A Multiplicity of Feminisms.
In the discussion of male feminism, Janet (comment #51) brought up the idea of multiple feminisms. I think this concept is worth elevating to full post status. Consider, if you will, where the Mormon variety fits in the patchwork quilt we call modern feminism.
There are dozens of major varieties of feminism. There are those that are politically-based: Marxist, liberal, and anarcha-feminism; racial and ethnic: Womanist, Latina, Asian-American; religious: Islamic, mujerista, evangelical Christian; others that don’t fit in my neat little categories: post-modern, lesbian, and ecofeminist. There are feminisms that assert the essential differences between men and women, and there are feminisms that argue that these differences are culturally constructed. Here’s a few descriptions of prominent feminisms (compliments of Wikipedia and Google, both great places for beginning, if not ending):
Liberal feminism focuses on social, economic and political equality between women and men. This umbrella covers the formation of the National Organization of Women, the push for the Equal Rights Amendment, the fight for the right to choose, etc. The late Betty Friedan would fall under this category.
Cultural feminists are an expression of difference feminism. They argue that women are inherently more compassionate, nurturing and community-focused than men (with their destructive habits and ideologies). Jane Addams and Margaret Fuller are examples of cultural feminists.
Ecofeminism connects the domination of women to the exploitation of the earth. It argues that the two intimately connected and mutually reinforcing. Vandana Shiva and Rosemary Radford Ruether are two proponents of ecofeminism.
Womanism was formed by African-American women who realized that they weren’t being adequately represented by both civil rights activists (who catered primarily to the needs of black men) and white feminists (for example, many were working women). Prominent womanists include Alice Walker and bell hooks.
Islamic feminism is a movement for women’s rights that relies heavily on Islamic discourse (including Islamic theology and jurisprudence). Amina Wadud is a Qur’anic scholar who promotes interpretations that empower Muslim women.
I’m missing all kinds of interesting feminisms, like separatist feminism, male feminism, and the mujerista movement. What’s cool about many of these is that they build on, complicate and spill over into the other feminisms.
Take the title of Feminist Mormon Housewives. It’s a challenge: “I’m a feminist and a Mormon and a housewife. Wanna make something of it?” There’s a creative tension between feminist and Mormon that makes it much more than just a sum of its parts. Mormon feminism is a discursive relationship, not just an adjective-noun pairing. It challenges stereotypes of both Mormons and feminists.
Questions: Where does Mormon feminism fit in the larger feminist picture? What unique contributions does the LDS variety have to offer to feminism in general? What challenges or problems must it confront? If you had to come up with a two to three sentence description of “Mormon Feminism” what would you say? Or do we need to come up with a list of Mormon feminisms? I hope you’ll also comment on any other feminisms you feel are important to you.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, I’m definitely more in the liberal feminism camp. I am not as drawn towards cultural feminism since I tend to shy away from ideas of essential gender characteristics. (Though I acknowledge that there may be some hormonal differences in men and women that may tend to prompt different behaviors.)
I am on a listserve with Maxine Hanks (reknowned Mormon feminist) and we were discussing these different types of feminisms. I believe her statement was “our work is the work of liberal feminism.” And I agree with her.
Though I believe you will find different kinds of Mormon feminists. You’ll find some that will advocate giving women the same opportunities as are available to men (i.e. ordaining women and bringing them into church hierarchy.) I’m one of those. But you’ll also find some who believe there should be and is a distinct female stewardship or priestesshood that is separate but equal to that of men. Often this stewardship or priestesshood seems to be connected to the concept of ‘motherhood’.
Comment by Caroline — January 3, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
It’s interesting, because I consider myself a liberal feminist, actually rather a radical feminist, but I do not have a problem with women not recieving the priesthood. I have a problem with men who think the priesthood somehow elevates them. I have a problem with men who think the fact that they hold the priesthood entitles them to have the final say. I have no desire to hold the priesthood; but I have a desire for men who hold it to recognise that women and men are equal firsts in the Kingdom of God, and that their priesthood loses its power the moment it is used to win an argument or make a point.
I disagree with the concept that motherhood is for women what the priesthood is for men. It is insulting to pretend that an achieved status - motherhood, which is not available to all women - is equal to an ascribed status - the priesthood, which all boys recieve when they turn 12.
Having said that I love Jane Addams. I love that she worked within a narrow, confimed sphere of womanhood to bring incredible change and reform to her community.
Comment by Quimby — January 3, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Quimby,
I think a lot of LDS women feel as you do. Many of whom are my good friends. I have come to think, however, that until women are represented in all levels of church hierarchy, there will remain remnants of sexist and patronizing ideas among the general Mormon population. I think it’s terribly important for women to be represented when doctrines and policies are implemented and discussed among the 12.
Also, I want my righteous sisters who have a vocation for ministering to have opportunities to contribute and stretch themselves as counselors and bishops.
Anyway, enough with my threadjack. Sorry John.
Comment by Caroline — January 3, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
I, too, lean more and more to the radical side. To quote the inimitable Twisty Faster:
The only way to change it is through revolution. And that’s not going to happen. So we might as well have fun. I’m not a “kick against the pricks” (no pun intended) kind of feminist.
Where does FMH fit in? Hard to say. I’ve heard an undertone here that seems to say that any decision a woman makes that is best for her and her circumstances is a feminist choice, because it’s a woman making the choice. That’s BS. Women are certainly entitled to make decisions that will make their lives easier or harder, that will give them more or less control of their time and their futures, and that are more or less self-oriented or self-less. But that doesn’t make all the possible choices feminist choices.
Making non-feminist choices doesn’t mean you have to turn in your feminist card, though.
Comment by Ann — January 3, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
John, bless your heart for the quilt metaphor. I’ve actually got a chapter in my diss on quilts as a means of gendered autobiographical speech in 19th c. America. I love the kairos of quilts as women’s differing views which form a multicolored and beautiful whole. In fact, the cover of *Feminisms* is a quilt.
Comment by Janet — January 3, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
You know, I’ve read some of Amina Wadud in the Middle East Studies program at the U. Interesting stuff indeed.
Comment by Rob — January 4, 2007 @ 12:11 am
I think, and I’m not really certain this fits here–it came to mind while reading the post and comments, that one of the key things that’s attempted with the image of patriarchal order by the adversary is similar to what is done with the image and concept of an archtypical woman and the propegated “beauty” of such an artificial construct.
Satan, in my view, is cashing in on man’s long history of abuse of patriarchal authority. Feminism, in it’s best manifestations, is, I believe, God’s empowering and leveling to counter the abuses that have and are commited in the name of patriarchal fiat. Yet as with a vast array of things the momentum is ‘aprovechado’ (taken advantage of) by Lucifer in trying to both get those followers of the righteous portions of the movement to over correct.
Now to compare that with the image of women Satan has done virtually the same thing. After centuries missing the mark with regard to the divinity of females and their inherent emotional and physical attracting natures for males Satan is now cashing in on a momentum shift that leads to pornographic addictions, misogyny, objectification and accompanying dehumanization and all the many other horrendous things that are effected upon, directly and indirectly on females and males as a result of this hyper liberalization.
My experience in life is that the general path to error is simply being out of balance. At present the forces of evil are taking many pent up and long sustained errors and using the momentum of the correction to throw others off on to the other side fo the road.
All he cares about is kicking us off the path. The means or side of the path is generally a secondary concern.
Comment by HiveRadical — January 4, 2007 @ 12:49 am
This is why I am not a “feminist”. While I believe in women’s equality with men, etc. The name has been high-jacked to mean “Someone who supports at-will abortion and casual sex.” in many circles. So I will be who I am without labeling myself with someone else’s baggage.
Comment by matt w. — January 4, 2007 @ 9:32 am
LOL, Matt. Since many people still believe “Mormon” means that you belong to a religion that allows men to have mulitple wives, you must have found a way around labelling yourself with “someone else’s baggage”.
Matt’s articulated reason is precisely why it’s frustrating to be a feminist and a Mormon. But unless people reclaim these labels and infuse them with their “proper” meaning, our ability to effectively communicate around these issues will be diminished.
Comment by Anna — January 4, 2007 @ 10:16 am
John,
Thanks for educating me about the different sorts of feminisms. Your posts helped me to finally identify the kind of feminist I am, which I have been wondering since I stumble onto this site.
I think I am a cultural feminist. I am very appreciative of the differences in men and women individually. I say individually because I think generalizing the differences is where misjudgements, contention and offense bring frustration to the supporters of either feminisms or anti-feminism. I “root” for women, not with the idea that we are against men, but because we can work with men to become a partnership that acheives more than if we view each other as opponents in out-acheiving each other and striving to take over each other’s positions. While I believe it is extremely important for women to have equal opportunity, I wonder if a great number of women would actally take the same opportunities that men have. Perhaps this sounds wishy-washy, perhaps some would not consider me a feminist at all. Perhaps I’ll create my own sort of feminism, maybe cooperation feminist? that has a nice Sesame Street ring to it.
About the question of obstacles for feminists in the church concerning women receiving priesthood, I think the obstacle is continuing revelation. Letting all worthy men receive the priesthood comes to mind as I think about this issue. While there are those that would argue at the time there was great social pressure and this is why the church allowed the priesthood to be given to all men, I don’t think it would have happened without revelation from God. For those who are crusading to have the priesthood available to all worthy persons must wait for God to reveal it, if there ever will be such a revelation. I am of the opinion this will not happen in this life and in the next life, maybe we will understand why.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why I consider myself a cultural feminist. I feel my efforts to encourage and applaud women within my reach is energy spent more efficiently than trying to change doctrine of the church. Not to mention emotional energy that can drain you from the frustration of such a situation, if doctrinal change is in fact what you are seeking. The emotional energy depletion of such an argument or crusade, in my opinion, is not worth the peace the rest of the gospel can bring.
