 |
| The firs LDS Relief Society presidency. |
“All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the
soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of
superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to
use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an
"I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends
up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only
politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and
sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an
existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his
terrible sinfulness?”
“I have been gravely disappointed with the
white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the
Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White
Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more
devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace
which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of
justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but
I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically
believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a
mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a
"more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good
will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill
will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
 |
| Ordain Women on their way to ask for admittance to LDS General Priesthood Session. |
This weekend, I stood by while a group of brave women showed
up in Salt Lake City to request entrance to the all-male priesthood
session. Though the women and allies
of Ordain Women were denied access to the meeting, their actions definitively shaped
the discourse of the October 2013 sessions of The LDS Church General Conference. Concerns
about gender roles, and especially the roles of women, were addressed
in each session.
The talks about women continued in the beloved and much defended Mormon tradition of benevolent sexism. (Despite complaints by those who feel this stereotyping and limiting of Mormon women is damaging and offensive.)
These sermons were delivered by all men and only one woman.
None of the speakers, however, answered the main question asked directly by OW: will you pray for revelation about female ordination? Speakers fell back on explanations that were neither fully reasonable nor fully evidence based, even in the documents of our own history and scripture. Some of the questions I wish we could talk about more explicitly and accurately include:
1.
Why was female ordination revoked (there was no
acknowledgment in the meeting that early female ordination existed, despite the
fact that anyone who can Google can discover
this fact.) Instead, there was a tacit implication in several talks that the priesthood has
always been held only by men. I
believe the wording was deliberately carefully vague in order
to avoid statements that might later be challenged by facts of history. Nonetheless, the implication that priesthood has only ever been held by men hung over
the conference without explanation or evidence-based backing.
Where is the sin in asking for and expecting transparent,
fully truthful explanations? If
the answer around female ordination is, “we really don’t know right now,” tell
us. If the answer is, “We believe
Joseph Smith was wrong to allow women to ask him to start the Relief Society/receive
revelation/inquire of the Lord about Word of Wisdom, etc.,” tell us. If the
answer is, “We think female ordination in the early days was different from
female ordination now,” say that.
If the answer is, “It says here that only men should hold the
priesthood. We are going with that
scripture rather than this scripture here for X, Y, and Z reasons,” please tell us. If the answer is, “We don’t yet know
how to address female ordination in a global church that we are only beginning
to understand,” why not just say that?
Parsing words and being opaque can make listeners
feel there is a need to cover up or hide. Transparency shows confidence and belief in what you are saying. On the part of members of the church, asking for clarity from God, leaders, or in discussion with other members implies that you care, that you want to know—how is
this a sin? We should not be afraid to ask, and we should be answered with full transparency.
2.
Peoples of African descent (and their allies) asked the
same question before 1978: will you inquire of the Lord for revelation concerning ordination for all worthy men? Why were the priesthood privileges of men of sub-Saharan African descent revoked and
then subsequently restored? The
revelation to restore priesthood to all worthy men occurred upon many petitions by Mormons concerned about equality to the prophets David O. Mckay and Spencer W. Kimball. Members of the LDS Church asked McKay, and then Kimball, to inquire of God about this racist practice. Though priesthood privileges have been restored to "all worthy men," there has been no subsequent apology or explanation for why this racist practice was part of our church for so long.
In the October 2013 conference, we heard that the
priesthood is God’s priesthood to be restored or bestowed when and where God
wants it to be. What is the
difference between the restoration of the priesthood to all worthy men and what
Mormons concerned about sexism in the church are requesting right now? Why was it seemingly okay to ask about that, but not about this? Why were African-American men able to "get a meeting" with the First Presidency while women have not been able to "get a meeting" about female ordination despite decades of petitioning?
3.
What is our common definition of equality, and do Mormons
really believe in equality? Do we agree on the definition of the
word “equality” contained in the dictionary, basically:
“Being equal in status, rights,
and opportunities?”
If the answer is yes, we all agree on this definition, then we need to admit that our church is okay with inequality, and we need to explain why.
In fact, I think we need to acknowledge that equality is not our primary goal, that it is secondary to other purposes, such as our belief that enacting separate gender roles is important to preserving order on earth and in the church. 9 and 1 are not equal. They are different numbers, and they have different roles in different equations. By definition, equal means same or exact in terms of quantity. This fact of equality is quantitative. Most discussion of gender roles in the LDS cosmology addresses qualitative issues. Qualitative issues can not replace quantitative in discussions of equality. In true equality, both the quantity and quality of opportunity, status, and rights have to be the same, not 9 and 1, but 1 and 1, or 9 and 9 .
