The story is over on their site:
Showing posts with label Bloggernacle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bloggernacle. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2015
MMM: Seeds of Unorthodoxy
The story is over on their site:
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Polygamy Essays and Prophetic Revelation
So the new Polygamy Essays went live this morning at LDS.org here, here, and here.
At first I only read the first one, which seemed general and ambiguous, but after I read the other two it seems a little ground shaking. I'm in a facebook group that was discussing it quite lively, mostly over whether it's a fair historical representation. I have my own quibbles about a few lines and presentations (hello coercion of 14 year olds . . . but that's for later) but I started a new thread with this:
A friend posted a link to Julie Smith's essay at Times and Seasons that was posted during this online conversation I was having, and it's brilliant. After highlighting about a dozen ambiguous passages from the essays about how our church leaders (prophets) were walking blind trying to figure the whole thing out . . . . she concludes:
for further historical readings on polygamy, Dialogue has a great topic page
At first I only read the first one, which seemed general and ambiguous, but after I read the other two it seems a little ground shaking. I'm in a facebook group that was discussing it quite lively, mostly over whether it's a fair historical representation. I have my own quibbles about a few lines and presentations (hello coercion of 14 year olds . . . but that's for later) but I started a new thread with this:
So with the whole polygamy essay going live today..... I'm feeling in the minority -- anyone else out there believe our prophets can be a hot mess and still be instruments in God's hands, they can still be divinely inspired -- and even be dead wrong elsewhere? Joseph is still the prophet that Restored the Gospel. My personal opinion is that polygamy and racial bans aren't from God -- but that doesn't invalidate that was who God chose to do that work that needed to be done.and
I told my brother the fact that we can have a prophet that incorrectly restricts priesthood on race actually strengthens my testimony: that even a racist prophet can't stop the work of the Lord from progressing. It may slow it down, but God's still in charge.One of my friends commented about where we are getting the idea that our prophets are not a hot mess, that the OT is really consistent on that point. And I'm still involved in that discussion hours later. It's an interesting conversation of people wanting to hold our leaders to a higher standard, and perhaps the inevitable disappointment that will accompany when truth is revealed (hello, essays). Even one of my tweets from general conference highlighted the tension between counsel we receive for personal revelation and following blindly that we were subject to in just one General Conference Session. This challenge we have of sorting out the way forward is not unique to our generation -- every dispensation has had prophets that were imperfect and complex and each group of people had to deal with this tension.
A friend posted a link to Julie Smith's essay at Times and Seasons that was posted during this online conversation I was having, and it's brilliant. After highlighting about a dozen ambiguous passages from the essays about how our church leaders (prophets) were walking blind trying to figure the whole thing out . . . . she concludes:
What I see here is–intentional or not–the articulation of a theology of prophetic revelation that runs precisely opposite to the way that many Mormons (mis)read Amos to say that God will do nothing without first revealing his secrets to the prophets (Amos 3:7) and that whether by God’s voice or the voice of church leaders, it is precisely identical (D & C 1:38). Rather, this suggests that God reveals things line by line (a scripture frequently quoted in these essays), does not reveal all details at once, and leaves some matters to be worked out without divine mandate.Beautiful.
I think the odd confluence of 1950s American corporate culture, historical amnesia, and rapid world-wide growth led Mormonism to advance the idea that a CEO-like prophet got regular memos from God, bullet-pointed with precise operating instructions designed to maximize return for the next quarter. Diligent work by historians, now disseminated instantly and internationally, shows that that vision isn’t quite precise. It is understandable that some will mourn that vision–I know I’d feel much safer led by that bespoke-suited CEO, divine memo in hand, than by some guy with a leather belt eating locusts in the wilderness. And yet, we should thank those historians (some of whom sacrificed their careers, if not their very membership in the Church, in order to publish things very similar to what is hosted on the Church’s own website today) for helping us overcome the cultural conditioning that misled us regarding what prophets are and what they do. The glass through which we see today is a little less dark because of their work, not just on historical matters related to polygamy but also regarding what we should–and should not–expect from prophets.
for further historical readings on polygamy, Dialogue has a great topic page
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
We're #1! Guest Post
Monday, July 7, 2014
Let It Go!
Here we go: another Mormon Mommy blogger riffing on the movie Frozen. Where one Mormon blogger found the pernicious threat of Gayness to us all . . . I saw my own story, as I came out of the closet as a feminist.
It's been quite a year for me. Those who knew me before I moved to Virginia in 2011 have a hard time recognizing me now. My life (read: mostly work) experiences and personal revelation (something Mormons strongly believe in) were the genesis of a faith transition for me. One in which I gained a different perspective on the relationship between the Church and the Gospel and myself and God, and figured out for myself there's not "One Right Way" to see the Gospel or to be Mormon Woman.
Nine months before I saw the movie Frozen, I moved to Rexburg and felt pretty scared to be myself. I lived in fear of the hostility and rejection that would likely accompany my being myself and sharing my thoughts and feelings. It was an unhappy time for me. I wanted to surround myself in a community of like minded people who never carried the threat of rejection. In such a condition it is easy to hide online and even to enter tunnel vision or an echo chamber . . . . and I was hesitant to find my next steps forward. Last September I felt prompted to share my story blog-style, come out of the Mormon f-word closet and go public. It was incredibly freeing to choose to be vulnerable and authentic (I had started reading A Blog About Love and became pretty converted to it's concepts), it wasn't easy - and yes, I believe it took courage. I knew I was acting on promptings of the Spirit, but I didn't know why.
As I sat in the movie theater watching Frozen the scene that meant the most to me is when she was in her ice castle fighting away her attackers and someone shouts "Don't be the monster they fear you are!"
A light went on for me: everyone has a caricature in the mind of what a "feminist" is. I know it, I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh calling them Femi-nazis, angry and man hating. I watched Elsa find the only way to bridge the gap of fear, love. I resolved that was my path forward.
