The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Gray]

Just now, bluebell said:

This is how i feel.  I hate how every example of feminism is about making women more like men and never about women being recognized as equal to men without being the same as men.  Women's lib was about women being able to talk like men, dress like men, have sex like men, work like men, have male names (I'm getting really tired of everyone naming their little girls Maxwell, and James now), etc.  It's the same with women's ordination-the goal is to have the priesthood like men.

 

How does one "work like men"? I work in an office with probably more women than men. Our job descriptions aren't defined by our gender. Maybe that's thanks to feminists. 

I don't think priesthood is inherently male either. It's just that men have traditionally claimed it for themselves. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

How does one "work like men"? I work in an office with probably more women than men. Our job descriptions aren't defined by our gender. Maybe that's thanks to feminists. 

I don't think priesthood is inherently male either. It's just that men have traditionally claimed it for themselves. 

Think back to when women's lib first started in the 1960s and 1970s.  Being treated like a man on the job, (being represented in every field in equal numbers-regardless of whether or not equal numbers of men and women were interested in those fields-working 80+ hours a week like men did, wearing pants, not being asked about family life or letting one's children get in the way of the career) were all goals along the road to making women equal to men.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I see several problems that pop up every time this topic comes up. First is the unwillingness to use common language. Do we discriminate?

With respect, I am not sure "discriminate" can be so simplistically described as "common language."  Yes, it's common.  But it's also loaded.  In 2016, it has an inherent, presumptively negative connotation.

The dictionary entry for the verb "discriminate" has related, but still radically differently flavored, definitions of the term:

Quote

verb (used without object), discriminated, discriminating.

1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

verb (used with object), discriminated, discriminating.

3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.

4. to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.

As you can see, definitions 2, 3 and 4 are innocuous.  Dispassionate.  Unemotional.  Unloaded.  So phrases like "He has a discriminating palate" or "The judge will need to stamp this order in red ink so we can discriminate the original from any copies we may make later" are fine.  They are not making value judgments.  They are simply using the word "discriminate" in an ordinary, unloaded sort of way.

But definition 1 is a different story.  That definition is making a value judgment.  To "discriminate" under definitions 2-4 is fine in our society.  But to "discriminate" against people "on the basis of the group, class or category . . . rather than according to actual merit" is presumptively bad.  Without context or explanation or qualification, to state something like "My boss discriminated against me" is to accuse someone of misconduct.  It has connotations of malice.  Of bigotry.

Discussions of race and gender and similar “hot-button issues” are often hindered by divergent interpretations of certain words or phrases. For example, the term “discrimination,” as applied to most legal issues, is frequently perceived as having an inherently negative connotation. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, “many [traffic] stops never lead to an arrest, which further exacerbates the perceptions of discrimination felt by racial  minorities and people living in high crime areas.”  Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 133 (2000) (emphasis added).  Note the absence of any clarifying language here.  "Discrimination" used in the context of traffic stops involving racial minorities does not really need to be explained as a bad thing.  We know from the context that it is a bad thing.  The unspoken assumption is that discrimination based on race is always suspect.

Likewise, when Latter-day Saints say "Yes!" to a facile question like "Do Mormons discriminate against women?", there is an unspoken assumption being communicated.  A connotation of misconduct.  Malice.  Bigotry.  An accusation.  The answer, then, becomes an admission of guilt on behalf of the Saints as a group.  That the LDS Church, and its leaders, and its members, treat women with invidious, borne-of-malice "discrimination."

So it is interesting that where you see a "problem" and propose a "solution", I see the proposed solution as the problem, or at least a big part of it.  Broadly worded questions about sensitive topics (like how the LDS Church treats women), using heavily loaded and easily misunderstood terms like "discriminate," intended to solicit a simplistic answer to what is really a complex and nuanced issue, is the very definition of facile ("(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial").

So with respect, I will not join you in what looks like both A) a gross oversimplification of a complex and sensitive issue, and B) an unwarranted condemnation of the LDS Church, its leaders, members and doctrines.  I do not accept the proposition that the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ invidiously discriminates against women.

Quote

Are women unequal? Yes!

No!

Again, this is an unfair and facile approach to a complex and sensitive issue.  The Brethren move heaven and earth to provide counsel that is in direct contravention of your implied accusation:

• Women and Men and Equal
• Elder Ballard: "Men and women are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the Church, but equal does not mean that they are the same. Although responsibilities and divine gifts of men and women differ in their nature, they do not differ in their importance or influence."
• Elder Oaks: "In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities."
• Elder Cook: "Wives are equal to their husbands."