Or am I misunderstanding the definition of "equal"? (As opposed to the "feeling" of equality.)
Most people who lived through “separate but equal” have
agreed that there is no such thing as "separate but equal." Dr. King says, “Segregation is morally wrong and sinful.” As a church,
though, we continue to hold on to this notion of “separate but equal," without a fully articulated defense of how “separate but equal," in the case of
gender, operates as simply “equal" in the case of the LDS church. "Separate but equal" is the main rebuttal I've heard given over and over again by
those who do not believe inequality exists in the Mormon church. I want to know how those holding this view believe that "separate but equal" can work in some spheres and not in others.
If you are white and you don't feel discriminated against, you can't claim there is no racism. Personal experience can't determine whether equality exists in a system or institution. Only weighing and measuring can accurately tell us whether or not equality exists in any particular realm.
Private institutions have the right to determine how much equality they will enact, and individuals have a right to participate or not participate. I mostly wish we could be more honest about how much we value equality in our religion. If we feel it is less important than other concerns and purposes, we should admit that and explain why, not continue to claim, against reason, that there is no inequality in our organization.
***
For months I’ve been trying to work out why I continue to be
a bystander on this issue of female ordination. For months I’ve been feeling guilty for acting like (and
being) the “white moderate” Dr. King talks about, the one who is worse than the
out and out bigot, the one who has an investment in the status quo and
therefore upholds the status quo, the one who covers up the ugly boil of
injustice so it cannot heal in open air.
Why did I not speak out and show up at the OW event?
1.
I’m
tired and scared. On a daily
basis, the balancing act of children, work, and church leaves me feeling like I
could fall off the tightrope at any moment if anything tips slightly or goes
even slightly awry. Maybe I felt
like I couldn’t take the emotional fall-out of involvement in such an event—an
event that would surely take a large emotional toll on my psyche. The difficulty of living in an
all-Mormon community when I have such strong objection to inequality takes a
daily toll on me. The pain of
misunderstandings and differences with the most beloved people in my life, all
Mormons, is something hard to explain to those who say, sometimes in honest bewilderment
and sometimes in angry callousness:
“Then why don’t you just leave?”
Beginning in my teen years, I was
upset about inequalities for women in the church, and was shut down by
mansplainers in leadership meetings when I raised issues of sexism and gender discrimination
in the youth organization.
I
watched my feisty Laurel teacher also get shut down when she tried to defend
me. Eventually, I stopped talking, at least publicly.
I suppose I wasn’t sure I
could take the shut down one more time.
2.
I’m
conflicted about ordination. Let
me be clear: I am not at all
conflicted about the righteous act of questioning and inquiring of the Lord and
our leaders for clarification on issues we don’t understand or want further
light and revelation on. I am in full solidarity with the women who attempted to attend priesthood on Saturday, October 5th 2013. I believe
the act of doubting, questioning, and searching for answers is following the
model Joseph Smith set forth when he received his first revelation, and then
subsequently organized the church to allow for a hybrid theocratic and
democratic institution.
I am conflicted about what priesthood is, what it means to hold it,
and about my personal connection to it.
What would it look like to ask a sister or mother to give me a
blessing? I can’t even
imagine. And perhaps because I
have a more ecumenical notion of worthiness, I don’t want to think that some of
my sisters are more worthy to bless me than others simply because they have
followed a checklist of church and temple attendance, adherence to word of wisdom
and tithe paying, and have been ordained.
Many of the sisters I know who bless me the most are not “worthy.” They are not and have never been
Mormon, or they are what we call “apostate”. The sisters who seem most worthy to me are those who
bless others because of their goodness, tolerance, wisdom and love. Some of the best women I know would be
worthy to hold the priesthood, and some wouldn’t. In short, I don’t place
priesthood power above the power of good behavior, whether or not you drink a
cup of coffee in the morning.
3.