Comment by Nutty — January 4, 2007 @ 10:34 am
AHAA! I’ve finally figured it out! I know what I am now! The only label that I could truly give myself that fits me and carries simultaneously no baggage as it is a meaningless made-up tag and at the same time has lots and lots of baggage if you are the kind of silly person who likes to apply your own baggage to things that are arbitrary.
I’m a Masculinofeminist! Notice how I capitalized it? That’s because I like to do things for no reason at all. Now the question remains what does it mean. My own (made-up) definition of it is as follows. A Masculinofeminist is someone who thinks it is okay to be a man or a woman, enjoys the many aspects of masculinity and femininity (and could care less which aspects of either you may choose to incorporate into your own personality) , thinks that both men and women can be culturally significant and that in spite of the many limitations of men as a species that we have indeed progressed far enough in this day and age to be equal to women (no matter what the women in our lives tell us).
TADAAAA!
I think I will write a whole essay on it and then I’ll start making up some other really great tags, like Feministamasculinist. Which roughly translates to women who put up with men (and sometimes even grow to like/love them) in spite of their obvious lack of good taste and poor dressing habits.
Sorry, sometimes when threads are serious I have a tendency to insert ridiculous things into them, because I’m so full of myself that I actually believe someone somewhere will get a chuckle out of it. And in answer to your question, yes I have gone to therapy and no it didn’t work.
And now back to your regularly scheduled serious feminist discussions.
Comment by cew-smoke — January 4, 2007 @ 11:09 am
In college I resisted being labeled a feminist because I think, as is typical of women in my generation, that feminism is becoming a nonsequitor in the western world. After doing graduate work at the Y, I found myself leaning somewhere between what John describes as “cultural feminism” and what Caroline describes as “liberal feminism.” In a sense, UT mormon culture has a tendency to make one feel like feminism is still relevant.
To your last point, I think that mormon feminism may be a brand in itself. Mormon feminists, from what I’ve read on this blog and observed at the Y, emphasize family life, motherhood, and divine gender roles. Thus, by definition mormon feminists probably fall more toward the separateness/cultural category of feminism. As long as we accept the Proclamation to the Family for what it is then we must accept the idea that men and women have distinct gender roles: women are more nurturing, as they are “primarily responsible for the nurture of their children;” whereas, men are more providing and called to “provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.”
But then a mormon feminist might also say that the Proclamation to the Family is limited in significance, as it is a revelation received by a man, perhaps edited and prepared from a male perspective. I’m interested in how mormon feminists come out on this question.
I also think, based on the posts so far, that there are many subcategories of mormon feminism. We come out quite differently on questions concerning the priesthood, motherhood, difference/sameness, etc. Also, I think we disagree on the best method to change either feminism or mormonism to best fit our paradigms: Ann suggests the only way to change things is through revolution, while John apparently advocates a more gradual bottom-up solution, believing “efforts to encourage and applaud women within my reach is energy spent more efficiently than trying to change doctrine of the church.”
Comment by herstory — January 4, 2007 @ 11:35 am
I don’t know. I tend to agree with Ann’s earlier comment. I think it’s well nigh impossible to be a feminist while sustaining a patriarchial structure akin to the one that so tightly controls the LDS Church.
Is there a label for feminists who support patriarchy? (definition of patriarchy from the American Heritage Dictionary: A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.)
I would think such people would be “Imaginary Feminists”.
Comment by Anna — January 4, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
shoot, now I’m a Mormon feminist who isn’t a “Mormon feminist”!
Comment by cchrissyy — January 4, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Anna, I agree with your rather ironic label, “imaginary feminists,” for those feminists who support patriarchy. I certainly sympathize with your argument, but if being mormon forces one to accept patriarchy then do you propose we simply walk away from our faith? Just a thought, but might you be conflating the priesthood with patriarchy? Maybe not, as the church hierarchy certainly meets the definition you cited for patriarchy. If there were a parallel “preistesshood” would you feel differently about the church? I like to think there is a space somewhere between morminism and feminism where many LDS women reconcile these 2 seemingly incompatible paradigms.
Comment by herstory — January 4, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
An addendum - it’s certainly possible to be a Mormon feminist and believe that the patriarchial structure needs to change to accept female participation on every level. There were many, many faithful Mormons who did not agree with the LDS Church’s decision to deny priesthood and temple privileges to black members. These faithful Mormons spoke publicly against this racist policy (e.g., Eugene England). That said, I’ve rarely (ever?) heard a faithful Mormon speak out against the sexist policies of the LDS Church.
The sexist policies are not limited to the male-only priesthood - there are plenty of important administrative functions and opportunities to effect Church policy that are unavailable to women solely because of their gender. I wish more people who self identify as Mormon “feminists” felt more confortable publicly discussing these issues.
Comment by Anna — January 4, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Herstory,
I know what you mean about mormon culture making you think that feminism is still relevant. I totally feel the same.
But I’m not sure it’s necessary to infer from the Proc that women are inherently more nurturing and men are inherently more ‘providing’. I’m not a fan of the proc, but I think it’s possible to read it as speaking about gender ROLES, rather than inherent gender traits. And thus, women are given the primary role of taking care of kids, men given the primary role of providing (in this life - doubt there will be a need for such gender role distinctions in the next life).
But like you said, I’m one of those mormon feminists that see the proc as a cultural artifact from a certain time and place. Not that a great deal of it can’t be inspired, but I don’t feel the need to believe that the ideas laid out in it will never evolve.
cchrissyy,
I think there’s definitely a place in Mormon feminism for those that want to improve the status of women, but are not ready to advocate the wholesale demolition of LDS patriarchy.
Not to worry
Comment by Caroline — January 4, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
The sexist policies are not limited to the male-only priesthood - there are plenty of important administrative functions and opportunities to effect Church policy that are unavailable to women solely because of their gender. I wish more people who self identify as Mormon “feminists” felt more confortable publicly discussing these issues
Anna, excellent point! This is one of the things that drives me absolutely crazy. There is no reason in hell for women to not be sunday school presidents, CES directors, ward clerks, etc. Tradition simply dictates that men do it. And the ridiculous argument that women and men can’t work together without tearing each other’s clothes off. We’d all have a real hard time functioning in society if that were the case.
I’d love to talk to you about this more, Anna.
Comment by Caroline — January 4, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
sorry, that first paragraph was supposed to be in quotations - it’s Anna’s quote.
Comment by Caroline — January 4, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Anne, I too have actually never heard a faithful Mormon publicly speak out against so-called sexist policies of the LDS Church. I equate this phenomenon to a trend in Japan among “pink collared workers” (unmarried female office workers). These women simply avoid marriage and ignore societal pressures to conform to the traditional wife/mother role prescribed for them by Japanese culture. Unlike their American counterparts, Japanese women have generally been disinclined to lobby behind any sort of feminist movement. Instead, they quietly and in their own way reject some of the sexist tenets of Japanese culture by marrying later, shopping more, and having less and less children. Unfortunately, however, this trend is contributing to Japan’s negative birth rate.
At church, I feel like these Japanese women – I figure, what’s the point of speaking out? What will it change? Is it worth facing the possibility of excommunication? There are probably many of us out there who feel the same way, quietly rejecting certain doctrinal points we cannot stomach, waiting for change.
Caroline, I like your reading of the Proclamation that it speaks about gender roles rather than traits, although that interpretation is still disconcerting because then the Proclamation prescribes roles without justification. To get to that point, doesn’t it necessarily imply that women are inherently better suited to nurture; whereas, men are better suited to provide? I’m coming around on the possibility that motherhood brings out the “inherent” nurturing qualities in women. For those of us who haven’t experienced motherhood yet, this is merely theoretical, although my mother tells me that child birth brought out her inner-nurturer.
Comment by herstory — January 4, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Most of the Mormon Feminists I hang out with are of the liberal variety–they advocate equality between women and men, and many hope that women will eventually be granted priesthood roles (in the way that black men were given the same). In the mean time, they want to increase the voice, visibility, and input of women in the Church.
I have a question for Mormon Feminists who do not fit the above description. I identify more with equality feminism, and am puzzled by Mormon feminists who advocate different social and church roles for women and men. I don’t mean this as an attack, but I am seeking understanding here: Feminism, in all of its many forms, is a critique that says that the current situation of women needs to be improved. So where does ‘feminism’ enter into this view of separate roles? Is your criticism directed outside of the Church, saying that women are respected in the Church, but not so much out of it? Or are there problems within LDS culture concerning how women are treated that you feel need to be improved?
Comment by JohnR — January 4, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Caroline,
On a serious note I wanted to touch base with you on one of the callings you selected. I so know that I am treading on very thin ice even bringing this up, but I’m stupid like that. The ward clerk is such a delicate position and here’s why. If indeed that position was open to women, then what would the danger have been in the past 200 years that the position (in spite of its name) come to be considered the bishopbric’s secretary and likewise be considered a demeaning position for a woman by today’s standard?
Fictitious quote, “Oh, so it’s not okay for a woman to be in the bishopbric but its alright for a woman to be their secretary?! Does she bring them their de-caffe coffee before every meeting??!?!!?”
What do you think? Also perhaps it arose the way it did because it would be considered a little unseemly (I hate that word, but I can’t think of a good substitute right now) for a woman to be spending so much time with the bishop when she is not his wife. The appearances of evil and all.
Perhaps other callings might face similar hurdles. Let’s take the Sunday School presidency for instance. Would it be necessary if the president called were a woman, that the counselors in turn would need to be women so that married men and women would not be holding private meetings outside of church with people who were not their spouses? I mean that question in a gender neutral way, not picking on men or women. Also please note I am not saying this hurdle means it is not appropriate for women to hold the calling. I’m just coming up with things as they pop up in my head.