The Scriptures carry the same message.  

You are really setting us up to fail here.  You are either A) contradicting the Brethren and the Scriptures, or B) encouraging the use of patently ambiguous and, in the context of discussions about things like race or gender, easily misunderstood terms and come across as publicly finding fault with doctrines of the Church.

So with respect, I reject the accusation that women are "unequal" in the LDS Church.

Quote

Until we are willing to admit what is so dang obvious to everybody else we won't ever be able to give an explanation.

Facile: "(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial."

Quote

The reason a film like this will speak to outsiders is because they are using the standard meaning of words while we are mired in "no we don't!" while the conversation goes on without us.

The reason a film like this will speak to outsiders is because insiders are using falsehoods and unfair characterizations of the LDS Church and its doctrines and leaders to play upon the ignorance and prejudices of some of those "outsiders."  That is why I am taking exception to the film.  Grant Palmer parlayed his "insider" status to give his narrative some street cred to "outsiders" (he put it in the name of his book, for pete's sake).  But that does not justify him one whit, nor did it bolster the merit of his arguments.  His narrative was still deeply problematic.  Abby Hansen appears to now be resorting to the same tactic.  But just because it's effective doesn't make it right.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2016 by smac97

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether a thing deserves credence is a matter separate and apart from whether it warrants attention . Some things cry out to be debunked. 

Yes.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

....when my husband died..everyone decided that my son..a Teacher in the ward was the head of my family...!  I had to explain to him that we, his sister and I were responsible for ourselves..and that we were to take care of our family together. Can you imagine the weight that lifted from his shoulders??

While this version would definitely be tied to priesthood in our subculture (LDS), I am not sure this is really a result of only males having priesthood ordination.  It seems to me more of a greater cultural standard being attached to a peculiar subcultural aspect, the greater cultural standard being the "kid becoming man of the house when the dad dies" trope.  I have lost count of the shows I have seen that use this plot device (death of a parent) to move a kid from childhood to adulthood as if believing that idea is helpful to them to not only deal with the pain of loss, but mature.  

It happens with both men and women, though framing it in words seems more common with males.  I have no doubt it is present in the greater culture.  It essentially happened to me when my mom got sick though I can't remember if it was ever verbally expressed.  My dad and other relatives expected us older girls to step up into being more reponsible (heck, Mom had more kids to a great extent because she thought it would be good for us older ones to have caring responsibilities over them...kind of backfired when it impaired her so much it ended with my sister and I becoming the parents when she had to completely remove herself from the mother role).  And from what I can see in my family, the result isn't so much maturity, but repression...in what area of the personality depends on the person.

Sounds to me like you handled it well.  Good for you, speaking as a child whose parents didn't in all ways.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[Mars]

if the end of the discussion was "women are discriminated against in the church" then i would call it facile.

acknowledging that women don't get the priesthood simply because they are women and we, we don't know why, and we wonder if that will change, is not at all facile.  the priesthood is something that can be righteously sought after, and we are encouraged to do so:

And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

where does a woman get to seek the same?

this isn't some blithe and broad swipe at the church nor its gospel.  i recognize that critics often do use things like women and the priesthood to get their tenterhooks inside the minds of the saints and subvert testimony, twisting and pulling opinion and judgment according to the world's reckoning of right and wrong, equal and unequal, but this is not one of those cases.

[Calm]

Since I always taught in Primary, I tend to pay attention to stuff pitched to that age group:

https://www.lds.org/friend/2005/07/sharing-time-i-can-repent-and-be-baptized?lang=eng

Quote

Encourage the older boys to look forward to performing ordinances.

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-4/lesson-47?lang=eng

Quote

Ask the boys in your class to stand. These boys have the potential to receive the priesthood, which is a greater power than electricity because it is the power and authority to act in God’s name. Through this power Heavenly Father’s children can be baptized and receive other Church ordinances. But in order to receive this power and use it as God has intended, a boy must be worthy and properly prepared.

There is always a lesson on the Priesthood and appreciating it every year in Primary.  I have yet to come across anything that is presented as uniquely directed to the girls or has attention being drawn to them alone.

Not saying it is wrong to focus on the Priesthood this way or to encourage the boys to look forward to it.  I am all for that.  I think it is very important for youth to see themselves as part of the religious community and contributing towards it, either now or in the future, in important ways.

