smac97 Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 What happens when Mormon women are called to ordained ministry? The title is pretty misleading, as none of these women are "Mormon" anymore. Quote “I came to div school as a Mormon ready to reconcile with a God that would give me some relief,” recalled Zora, a Black woman in her early 40s, about her seminary experience in the mid-2010s. “Oddly enough, I found church there {in seminary} with these radical, beautiful other human seminarians, and then I was affirmed constantly in my teaching call and preaching.” Hmm. I wish her well. Quote The LDS Church ordains all cisgender men and boys age 11 and older. These Mormon feminist activists were advocating for an equivalent universal ordination for girls and women. Today, some longtime Mormon feminist activists are pursuing calls to ministry by attending seminary and seeking candidacy for ordination in other denominations. In typically mainline Protestant spaces, these now former Mormons have to navigate similar and different challenges from those of their seminary peers. We interviewed five former Mormon women about their seminary experiences and sense of calling. Two of our interviewees are now Unitarian, one is Lutheran, one is Baptist, and another is part of the Community of Christ, a denomination that is historically, but not theologically, related to the LDS Church. They attended or are attending small, medium-sized, and large seminaries. All interviewees’ names have been changed to protect their privacy. Only here, in the third paragraph of the piece, does the writer get around to calling these folks "former Mormons." Quote Readers might assume, given the passion of the women who protested at the priesthood meeting, that these women, like Zora, attended seminary to pursue a well-formed sense of call. Yet our interviewees found that they lacked the language of call to describe their experiences—or even resisted naming their experiences as such due to how calling had been framed for them within their Mormon lives. Seminary, along with extended communities of care, helped them reframe and reinterpret a deep, embodied sense of call they now felt had persisted throughout their lives. Within the LDS Church, all local leadership and support positions are unpaid and referred to as callings. LDS bishops, who lead local congregations, ask specific people to fill particular roles or callings and decide when it is time for individuals to move into new roles. There is significant cultural pressure to accept all such callings. Many Mormons view it as prideful or vain to desire or aspire to a specific calling. This seems pretty accurate. Desiring to serve as a missionary is encouraged in the Church, but I think this is a unique and qualitatively distinct thing from all other callings. So while aspiring to callings may, in our paradigm, be "prideful or vain" or otherwise inappropriate, I think we should respect the sentiments of people in other faith traditions who feel a "call" to pursue a religious vocation. I still have difficulty with the "for pay" part of that issue, but I don't feel it necessary to fret over it. Quote Many women felt a clash between this concept of calling and another one, one that was happening in their lives even while in the LDS Church and later as students in seminary. This notion of calling is rooted in the idea that God speaks in some way to individual hearts with an idea for their lives. In this version of calling, they were not beholden to the bishop’s choices for them. They had to discern for themselves. This is interesting. I think we see revelation as less of an either/or thing ("not beholden to the bishop's choices ... {t}hey had to discern for themselves") and more of a collaborative thing. The entire article is worth a read. Some of it disparages the Church, but I think that is to be expected. Overall, it's an interesting read. Thanks, -Smac
Robert F. Smith Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: ...................... The title is pretty misleading, as none of these women are "Mormon" anymore.............. Only here, in the third paragraph of the piece, does the writer get around to calling these folks "former Mormons." Since Mormon culture tends to be an ethnicity, a way of life, rather than just an abstract theology and denomination, it is questionable whether they cease to be "Mormons," in the same way that a Jewish convert to christianity supposedly ceases to be Jewish -- and for the same reasons. After all, all early Christians were Jewish, until the Gentile mission began. One would very much like to know whether those making this change are just shifting some aspects of their lives to a new paradigm within their Mormon understanding, or have undergone a brainwashing experience which replaces their former notions with totally new ones. Another question would be whether these changlings or shape-shifters actually knew anything substantive about Mormonism at all before going to an actual seminary (the LDS Church has no actual seminaries or schools of theology). The likelihood is that they were completely unsophisticated about LDS theology, since that is the status of nearly all Latter-day Saints. 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: This seems pretty accurate. Desiring to serve as a missionary is encouraged in the Church, but I think this is a unique and qualitatively distinct thing from all other callings. So while aspiring to callings may, in our paradigm, be "prideful or vain" or otherwise inappropriate, I think we should respect the sentiments of people in other faith traditions who feel a "call" to pursue a religious vocation. I still have difficulty with the "for pay" part of that issue, but I don't feel it necessary to fret over it. This is interesting. I think we see revelation as less of an either/or thing ("not beholden to the bishop's choices ... {t}hey had to discern for themselves") and more of a collaborative thing........................ "collaborative" with whom? The Holy Spirit, or one's bishop?
smac97 Posted February 17, 2022 Author Posted February 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Since Mormon culture tends to be an ethnicity, a way of life, rather than just an abstract theology and denomination, it is questionable whether they cease to be "Mormons," in the same way that a Jewish convert to christianity supposedly ceases to be Jewish -- and for the same reasons. After all, all early Christians were Jewish, until the Gentile mission began. I see your point. I guess I see "Mormon" as a reference to members of the Church, as evidenced by the fact that the writer refers "Mormon women" ("Mormon" being an adjective), "former Mormons" ("Mormon" as a noun) and "Mormons view it as prideful..." As I understand it, "ethnicity" means "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." "Mormon" as a descriptor for "common national {tradition}" doesn't seem to work. The alternative, "Mormon" as having a "common ... cultural tradition," could certainly apply. But when an individual leaves that "cultural tradition," rejects it for an alternative one, can they still be accurately characterized as belonging to it? 3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: One would very much like to know whether those making this change are just shifting some aspects of their lives to a new paradigm within their Mormon understanding, or have undergone a brainwashing experience which replaces their former notions with totally new ones. Another question would be whether these changlings or shape-shifters actually knew anything substantive about Mormonism at all before going to an actual seminary (the LDS Church has no actual seminaries or schools of theology). The likelihood is that they were completely unsophisticated about LDS theology, since that is the status of nearly all Latter-day Saints. Interesting questions. 3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: "collaborative" with whom? The Holy Spirit, or one's bishop? Both. I think callings can reflect both inspiration given to the bishop and to the individual. Both are entitled to it. Thanks, -Smac 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I see your point. I guess I see "Mormon" as a reference to members of the Church, as evidenced by the fact that the writer refers "Mormon women" ("Mormon" being an adjective), "former Mormons" ("Mormon" as a noun) and "Mormons view it as prideful..." As I understand it, "ethnicity" means "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." "Mormon" as a descriptor for "common national {tradition}" doesn't seem to work. The alternative, "Mormon" as having a "common ... cultural tradition," could certainly apply. But when an individual leaves that "cultural tradition," rejects it for an alternative one, can they still be accurately characterized as belonging to it?................... Anthropologists, sociologists, and historians have often defined Mormon culture as an ethnicity, and have written whole books about it. I am thinking of the late John Sorenson, Thomas F. O'Dea, and Jan Shipps. That is one of the compelling reasons why demanding wholesale use of the term "Latter-day Saint" for all Mormons will ultimately be unsuccessful. Why would anyone ever call a Jack Mormon a Jack Latter-day Saint? To quote Snoop Dogg: "You can take your boy out the hood but you can't take the hood out the homie” 1
jkwilliams Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 A good friend of mine from grad school at BYU and church office building employment is now an ordained Presbyterian chaplain and assistant pastor. Her journey kind of surprised me, but she’s so happy in her choices and finds her ministry very rewarding. I think opportunities for service have opened that were not available to her in the LDS church. I’m happy for her. 3
Recommended Posts