I know that your point was not specifically about the ward clerk position, but it struck me as interesting enough to touch base on. I’d be interested in thoughts on this if anyone thinks its worth discussing.
Comment by cew-smoke — January 4, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Who on earth would want to be a bishop or ward clerk or even hold the priesthood? All of those things are burdens of service, and I have plenty of opportunities to serve, thank you very much.
I’ve been thinking a lot about whether or not I consider myself a feminist since the question posed itself some few weeks ago. According to many definitions proposed here, I am most certainly not a feminist. I have no drive to prove myself “equal” to men in every way. I have no burning desire to tear down perceived cultural and social mores. I have no need to sort people into categories. What I do have is a deep-rooted desire to be a woman in every, beautiful sense of the word. In some ways, Woman is not Man. Eve is not Adam. In other ways, they are one and the same. I celebrate and revel in the differences and the similarities and long to become the most feminine I can be. To me, that should be feminism.
I think that the so-called “feminist” movement will never truly make any changes until it can learn the respect and honor for men that it demands for women.
I think that many people - men and women in the church equate dominion with domination or priesthood and patriarchy with preeminence. Leadership is not dictatorship. Without the attitude of service, priesthood is nothing. No one who refuses the lowest seat can ever hope to attain the highest.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 4, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
I’d like to contractict #11 someone by stating that the Proclamation _on_ the Family is not revelation. It is a rehashing and concise statement of the things core to the Gospel to the World (and not to the Family per se).
It seems many people state that their flavor of feminism dictates that women must be represented and equal throughout all titles and positions of the church. Personally, I don’t agree with this. I consider _most_ of those positions to be temporal. Would I like to see a woman prophet? There have been those in the past during dire times. Would I like to see a woman patriarch? Hm, good question. Yes, but I don’t feel that the lack of woman patriarchs is a slander against my feminist self.
I don’t feel an acceptance of a patriarchal society within religion hurts my case that I am a feminist. Perhaps this is also because I have no interest in the strains and difficulties of being in a priesthood calling. I _do_ wish, however, that people would cease to consider “motherhood and priesthood” equal tradeoffs – they’re not. I also wish that people would cease to consider “RS is Elder’s Quorum for the women” – it’s not. They are each different roles with different responsibilities and only comparable to each other because each excludes 50% of the human population. If we’re so about equality why aren’t we complaining that men aren’t often called to Nursery, never called into Young Women, and certainly aren’t welcome in Relief Society.
The sad thing is that such things are rarely spoken of publicly is it is rare that a proper forum is provided for such discussions. Once I attended a Gospel Doctrine lesson where one somewhat new convert hijacked the lesson into a declaration of the unfairness of the church and its male favoritism. The poor, bewildered man teaching the lesson completely shelled up while the other women in the room attempted to answer the woman’s questions and bring the discussion back to the lesson. Yes, such things must be addressed, but part of our religion often entails a “don’t worry about it and must accept it as it’s not critical towards your salvation.”
Comment by Janell the Great — January 4, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
I’m discouraged by comments suggesting that women are too busy with their own particular service interests or responsibilities to participate in activities and responsibilities traditionally dominated by men. Service in the Church is a sacrifice, whether you serve as a Bishop or a nursey worker. Women should not shirk their duty to build the kingdom of God on earth by hiding behind man-made policies that restrict women from participating in decisions that shape the lives of _all_ Church members - as well as participating in the ordinances to bless their family members and loved ones.
Caroline - I’d like to talk about creating more opportunities for women to serve in the Church, too. It’s absurd for, say, a woman CPA with years of accounting experience never to be able to use her talents and professional skills as a Ward clerk merely because she is female.
Comment by Anna — January 4, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
I think I identify more with “equality feminism”, but I identify with “difference feminism” as well.
As with the “nature vs. nurture” debate, I think it’s unwise to go 100% in one direction or the other — feminism is complex, and both are relevant.
I’ve written a post about my own wrestling with this subject: The differences between girls and boys.
p.s. Like John, I am a “post-Mormon”, however I am constantly impressed with this forum’s ability to welcome a civil discussion with outsiders while maintaining a faith-affirming tone.
Comment by C.L. Hanson — January 4, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
I guess I am a “difference” feminist, though not a cultural feminist. I think men and women are equal and deserve equal opportunity, but I also believe men and women are essentially different. I don’t support public policy or social constructs that use male-female differences as an excuse for discounting *individual* differences. Which I guess makes me an individualist difference feminist. Oooh, it’s fun to make up new terms.
I also wish that we could discuss feminist concerns–or any concerns–more openly within the church, without anyone feeling threatened or assuming anyone is losing his/her testimony.
Comment by madhousewife — January 4, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Post like this mostly make me realize I know nothing at all about feminism really, and thereby have no right to be in charge of this blog.
Comment by fMhLisa — January 4, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
cew-smoke #21
I’ll chime in on the points you raise.
I suppose there would be the possibility of the ward clerk position devolving into a “bishop’s secretary”, but it seems like a really lousy reason not to allow women to hold the position. The position is so much more than that so the attitude could only be held by those who had no idea what it entailed.
You raise what would amount to practical concerns with mixed-gender presidencies that I think could have practical solutions. Auxiliary presidency meetings could be held in open areas of church houses during times when people were around. There are already policies in place about one-on-one contact between youth leaders and the youth, such policies can be (and are in many ways already) extended to mixed gender interactions.
The existence of a few issues to work out does not seem to be reason enough not to enact what seem like worthwhile changes to me.
Comment by Spencer — January 4, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
I suppose I would like to see the priesthood removed from the leadership equation. I really don’t care to hold the priesthood. I suppose this is because of specific instances in my life when I have felt the priesthood at work, even though no priesthood holder has been present. But as Caroline said, why are some callings only open to priesthood holders? Cew-smoke’s speculation that it’s so men and women who aren’t married to each other don’t have to work together doesn’t wash with me - my boss is male, we work together closely, we’re both married to other people, there is no sexual attraction, and nobody would assume we’re having an affair. Are Mormons really so narrow-minded (or dirty minded) that their first thought, when they see a man and woman together, is, “Ooooooh, they must’ve been getting it on!”
I would like my opinion as a woman in the church to be more valued and respected. I can and do have strong doctrinal opinions, based on my understanding of the scriptures; but if I state these in Sunday School, and they differ from those of the men in the class, I am always shot down - by men and women in the class. This irks me. It irks me that we women don’t have each other’s backs. It irks me that men use their priesthood to settle arguments, and it irks me that women accept this: “Well, he has the priesthood and you don’t, so he must be right and you must be wrong.”
Comment by Quimby — January 4, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Quimby #29
I apologize if my post came off as a little 19th century, that was not my intention. I do know that we have been counseled on the appearance of evil and I am also aware that in spite of the numerous times people are not attracted to one another there are times were it might pose a problem. These are of course aptly called ‘practical concerns’ by Spencer in #21. There are many numerous ways that they could be alleviated and I happen to agree with that.
My discussion topic should in no way make you think that I am against having more leadership callings become available to women, especially where the priesthood is not required. I understand that because I am on the other side of the equation I probably have some different feelings then you do on priesthood and leadership. I hope it’s okay that we disagree on that matter. I still value your opinion and am always open to discussion.
I feel badly that your gospel doctrine class is the way it is. I promise that it is not representative of all of them. In my ward there are two teachers, a very laid back, but very spiritual man and a very intense, intelligent and extremely gifted historian as the other (who happens to be a woman). You could not ask for two more different teachers, but it makes for a great mixture of ideas and discussions kicked off during our lessons. Perhaps because of the personality of the two teachers there are just as many or more women participants in our class and we always find a way to keep things on the right foot even when some strong topics are discussed. Perhaps I am really lucky, I don’t know.
I am kind of a curmudgeon who fears change. I’m like that guy in the pizza commercial who gets three pizzas all of them exactly the same. Only humorous if you’ve seen it. So, when I hear people say they have strong doctrinal opinions based on their reading of the scriptures, I kind of freeze up inside. It does not matter at all that you are a woman or a man. I guess part of my concern is that people who have a strong overreaching goal (whatever it may be) that sometimes that can color their ideas and filter what input (scripture, general conf talks, or whatever) they are intaking. I know people who have some very strong ideas on certain topics and they always seem to find proof of their ideas in the scriptures. I often feel that they are self fulfilling their own prophecies at times. I am NOT saying that is you. I obviously don’t know you except through a very small window in the comments section. I only share this weakness of mine with you to perhaps shed a small amount of insight that some enemies to the cause might share. Though I don’t qualify myself as an enemy either as my feelings are not based on the fact that I feel threatened by a strong woman. I don’t. I just thought it might be insightful to see what another person is thinking (even if it is incorrect).
{sigh} I just know this is going to come off all wrong.
Comment by cew-smoke — January 4, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
cew-smoke, nothing came out wrong. I think I know exactly what you mean - you can justify just about anything with scripture. I mean, slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery. And you’re right, my own opinion can definitely color my reading - for instance I have very strong anti-poverty feelings (I feel that wealth can create selfishness, and we have the responsibilty to use our wealth to help others), and so of course when I read the scriptures, I’m going to read them with this slant. A die-hard capitalist would probably read the same scripture and find in it justification for his/her opinion.
I wish I was in your ward - heck, I just wish I wasn’t in my ward! My gospel doctrine class drives me crazy. I definitely feel devalued because I’m a woman. Small example: While studying Job, a question was asked, Was Job a real person. I replied that my Seminary teacher had told us that Job may be an allegory more than a history. A man stood up and told us all that he “knew in his heart” that Job was a real person because he had suffered just as Job had suffered. And suddenly, although I wasn’t the one who asked the initial question, I just gave an opinion - which was as wishy-washy as they come, really: he may or may not have been a real person - everyone agreed that he was definitely a real person and that I was wrong for even suggesting otherwise. I wonder if they’d have had the same reaction if I’d said what I said with a Y chromosome.
