Mormon Feminist Disarray

[CASteinman]

Ruby slippers...probably as difficult to wear as Cinderella's glass ones...

They were silver shoes in the books, btw, but they changed them to ruby to show up better on the screen.

Attention to shoe colors and fashion are important. It can solve murders. (reference: Legally Blonde).

[CASteinman]

I think Bridget Jeffries wants to be a Mormon but can't figure out how to humble herself and repent.

[juliann]

Hudson's great. Enjoy reading her perspectives as she puts things together on a level that most people don't think about.

In respect to the questions, I'm a bit confused. Non-LDS feminists are very fractured and non-unified because of differing opinions as to feminist agendas (at least from what I read). Given that the opinions and attitudes of members of the church often mirror those of the community they live in or the societal groups they identify with, why would we expect to find unity among LDS feminists, many of whom identify with differing factions of non-LDS feminism?

Because Mormon feminists are a really small group dealing with Mormon related issues. If you keep up on the blogs the discussions are always about the same points. I can't claim to have seen everything but there is civil debate about whether to go for the priesthood. There was a blog not that long ago about such variations within Mormon feminism, sort of a "hey, don't look at us all like we are demanding the priesthood". That is why it is so stunning to see some of them beating up Hudson for the same thing they tolerate in each other. Secular feminists would probably not consider anyone defending patriarchal religion a feminist at all so I don't think there is much comparison.

[juliann]

I think Bridget Jeffries wants to be a Mormon but can't figure out how to humble herself and repent.

Let's not get personal. She could say the same about you wanting to be an EV. The problem she faces, however, is in trying to police Mormon feminist boundaries when she isn't Mormon.

[CASteinman]

Let's not get personal. She could say the same about you wanting to be an EV. The problem she faces, however, is in trying to police Mormon feminist boundaries when she isn't Mormon.

You could say it about me, but it wouldn't be true and it would not be very supportable. She's fascinated with Mormonism. I am not so fascinated with EV.

If I spent lots of time on Catholic boards talking about Catholicism and trying to make Catholicism over in my own image -- you would have a valid point that I wanted to be Catholic and had just not gotten around to it.

But I am only on Mormon Boards. Cause guess what? I want to be a Mormon.

Edited April 24, 2013 by CASteinman

[jwhitlock]

Because Mormon feminists are a really small group dealing with Mormon related issues. If you keep up on the blogs the discussions are always about the same points. I can't claim to have seen everything but there is civil debate about whether to go for the priesthood. There was a blog not that long ago about such variations within Mormon feminism, sort of a "hey, don't look at us all like we are demanding the priesthood". That is why it is so stunning to see some of them beating up Hudson for the same thing they tolerate in each other. Secular feminists would probably not consider anyone defending patriarchal religion a feminist at all so I don't think there is much comparison.

Yet in those blogs and discussion boards there seems to be a fair amount of vitriol towards non-feminist LDS women who those same feminists see themselves conflicting with. It seems to me that the fact that such vitriol can exist means that it can also be easily redirected as an emotional response to what is perceived as "betrayal" - even though it really isn't.

As for Mormon feminists being a really small group, I suspect that there are more that can be termed as sympathetic, at various levels, to feminist agendas. It seems that in my conversations I hear about a surprising number of sisters in the church who are sympathetic. While not in the majority, it's also not that small. They don't define themselves as active feminists, but don't identify totally with the "traditional" Mormon woman.

To me, at least, feminism outside the church is marked by a willingness to engage in conflict to achieve goals. This perspective must have at least some traction with feminists within the church; any progressive movement that seeks for change also allows for certain levels of conflict as a means to obtain that change. I don't see LDS feminists being immune from that tendency, and conflict is the antithesis of unity.

[CASteinman]

As for Mormon feminists being a really small group, I suspect that there are more that can be termed as sympathetic, at various levels, to feminist agendas. It seems that in my conversations I hear about a surprising number of sisters in the church who are sympathetic. While not in the majority, it's also not that small. They don't define themselves as active feminists, but don't identify totally with the "traditional" Mormon woman.

I don't know what to make of this exactly. I wonder how many would be like my wife who is fiercely assertive of her equality and no stranger to confrontation -- yet she seems to be almost insulted or offended by Feminists who want changes in the Church. I think its related to her testimony that the Church should be led not by the voice of the people but by the voice of the Lord.

[juliann]

jwhitlock, the OP was about a specific person and responses to her by groups that inhabit the bloggernacle and I don't want to go off on philosophical tangents.

1. I am asking for a respectful discussion of what this disarray may signify within the Mormon feminist community if they cannot come together around ideas instead of personalities/organizations.

2. How might this disunity impact progress?

[juliann]

I don't know what to make of this exactly. I wonder how many would be like my wife who is fiercely assertive of her equality and no stranger to confrontation -- yet she seems to be almost insulted or offended by Feminists who want changes in the Church. I think its related to her testimony that the Church should be led not by the voice of the people but by the voice of the Lord.