I
still haven’t worked out the whole gender roles thing. Being of the generation of second wave
feminists, the generation who is feeling around in the dark for how to enact a
more equal society, I feel quite muddled at times. I was raised in a very traditional household, and I am
myself a rather traditionally hetero-normative woman. I like to cook and be home with my children (I also hate to
clean, decorate, and craft), to wear heels and lipstick, and I love my
career. I have loved receiving
priesthood blessings from my father and husband. I have loved praying with my children when they can’t fall
asleep at night because they are afraid, or when they are hurt or sick. And that act does indeed feel separate
but equal to me.
We are a
family of women’s college alumna and attendees (currently three alumna from Mills
College, Barnard and Sarah Lawrence –after it was made coed, however--and one
attendee at Bryn Mawr). I value
homo-sociality, perhaps more than most, and am not sure how this fits with
priesthood and relief society respectively.
 |
| Women of the first Relief Society. |
Although I suppose Relief Society
is no longer truly homo-social as, unlike at its inception and continuing
through the 1960’s, it was when it was administered by a female leadership.
And, contrary to popular belief,
men ARE invited to the General Relief Society (they preside over and speak at
this meeting, and a few random guys were coming in and out during the session I
attended at our Stake Center. There were no female ushers there to tell them,
“This meeting is for women only.”)
Finally, I’ve always loved the
sound of words containing the suffix “-ess” and have been only too happy to
reclaim this diminutive as an act of feminism: poetess, authoress, speakeress, etc. Being a “priestess” just appeals to me
more than being a boring old “priest.”
I suppose I would rather have my own thing than borrowing his
thing.
(And by thing, I don’t mean to imply
any(thing) in the Shakespearean sense.
By thing, what I mean is no(thing).)
 |
| Women leaving the LDS Tabernacle after being denied entrance to the Priesthood Session. |
4.
I adamantly support the right for a Mormon woman to choose
whether or not she can be a priesthood holder. Equality means equal access. Period. If
women cannot make their own free choices, if their choices are dictated by an
all-male leadership, then it follows that they are not equal in “status,
rights, and opportunities.”
This is a denotative fact.
The end.
To continue our current paradigm of
what Mormons call “ gender equality” is to say something along the lines of what Victorian men said about female superiority in the 1800's: “Sisters,
you are better than us, and therefore we need to make decisions for you in
order to make up for our inferiority to you.” Holding women on a pedestal is not the same thing as equality,
although this is a popular argument used against those who hold that there is
gender inequality in the church.
Popularity does not equal truth, though
Ruth Todd, spokesperson for the LDS church, used this as one of her main
defenses when asked about the OW movement when she said in her official
statement:
"Millions of women in this church do not
share the views of this small group who organized today's protest, and most
church members would see such efforts as divisive.”
Those who listen to General
Conference each April and October will remember that we hear a “popularity does
not make it right” sermon at least twice in every session.
When is this reasoning correct and when is it incorrect? Can the same flawed reasoning be used in correct and incorrect ways?
5.
I am deeply concerned with the
disenfranchisement and exclusion of Mormon women from the leadership of the
church. I am one hundred percent
sure that we would have a stronger organization if our leadership was split
equally between men and women.
I’m not sure this can happen unless
women can be ordained. We heard in
October 2013 Conference that women have a special role in the lives of
children. The lives of Mormon
children are shaped by decisions made by the church leadership. Having a female primary leadership does
not cover the gamut of decisions being made for and about Mormon children. If we really believe that “working with
children” is a special dispensation for women, then we need women working in
every single capacity of LDS administration, because every capacity of the
church affects our children.
Today, the Monday after my sisters
were turned away, shunned, and dismissed. My daughter Eva was there, holding a
card for her sister
Ingrid, who has never, ever been afraid to speak out
against inequality and oppression.
Today, I’m relieved I didn’t attend.
I still don’t know how long it would have taken me to recover.
And, today:
I’m sad and ashamed that I didn’t
attend.
I wish I had been strong enough to
stand up with my sisters.
I’m
sorry that I didn’t.
This is my apology, and my timid attempt to continue the discussion around equality in the Mormon Church.
p.s.--
I am thrilled to hear opposing viewpoints, especially ones that use sound reasoning and evidence, are thoughtful, seek greater understanding, and are nuanced. However, you should, before posting your rebuttals, read this list of reasons that I've already researched, considered, and discarded. If you don't have a fresher or more nuanced perspective to offer in rebuttal than the ten reasons in this post that I've heard hundreds and hundreds of times without being convinced, you may not be able to convince me now with those same reasons.
I will however, cherish every kindly and sincere attempt at dialogue and understanding, whether or not we agree!