Anyway, cew-smoke, my apologies if I offended you. And apologies to John and everyone for the thread-jack.
Comment by Quimby — January 4, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
cew-smoke, I think Anna said pretty much what I would say to you about the clerk calling. My husband is ward clerk, so I know just what an important position it can be - he is basically treated as a counselor, so he is able to make good suggestions for callings, talks, ward programs etc. I desperately want such a calling to be open to the thousands of righteous and capable women who would thrive in such a position.
I would far rather see women hold this calling, even if some who didn’t understand it demeaningly call it ’secretary’, than see it not open to women at all. And I’m not at all worried about the idea of men working with women. Don’t the vast majority of men (and women who work) work constantly with the opposite sex and not end up in bed together? And anyway, like someone above said, rules could be in place to discourage men and women from working one on one alone. Also, I think it’s good to remember that there are areas of the church where women and men do work closely together on more equal footing. Public affairs comes to mind. It is outside the priesthood hierarchy, so men and women work and meet together there.
Like Anna, I find it depressing when women say they don’t want the priesthood because they don’t want any more work or responsibility. If we consider priesthood a wonderful power that can enhance people’s ability to serve and bring comfort and peace to others, it’s hard for me to understand why lots of women wouldn’t want that. Maybe it’s just that I’ve known so many insightful, compassionate, capable women who have a real talent for ministering and administering. It seems a shame that they will never get the opportunity to grow through callings that are only reserved for men, and that church members will never get the chance to benefit from their leadership and compassion.
Comment by Caroline — January 4, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
First of all, when someone like #23 says that nobody in their right mind would want to be bishop, I can only agree. Let’s keep in mind that MOST MEN are not going to be bishops or whatever, either. Simply having a penis and a testimony does not guarantee that one will serve in positions that only men can hold.
And I don’t think for women to get the priesthood would give them something they don’t already have. Considering how women officiate in ordinances at the temple, I’m having a hard time comprehending what it is that women are missing. If we can be exalted as we are, what more is needful?
I know a LOT of women who are compassionate, capable, and who would make great elder’s quorum presidents and bishops. Instead they serve as wonderful Relief Society presidents. As long as they are serving and growing, what does it matter where they serve?
I personally feel that one of the great things about the priesthood as it currently functions is the growth that LDS men experience as a result of having that responsibility. If women could do it, I think they would, and the guys would let them and stay home watching football. And it would not be a good thing overall.
I have many non-LDS friends, and I it seems the women are pretty much as compassionate and service oriented as my LDS female friends. But the LDS guys are MUCH MORE nurturing and compassionate than my non-LDS male friends.
I feel that priesthood is a tool that Heavenly Father has provided for men, in order to teach them the compassion that seems to come more naturally to women.
To take those functions away from men would be to deprive them of the opportunity to develop Christlike attributes. And so I am not a big fan of the notion of women getting the priesthood.
Comment by Naismith — January 4, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Ugh, I wouldn’t care for that, either. But I don’t deal with it. Both of our gospel doctrine teachers are women, as are most of the seminary teachers. This would never happen in my ward.
So I can totally understand the frustration, but it seems to be a failure of the ideal rather than a flaw in the ideal.
Comment by Naismith — January 4, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Naismith and cew-smoke, do you feel that discrimination against women is a problem in Church culture at all? (I’m differentiating your experience of the day-to-day culture of Mormonism as opposed to your belief in the Church as a divine institution founded on inspired doctrine.)
Also, does the Church provide an antidote to sex discrimination in the world outside of Mormonism?
Comment by JohnR — January 4, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Quimby,
I can assure you, as one with a Y-chromasome and one who openly presents commentary and opinion in class, that you can get deathly stares from the whole of a class even when what you say isn’t merely speculation. A friend of mine brought out the fact, in class, that eventually everyone would receive salvation–even those who’d commited egregious sins of murder and rape. This was met with deathly cold stares. The atmosphere went beyond mere rejection of the comment to palpable disdane, even hate.
Certainly not to condone in anyway the individual and collective treatment you received for your speculation. I think a good deal of this goes to Joseph Smith’s comment that getting anything into the heads of this generation (or you could say ‘dispensation’) Is “like splitting hemlock knots with a corndodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle.”
Sadly we extend the firmness of our convictions beyond the bounds of what is really testified of and pronounced by God through his prophets.
Caroline,
I hope this doesn’t get taken the wrong way, and I’m not entirely certain in the veracity of what I’m about to say, but I hope people will consider it.
Your last comment seems to place items such as sexual tension or prejudices against women’s capacities as likely key items keeping the likes of a ‘ward clerk’ like calling from being giving to women in the church.
While there seem to be potential cases on items of sexual tension one could make, I really would be very hesitant to place such as even a primary reason for such a position not being open to the sisters of the Church.
Now by discussing these things I’m not trying to say that there’s a presently findable, accessable to the finite human, logic for all, or necesarily this, aspect(s) and ordering of the Church and the Priesthood.
I think with regard to this it may be prudent to leave a space sufficient for either a reason we’ve not yet come to, or that we may not come to in this existance, or for a reason that has tie to eternal natural law that, in present view, just doesn’t seem palpable to yourself or myself or others.
It could be there to stress the primacy of motherhood by keeping the demands on women more universally open for the demands of motherhood. It could be some eternal and inherent demand of eternal law that just certain things have to be done a certain way. It could be that your view is the early resonance of some yet to come revelation and advancement. But I think it’s important, lacking any definative word from the ultimate authority, to both not get overly hopefull or leaning one way or the other.
I take Brigham Young at his word when he say’s there’s an eternity of cats to be let out of the bag with regard to doctrinal revelations.
Comment by HiveRadical — January 4, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
I think I also know what you mean, cew-smoke. It’s called “wresting the scriptures.” I was told once that any time you go to the scriptures to find support for an answer you have already decided upon, you are wresting them. (If I’m right) you are referring to the tendency of anyone to find what they want in scripture, rather than approaching it with a truly open mind, ready to do whatever the Lord commands.
With the same idea, it is easy to find offense where it is sought. I’ve lived in Utah (though am not native) for several years, now. While I have seen a great deal of intracultural issues, I can’t say that oppression of women is even one of the top ten. Though I know through personal experience that people don’t appreciate “odd comments” in Sunday School, I’ve never gotten the feeling that it was a male/female thing. It’s possible that it is perceived as such because it’s the easiest thing for the wronged person to believe.
I loved your comment, Naismith. The priesthood does not really “enhance people’s ability to serve and bring comfort and peace to others.” All it does is provide structure and prodding to do so. There is nothing of import for personal spiritual growth that a man does that a woman cannot do in the church. The priesthood is not for the man! It is the authority to act in God’s name, to perform His ordinances. No man can give himself a blessing, baptize himself or perform temple ordinances for himself. The greatest part of resentment towards the priesthood probably comes from an incomplete understanding of what it is.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 4, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Since the discussion seems to keep veering from feminism and returning to the priesthood, I’ll go ahead and chime in. Although the priesthood has a strong service component, priesthood holders can and do make decisions that can profoundly impact the lives of women and men in the Church. Jesus washed the caked, crappy mud off the feet of his followers, but there is no denying his power and authority. No man can give himself a blessing, but he can call ecclesiastical courts, organize the Church hierarchy beneath him, and question people about pretty intimate aspects of their lives.
For the purposes of this comment, I’m not placing a judgment on this power, but I am questioning anyone who suggests that men in priesthood offices do not have administrative, social, ecclesiastical and symbolic power over others in the Church. I should add that this power is generally not in the hands of women, or at the very least is only available to women over women and children, and not over men.
Comment by JohnR — January 4, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
John, this power is not even available to women over women and children, because all women have a man to whom they report. A good decision by a woman can be overriden by a man. A bad decision by a man can’t be overridden by a woman.
Even if the patriarchal order in the church were to attempt to change, that wouldn’t change anything outside of the church. As much as Mormons would prefer to believe otherwise, the church exists within the constraints of the world we live in, which is (see my #3 above).
Hiveradical, I like your style. Good stuff to think about. Patriarchy as a twisted priesthood, and femininity as a twisted divine She, corrupting us all.
Comment by Ann — January 4, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
I wonder how much of this discussion is really about power. It’s been my experience (speaking generally here) that Bishops and men in “powerful positions” don’t usually use their priesthood as a cover or an excuse. I know there are exceptions and I’ve witnessed those first-hand too; but (again, speaking in generalities) the men I encounter who want to use their priesthood as a battering ram are generally fairly powerless in the ward/church structure.
That being the case, I wonder if perhaps they misuse their priesthood in this way out of a sense of frustration because they don’t have more power?
Of course Hiveradical and Unicorn mom have a point too, that maybe I am reading sexism into these encounters when none is intended. But even taking sexism out of the element, most encounters are about asserting power and influence. I don’t know. I have this annoying feeling that I am on the verge of a radical break-through thought and I can’t quite get there.
Comment by Quimby — January 4, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
#34 (Naismith) wrote:
One of the things I’ve loved so much about participating in Quaker services are that there are about equal numbers of men and women in the congregation and both men and women serve in ministry positions (like the LDS church there is no paid clergy, though unlike the LDS, ‘callings’ are chosen by individuals themselves and not by anyone in authority over them). Before my experience with the Society of Friends, I thought that if women had power/authority that men would disappear from religious community. I’ve discovered that this just isn’t the case. Rather, the men of the Quaker Meeting work in close relations with the women and no one seems worried about power and such. It’s a very loving and intimate community of ‘Friends.’
