. But in most wards, outside of those callings, and sometimes in those callings, the spouses do other things that they would not do if there was a “co-calling” issued. Not to mention you would double the people attending a PEC meeting, remove having the other spouse home to watch children, etc.
And you would need spouses who could serve as co-called. I’ve known a number of people in bishoprics and other callings who had inactive spouses or none. It is hard enough to find people to serve as it is.
I’ve been an elder’s quorum president and been involved in home teaching for a long time. Do I think that if they knew someone else would do it, most men would keep home teaching with regularity or put it off? To use an overworked example, ever listen to women complain about spouses not cleaning up after themselves if their wives will do it for them?
Glad you like the metaphor. I was stretching for a good one about nine-ten years ago and came up with that one to describe what is really going on.
I’m not saying that women are not fit to lead, I’m not saying they will not be ordained to a priesthood order, I’m not saying we will not have prophetesses like Deborah or Huldah or Eliza R. Snow. I still look for a “Sister of Jared” for our time.
I’m only saying that the issues are much more complex than they look and that far from ignoring them or being complacent, that there are many in the Church that are very concerned.
But I think the Church moves in context with the impoerfect world it is in. And, I think that the casualty rate that the Church is willing to accept as the price of change is very, very low, even though there are potential casualties caused by not changing as well. I read Jacob’s sermon at the temple in that light.
I think that we need not be blinded either by the possible problems or the potential benefits of our hopes and wishes, but that we also need to earnestly seek the mind of God and the methods he will give us to accomplish that, in our weaknesses, after our own language.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 17, 2005 @ 8:33 pm
Stephen M (Ethesis) wrote:
And, I think that the casualty rate that the Church is willing to accept as the price of change is very, very low, even though there are potential casualties caused by not changing as well.
As long as the majority of LDS women are willing to continue to attend, participate, and follow along under the current church climate, there will be no change. Until enough women claim their rights by voting with their feet, this is the way things will be. Period. Those who intend to stay under any and all circumstances may as well get used to the role of women in the church. There’s really no sense analyzing it…it is what it is and you are powerless to affect change . You have only the rights that the men are willing to give you.
Posted by Ann
Comment by Anonymous — April 17, 2005 @ 9:26 pm
Ann , I would have to disagree. There are a lot of different ways to effect institutional change, though it is interesting the way you describe it in terms of claiming rights and voting with their feet.
I don’t think that denying the truth of the Gospel is the way to discuss or interact with the issue.
I can suggest some books to start with, perhaps The Skilled Facilitator, for obtaining the necessary skills that can help one create institutional change.
BTW, an interesting post that fits with this thread was Nate Oman’s http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=202#more-202
But we are told to study problems out in our minds, seek inspiration and then seek the guidance of the Spirit. I believe that if we apply that approach to the issue here, that God can and will lead us to where we should be.
Not so much claiming things as claiming ourselves and finding out what it is we are truly seeking.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 17, 2005 @ 10:23 pm
Stephen: “However, there is a long history of failure and problems in the Church when you put together men and women.”
Please give us some examples. If there is a long history, you should be able to provide many.
Stephen: “I’m not saying that women are not fit to lead, I’m not saying they will not be ordained to a priesthood order, I’m not saying we will not have prophetesses like Deborah or Huldah or Eliza R. Snow”
We will most especially not have women prophetesses as long as we insist that men are the only ones in “report-to-me” leadership positions. True, women serve in auxiliary presidencies, but they always report to a male leader who holds the priesthood. How can we acknowledge women’s spirituality and leadership skills if there is always a chance (and, depending on the bishop/Stake Pres/High Councilman) that the woman’s decision will be overturned. The General Relief Society came up with new lesson manuals for the women in the church, but when they presented their “inspired changes” to the 12, the 12 said the women wouldn’t have their own lessons, but they would use the lessons the men used.
Stephen: “There are a lot of different ways to effect institutional change,”
Again, please give us some examples. If there are lots of ways, you should be able to provide lots of examples. Then, maybe we can discuss which ways have been tried by women and men seeking to effect institutional change within the church and why those ways have/have not been successful yet.