But there is an absence of this kind of stuff for girls in Primary.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[Ahab]

Bone to pick: differences between priesthood and priesthood offices

Women feminists fighting for the priesthood? 

No, they are just fighting to get themselves appointed to any or all priesthood offices.

If they were truly fighting for the priesthood they would be fighting to sustain the priesthood as it already is, which they also now get to enjoy as it already is.

At least they are not fighting against the priesthood.  That would be a bad thing, for them.

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

While this version would definitely be tied in our subculture (LDS), I am not sure this is really a result of only males having priesthood ordonation.  It seems to me more of a greater cultural standard being attached to a peculiar subcultural aspect, the greater cultural standard being the "kid becoming man of the house when the dad dies" trope.  I have lost count of the shows I have seen that use this plot device (death of a parent) to move a kid from childhood to adulthood as if believing that idea is helpful to them to not only deal with the pain of loss, but mature.  

It happens with both men and women, though framing it in words seems more common with males.  I have no doubt it is present in the greater culture.  It essentially happened to me when my mom got sick though I can't remember if it was ever verbally expressed.  My dad and other relatives expected us older girls to step up into being more reponsible (heck, Mom had more kids because she thought it would be good for us older ones to have caring responsibilities over them...kind of backfired when it stressed her so much it ended with my sister and I becoming the parents when she had to completely remove herself from the mother role).  And from what I can see in my family, the result isn't so much maturity, but repressioni...in what area of the personality depends on the person.

Sounds to me like you handled it well.  Good for you, speaking as a child whose parents didn't in all ways.

Thanks Calm..A week after the funeral, my father-in-law told my son that his sister and I was his responsiblity..in life and faith.  I replied as kindly aspossible..and the relief it gave my son was greatly received.  You are right about the tv shows and a culture in general.  The eldest son it seems inherits many things at any age.  As for my daughter...she ended up being on a short stick sometimes.  People would not ask about her..but about me and whaet she was doing to help me..we learned alot about how to take care of other and to relate others that have been in our shoes.  Thank you.  You have had quite a road.  Hugs, Jeanne

Edited February 4, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Mars said:

if the end of the discussion was "women are discriminated against in the church" then i would call it facile.

I would say that those of us who are faithful in the Church and also believe this discrimination is present most definitely do not want the discussion to stop at "yes".  I don't even need to hear reasons given, the "we don't know" is fine by me.  What I would like to hear is "how are we going to make sure that discrimination isn't a burden for our young girls and women and instead turn it into a positive thing for them"?  And then given my teaching focus, I tend to go off into "what can we add to our manuals to show our youth that women have meaningful religious roles and to celebrate them?".

I did a search in our manuals for Priesthood.  Not surprisingly, there were a lot.  I stopped counting at 25 pages of hits. (google said aboutt 14,000)  I love that there is so much for our men to attach themselves to in our teachings.

I did a search in our manuals for Womanhood.  I had to stop counting after three pages of hits because there weren't any more.  (google said 305) Motherhood had a page and a half hits. (google said 219)  Sisterhood one page (google 48).  Nothing on lds.org search for primary manuals unfortunately, some in seminary and YM/YW. If anyone has other suggestions for a label that could be searched on women's roles so women have the same sort of chance to attach themselves into the religious framework of our community, I would love to hear it.  

PS:  I don't particularly like the "against" that seems necessary in the phrasing of "are discriminated ________".  Discrimination is not always a bad thing, imo.  

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

 You have had quite a road.  

Everyone does in the end.  It was a lot easier for us than your kids because Mom and Dad came back into our lives.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Mars said:

if the end of the discussion was "women are discriminated against in the church" then i would call it facile.

acknowledging that women don't get the priesthood simply because they are women and we, we don't know why, and we wonder if that will change, is not at all facile.  the priesthood is something that can be righteously sought after, and we are encouraged to do so:

A fair point.  I suppose it's the particular means by which some have "sought after" the Priesthood that I find problematic, coupled with disregarding/defying the instruction and clarification provided by Elder Oaks in April 2014.

Abby Hansen is following in the footsteps of, and advertising compliments about herself from, and apparently intending to imitate, Kate Kelly.  This is not, I think, what we are supposed to do (see this 1987 article by Elder Oaks).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

I personally try to dodge the equality language by using the word equitable. We are not strictly speaking equal and never will be without major policy change. We do, however, strive to be equitable. And as much as the Church does right, we can do better. There have been talks in General Conference and training to the effect several times recently.