Comment by jana (JohnR's spouse) — January 4, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
Has anyone else but me wondered if patriarchal elitism is just a generational issue? When I sense notes of elitism in comments during Sunday School or other venues (this is going to be a generality) it seems to come from older men. I actually made a comment to my DH a few weeks ago about an older man that makes doctrinal comments with such finality that he gives off the air of “Yes, I was once a (insert “high-up” position) and I know. But I don’t seem to notice comments such as these coming from younger men.
I wonder if the patriarchal environment will change in twenty years just because younger people have grown up in an environment that is (maybe this is too naive or hopeful)increasingly acceptable of all people and as the “patriarchal generation” dies off (that last part sounds harsh, but you know what I mean).
Comment by Nutty — January 4, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Alright, I seem to be making comments that would lead to thread jack - sorry!
Comment by Nutty — January 4, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
“no one seems worried about power and such”
This is a good description of my ward.
Comment by Mathew — January 4, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Ann said:
This is so true, and it made me sick to read it. I’ve seen it happen in my ward and am powerless to stop it. (The situation involved children at risk, as well)
I am so new to this site and the topic in general (I echo fMh Lisa that I’m totally incompetent in this area)
For me feminism in the church is very much about priesthood. I’m at a turning point. I’m trying to decide if I think the patriarchal order is here for this life only (because of Eve’s transgression, perhaps) or if it is eternal.
To me, the way we view feminism and Mormonism hinges on the way we view Priesthood patriarchy: permanent or temporary?
(and even temporary in this life, or the next?)
Comment by jessawhy — January 4, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
I can’t accept that the patriarchal order is here because of Eve’s transgression. Isn’t that punishing us for her actions, and isn’t that contrary to the 2nd Article of Faith?
I think perhaps the patriarchal order is a misunderstanding of God’s plan - but I have nothing to base this on and so I guess I’m doing what Hiveradical said in taking my convictions beyond the scriptures and what is taught to us by the Prophets.
Comment by Quimby — January 4, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Wow, it took me an hour to read all the comments and I missed the last few!
to Nutty, I don’t think it’s a generational thing. My husband responds to my questions as though he has to provide me with the capital T “Truth” It’s a personality thing, or a learned behavior (his father is like that). I wish it were generational, because then it would eventually go away. . .
Anyway, to tie this back in to feminism, I think we just need to be more assertive and say “That may be the way you see it, but I see it differently” Then smile politely and sit down. I would really find this thread more useful if people gave examples of how they have tried to dosome of the things we’ve talked about here. More action to follow the ideas. If you think something needs changing, what have you done? (For example, I’ve heard about a woman not veiling her face in the temple, what happens to her?)
Comment by jessawhy — January 4, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Quimby.
The second article of faith is about Adam. Not Eve. (I wish I could infer otherwise, and maybe someday I will)
Comment by jessawhy — January 4, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Jessawhy:
I tend to think that the patriarchal order is an earthly thing. IMO, an earthly thing that grew out of human culture. I think it was understandable that the early church used/incorporated the patriarchal structure that it encountered around them daily.
However, times have changed. Now the world (at least parts of the world) is ready to accept women and men working together in leadership. So I wait and pray and hope that my church will evolve towards that more egalitarian structure. I think it will take years, maybe a few more generations, but I think it will happen in this life.
As for what we can do, here are some things I’ve done:
* held my own baby during its blessing (a blessing Mike and I wrote together)
*read and speak inclusively when asked to read scriptures in church (God created man AND WOMAN that they might have joy)
*give talks, teach lessons, and make comments that focus on women in the scriptures, or on Jesus’ radically egalitarian treatment of them. Quote women leaders.
*read up on women in the early church. These women were amazingly powerful and liberated. They were suffragists hobnobbing with Susan B Anthony who had total control over RS and its publications (unlike today). And they often referred to themselves as holding priesthood (in conjunction with their husbands)
* talk to your local leaders about things they might do to make the church a better place for women (call more women as gospel doctrine teachers, let women know that they can bring other women in with them when they talk to the bishop, encourage career nights for YW, etc.).
*reach out to women (and men) with similar concerns. Get together a book group so you can have a safe place to talk about and negotiate your concerns
*Write, write, write. Write about your ideas, your concerns, your feelings. Send your personal essays to places like Exponent II. Write letters to your bishop and stake president about your concerns. If no one brings up the fact that these things are really painful for some women, our leaders will have no reason to pray about the status of women and discuss ways to improve things.
Those were just a few off the top of my head. Hope this helps!
Comment by Caroline — January 5, 2007 @ 12:05 am
John, I’ve been meaning to do a post like this for ages but have been too lazy to accumulate the links and such. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Too tired for intelligent commentary on the discussions at hand, but I had to offer thanks.
Comment by Janet — January 5, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Hiveradical,
I was simply responding to cew-smoke’s ideas about why women shouldn’t be clerks. I don’t think those are exhaustive arguments. One can certainly, with great validity, go with the “god is mysterious and we have no idea why” but that’s just not too satisfactory for me personally. And speaking personally as well, I can’t accept the motherhood rationale either. (Not all women are mothers, and even those that are don’t spend 80 years of their lives exhaustively taking care of young demanding children.)
Comment by Caroline — January 5, 2007 @ 12:15 am
(For example, I’ve heard about a woman not veiling her face in the temple, what happens to her?)
If someone wants to be an activist, fine, but the temple is NOT the place to do it, for that individual’s sake and for the sake of those in attendance and for the sake of sacred space. (I’m really not sure this kind of thing should be talked about anyway in a forum like this, but I’m probably the minority on that front.)
I also think that sometimes we think we know what things mean when we really don’t. Don’t be so sure that all of these things are things to rebel against or want to have changed.
Comment by m&m — January 5, 2007 @ 12:30 am
#48 asked:
Some things I have done:
Taught my children that God doesn’t devalue his female offspring, and that it’s not right or fair that the priesthood is not practiced by LDS women outside of the temple.
1) Volunteered for anything and everything at church. Been willing to give lessons at the last minute, teach early-morning seminary, etc. All to create more opportunities for an alternate/feminist approach to the gospel.
2) Spoke up in Sunday School–especially when it is a man’s club (meaning: male teacher and only male class members responding to questions).
3) Started a RS book group or other female groups (playgroup, garden group, etc). There’s a lot of power in spreading the work among women.
4) Written and edited articles for the Exponent II.
5) Talked to my male LDS friends about patriarchy and the difficulties it creates for women–to create compassion/understanding for these issues in a new generation of church leaders.
6) Spoke at Sunstone Symposiums about feminist topics.
7) Offered to give blessings to both my male and female LDS friends.
9) I could list many other things that I’ve tried, but the ultimate way that I’ve “done something” about patriarchy is to leave Mormonism for a religion that has “radical equality” as one of their main tenets. I think my departure from the church came as quite a shock to many of my leaders simply because I have always been so active, so willing to serve in the church. For many years it was my belief that I could change the church with my actions. And while I certainly hope that there are many of you who continue on this path, I’ve come to realize that it’s not my battle to fight anymore. I’m not only weary of it, but I’m also looking forward to funneling my energies into an organization that both values and encourages my efforts as much as those of a man.
Comment by jana (JohnR's spouse) — January 5, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Janet (#51): *blush* you’re welcome. You and Quimby inspired this one. I only scratched the surface a tiny bit–I hope you go through with your post(s). I look forward to reading them.
#54: 10) Helped her husband become a little more aware of how women experience the world (and the ward).
Comment by JohnR — January 5, 2007 @ 12:40 am
I love your list Jana. And you’ll never know how much I’ll miss you at church every week.
One more thing I’ll add for Jessawhy
*follow your passions. Be that school, career, family. Live the life you want to live, that your gut tells you you should live, regardless of what Mormon culture communicates. Young women and young men will see you living a life that fulfills you, and slowly ideas about gender may change.
Comment by Caroline — January 5, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Now, what of discounting the comments of a woman not based on the accuracy of her statements and by her genetic makeup? Unacceptable. I do have to wonder. Women tend to comment in the form of a question or non-declaritive manner. Could it be the presentation of the comment and not the contents which leads to dismisal?
I’ve enjoyed this thread as it has really made me stop and consider my degree and style of feminism. I’ve discovered that my flavor is more about respect - men and women should be equally respected. I also favor equality within the bounds of the structure of the church. If God dictates that the organization of the church shall be patriarchal, I will accept that. It is enough for me that he blesses me with Prophets to guide the organization of the church and the Holy Ghost by which to guide myself. Should in the future, though I certainly don’t foresee it happening within temporal boundaries, woman be given a greater place in the governing of the church - so be it, I will accept that.
Comment by Janell the Great — January 5, 2007 @ 1:06 am
“Women tend to comment in the form of a question or non-declaritive manner. Could it be the presentation of the comment and not the contents which leads to dismisal?”
Janell, I hope the irony isn’t lost on you.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 5, 2007 @ 1:59 am
haha Julie…I didn’t even notice that when i first read it. But Janelle, I think the next logical question is to ask why it is women are more likely to present their convictions as questions than men? Surely, that can’t be genetic.
I find it interesting that no one has mentioned what I thought was an obvious connection between Islamic feminism and Mormon feminism. Whenever I discuss my particular brand of Mormon feminism with my non-mormon classmates, professors, or friends outside of Utah, I find most of those familiar with feminism jump to compare it to the Islamic movement, particularly in Iran. Islamic feminists seek to create change by convincing others that patriarchal or sexist readings of religious doctrine are misinterpretations of Gods’ words and argue in favor of alternative readings. It seems this entire thread is dedicated to just that, and really, as are, perhaps, a majority of posts on this blog: we might disagree with the proper avenues for change and even on what needs to be changed, but many posters seem to share a desire to question whether our current religious practices are really the ideal or just the errors of men and women.