My belief is that we can try changes as much as we want at the grass-roots level, but the only way to truly change the church is to have a prophet say a change is needed and then to have top leaders enforce that change. Earlier, Stephen said Pres. Hinckley wants women to have leadership opportunities. Stephen also pointed out that part of the problem in the church is lack of leadership. Caroline is correct in pointing out that there are millions of leaders ready to step in and answer the call. President Hinckley and the 12 could easily solve the women-needing-leadership and lack-of-leaders with one good Official Declaration.
Posted by LRC
Comment by Anonymous — April 18, 2005 @ 11:46 am
LRC: Stephen: “There are a lot of different ways to effect institutional change,”
Well, start with the book I suggested and once you’ve finished it I’ll be glad to start talking from there. It is an area that is dear to my heart, I’ve taught it to post graduates.
My personal website, http://adrr.com/ covers a small sub-set of the area, but there is a well established discipline in the area.
I do believe that the issues are more complex than many are willing to accept.
As for We will most especially not have women prophetesses such as Huldah or Eliza R. Snow until we have a different structure than the one they had … I must disagree. It is why I included them in my list.
I’m not going to give a long list of people who have had affairs when put together in leadership positions that were not as traditional as the ones we have now. I’m not sure of the purpose of that, but it is an issue that needs to have a structural solution in order to bring about change (at least that is my thought — I could be wrong, it may well be that the occassional person lost that way is worth it for those whose hunger is filled with the changes).
Anyway, I’m going out of town shortly, I’ll be back in May. Wish you all well.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 18, 2005 @ 7:43 pm
BTW, if you think a simple official declaration would do the trick, draft one and then work out the implications.
We’ve discussed “all significant leadership positions will be co-callings of both wife and husband” variation, which has the net effect of reducing the amount of leaders available dramatically.
No one has talked about having some Stakes run by women and other stakes run by men (kind of like my mission where we had an all sister zone and a set of sister APs). That of course assumes that the priesthood administered by women is the same as that administered by men, at least for functional leadership and ordinances.
We’ve had some discussion of what Armand, a 75 year old retired professor of sociology and serious scholar of Mormon studies said, and whether or not he was correct.
If that even matters.
There are a lot of issues and I don’t think that the solution is easy or obvious. In fact, from complexity studies, I’d be willing to bet that none of the suggestions anyone would propose in the first round of consideration would be the one that is the “right” one.
Including any I could come up with.
But I’m pretty firm in my beliefs that:
(a) it is a complex problem
(b) there is a solution
(c) I don’t know what the solution is
(d) the solution can be found.
Comment by Stephen — April 18, 2005 @ 7:48 pm
While I’m suggesting things, let me add:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ozarque/
http://www.adrr.com/aa/
http://www.adrr.com/pub/elgin.htm (take the info to your library and use interlibrary loan).
http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=590431&meta_id=null
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 18, 2005 @ 8:04 pm
[…] Edited to add the cover image from the issue of Sunstone that published Wilcox’s essay. Lorie Winder Stromberg (who longtime fMh readers may remember from this guest post and this interview) wrote: Heather, Linda’s piece on Mother in Heaven is classic! I was working at Sunstone when she presented it at the Sunstone Symposium and then had the assignment of coming up with the cover art featuring it when it was published. I went to the Salt Lake Library and found a great Leonardo drawing of a seated woman. The folds of her dress were well-defined, but as the eye moved up her torso to her shoulders and head, the drawing became increasingly sketchy, even unfinished. I loved this drawing and thought it visually captured the “sketchiness” of LDS theology when it comes to a Mother in Heaven. Permanent Link […]
Pingback by Feminist Mormon Housewives » Women and Authority: The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven — May 23, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
It seems like maybe it is the “priesthood” that is the problem in general. When Bartchy, who was referenced in the original post, talked about enacting power by empowering and subverting oppressive structures of power, I imagine he might include the priesthood as an example of such a structure. (He was one of my professors by the way…) These sorts of ways to earn titles, recognition and right breed arrogance which would penetrate all aspects of any relationship. Christ’s message was one of service and humility. These messages seem to be lost in this sort of hierarchical structure that is imposed on Mormons.
Anyway, I don’t if anyone is still reading this. It’s been four years! It’s good to see these issues being played out here.
Comment by Catherine — June 5, 2009 @ 1:12 am