Ought then we to spend less time quibbling about words? While words do matter, more important at this time, I think, is implementing the improvements taught to us by the General Authorities and Officers of the Church. And doing our parts to make our local units more equitable within the boundaries of Church policy.

[why me]

4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

 Notwithstanding, it is very offensive when you try and tell me I can't participate in the discussion because of my gender. It reminds me of my experience in law school when female classmates would literally tell me to shutup about abortion rights because my opinion was valueless as a man. It hurts. I don't pretend to speak for any woman, just myself. But I won't be excluded from our conversation that effects all of us.

I think that we need to understand that the role of gender is now being used to perhaps divide the church by using gender roles. Not only are mormons being divided by subgroupings but also by gender. What would have paul had done if such happenings were happening in the early church. He would have written warning after warning.   

[Thinking]

On 2/3/2016 at 11:06 PM, carbon dioxide said:

It is not about making people feel good about themselves or raising their status among the group.

However, members go to great lengths to make young men feel good about themselves when they receive the priesthood (for example, families travel great distances to witness ordinations), and the reality of the LDS culture (right or wrong) is that status is raised with priesthood office. My favorite feel good quote that I have witnessed being told to new deacons, and is very offensive to Catholics is

Quote

"You have more power in your little finger than the Pope."

 

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

The problem with privilege of course is that those who have it don't often recognize it for what it is. It's easier to see from the outside. 

Yes, and the grass is always greener over there.  That privilege diatribe might work in some circles, but I call bs on it.  This is, and will always be, about I don't have it and I want it.  Yeah, I wish I was blond.  If I was blond I would be so much better.  If my nose were straight I would be so much happier.  If only I did not have hair on my shoulders I would be so much better looking.  If, IF, IF, IF.  There are always IFs.  Building a fantasy on how better it would be if only we were something else is the dream of the unhappy child.  

That grass over there - it is never greener than the grass you are standing on.  Count your blessings, think of all that the Father has given you.  No one likes hearing that and yet it is as true for me as it is for every other human regardless of gender.  Happiness is not "out there"; it is right here where I am at.   

[Mars]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A fair point.  I suppose it's the particular means by which some have "sought after" the Priesthood that I find problematic, coupled with disregarding/defying the instruction and clarification provided by Elder Oaks in April 2014.

Abby Hansen is following in the footsteps of, and advertising compliments about herself from, and apparently intending to imitate, Kate Kelly.  This is not, I think, what we are supposed to do (see this 1987 article by Elder Oaks).

Thanks,

-Smac

agreed.

i despair to think that abby hansen is reaching out to kate kelly because kate kelly is the only one reaching out to abby hansen.  at least...  i hope that's not the case.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Mars said:

i despair to think that abby hansen is reaching out to kate kelly because kate kelly is the only one reaching out to abby hansen.  at least...  i hope that's not the case.

I would be surprised if this was so given the strong presence in the discussion of many moderates, including Valerie Hudson Cassler and Neylain McBaine off the top of my head.  If she has decided the only ultimate solution is ordination and therefore that is what needs to be sought first and foremost though, she will not find that solution from moderates.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Mars said:

 I don't think that's what they're saying.  A perception that men or women are not human?  I'm not getting that.  Men and women are both intimate and foreign.  Complementary.  I think it's supposed to be that way.

No, I don't think men in the Church generally walk around and slap themselves on the back and say "Good thing we got it, right?"

I think there are milestones and accomplishments and notoriety that are affixed to positions and offices.  It's unintentional.  But I can see how young men at age 12 are told that they are embarking on something super important - holding God's power and authority.  Young women are told no such thing.  I can see why those who feel left out feel that way.

I find the concept of shut up and listen to be a very useful thing to do.  That's what being persuasive through longsuffering is, imo.  I'm not clear on what you mean on the rest of this paragraph, though.

I'm not clear on this paragraph, either.  As in, I'm not sure where you're coming from or what background/context you have.  From the women I've spoken to directly - not women whose blogs I've read or FB posts I've skimmed - I haven't gotten the sense that these women who feel left out and want space to be understood and given equal status of importance have a desire to worship other deities, or are infantile.  They aren't just whining.  Passing off their concerns as infantile whining and that they'll never 'get it' - Characterizing them that way is exactly what they mean when they say men want to speak for them.  It means you don't understand them.  They say "hey this sucks" and you say "you're whiny and infantile and you just don't get it" - that's precisely part of the problem.