Of course, the differences are also clear. My understanding is that Islamic Feminism first emerged as a strategy to create change in fundamentalist Muslim nations, particularly in Iran. Clearly, Mormonism is not our government, and Mormon feminism has its roots in far less political concerns. But still, I think it is valuable to look at Mormon feminism in relation to Islamic feminism. Maybe we should all get together and learn some things from one another.
Comment by Stars — January 5, 2007 @ 2:17 am
I’ll also add, sort of jumping off one of the original questions about where Mormon Feminism fits within the spectrum and what we contribute over-all, that I find what John calls the “creative tension” of the phrase to be ultimately empowering. How many times have we heard people refuse to identify as feminists because of the negative connotations and a fear of being lumped unfairly (in this thread alone)? And I’ll confess I have, on more than one occasion, felt a great deal of apprehension at identifying as a Mormon in certain social settings because I’m afraid of what the word might hold for others. Coupling both identities has been very empowering to me, because very frequently, that “creative tension” can help shake up an audience’s preconceived notions of either title just enough to make me feel my opinions are falling on more open minds than they would otherwise. I think there is a lot of potential rhetorical power in qualifying your brand of feminism for a particular audience. And the juxtaposition of an often misunderstood religion (i.e. Mormonism as backward, conservative, cultish, radical) with an often misunderstood view of the world (i.e. feminism as hateful, irrational, radical) can be especially effective in forcing an audience to reconsider the compatibility and the true nature of those two identity groups.
Hmmm you know when you’re so sure of the logic of your own thoughts that you lose touch with whether they’ll be accessible to those trying to follow them? This might be one of those times…I can attempt to articulate this better later if necessary..
Comment by Stars — January 5, 2007 @ 2:46 am
All men have a man to whom they report, except arguably the President.
And that is what I’m trying to get at. Priesthood is not about power and influence. As long as both men and women of the Church believe it to be so, it will not only be misused, but will also be misunderstood.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 5, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Stars (#59 & 60), thank you for taking both the comparison with Islamic feminism and the creative tension bit and running with them. I agree that using both “Mormon” and “feminism” together allows you to take back both labels and to force others to reconsider their preconceptions.
When I look at the earliest Mormon feminists (the well-to-do polygamist women who were active in the suffrage movement), I see more parallels between the two. I think that there was a stronger connection between their feminism and their understanding of Mormon theology (President Eliza R. Snow, who wrote “Invocation, or the Eternal Father and Mother,” called women to travel and preach about women’s rights). And feminist scholars from Islam and other faiths are getting together and learning from each other, and I hope that Mormon feminists can become a part of that as well! (maybe a few already are?)
Are unique LDS doctrines still coloring Mormon expressions of feminism?
Comment by JohnR — January 5, 2007 @ 9:36 am
UnicornMom, I can see how you might think that the use of the Priesthood in the Church is not about power (and I’m glad that your experience of the priesthood supports that), but I don’t understand how you can separate priesthood and power in the Church. I’m basing this on my experience–countless times, I’ve heard that priesthood is defined as power (specifically, the power and authority to act in the name of God). There are limitations and obligations to the use of this power, but Priesthood and power are continually paired in talks by the General Authorities. They caution and advise men to use the power in righteousness, but as far as I can tell, they never say that there is no power in the priesthood.
I think the problem is that the word “power” is used as a positive or neutral term in Church discourse (it’s only bad when abused or misused). Place it in the context of a conversation like this one, and “power” seems to take on a negative connotation. I’d prefer to view it neutrally, and then discuss whether or not the distribution or use of the power is problematic.
Comment by JohnR — January 5, 2007 @ 9:46 am
I think Jana’s example is telling. It’s exhausting to share concerns and to try to effect positive change in an organization where almost everyone in that organization has no real understanding as to why you are concerned in the first place.
It saddens me to realize that over the past fifty years, the LDS Church has either sat on the sidelines or has actively fought against social progress for blacks and women. I’m hopeful, however, that the next generation of church leaders will effect real change in the Church. The next fifty years will be an interesting time to be a member.
Comment by Anna — January 5, 2007 @ 10:52 am
It is not exactly a disassociation of power and Priesthood that I’m trying to articulate. It is that the power that is found in the priesthood is null and void in the absence of righteousness. There is no obligation for obedience when the men who wield the priesthood do so unrighteously. I don’t feel threatened by the power given to men because God is not asking me to obey without question. Quite the opposite, He encourages study, query and consent.
Merely desiring to have power over another human is unrighteous dominion. Perhaps I have no problem with men holding the priesthood because men cannot wield its power if they wish for power. It has nothing to do with personal desires for power and everything to do with God inviting men to partake in the love and service He longs to give His children.
I am not arguing that perceived power in the priesthood is often misused and abused. However, no person is forced by the Church or priesthood hierarchy to obey or to do something they do not wish to do. All callings are accepted, even the temple ordinances are completely voluntary - in fact, people are encouraged to leave if they have a problem with the covenants they are making. I also don’t think that bitterness towards the male-centered priesthood engenders an atmosphere of positive change. Perhaps it is not a change in the structure of the priesthood that is required, but a change in those who have been given it.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 5, 2007 @ 10:58 am
The first comment, by Caroline, said, “Though I believe you will find different kinds of Mormon feminists. You’ll find some that will advocate giving women the same opportunities as are available to men (i.e. ordaining women and bringing them into church hierarchy.) I’m one of those. But you’ll also find some who believe there should be and is a distinct female stewardship or priestesshood that is separate but equal to that of men. Often this stewardship or priestesshood seems to be connected to the concept of ‘motherhood’.”
Note the phrase: “giving women the same opportunities . .”
Non-LDS feminism has always been about complaining that the good old boys club kept women from having opportunities. To a degree that is right, but in a larger sense it is completely backward. The truth is that “the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world.” Mothers taught their boys to be leaders and they taught their daughters to by wives and mothers. Fathers were largely out of the house at work. Mothers set the societal expectations.
Men didn’t battle women for the privilege of being the school principle, company president, or head of the household. Mothers and wives supported them into those roles. And men learn from a very young age, that they must be “successful” in order to have women love them. Women just have to be attractive. Men have to be attractive and successful. Women talk about being liberated, but they still very strongly tend to select men who are richer, or more successful, or higher on the food chain, for husbands. So long as women seek more successful men than themselves as love interests, men will try very hard to become as successful as they can.
But Caroline spoke of priesthood (PH) ordination. The two PHs used on this earth for church administration are the Aaronic and Melchizadec. There is not one ordinance in either that can directly bless the life of the PH holder performing it. It’s true that women are not ordained to those two.
But in the temple, men and women receive 26 orders of the higher PH, and they recieve them together and in exactly the same way. The unschooled say women are denied the PH, but that is simply not true. Temple going women bear the higher PH in exactly the same way as men.
So who has the greater power? Men who are stressed out seeking success so they can get loved, and then must spend their lives away from house, wife and children to support those they love; or the women who choose the best man she can to give her love to and to father her children, and then get to have that man support and protect her so she can stay comfortably at home enjoying and raising the children? The married woman typically wants her husband to take the lead in so many areas, but she doesn’t hesitate to speak up when she wants something a certain way. And the man who isn’t making sure his wife is happy is going to be an unhappy man. He may think he’s the head of the family, but his leadership rests upon his wife’s support.
Finally, to really put the nail in this coffin, take a look at a marriage where the wife takes the lead, or headship of the home. Inevitably there will be conflict, tension and/or unhappiness in that home. The Spirit will withdraw and not assist her in her leadership decisions. Conflict and tension will be the natural result.
I know a woman years ago who told me this story: She had married a wonderful man, but soon her marriage became one of constant struggle with him, and it was “a living hell on earth.” After nine years and with four kids, she had decided to divorce him, and had circled a date on the calendar to go see a lawyer to start the process. Then she was reading her bible where it said the woman was to honor and support her husband, and he was to love and care for her as Christ loves his church, giving his life for it. It hit her hard that she’d never tried that. She thought about whether G*d would approve of her divorcing her husband without ever having tried his way of being married. She decided to try it, for thirty days, and then to divorced that ()(%$(**&%$ man. She said her marriage instantly became “heaven on earth.” She failed to notice when the date went by for starting her divorce. She’d been living a joyful marriage/life for five years when she told me this.
A lot of times, when I hear women talk about liberation, or wanting to be “given” the opportunities to fulfill male roles, I feel they are lost in the realm that the lady I mentioned was. Wresting power, or control, from men, is not the way to become happier. Women are not to be slaves, and men are not to enslave them. But women cannot become happy be struggling for power either. Try following the teachings of John to wives. Honor and support your husband or father. Honor and support those PH leaders called to preside. Experiment on G*d’s word. See if He didn’t understand and provide for your emotional nature and talents when He set things up the way they are.
Women cannot make good men of themselves any more than men can make good women. Try accepting the differences and the roles that G*d ordained and then magnify the callings you are given. Study the church’s paradigm for presidencies, and use that in counseling together as husband and wife. Joy will come into life. Love will abound. Your husband will cherish and adore you. “A good wife is worth far more than diamonds and rubies.”
Comment by Dale Kemp — January 5, 2007 @ 11:46 am
I also like Stars comment about the creative tension between both “Mormon” and “feminism.” Mormonism questions the absolutist view feminists take that patriarchy is bad without exception; whereas, feminism calls into question the very structure of the institutional mormon church, centered around male power. What makes Mormonism a particularly interesting topic for feminists is that it is one of the few institutions in the western world that advocates patriarchy. Without it, where would the feminist movement go? Women can literally do anything: there are more women in college and now even law school than men. We are scientists, CEO’s, presidential hopefuls, etc. The LDS church has been largely reactionary on social issues – the obvious example being civil rights and blacks not receiving the Priesthood until 78. Eventually, I think that the patriarchal institutional structure of the church will change as well.