Would she be willing to read Hudson for comparison and report? In her own words?

[CASteinman]

Would she be willing to read Hudson for comparison and report? In her own words?

I will see. Do you mean the article under discussion or something else?

This article always made sense to me:

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2AddlCommentarySherlock.html

Maybe it made sense because I have sort of said that "we" heterosexuals have messed things up but really, the weight of that is on the men and I had not considered it that way. (having said that, over time, women have an increasingly greater responsibility for the fail).

Not only that but her view of gender equal monogamy is beautiful to me.

Edited April 24, 2013 by CASteinman

[jwhitlock]

I don't know what to make of this exactly. I wonder how many would be like my wife who is fiercely assertive of her equality and no stranger to confrontation -- yet she seems to be almost insulted or offended by Feminists who want changes in the Church. I think its related to her testimony that the Church should be led not by the voice of the people but by the voice of the Lord.

It's simply very difficult to stereotype women in the church. Actually, difficult is not the right word; impossible would be more like it. You can't stereotype all Mormon feminists as wanting the priesthood; some subscribe more to Hudson's view of seeking the divinity and spiritual power already inherent within women and learning how to magnify that power, instead of seeking for men to hand over priesthood power.

Maybe I don't get out much, but the most spiritually powerful women I know in the church don't seem to define themselves as feminists. They magnify their power in ways that put many priesthood holders (including me) to shame. They unify, they are peacemakers (no conflict), they have spiritual gifts, they have an open channel to God through the Spirit that is absolutely incredible. They seem to be the essence of what Hudson talks about.

That's why I'm trying to understand this call for unity among feminists. I'm not sure where it's going to come from.

[jwhitlock]

jwhitlock, the OP was about a specific person and responses to her by groups that inhabit the bloggernacle and I don't want to go off on philosophical tangents.

1. I am asking for a respectful discussion of what this disarray may signify within the Mormon feminist community if they cannot come together around ideas instead of personalities/organizations.

2. How might this disunity impact progress?

Well, I thought I was addressing the OP, but evidently looking at the whys and wherefores of how unity is so difficult to come by within feminism itself isn't applicable.

So, I'll be more direct.

1. Mormon feminists will never come together around ideas instead of personalities / organizations, because that is not the nature of feminism itself. This situation is just a reminder of that fact. There is no "idea" that Mormon feminists are all rallying around without differing on details, that I am aware of.

2. Disunity in the form of extremes within Mormon feminism will ensure that minimal progress will be made, because ideas and their implementation cannot be agreed upon. Progress recognized by Hudson will never be recognized as significant by more radical feminists. Instead, the church and its leaders will make whatever changes they feel are inspired as directed by the Lord. I don't sense that any coherent "Mormon feminist movement" really exists, so unity and progress will be superseded by bickering about personalities and organizations, instead of agreement on ideas.

[Glenn101]

Juliann, this in a way reminds me of the "are Mormons Christians". There are something like 39000 differeing denominations that nominally believe in Christ and refere to themselves a s Christians. They present a plethora of differeing views on Christ and and Christianity, essesntially agreeing on some points, and disagreeing on others. However, they can all pretty much unanimously gang up on LDS and less orthodox religions Claiming to believe in Christ as being UnChristian. And they can do so in very unChristian like ways.

I do not know if there is anything that can be done about this mentality. It seems to be human nature for people to stake out a territory and want to claim the right to define that territory and what it is all about.

I don't think my viewpoint has helped you very much. I apologize for that.

Glenn

[Stargazer]

Very interesting and thought provoking.

If I were to take issue with anything, I might take it first with this:

It preaches that Eve did not sin in the Garden of Eden, but was foreordained to partake first of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and rewarded for so doing.

No, no, she DID sin, and that sin is what caused them both to be ejected from the Garden, after Adam recognized that he must follow her, and so joined her in sin. But yes, it seems clear that she was foreordained to do what she did -- Adam being recognized as perhaps a bit too rule-bound to do it from his initiative.

I was struck by this sentence:

The Two Trees in the Garden of Eden symbolize two doorways, one whose ordinances are presided over by the daughters of God and one whose ordinances are presided over by the sons of God, and that men and women are to hearken to each other as we pass through the doorways in sequence.

Now there's a bit of non-doctrine I've never heard before. Sounds intriguing, and if I were to guess, I would guess that she proposes the ordinances of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to be presided over by women, and those of the Tree of Life to be presided over by the men. I can't find any fault with this, in and of itself, but I also cannot comprehend what it means.

I had to consult a dictionary over "adumbration"; turns out to mean "foreshadowing". Nice to add to my word-treasure, as it is called in German.

She writes:

...that is, women would have to be ordained to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. This appears to be the conclusion reached by ordainwomen.org.