So imagine my surprise (and the irony) that the number one piece of advice I get from friends, family, and ward members is to "Let it Go." From an outside perspective I know it may seem like I just can't let things go, that my feminism springs from my inability to heal from infertility. The opposite is actually true, releasing myself from expectations of gender roles and purposes is what lead to the atonement healing the whole thing: the hurt, pain, lack of understanding, and jealousy, the baby hungriness.... All gone. 100% gone. I move forward in an effort to improve systems that hurt my own path and to help and uplift others.
The hardest part is that other people cannot see things from my side: they can't read the texts, comments, notes, and emails I receive from people who have been helped in one way or another by sharing my story. I feel prompted to share and Heavenly Father has found a way to confirm to me that I am helping others. It gets really really old when I continually get people telling me I'm broken and wrong-headed in thought and approach. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I'm trying to do good - and I have done good. There are thousands of women and men in the church who have some (not all) of the same thoughts and questions that I do, and perhaps they may be in need of love and understanding.
So I have a request, will you help a girl out? I want to craft a blog post of why I share, why I speak. If I have helped you in any way, and if you feel like you can or want to share that with me -- will you fill out the form below with a short comment? I also thought maybe this might help me to gather the messages in one place for me to have when I'm feeling particularly discouraged or crumbly.
Thanks in advance.
It's been quite a year for me. Those who knew me before I moved to Virginia in 2011 have a hard time recognizing me now. My life (read: mostly work) experiences and personal revelation (something Mormons strongly believe in) were the genesis of a faith transition for me. One in which I gained a different perspective on the relationship between the Church and the Gospel and myself and God, and figured out for myself there's not "One Right Way" to see the Gospel or to be Mormon Woman.
Nine months before I saw the movie Frozen, I moved to Rexburg and felt pretty scared to be myself. I lived in fear of the hostility and rejection that would likely accompany my being myself and sharing my thoughts and feelings. It was an unhappy time for me. I wanted to surround myself in a community of like minded people who never carried the threat of rejection. In such a condition it is easy to hide online and even to enter tunnel vision or an echo chamber . . . . and I was hesitant to find my next steps forward. Last September I felt prompted to share my story blog-style, come out of the Mormon f-word closet and go public. It was incredibly freeing to choose to be vulnerable and authentic (I had started reading A Blog About Love and became pretty converted to it's concepts), it wasn't easy - and yes, I believe it took courage. I knew I was acting on promptings of the Spirit, but I didn't know why.
As I sat in the movie theater watching Frozen the scene that meant the most to me is when she was in her ice castle fighting away her attackers and someone shouts "Don't be the monster they fear you are!"
A light went on for me: everyone has a caricature in the mind of what a "feminist" is. I know it, I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh calling them Femi-nazis, angry and man hating. I watched Elsa find the only way to bridge the gap of fear, love. I resolved that was my path forward.
So imagine my surprise (and the irony) that the number one piece of advice I get from friends, family, and ward members is to "Let it Go." From an outside perspective I know it may seem like I just can't let things go, that my feminism springs from my inability to heal from infertility. The opposite is actually true, releasing myself from expectations of gender roles and purposes is what lead to the atonement healing the whole thing: the hurt, pain, lack of understanding, and jealousy, the baby hungriness.... All gone. 100% gone. I move forward in an effort to improve systems that hurt my own path and to help and uplift others.
The hardest part is that other people cannot see things from my side: they can't read the texts, comments, notes, and emails I receive from people who have been helped in one way or another by sharing my story. I feel prompted to share and Heavenly Father has found a way to confirm to me that I am helping others. It gets really really old when I continually get people telling me I'm broken and wrong-headed in thought and approach. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I'm trying to do good - and I have done good. There are thousands of women and men in the church who have some (not all) of the same thoughts and questions that I do, and perhaps they may be in need of love and understanding.
So I have a request, will you help a girl out? I want to craft a blog post of why I share, why I speak. If I have helped you in any way, and if you feel like you can or want to share that with me -- will you fill out the form below with a short comment? I also thought maybe this might help me to gather the messages in one place for me to have when I'm feeling particularly discouraged or crumbly.
Thanks in advance.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Dear Bishop
Man I am on a roll this week with my second guest post:
I was invited to guest post at the Bloggernacle Bohemoth, By Common Consent. Which is basically like Regina George asking me to be a Plastic for the day. Hoping they let me wear pink on Wednesday! Based on how this goes, they may let me sit with them again
I was invited to guest post at the Bloggernacle Bohemoth, By Common Consent. Which is basically like Regina George asking me to be a Plastic for the day. Hoping they let me wear pink on Wednesday! Based on how this goes, they may let me sit with them again
Sunday, June 1, 2014
A Summary of Comments: Public Affairs Letter
I'm sensing a PA Letter response pattern here, are you? There's a little bit of background for those of you not familiar.
Last week LDS Public Affairs met with Mormon Women Stand. That was pretty painful for those of us who find MWS to be exclusive and divisive. A post on a blog I read commented about how it seemed the church was more interested with boundary maintenance than keeping women in the fold. It was very painful for sisters who are struggling and have been begging to be listened by leaders to be passed by in favor of women who already agree with everything they say -- especially a group we are excluded from.
In response to this incident and recent disagreements between OW and PA about April's Priesthood Session events, Brother Otterson wrote an open letter that was posted directly to a handful of main blogs in the Bloggernacle. Here are 3 main criticisms he's seen on the bloggernacle that he addressed:
Criticism 1: The Church doesn’t want to hear from women about painful experiences, doesn’t talk to them or only wants to hear from women who are “blindly obedient.”
Criticism 2: There is nowhere for women who don’t feel safe in their wards to have a conversation about some of their negative experiences that isn’t seen as subversive.
Criticism 3: By not engaging with the more extreme groups, the Church – and Public Affairs in particular – is not acting as Christ would.