On the Priesthood power issue, I think I have become rather cynical; I see it as a truism. Authority exercised by an institution that does not welcome a feminine perspective within its leadership strikes me as illegitimate. While I agree with #54 that bitterness towards the male-centered priesthood doesn’t engender an atmosphere of positive change, I find myself struggling to be anything but bitter. I go to church every week and say nothing because I know that nothing good will come of it.
I’m having a hard time following your reasoning, Unicornmon, that power isn’t inherent at least in modern discourse about the Priesthood. If it is not about power and authority then it has no reason for existing. Then again, maybe the answer lies not in abandoning the Priesthood, but recognizing a parallel Priestesshood.
Dale: First, I’ll speak from experience that your idea of marriage is very strange. My husband and I both have successful careers and are very happy. While it is never equal, it is always give-and-take. Neither of us presumes to have some innate right to “headship of the home.” No conflicts so far in 3 years of marriage - and I expect many more good years to come. And, are you saying that single mother homes where no husband is around are going to be tensious and without the spirit? What about when a husband is incapacitated, off at war, etc.?
And, I’m curious, Dale, why you assume women want “opportunities to fulfill male roles.” What exactly do you think is a male role? Your post is rather humorous in its wild assumptions.
Comment by herstory — January 5, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
It was asked if I thought there was a problem in the church at all under the current patriarchal system. I wish I had a much better answer than this. Perhaps some here would be appalled at my answer, but I think ugly truth is better than pretty fiction.
Until I started reading the many essays and comments on the Bloggernacle I had no idea that there were any problems. I am either incredibly lucky or deeply blind. Perhaps the latter is the truth. I had always assumed that women in the church were at least on some level accepting of the priesthood only being held by men. I assumed if they were truly unhappy about the concept they would not be sitting in the pews.
All the women in my life who are members (my wife, mom, sister, sisters-in-law) have always expressed such joy in the gospel plan and so lovingly spoke of their priesthood holding husbands, siblings, leaders, etc. that I never knew anything was lurking under the surface otherwise. I know, I know call me naieve. I am. I’ve always kind of lived in candyland.
So, before I would have answered the question by saying that sure there are always problems, because we are human and humans are well human. We make mistakes, we are weak-natured, we do many things without realizing it and we can be awfully self-righteous when we put our minds to it. However, I thought things were generally okay. I guess I am seeing things a little differently now. However, I guess I am part of the stodgy generation. I feel that unless God reveals otherwise, that the priesthood should not change.
Here is what I do know. I cannot reach exaltation without my wife. She is my partner and we go together or not at all. I cannot make it through this life on my own. I am not strong enough. I always thought I had the preisthood, because I am not strong like the women in my life are. I have it to teach me to attain that higher level of service, compassion and understanding of the gospel that seems to come so much easier to them. Perhaps I am a dinosaur from an irrelevant age. Here is what I do know; I know that I love the Lord and hope that he will forgive my weaknesses and forgive me if I’ve been holding women (or men) back from reaching their full potential.
Comment by cew-smoke — January 5, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
I think the point is that the power and authority of the priesthood flows through men, for the Lord’s purposes. It’s not like those men can use it for their own ends.
Well, see, that’s where my experience has been different. In the wards where I have lived, bishoprics seek the input of female perspective from ward councils and requests for input from female leaders and members. I don’t think a tithing settlement has gone by that the bishop doesn’t turn to me and ask me personally if there is anything in the ward that concerns me or could be improved.
Perhaps once or twice a year I have complained (nicely) about perceived sexism or anything else for that matter, and it has always been met with compassionate and a desire to do better.
Comment by Naismith — January 5, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
I had always assumed that women in the church were at least on some level accepting of the priesthood only being held by men.
This is one of the biggest downsides of getting a relatively small group of like-minded people in one place. It makes things seem more dramatic and worse than they really are. The bloggernacle is not a representative sample that can give us a grasp on how things really are. I realize there are people who are not happy, but try to keep the statistical nature of things in perspective. In a worldwide church of over 10 million people, a few dozen disgruntled folks (mostly American) interacting on blogs does not a representative sample make.
Comment by m&m — January 5, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
I’d like to share an experience that indicates that (1) a man functioning in the priesthood cannot do whatever he wants and (2) since it is the Lord’s church, it doesn’t really matter if men or women are doing something and (3) women have more influence than one might think.
Have you ever thought about how a bishop calls his counselors? I hadn’t, until my husband was called and the stake president said that I was his very first counselor, and that my husband should counsel with me about who to call to assist him. Which he did.
I prayed and fasted. We discussed things at length, and although there were other people that my husband wanted, we kept coming back to this one person as a second counselor. We wept a lot over it, because he was in his mid-20s and his wife expecting their first child. It did not seem fair to them to do this, and make him a high priest
This good brother agreed to serve, and was wonderful. Just a few months later, he was offered a job in another town. It turned out that the bishop of his new ward needed to replace a counselor, and hadn’t felt good about any of the obvious candidates, and was convinced that young man moving in was an answer to prayers.
So my husband did not get to choose who he wanted. The Lord had other plans that we could not ever guess. And I played a key role in “organizing the church hierarchy.” My husband continued to consult with me on a variety of issues. I am assuming other church leaders also get input from their wives.
So I don’t think male leaders are as power-hungry and clueless about female concerns as some would make out.
Comment by Naismith — January 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
It may not be the case in your congregation, but of course all our experiences differ (thank goodness I don’t have Quimby’s Gospel Doctrine class).
Statistically speaking, women are more involved with religion than men. For example, see this, for example. But numerous studies find that men are less engaged than women.
Even among Quakers, this varies from place to place. I have Quaker family members in a couple branches of my family and various locations. In the group we worked with most closely, because of a wedding, all the ministerial positions we dealt with were filled at that time by women.
Comment by Naismith — January 5, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Ok, so this is a slightly sarcastic response to #71. BTW, I appreciated the anecdote, and it was encouraging to hear that you were included in the decision for calling your husband’s counselors,
BUT (and yes, that’s a big but)…
Why were you only included in the process as some kind of covert 1st counselor? If you are really his first counselor then why isn’t that your title and why weren’t your sustained as such in a Sunday meeting? And why was this willing young brother with the pregnant wife the one who actually received the call?? I mean, I understand why you included that as an illustrative anecdote, but if it was actually the norm for women to be serving as “very 1st counselors”, I suspect that other bishop’s wives would be relating this experience in the Ensign and such (FYI: my Dad was a bishop and I never remember my Mom referring to herself as his 1st counselor).
Comment by jana — January 5, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
First of all, I don’t consider my inclusion as “only.” Being a bishop’s wife was one of the most demanding church callings I ever did, and I had been a Relief Society president and held various stake callings. It’s the family who often takes the call when someone has died, been raped, laid off or whatever. I personally didn’t want/need that level of detail in order to give them my husband’s cell phone number or take a message, but sometimes people need to talk.
I don’t consider that there was anything covert about it. When stake leaders call a bishop, they certainly consider his wife, both in extending a call and as an ongong concern. In our stake, wives of bishops and high councillors can only have their temple recommend interview from the stake president himself (not a counselor) and one is interviewed about the impact of their husband’s calling as well as the usual stuff; while that is our stake policy, others have told me that it is done that way where they live as well.
When members of a ward sustain a bishop, I think they also know that the family will be involved in answering the phone etc.
Because that was whom the Lord wanted at that point in time.
Perhaps because they think it would be casting pearls before swine and people might piss on it. So they don’t share such things in order to keep it sacred and pure to them.
And I have never referred to myself as his “1st counselor,” either.
Comment by Naismith — January 5, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Anna said (#64):
and herstory (#67):
This is my feeling as well. I feel downright angry about the past, but hopeful about the future. It makes me wonder what would’ve been on a pre-1978 Bloggernaccle if such had existed back then. How might we look back on these conversations in the future, if things do change for women in the Church?
herstory, I empathize with your fight against bitterness. I’m sorry that you feel the need to remain silent, but I comprehend and respect that decision. And this sentence of yours is a gem: “Authority exercised by an institution that does not welcome a feminine perspective within its leadership strikes me as illegitimate.” Amen, sister. May you find strength to persevere.
Comment by JohnR — January 5, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
UnicornMom (#65), thank you for taking the time to clarify the connection between priesthood and power. You added that
I believe that the majority of faithful members experience the priesthood in the way that you do. There is power expressed in relationships, but they don’t feel it as oppressive in any way.
While it is true that people are given opportunities to exercise their free agency, I’m not sure I would call it ‘completely voluntary.’ Referring to the temple ordinances, I would have appreciated time to go away and think about the promises before having to accept them–as a 19-year-old convert, I really had no idea what I was getting into at the temple, and I studied hard before I went. In favor of every ‘voluntary’ action in the church, there are tremendous social pressures to conform. Again, when your own values and perspective are being validated and reinforced by the power structure, you don’t feel that power. As soon as you turn even slightly against the current, you feel its mighty pull.
Perhaps this explains why some people experience the priesthood in terms of power relationships, while others don’t?
Comment by JohnR — January 5, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Just wondering what you think of this.
Comment by The Wiz — January 5, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
I remember reading that comic, Wiz. I wish I agreed that the debates which fueled feminism are largely over, but I just don’t. Many are, but not all and I’m not even certain most.
Comment by Janet — January 5, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
#74 I have to laugh at that (not in mockery) because my life has largely consisted of “going against the current.” I’ve just never felt that it was because I was a woman that I felt its pull. But then, I wasn’t looking for that to be the reason, either.