Wanting to understand your place because it appears to be unequal to you is not infantile.  Wanting to understand more about a concept such as Heavenly Mother (critics who scream that we're henotheistic pagan nutjobs be damned) which is a concept Mormons should accept as a very real possibility in our theology, is not infantile.

Tactics that OW and kate kelly have undertaken to get our attention?  Sure, I can see how that has rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way.  but characterizing the entirety of women who feel like the status quo leaves them on the side as whiny and selfish and just not getting it is way off, imo.  if i've misunderstood your position, please correct me - and i mean that sincerely.

It will always, always, boil down to "I don't have it and I want it!".  Who cannot say this and what do we do about it when we don't have everything we want?

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Mars said:

agreed.

i despair to think that abby hansen is reaching out to kate kelly because kate kelly is the only one reaching out to abby hansen.  at least...  i hope that's not the case.

Same here.  But I suspect we're not getting the whole story.  Remember, Kate Kelly publicly excoriated her bishop by name for months, even going so far as to publicize the the identity of his employer, apparently in an attempt to engineer a Brendan Eich-type blowback on her bishop by imperiling his employment.  As punishment.  Retribution.  And to make the LDS Church look bad.

Now we have Abby Nelson publicly vilifying her bishop in a video clip where we are introduced to Abby Nelson by . . . Kate Kelly.

Coincidence?  We report, you decide!

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It will always, always, boil down to "I don't have it and I want it!".  

You know what...I don't want it.  I never have.  And yet I have always noticed there is an unbalanced nature to teachings to youth on their roles.  So how can you say it always, always boils down to that?

I know of a number of other women who see things the way I do in terms of imbalance, but not wanting ordination to the Priesthood for women to balance things.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Calm

[Mystery Meat]

32 minutes ago, Thinking said:

However, members go to great lengths to make young men feel good about themselves when they receive the priesthood (for example, families travel great distances to witness ordinations), and the reality of the LDS culture (right or wrong) is that status is raised with priesthood office. My favorite feel good quote that I have witnessed being told to new deacons, and is very offensive to Catholics is

 

Offensive, but true.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Offensive, but true.

Not necessarily.  Faith brings power with it, just as Priesthood does (if one has faith and obedience to commandments that is).  A deacon who has little or no faith in his Priesthood is not going to have any power in that little finger of his.  A Pope who is obedient to the law of the Gospel he is familiar with, who has faith that God sees our needs and answers our prayers and loves His children will have plenty of power to call for God's work in his and others' lives.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Mars said:

if the end of the discussion was "women are discriminated against in the church" then i would call it facile.

acknowledging that women don't get the priesthood simply because they are women and we, we don't know why, and we wonder if that will change, is not at all facile.  the priesthood is something that can be righteously sought after, and we are encouraged to do so:

And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, .......; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a mother of many nations, a princess of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a mother, holding the right belonging to the mothers.

.....

After editing your quote, what is the issue? What prevents a woman from seeking a blessing of the fathers, being a follower of righteousness, desiring great knowledge, and possessing greater knowledge, a mother of many nations, a princess of peace, seeking instructions (this throws a real wrench into the feminist mindset of "I am woman hear me roar, but I digress), a keeper of the commandments of God, a rightful heir, a mother, holding all the rights belonging to all mothers?  What is it that is really desired if not these things?

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Thinking said:

However, members go to great lengths to make young men feel good about themselves when they receive the priesthood (for example, families travel great distances to witness ordinations), and the reality of the LDS culture (right or wrong) is that status is raised with priesthood office. 

This has not been my experience at all.  My parents traveled to my home ward to witness me being ordained a high priest some years ago.  But that was because I wanted my dad to ordain me.  I have lots and lots of other family in the area, and on my wife's side as well, and also lots of friends.  None of them came (or were invited).  I have had two sons ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood, and the only people present have been our other children.  Again, nobody was invited and nobody came.  I have never noticed family members traveling to witness such ordinations.  In our ward the young men are ordained by the father (when possible), but the ordination is during the Deacons' priesthood meeting.  The parents are invited, but that's it.

In contrast, I have seen and heard of family members traveling long distances and going to great efforts to witness baptisms, weddings, and missionary farewells/homecomings (yeah, I know we don't call them that anymore).  

Thanks,

-Smac