I'm going to link to a few of the blog responses to his letter that I love, as well as paste some comments on the original posting found at ByCommonConsent, of which many were mine. I'm highlighting just a few, because you may not want to slog through all 275+ of them. Also I want you to keep in mind that the Bloggernacle, by nature, invites feedback and response - even anonymously. If Bro. Otterson had not been open to honest internet feedback, the letter could have easily been posted on Newsroom website instead of addressed directly to that audience. You can tell by the time stamps on the comments that I calmed down more throughout the day :-).
By Common Consent: A Response
Times and Seasons, Otterson Letter Response, Part 1
Times and Seasons, Otterson Letter Response, Part 2**
Zelophehad's Daughters: PR, Niceness, and Exclusivity
**favorite
Last week LDS Public Affairs met with Mormon Women Stand. That was pretty painful for those of us who find MWS to be exclusive and divisive. A post on a blog I read commented about how it seemed the church was more interested with boundary maintenance than keeping women in the fold. It was very painful for sisters who are struggling and have been begging to be listened by leaders to be passed by in favor of women who already agree with everything they say -- especially a group we are excluded from.
In response to this incident and recent disagreements between OW and PA about April's Priesthood Session events, Brother Otterson wrote an open letter that was posted directly to a handful of main blogs in the Bloggernacle. Here are 3 main criticisms he's seen on the bloggernacle that he addressed:
Criticism 1: The Church doesn’t want to hear from women about painful experiences, doesn’t talk to them or only wants to hear from women who are “blindly obedient.”
Criticism 2: There is nowhere for women who don’t feel safe in their wards to have a conversation about some of their negative experiences that isn’t seen as subversive.
Criticism 3: By not engaging with the more extreme groups, the Church – and Public Affairs in particular – is not acting as Christ would.
I'm going to link to a few of the blog responses to his letter that I love, as well as paste some comments on the original posting found at ByCommonConsent, of which many were mine. I'm highlighting just a few, because you may not want to slog through all 275+ of them. Also I want you to keep in mind that the Bloggernacle, by nature, invites feedback and response - even anonymously. If Bro. Otterson had not been open to honest internet feedback, the letter could have easily been posted on Newsroom website instead of addressed directly to that audience. You can tell by the time stamps on the comments that I calmed down more throughout the day :-).
By Common Consent: A Response
Times and Seasons, Otterson Letter Response, Part 1
Times and Seasons, Otterson Letter Response, Part 2**
Zelophehad's Daughters: PR, Niceness, and Exclusivity
**favorite
I would also suggest any who wish to comment about the role of women in Jesus’s group of disciples revisit those scriptures with more understanding about cultural norms. Suggesting that Mary was right in sitting at Jesus’s feet (a place according to Jewish doctrine and tradition is reserved for men only. Mary was a rabbi-in-training. A spiritual leader and authority that was never to be assumed by a woman) rather than taking care of the home should be very indicative of Jesus’s teachings about the role of women in his Church. Also, The Twelve were not the same thing as apostles. An apostle is one who bears special witness of the Christ. Mary was THE apostle, the one who bore testimony of Christ’s resurrection to the Twelve. Of all of Jesus’s disciples, she was the first apostle.
“I suppose we do not know all the reasons why Christ did not ordain women as apostles, either in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon, or when the Church was restored in modern times. We only know that he did not, that his leaders today regard this as a doctrinal issue that cannot be compromised …”
What I would most love to hear is an explanation for why the omission of women from priesthood ordination is seen as doctrinal while so many other omissions are not. Christ did not send women out as missionaries. He did not invite them to teach in synagogue. He never asked a woman to pray for a congregation that included men. And he never passed the sacrament to a woman. Yet for some reason we do not impose those restrictions today. Could it be that Christ’s decision to not ordain women stemmed from the unprepared culture in which he lived rather than from some eternal decree? Could it be that that is still the reason for their exclusion?
What I would next most love to hear explained is why the church has authority to create an “exception” (quoting Elder Oaks) to allow women to perform the priesthood ordinance of the initiatory. Where does the priesthood authority for such an “exception” come from? And whatever that source, why can it not also allow women to perform other ordinances such as proxy baptisms and confirmations? If we can authorize women to perform one temple ordinance by virtue of keys held by the temple president, then why not all temple ordinances? Further, why not allow sister missionaries to baptize converts under the keys of their mission president, or laurels to administer the sacrament under the keys of their bishop? It seems to me that, regardless of the church’s authority to ordain women, the church currently possesses all the authority it needs to allow women to perform priesthood ordinances.
What I would most love to hear is an explanation for why the omission of women from priesthood ordination is seen as doctrinal while so many other omissions are not. Christ did not send women out as missionaries. He did not invite them to teach in synagogue. He never asked a woman to pray for a congregation that included men. And he never passed the sacrament to a woman. Yet for some reason we do not impose those restrictions today. Could it be that Christ’s decision to not ordain women stemmed from the unprepared culture in which he lived rather than from some eternal decree? Could it be that that is still the reason for their exclusion?
What I would next most love to hear explained is why the church has authority to create an “exception” (quoting Elder Oaks) to allow women to perform the priesthood ordinance of the initiatory. Where does the priesthood authority for such an “exception” come from? And whatever that source, why can it not also allow women to perform other ordinances such as proxy baptisms and confirmations? If we can authorize women to perform one temple ordinance by virtue of keys held by the temple president, then why not all temple ordinances? Further, why not allow sister missionaries to baptize converts under the keys of their mission president, or laurels to administer the sacrament under the keys of their bishop? It seems to me that, regardless of the church’s authority to ordain women, the church currently possesses all the authority it needs to allow women to perform priesthood ordinances.
Criticism 1: I get that humans are imperfect. I do. I’ve had knuckleheaded bishops that I give a pass because, hey we’re not perfect. My main source of marginalization doesn’t come from lone, rogue individuals — it comes from the church organization, from the handbook that changes and says women can no longer serve in Sunday School presidencies, from articles in the Ensign, the exhaustive pushing of gender roles down my throat, from the culture that it creates, from the behavior that it encourages with skype meetings (lending positive reinforcement to exclusive behavior, instead of inclusive behavior), etc.