In my opinion, this is a distorted view for two reasons. First, the Church as an organization in the Kingdom of God is but an auxiliary to a far more important organization—the family. The Church is not above the family—rather, the family is above the Church in importance to God.

Ummm, no. She's got the org chart a bit askew. The Church is an auxiliary, true enough, but not of the family. The Church is an auxiliary to something else, and that something is the Priesthood. Note, not per se to those fellows who sit on the stand during Sacrament meeting, but to Heavenly Father. The Church is the chosen auxiliary through which Heavenly Father administers His ordinances to His children. But she is not far off at all in spirit-- it is more accurately siad that the family is the Father's chosen auxiliary for bringing His children into the world, and as such, it lies outside the Church, and is directly connected to the Father. The purpose of the Church is to help the family, but it is not the family's auxiliary. They stand apart having the same goals, but one is not subservient to the other, and the Church is not less important to the Father.

I was intrigued at her recounting of a meeting in which Pres. Eyring was present, in which reproductes his reaction:

This is the strangest conversation I have ever heard. Here are the prophets of God and they are disagreeing with an openness that I had never seen in business. [Then] I saw the most incredible thing. Here are these gifted people with different opinions and suddenly the opinions just began to line up . . . I had seen unity some out of a wonderful, open exchange that I had never seen in all my studies of government of business or anywhere else . . . Then I was surprised again. President Lee said, “I think we will bring this matter up again some other time. I sense there is someone in the room who is not yet settled. And he went on to the next item. [At] the end of the meeting, I witnessed a member of the Twelve walk past President Lee and say, “Thank you.” “This is the true Church of Jesus Christ . . . We can be open. We can be direct. We can talk about differences in a way that you can’t anywhere else, because we are all just looking for the truth.” (Church News, Oct 20, 2007, p. 6)

Now, I had heard of a similar thing happening from an account by Cleon Skousen, as he told about a meeting in which he was present due to them discussing what should be in a series of radio shows that he was to put together, many years ago I won't try to dredge this up verbatim, but it generally happened as Pres. Eyring described, to a point. Skousen reported that initially they were wanting a program that he was completely certain he couldn't possibly put together in the time available, not and drop several other important projects, and so he was quite worried what the outcome would be. But as the discussion went around the room, the proposal began to be dialed back to a more doable extent, until one point when he said, "And then it happened. There was the marvelous feeling of peace that came over me," and over all the others in the room, as suddenly all were contemplative, looking down at the table. Then the presiding officer (who is was I cannot quite remember, but it may have been Harold B. Lee) spoke, saying, "Well, brethern, we have our answer. You go ahead Brother Skousen and everything will work out just fine." And the meeting was over. Afterwards, Skousen spoke with Gordon B. Hinckley who had been in the room (though not yet as a General Authority), and asked him in some amazement, "Did you feel that?" Br. Hinckley responded with "What, is that new to you?" Skousen replied that no, it wasn't, but that he had never quite felt it like that. Hinckley said simply, "That's what is called 'Waiting on the Lord'."

I don't have time to comment on the whole article (I'll bet you're relieved about that). But although she went on to propose several possibly future innovations in doctrine and practice, not any of them being particularly outrageous, but most highly unlikely, all in all I felt the article was quite positive and thoughtful. Indeed, she made my mind do a few flip flops. In a good way.

Thanks for posting this.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

You will need to read the articles to make any sense of this whatsoever. They are short. I do not "allow" criticism means I object to it, it is pointlessly argumentative to paint that as meaning I have supernatural power to go on every blog and prevent all criticism. Please do not derail this thread with red herring nitpicking.

I think he was wondering if you really were Nemesis, after all, and this was just a slip on your part, inadvertantly admitting it.

You've got to admit, that one thread awhile back where the Mods came out and said that they were ALL Juliann raised some suspicions.

Anyway, just kidding, and now back to our regularly scheduled random romp through the Universe, er, Mormon Feminism. As you may recall, Stargazer had just posted a typically insightful thought on the whole subject.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Stargazer

[Avatar4321]

I must admit, I am a bit concerned with some of her ideas. Like reinterpreting the scriptures from a woman's perspective.

Shouldn't we be reading the scriptures as they were written and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit instead? It concerns me when people want to interpret the scriptures in some personal or private way.

Also, where does this idea that she says the father doesn't preside in the home? That goes straight in the face of what the First Presidency and Twelve declared in the Proclamation on the family:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

There is nothing to fear from a righteous man presiding over his family. I think this comes from a tendency to interpret it the way the Gentiles would rather than how Christ does:

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28)

The husband is called to serve and minister to his wife and, if necessary, give his life. This is bad? How does this make a wife worth any less than her husband?