Sorry, I didn’t realize I had ignored this earlier - I must have just glanced over it or something. Firstly, the priesthood can confer power without being about power. Secondly, power and authority are not the same thing (though they are often used interchangeably.) Thirdly, the priesthood has plenty of reason for existing without that reason being to exert power over others. (Such as to provide a structure for the church.)
I would hazard a suggestion that it is dangerous to wish for change without inquiring of the Lord why something is the way it is. Rather than telling the Lord that the situation is wrong and needs to be changed, it might be more productive to open-mindedly ask Him why it is that way.
I define “power” in this context as “the ability to carry out one’s will.” Essentially, the priesthood contains no power unless your will happens to be (or becomes) God’s will.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 5, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
I love your analogy, JohnR. I think it accounts well for wide differences in perception.
UnicornMom:
But don’t priesthood holders use their power all the time to do things that aren’t necessarily God’s will? As Starfoxy said once at T&S, (one of my favorite Bloggernacle comments ever),
Comment by Ziff — January 6, 2007 @ 11:24 am
This is in responses to #79.
First, I am not sure I understand how the priesthood can confer power without being about power. Also, can you clarify why you think this is a justification for a male-only priesthood in the church?
Second, I’m not so sure I agree with you that power & authority are not the same thing. Weber said that authority comes from a particular type of power, defining authority as “power which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the powerful and the powerless.” So, church leaders have authority if we recognize their power as legitimate and justified. As I mentioned earlier, I have a hard time recognizing the legitimacy of the patriarchal structure when it is not welcoming of a feminine perspective.
Third, can you elaborate on why the priesthood, in its current form, exists if not for exerting power over others? Your previous example—to provide a structure for the church—is all about exerting power. The church structure is by definition hierarchal. Without exception, women are placed in a subordinate role to men. There are only men at the upper echelon of the decision-making process, maintaining veto power over women even in relief society, young women, and primary.
I agree with you that it is hazardous to wish for change without inquiring to the Lord, but when I inquire I am not asking him (or her) to justify the status quo. If something is wrong both logically and intuitively, then praying for an answer to why things are the way they are is going to result in a self-fulfilling prophesy. Further, I think it is only prudent to assume that posters on this blog, because of our background if nothing else, are approaching these questions in our prayers, which is why I’m frustrated by the response that the status quo shouldn’t be challenged “because God says so.” If we felt that way this discussion probably wouldn’t be happening. One of the things I like about this blog is that it is a place where we can anonymously express dissatisfaction with the status quo without risking our membership in the church.
Comment by herstory — January 6, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
But don’t priesthood holders use their power all the time to do things that aren’t necessarily God’s will? [+Starfoxy’s comment]
This would happen if women held the priesthood, too, because human nature is such that we make mistakes…so I’m not sure what the point is of saying this in the context of this discussion. Perhaps I’m missing something in what you were trying to say….
If something is wrong both logically and intuitively, then praying for an answer to why things are the way they are is going to result in a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I guess I don’t understand how one can determine that because it “doesn’t make sense” logically to one means that it IS wrong. Seems like a pretty bold position to take given what the prophets teach.
Herstory, maybe you could help explain something that I’ve never fully understood about the people who perpetuate conversations like this. The “status quo” that I hear complaints about includes priesthood, church organization, and prophetic guidance (among other things), three key elements of what the Restoration gave us. These things seem so fundamental to what we preach about as what was restored. So, what I’m wondering is: what does the restoration mean to you if these are things you don’t seem to fully buy into? I really want to understand your point of view because it confuses me…I feel like conversations like this thrust us in a way back into a pre-Restoration “everyone thinks and interprets for him/herself” state rather than in a unity of doctrine and perspective that the restoration was designed to bring at a general and individual level. It feels like conversations like this want to ignore the Restoration and put everything up for grabs (which isn’t reality…a lot of things really are “because God says so” and nothing we say or do will change that). What is the church without the Restoration and these elements as they were restored? What is the benefit of challenging these things rather than accepting them? I think it’s great that you care about your membership (you don’t want it in jeopardy), and yet it seems you want to make the church into something it’s not. The changes you seem to suggest you want would negate the restoration in my mind. I don’t get that. I’d be interested in your point of view.
Comment by m&m — January 6, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Very late to comment, but in #61, I wrote the first quote, but not the second. Combining the two makes them appear to be by the same person. They are not.
Comment by Ann — January 6, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
M&M:
This would happen if women held the priesthood, too, because human nature is such that we make mistakes…so I’m not sure what the point is of saying this in the context of this discussion. Perhaps I’m missing something in what you were trying to say….
Sorry for not being clearer. It sounds to me like UnicornMom was saying that priesthood power doesn’t work if men aren’t acting in accordance with God’s will. I was arguing against that idea. In fact, I think, as Starfoxy said so well, that men can easily use power associated with priesthood position to do things that are out of line with God’s will.
I wasn’t saying that women would be any less likely to misuse priesthood power to serve their own ends rather than God’s. In fact, I suspect that they would do so just as much as men do. On the plus side, though, a church hierarchy containing both women and men might be less likely to treat members of either sex badly.
Comment by Ziff — January 6, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Ziff,
Thanks for clarifying. My follow up question would then be to this statement: “In fact, I think, as Starfoxy said so well, that men can easily use power associated with priesthood position to do things that are out of line with God’s will.”
Therefore, what? I guess it seems kind of obvious to me that human beings put in positions of influence (of any kind) sometimes misuse that privilege. If you are a parent, you have probably done this and caused pain to your children at some point. I know I have. This kind of imperfection is built into our earthly experience all around. So, I guess I’m not sure what made Starfoxy’s comment so earth-shattering…it seems more like, “well, yeah, that’s part of life” to me. No change in organization, structure or distribution would change this reality, IMO. We are all supposed to be seeking God’s will in any role we have, and we all struggle with it at some time or another.
That said, I think that if council systems are used the way they are supposed to be, even the sexism that may creep in in individuals’ behavior would be checked. The heirarchy does effectively contain both men and women. And presidencies, ward councils, welfare councils, etc. are designed to keep balance and checks in place to avoid any one person misusing position power. (And parents should help keep each other in check, too.
)
Comment by m&m — January 7, 2007 @ 12:22 am
M&M I’m insulted (in. sul. ted!) that you didn’t find my words of eloquence earth shattering.
I agree with you that it is (or should be) pretty obvious that people in power will probably abuse it. However, in discussion about women and the priesthood (esp. as it relates to power & authority) someone always brings up the idea that it just doesn’t matter if only men hold the priesthood, (or the priesthood isn’t really power, or they can only do God’s will with it, or or or) because the unrighteous dominion clause makes behaving badly in God’s name impossible- which is patent nonsense.
Obviously, as you noted, this is true no matter who holds authority. However it is important to point out that it is possible for those with power to behave badly because it means we should consider carefully why we give power to those we do and what the repurcussions might be.
Comment by Starfoxy — January 7, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Ah, now I think I understand better where you are coming from on that. Thanks for clarifying, Starfoxy.
Don’t you think it’s possible, though, that sometimes (often) we apply the wrong measure (or at least really limited measures) for what “power” and/or “authority” might mean (or anything else we might be trying to “get”, for that matter)? For example, is priesthood really just about being “in charge” at church and about getting things done? I hardly think so. I really think that’s not what it’s about AT ALL — or at least most certainly not exclusively. I think sometimes we limit priesthood to what we can see or to what happens or what men “get to do” rather than considering it as a facet of helping men (and those around them!!) become. There *are* limits to a man’s priesthood, even if may not SEE those limits. What matters most to God and the purpose of our existence: what someone gets to “do” or how someone is able to progress?
As we ask why God gave priesthood to men (or any other ‘why’ that may not ‘make sense’ to us), I think we should consider that there are potential layers of purposes and/or meaning, and many (most?) of them probably escape our natural minds. (I’ve been thinking about this layer of meaning thing because I’m amazed at how much I’m still learning about gospel truths from simple things like baptism, the sacrament, etc…my son got baptized today and we have ALL learned new things as we have focused this week on these topics. It’s amazed me.) This is why I question the approach of “well, this doesn’t ‘make sense’ to me so I’m going to dismiss it or wait for things to change until they fit what I want them to be.” We really know so very little. I think it’s when we truly realize that that we are in the position to really start to understand more.
I think also if we turn to God even in our frustration and wondering, He can and will give us insights and answers if we trust in Him. I had a not-so-pretty (one-sided) conversation with Him a while back (I was HOPPIN mad about something in my life that felt so completely and totally WRONG and made NO SENSE to me whatsoever and I just was ready to explode. So I laid it all out.) Later, I was feeling bad that I had gotten so MAD, and a friend pointed out to me that at least I had turned to HIM in the process of expressing my frustration. (I”m not advocating a yelling match in a prayer, but just sayin’). I kid you not…within a day or two (can’t remember exactly), I had one of the most intense spiritual learning experiences of my LIFE (one of those “pure intelligence” moments), completely and totally intertwined with the very issue that was causing me so much grief. It was one of those life-changing moments. I don’t know why it came when it did, but the experience was a lesson that the place to go is to Him, regardless of what is going on, even if I”m upset, because at least I”m turning to Him in desperation and seeking for help. So, I have to second whoever said above to turn to God with these issues. I think He wants to help us understand what doesn’t ‘make sense.’ But we have to trust Him rather than just our brains, ya know?
Comment by m&m — January 7, 2007 @ 1:33 am
(you can tell when I dont’ feel good because those are the times when I spend too much time at my puter…sorry for being so vocal lately….)
Comment by m&m — January 7, 2007 @ 1:34 am