Criticism 3: Wow. The name of the group ‘Ordain Women’ I suppose puts out a branding message, but it seems even leaders of our church haven’t bothered to see that anything being asked for is remotely more complex than that. OW is precisely the thing causing a conversation, it caused my own personal study in and out of the temple that has been a blessing in my life. You may see them as “suggestive of apostasy” and I may see them as, in general, “seekers of answers.” Christ never had a female 12, he never had a public affairs department either.
{sigh} so much {sigh}
Criticism 3: Wow. The name of the group ‘Ordain Women’ I suppose puts out a branding message, but it seems even leaders of our church haven’t bothered to see that anything being asked for is remotely more complex than that. OW is precisely the thing causing a conversation, it caused my own personal study in and out of the temple that has been a blessing in my life. You may see them as “suggestive of apostasy” and I may see them as, in general, “seekers of answers.” Christ never had a female 12, he never had a public affairs department either.
{sigh} so much {sigh}
“Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept.”
What Is A Priestess? Personally I think it means a female priest. I guess I just made a non-negotiable demand for something that already exists in the teachings of our temples. Shame on my “suggestive apostasy.” Seriously how is this even a black or white issue?
What Is A Priestess? Personally I think it means a female priest. I guess I just made a non-negotiable demand for something that already exists in the teachings of our temples. Shame on my “suggestive apostasy.” Seriously how is this even a black or white issue?
Dave K gave an excellent response. Much better in tone than I am projecting. I’m ducking out and taking a deep breath and going to fold some laundry. Phew.
In the FMH FB group we hear over and over and over again, “I can’t say this anywhere else.” Because there is a MASSIVE cost to bringing this stuff up to anybody, especially someone in church leadership. They don’t want to lose their friends, they don’t want people to be afraid of them, they don’t want to have their children impacted, and all of those fears are so very real. I literally can’t even count the number of women who have told me their stories of being pushed out of the church once they raised their concerns. VTers saying “why don’t you just leave,” Bishops inviting people to never come back, Facebook gangups with ward members attacking and questioning righteousness. That last one alone has happened to me personally so many times it barely registers anymore.
All of that behavior is directly tied to how people see those with questions treated. Statements made about OW have deeply wounded women who have no love for OW, just because they recognize that they would be treated the same way if they opened up about their feelings.
All of that behavior is directly tied to how people see those with questions treated. Statements made about OW have deeply wounded women who have no love for OW, just because they recognize that they would be treated the same way if they opened up about their feelings.
I have a dear friend who is a former apostle’s secretary. I told her I came in contact with an inactive mofem via my blog when I wore pants. I invited her to church with me and my friend said I was wrong to do so – that the point wasn’t to have her come to Church but to have her submit to her local stake leaders. These same leaders had implemented a dress code for all church meetings: all skirts/dresses, nylons, and closed toed shoes for women. I was told I was being subversive for not teaching my fellow inactive mofem that to come to Christ she had to submit to local phood over-reach. I also told my friend I hadn’t visited with my local leaders yet, but I told her there is a culture of fear that we will be disciplined just for sharing our thoughts and ideas. My friend said if a bishop is uncomfortable with any of my ideas it is his stewardship to release me from all callings and somewhat “quarantine” me from spreading them and my challenge in this life is to submit. Submit, submit, submit to all of those decisions.
My family freaked out after I posted my blog in response to the last public affairs letter — because I said I was like Ordain Women. I do not support nor will I join them, but I am LIKE them. I have all the same questions with perhaps a different method or tone to my actions – but I am LIKE them. And everything you say to them is really close to saying it to me. And it hurts. My family thought I was apostate for identifying with them. But I, an incredibly faithful, moderate mormon feminist is not welcome at MWS (a group that eschews any faithful questioning–which is possible) — it says on their purpose: no doubts, no questions. Wow. That is so super exclusive. And 4 years ago before my faith transition I would have probably been a founding member of the group. And meeting them does send me a message, as much as you would like it not to. To me they are just as divisive as the other group, and well, you just chose sides, Bro. Otterson. And no, that really wasn’t Christlike.
My family freaked out after I posted my blog in response to the last public affairs letter — because I said I was like Ordain Women. I do not support nor will I join them, but I am LIKE them. I have all the same questions with perhaps a different method or tone to my actions – but I am LIKE them. And everything you say to them is really close to saying it to me. And it hurts. My family thought I was apostate for identifying with them. But I, an incredibly faithful, moderate mormon feminist is not welcome at MWS (a group that eschews any faithful questioning–which is possible) — it says on their purpose: no doubts, no questions. Wow. That is so super exclusive. And 4 years ago before my faith transition I would have probably been a founding member of the group. And meeting them does send me a message, as much as you would like it not to. To me they are just as divisive as the other group, and well, you just chose sides, Bro. Otterson. And no, that really wasn’t Christlike.
WM – I agree I’d not like to derail a conversation, but for further consideration, 1/3 of the General Sunday School board are women. So, they can be general leaders but not local leaders . . . . because? Also my traditional ward had a woman serving in the SSP at the time changes were made (of course she had the gendered roll of administrative support of taking minutes and attendance as secretary, and there’s another further layer of inequality amongst that, but I’ll let that lie for now).
https://www.lds.org/callings/sunday-school/messages-from-leaders/sunday-school-general-board?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/callings/sunday-school/messages-from-leaders/sunday-school-general-board?lang=eng
I see a carefully worded letter that by in large comes off defensive and subtly divisive. The fact they can’t see MWS as divisive shows deafness and lack of empathy. But then again based on the letter I’m not sure empathy was the highest priority on their list. So . . . . Which is why I continue to base my testimony on the rock, my Redeemer. I know Christ died for me and lives today. If I look deeply enough through all the layers I think I find the Gospel of Jesus Christ here. But testimony in the organization? shaky, at best.