Im sorry if Im ranting here. But Im absolutely tired of the idea that because one person is supposed to preside the rest of us are suddenly unequal and not worth as much as him? I cannot fathom that President Monson, His Counselors, or any of the Twelve believe that because they have been called to preside over this Church they are somehow greater than any of us. Nor do I think they are. They have simply been called to do the Lord's work in one way and you, I and everyone else have been called to do it in another, but equally important manner.

I'm all for letting the doctrines of the Gospel change the culture. but let's have the actual doctrine do it. Let's stop trying to interpret the scriptures and the doctrines in ways we like them and instead look at them as they actually are, as dictated by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit isn't going to testify to men that the scriptures say one thing and then tell women they say something completely different. It's not going to happen.

You want to know why "Mormon Feminism" is disarrayed? It's simple. They aren't listening to the Holy Spirit. If they were listening to the Spirit they would be united just as the brethren would be united with them. But then, I would expect they wouldnt be "Mormon feminists" or any sort of ists. Any more than there were any Nephites or Lamanites or any other type of ites when the people were completely united in Christ after they had yielded themselves up to the enticings of the Holy Spirit.

Let's learn our duties as the scriptures and the Living Oracles teach us. And let's do them. Get the Spirit and spread it and stop creating divisions among people. That's all -isms and -ists do. Divide.

[Stargazer]

And, just for grins, here is the video in which President Eyring talks about that experience he had in discussion with Pres. Lee and others:

[media=]

I found this on one of the posts here: http://www.fairmormonoutreach.org/forums/topic/blame-and-offense-in-the-church

[USU78]

Yet in those blogs and discussion boards there seems to be a fair amount of vitriol towards non-feminist LDS women who those same feminists see themselves conflicting with. It seems to me that the fact that such vitriol can exist means that it can also be easily redirected as an emotional response to what is perceived as "betrayal" - even though it really isn't.

If you're not part of the solution . . .

[wenglund]

I could be wrong, but there seems to me to be at least two divergent types of feminism. One type looks to women and womanhood to find the bountiful richness therein, and the other type looks comparatively to men to see what the women may lack. The one is born of humble and meek and godly self-awareness, and the other seem driven by prideful envy, I see Hudson as emblematic of the former, and her critics as tending towards the latter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 24, 2013 by wenglund

[USU78]

I could be wrong, but there seems to me to be at least two divergent types of feminism. One type looks to women and womanhood to find the bountiful richness therein, and the other type looks comparatively to men to see what the women may lack. The one is born of humble and meek and godly self-awareness, and the other seem driven by prideful envy, I see Hudson as emblematic of the former, and her critics as tending towards the latter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

1. I am asking for a respectful discussion of what this disarray may signify within the Mormon feminist community if they cannot come together around ideas instead of personalities/organizations.

Disarray of any kind undermines any common agenda people might share.

2. How might this disunity impact progress?

Contention in particular (we all know where that comes from) impacts progress the same way it did in D&C 101:6-8. It disrupts access God’s help in the day of trouble until we can move on according to the light we choose to abide by, whether that be the light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, or the Gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost (whichever we have access to and are qualified to receive).

The optimist that I am, I believe that, because no power can stay the heavens, any progress that might have been gained through the instrumentality of those who failed to meet the heavenly standard will eventually come about through those who do, whose hearts are not so much set upon the things of this world.

[juliann]

The problem with sermons and lectures (aka mansplaining) is that it is almost always the case that the same judgments thrown out about the other guy gal apply to the sermonizer. In fact, that is the weakness in the feminist movement that I see building using the linked blog as an example. It is almost a replay of the early anti-Mormon ministry types who threw all kinds of Biblical sounding stuff at us...only to see it come right back at them and leaving them without defense. The first thing that has to happen is a cease fire on the need to tell women what they should be thinking, feeling, and saying to qualify as "spiritual". Cause that is a right back atcha.

Edited April 24, 2013 by juliann

[juliann]

I must admit, I am a bit concerned with some of her ideas. Like reinterpreting the scriptures from a woman's perspective.

Um.....

[Buzzard]

This is just IMHO, but of all the things she proposed, only one got my eyes wide. The notion that a woman could be sealed to more than one man. I could see the day where the church only seals one woman per man for eternity, but a woman being sealed to multiple husbands? If we are serious about our doctrine of eternal marriage, that would be kind of unworkable.

[CV75]

In fact, that is the weakness in the feminist movement that I see building using the linked blog as an example.

Because the weakness (contention) arises from how individuals choose to act toward those with differing opinions, I'm thinking that as far as the LDS go, such a weakness might have to be overcome by those who are genuinely interested in feeling out the Lord's will for His children, and carrying it out on a personal level. So many who do this live out their lives fairly quietly and anonymously, and of course this approach is rarely found in secular and political matters. But as far as what the Lord can accomplish through His people from generation to generation, I think the best we have to offer as a people will come out as the norm eventually.