In the end, I’m glad that Bro. Otterson reached out with this letter specifically to the Bloggernacle. This by and large is where a bulk of the discussion is taking place and is a safe space for me to share without losing my temple recommend, I’ve found a community of saints here that challenges me to be better, to question my own assumptions, and yet doesn’t dismiss me or find me wanting.
Here is what I see: the Church is going to make baby, baby steps into equitable treatment for women. In 20 years this will all be water under the bridge when we’ve disengaged from BSA (please, Lord, let this happen) and invest equitably in our daughters as we do our sons. In the meantime, the treatment I get from mainline mormons and my church organization (PA) is that I get my face ground into the pavement and called names and ostracized for advocating for things that in the future will be deemed “God’s will.” It’s this in-between time that’s so painful. I literally am trying to improve Zion with a heart full of love. This community I love and care about can wound so deeply.
My advice to PA, hire a Mormon Feminist. Please. The tone deafness aches in my bones.
Here is what I see: the Church is going to make baby, baby steps into equitable treatment for women. In 20 years this will all be water under the bridge when we’ve disengaged from BSA (please, Lord, let this happen) and invest equitably in our daughters as we do our sons. In the meantime, the treatment I get from mainline mormons and my church organization (PA) is that I get my face ground into the pavement and called names and ostracized for advocating for things that in the future will be deemed “God’s will.” It’s this in-between time that’s so painful. I literally am trying to improve Zion with a heart full of love. This community I love and care about can wound so deeply.
My advice to PA, hire a Mormon Feminist. Please. The tone deafness aches in my bones.
I had a really hard time with this. I’m surely not OW. I’m not MWS either. I do find OW and MWS divisive. I’m just a member of the Relief Society who has questions.
I know Jesus chose 12 men. I don’t have a problem with that at all. I do wonder if we can take that as meaning something. He also drank wine and we happily revealed that away.
I wonder what power I am endowed with in the temple.
I wonder if in the temple we apply Exodus 40:12 to me-in that not only are Aaron and his sons washed…but *I* am…then am I to assume that Exodus 40:13 is an male only invitation to the priesthood? I just wonder what it means to be a priestess. And if I am meant to worship none but God what does it mean to be a priestess to my husband. What is that about? ironing his white shirts? clearly much more than that…but at this juncture…how would I know?
If we are going to pull women as examples from the scriptures, can I wonder about Deborah and Huldah?
I’m not feminist…primarily because most feminists don’t really go for women with 10 children. Maybe if I had just had 8. I don’t know. I’m also so conflicted over abortion, and that’s not acceptable in most feminist circles. I also believe men and women are different. I can’t logic my way around that one. Either our olympians have been lazy and holding out on us, or we are different. Either we have a unique voice to share…or we are NOT different.
I wonder how I am NOT supposed to wonder that a witness couple exists in some parts of the the temple, but in other parts of the temple, only men can stand as a witness. Am I not meant to notice that?
If there is nothing between me and God…why do I covenant at times to my husband-and what did it mean the first time I covenanted and had no husband ? Who did I covenant with?
I’m completely conservative. super conservative. I just have a brain and I like to use it.
I also know that “human” mistakes can be made by Bishops AND RSP’s. (hint…don’t tell a pregnant with twins mom that there will be no meals or help forthcoming, because her parent’s mission call means God thinks she can do this all on her own. )
It’s not that I want to be ordained. I just feel I already have been promised something and given something…and I want to respect that and use it properly. There is that whole parable of the talents in which if I bury my talents in the sand…they will be taken. Yet every time I take out my gifts to wonder at what to do with them I’m met with crazed stares or at best, very compassionate “I don’t know”s.
So I mostly just shelve my concerns and hope that’s not the same as burying them.
I find this PR statement hard.
I know Jesus chose 12 men. I don’t have a problem with that at all. I do wonder if we can take that as meaning something. He also drank wine and we happily revealed that away.
I wonder what power I am endowed with in the temple.
I wonder if in the temple we apply Exodus 40:12 to me-in that not only are Aaron and his sons washed…but *I* am…then am I to assume that Exodus 40:13 is an male only invitation to the priesthood? I just wonder what it means to be a priestess. And if I am meant to worship none but God what does it mean to be a priestess to my husband. What is that about? ironing his white shirts? clearly much more than that…but at this juncture…how would I know?
If we are going to pull women as examples from the scriptures, can I wonder about Deborah and Huldah?
I’m not feminist…primarily because most feminists don’t really go for women with 10 children. Maybe if I had just had 8. I don’t know. I’m also so conflicted over abortion, and that’s not acceptable in most feminist circles. I also believe men and women are different. I can’t logic my way around that one. Either our olympians have been lazy and holding out on us, or we are different. Either we have a unique voice to share…or we are NOT different.
I wonder how I am NOT supposed to wonder that a witness couple exists in some parts of the the temple, but in other parts of the temple, only men can stand as a witness. Am I not meant to notice that?
If there is nothing between me and God…why do I covenant at times to my husband-and what did it mean the first time I covenanted and had no husband ? Who did I covenant with?
I’m completely conservative. super conservative. I just have a brain and I like to use it.
I also know that “human” mistakes can be made by Bishops AND RSP’s. (hint…don’t tell a pregnant with twins mom that there will be no meals or help forthcoming, because her parent’s mission call means God thinks she can do this all on her own. )
It’s not that I want to be ordained. I just feel I already have been promised something and given something…and I want to respect that and use it properly. There is that whole parable of the talents in which if I bury my talents in the sand…they will be taken. Yet every time I take out my gifts to wonder at what to do with them I’m met with crazed stares or at best, very compassionate “I don’t know”s.
So I mostly just shelve my concerns and hope that’s not the same as burying them.
I find this PR statement hard.
Thank you, lessonNumberOne, you have articulated my own thoughts perfectly. I can add my desire to know more about our Heavenly Mother. I am 60 years old, and have been all over the map in my thoughts about “women’s issues” in the Church. I’m a life-long active member, and have served in callings ranging from the invisible pianist to RS president. My husband, a former bishop and current high councilor, has made significant (though still incomplete) progress out of his former cluelessness. I’m proud of my well-informed and faithful children. However, every time I’ve expressed my concerns here in my current ward, I’ve been met with suspicion and dismay. As a result, I rarely speak up these days. Most of the time, I feel that I can go on faith, trusting that my husband is a good man whom I love and that the covenant I made with him has not been misplaced, and especially trusting that our Heavenly Parents will help us understand everything someday and “wipe away all tears”. In the meantime, I am grateful for the opportunity to share thoughts, ideas, and concerns in this mostly anonymous way. It is hard to imagine any circumstance under which I would express these thoughts to my current bishop or stake presidency. I feel sad and isolated from my ward and stake family about this, and with you I say “So I mostly just shelve my concerns and hope that’s not the same as burying them.”
LessonNumberOne – I wish you were in my ward, too. Any question I present is met with “those poor mormon feminists, bless their hearts!! one day they might understand the plan of salvation or their glorious, exalted {pedistalized} role!” Well, if I’m lucky that’s the response.
Meanwhile, I’m wondering, what does all of this muck mean? The temple theology, the RS minutes, Elder Oaks’ address . . . I have really good, valid questions. What is this new priesthood power and authority I wield? If Mary {without priesthood} was the First Witness, why can’t women serve as witnesses, especially if they hold priesthood power and authority? There are so many painful situations in the church organization and culture (not rogue leaders); I don’t even care about female ordination, but I see why women who care about these problems see that as a possible solution. I’m told to be quiet and trust my leaders. When I do, I see my fellow sisters with the same questions I have being demoralized and shunned, while women with “no questions” walk around with their heads high sure in their higher understanding and sure footing in their favor among the Brethren. And this is what a Christlike organization looks like?
I have a super conservative non-mofem friend who admits she’s uncomfortable with a lot of how we treat women (esp around mother’s day) she said, “Well I see some problems I just have to make sure now that I see them I’m not getting caught up and start seeing them everywhere.” That caught in my throat because my husband’s response is the same – so frustrated I have to bring feminism into the Gospel every time. I understand he gets tired of it. But I get tired of just trying to go to a basic sacrament and renew my covenants and have sexist jokes told over the pulpit and have everyone laugh . . . These gender inequities, they are everywhere I turn to worship and find solace: the temple, my meetings, teaching primary songs, Sunday School, sending my daughter to activity days, my husband’s scout/auditing callings, my visiting teachers “lessons” to me, etc. The only place for me to turn is my Savior.
I feel morally obligated and bound to Do What is Right and Let the Consequences Follow, so I speak. I can’t allow my silence to make me a complicit offender in the pain and marginalization of my beloved brothers and sisters, regardless of my disagreement with them.
Meanwhile, I’m wondering, what does all of this muck mean? The temple theology, the RS minutes, Elder Oaks’ address . . . I have really good, valid questions. What is this new priesthood power and authority I wield? If Mary {without priesthood} was the First Witness, why can’t women serve as witnesses, especially if they hold priesthood power and authority? There are so many painful situations in the church organization and culture (not rogue leaders); I don’t even care about female ordination, but I see why women who care about these problems see that as a possible solution. I’m told to be quiet and trust my leaders. When I do, I see my fellow sisters with the same questions I have being demoralized and shunned, while women with “no questions” walk around with their heads high sure in their higher understanding and sure footing in their favor among the Brethren. And this is what a Christlike organization looks like?
I have a super conservative non-mofem friend who admits she’s uncomfortable with a lot of how we treat women (esp around mother’s day) she said, “Well I see some problems I just have to make sure now that I see them I’m not getting caught up and start seeing them everywhere.” That caught in my throat because my husband’s response is the same – so frustrated I have to bring feminism into the Gospel every time. I understand he gets tired of it. But I get tired of just trying to go to a basic sacrament and renew my covenants and have sexist jokes told over the pulpit and have everyone laugh . . . These gender inequities, they are everywhere I turn to worship and find solace: the temple, my meetings, teaching primary songs, Sunday School, sending my daughter to activity days, my husband’s scout/auditing callings, my visiting teachers “lessons” to me, etc. The only place for me to turn is my Savior.
I feel morally obligated and bound to Do What is Right and Let the Consequences Follow, so I speak. I can’t allow my silence to make me a complicit offender in the pain and marginalization of my beloved brothers and sisters, regardless of my disagreement with them.
@lessonNumberOne thank you for expressing thoughts that I believe MANY women feel. Unfortunately the women in this group remain silent and anonymous because of the fear of the consequences that might happen if they did speak from their hearts. And @Joni, I believe there is a lessonNumberOne in your ward, you just probably don’t know she is there. In fact, I’d venture to say there are many of them. @Angie, I agree it is a scary and lonely place as @howarddirkson describes as “hiding behind our skirts”. Which begs the question as to how this “hiding” has had to happen in the first place?
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful place where anyone could ask questions and be treated with respect instead of being labeled as an apostate. Although I am not brave enough to be a @ChristineA and publicly stick my head in the chopping block, I do agree that she is forging ground that will one day be realized as “inspired” change. And since she has chosen to be that voice for change, what I can do now is thank her for her efforts. I would LOVE to sit down personally with @ChristineA and talk about all the topics she has brought up in her last comment. ( You rock girlfriend!) Maybe one day we will.
I too recognize the underlying tone of divisiveness brought about by those who “unequivocally” sustain the “leaders”, relinquishing the right to question anything. IMHO this has brought more harm to the members of The Church than just questions regarding “women’s issues”. After all, asking questions is part of continued revelation. When questions stop, revelation stops as well. I have to laugh with the creators of the Facebook group “Mormon Women Stand on Rameumptoms” because it is so interesting how we sound so much like the Zoramites. Recognizing that fact is part of a change that we need.
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful place where anyone could ask questions and be treated with respect instead of being labeled as an apostate. Although I am not brave enough to be a @ChristineA and publicly stick my head in the chopping block, I do agree that she is forging ground that will one day be realized as “inspired” change. And since she has chosen to be that voice for change, what I can do now is thank her for her efforts. I would LOVE to sit down personally with @ChristineA and talk about all the topics she has brought up in her last comment. ( You rock girlfriend!) Maybe one day we will.
I too recognize the underlying tone of divisiveness brought about by those who “unequivocally” sustain the “leaders”, relinquishing the right to question anything. IMHO this has brought more harm to the members of The Church than just questions regarding “women’s issues”. After all, asking questions is part of continued revelation. When questions stop, revelation stops as well. I have to laugh with the creators of the Facebook group “Mormon Women Stand on Rameumptoms” because it is so interesting how we sound so much like the Zoramites. Recognizing that fact is part of a change that we need.
I am looking for some middle place to stand and be heard. To me, women being ordained is not the problem, it is just a very attractive solution for a lot of problems. Women are underrepresented (in every sense and measure) in church administration and leadership. We invest more (in time, money, and sense of purpose) in our boys than in our girls. The relationship between women and the priesthood is muddled at best – church leaders have taught that women exercise priesthood authority in church callings, but those callings are extremely limited. And for that matter, if women hold and exercise the priesthood with men, why are women not a part of the priesthood session?
I see the possibility of a church where women are not ordained, but where women are called into church administration and leadership in near-parity with the brethren (whether this means creating new positions or redefining current positions). I see a church possible where girls usher and collect fast offerings, where women serve on sunday school presidencies, where disciplinary councils are composed of both men and women, where young girls can be officially counseled by their RSPs, and where RSPs attend bishopric meetings. I see the possibility of a church with more than 9 female GAs.
I see women’s ordination as a distinct and interesting possibility, just not the only viable option. We can and should address the measured inequality between genders in the meantime.
So any ideas where the middle ground can stand and be heard?
I see the possibility of a church where women are not ordained, but where women are called into church administration and leadership in near-parity with the brethren (whether this means creating new positions or redefining current positions). I see a church possible where girls usher and collect fast offerings, where women serve on sunday school presidencies, where disciplinary councils are composed of both men and women, where young girls can be officially counseled by their RSPs, and where RSPs attend bishopric meetings. I see the possibility of a church with more than 9 female GAs.
I see women’s ordination as a distinct and interesting possibility, just not the only viable option. We can and should address the measured inequality between genders in the meantime.
So any ideas where the middle ground can stand and be heard?
Someone who goes by “RMM” made an excellent point in the thread to which Steve linked on Times & Seasons (http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/05/a-partial-response-to-brother-otterson/#comment-523614), and I want to expand on it a little:
I believe the Church leadership wants to get honest and open input about the letter, without fear of reprisal – and they understand that the best way to do that right now is to send the letter to the major Mormon blogs. I think they want to know better how people who participate in online forums will respond to the letter, and I think it’s an honest attempt at understanding – NOT any other negative motivation. I think they recognize, Bro. Otterson’s ideal advice notwithstanding, that many people can’t talk right now with local leaders about this, so they are giving those members an “formal” or “approved” way to express themselves in a way that the leadership can “hear”.
More than anything else, I am glad the letter was released to the blogs and not just posted on lds.org. The same discussion could have followed online, but I think sending it to the blogs directly conveys respect for and acknowledgment of online discussions like these and sincere outreach to those who participate. This is a departure, and I appreciate the effort and what I believe it conveys – apart from any analysis of the words themselves.
I believe the Church leadership wants to get honest and open input about the letter, without fear of reprisal – and they understand that the best way to do that right now is to send the letter to the major Mormon blogs. I think they want to know better how people who participate in online forums will respond to the letter, and I think it’s an honest attempt at understanding – NOT any other negative motivation. I think they recognize, Bro. Otterson’s ideal advice notwithstanding, that many people can’t talk right now with local leaders about this, so they are giving those members an “formal” or “approved” way to express themselves in a way that the leadership can “hear”.
More than anything else, I am glad the letter was released to the blogs and not just posted on lds.org. The same discussion could have followed online, but I think sending it to the blogs directly conveys respect for and acknowledgment of online discussions like these and sincere outreach to those who participate. This is a departure, and I appreciate the effort and what I believe it conveys – apart from any analysis of the words themselves.
I am someone who has been a life-long member (coming up on 50 years). I have been the wife of a Bishop, a RS President, a Stake Primary President, a temple ordinance worker and everything in between. I am (and have always been) a faithful member of the church, as well as a hard-working mother, hard-working grandmother, and hard-working community member.
It is obvious to me (from your various comments today) that you see OW in a very negative light. I would like to offer another perspective. OW has allowed me to put a name to feelings that have been a part of my experience in the Church for a very, very long time–therefore I cannot see them nearly as negatively as you and so many others do. I feel very grateful that a conversation is going forward so that many differing women’s voices can be heard. I would urge Br. Otterson, other General Authorities, or Auxiliary Presidencies to meet with some members of OW to hear what they are experiencing. And no, I am not a part of their group, but I am watching intently how they are perceived and listened too. I, too, will be anonymous for today because, no, it is not safe to say what you think and feel even on the internet.
It is obvious to me (from your various comments today) that you see OW in a very negative light. I would like to offer another perspective. OW has allowed me to put a name to feelings that have been a part of my experience in the Church for a very, very long time–therefore I cannot see them nearly as negatively as you and so many others do. I feel very grateful that a conversation is going forward so that many differing women’s voices can be heard. I would urge Br. Otterson, other General Authorities, or Auxiliary Presidencies to meet with some members of OW to hear what they are experiencing. And no, I am not a part of their group, but I am watching intently how they are perceived and listened too. I, too, will be anonymous for today because, no, it is not safe to say what you think and feel even on the internet.
I’m not going to assume they haven’t asked. We don’t and can’t know which of our leaders have asked or when or how they are asking or if they have or haven’t asked, we can assume . . . but they haven’t specifically said. I think what’s missing is that they aren’t saying. They may have asked and gotten an answer and been told “not yet” or “yes, but the people aren’t ready to hear what we have in store because seriously their minds are going to be blown away and we have to go baby steps” or it could have been “nope”. Remember if we read the accounts of how the 1978 revelation came . . . it took years of asking for consensus to come. If we think this “struggle” for women’s rights is a quick little ask and get an answer and one and done . . . I’m not sure where you got the idea but you definitely will be disappointed. This process will take years, maybe decades, and we better be prepared to be misunderstood and frustrated and to make mistakes and move forward and hopefully — we are in this for the long haul. Be in this for the long haul with a heart full of love, committed to the Lord and the organization (as hard as that can be).
Friday, May 2, 2014
Does Mormon Feminsm Hurt the LDS Church?
There was quite a popular post that made the rounds of the Internets lately, one called "Ordain Women: thanks for nothing" on Millennial Star, a conservative thought bastion of the Bloggernacle. There is a wide divide of understanding of what people think OW is doing, and what they are actually doing, I don't want to focus on her misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of them, but of this quote:
I want to take issue with her assertion that public Mormon feminism hurts the Church. Have you ever heard of the adage, "There's no such thing as bad press?" First, let's examine another somewhat derogatory, very public Mormon spectacle at the moment: The Book of Mormon Musical. What has been the Church's response? Advertising and using it as a conversion tool. It's worked, we've had converts from people going to see TBoM Musical. Second, has every single public coverage been nasty and negative? I thought a lot of it was rather thoughtful and nuanced, even if it didn't favor the "traditional" viewpoint held by most members of the Church. Especially the recent front-page NYT article about the growing role for Mormon women. Seriously, you guys, you can't buy that kind of ad-space.
So why do I think all of the movements of public Mormon feminism isn't hurting the Church, but might actually help? Well, The SL Tribune recently ran an article about why did the nearly doubling of our missionary force numbers only produce a 4% increase in converts? There are a variety of reasons, I'm sure. One thing that stuck out to me was when I saw this tweet on Twitter. I follow Neylan McBaine, an executive at Bonneville Communications and one of the brain-childs behind the "I'm a Mormon" campaign. She also founded the Mormon Women Project. I don't think she'd label herself a Mormon Feminist, but I love and respect her voice and the work she is doing to lift Mormon women's profile at the grassroots level. She's amazing. Back to the point, she retweeted this, which I think is telling, since she's basically one of the people over branding for the Mormon church.
I'm going to make a few assumptions here, but I don't think I'm going very far out on a limb. I'd say that most non-Mormons closely associate the LDS church with socially conservative politics/the anti-gay marriage movement (prop 8), republicanism (Mitt Romney), polygamy (images of Big Love come to mind), conformity (white shirted missionaries all look the same, stepford wives), and the corporatization and $ the church holds (spent more $ building a shopping mall than on humanitarian efforts).
And what could change people's stereotype perceptions of what a Mormon is, or what a Mormon has to be, than an article about how Mormon women wore pants to church? What if a woman is looking for a Church to join and wants to make sure she'll find one that will welcome her wearing pants? But she's always thought Mormonism was part of the right-wing Christian political movement? Maybe she'll take a second look because after reading that article she thinks she might be welcome there, that she might have been wrong about what Mormonism is. Perhaps changing people's ideas of what a Mormon is needs to happen before they'll let Missionaries in and listen to what they have to say. That, I think, may actually spread the Gospel. But not the articles about how they received death threats. Above the author says, "media attention will make it more difficult to overcome the wave of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping our society, that it will inhibit the work of the Lord and the work of missionaries." I think one of the things fueling the anti-religious sentiment in our society is the awful, un-Christlike things said and done in the name of religion. Maybe the hostility to different opinions on doctrine and perceptions of how to view the Gospel of Jesus Christ is what is hurting the message. In fact I find it telling that the people in charge of the 'I am a Mormon' campaign purposefully present as many of diverse and non-conformist profiles as possible.
I haven't shared this publicly before, but I was interviewed by a freelance journalist who was doing an article on the complexity of Mormon feminism. It's not an article about Mormonism, it doesn't want to teach you about our beliefs or doctrines or preach to you or convert you. Originally The Atlantic planned to publish it and they dropped it in favor of a more controversial MoFem story - the journalist shopped around until he found a publishing space. It turns out The Toast, a very secular feminist website, agreed to publish it here: "Like Wearing Pants to Church". I didn't share it before because right next to my article was one on transgender issues - and that most people I know will NOT be comfortable on this website and the things they say or discuss. If you do choose to go read it, I want to ask you to then read the comments and hear what secular humanist feminists have to say about how it changed their stereotype of religious or Mormons. This is a good thing, I think. Is there only one way to be a good Mormon? We're supposed to spread the Gospel to all the world, but are we going to screen out all progressives, feminists, etc. because they won't be welcome here? Do we really want to put ourselves into this situation?
This is one of the reasons I have not joined the Facebook Group "Mormon Women Stand." Like Lisa Downing, a conservative convert to the Mormon Church living in Texas, in a post about her conversion on her blog "Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt":
Many of these doubts and questions concern our doctrines, practices, and history or past. I think anytime I'm presented with a perfectly clean history or hero (or even Church organization), a little bit of scrubbing has been done. One thing that may have been stumbling block was that a some non-Mormons knew more historical facts about the Mormon church and Joseph Smith than a lot of Mormons. For example, Joseph translating part of the Book of Mormon by putting his head in a hat and looking at a seer stone. It's a historical fact, and the Church has been wont to publicize anything it doesn't think will build faith - recently it's been taking steps towards transparency, even acknowledging work with the seer stone in a series of essays it's been publishing to make our history more transparent (The essays include the Book of Mormon Translation, Multiple Accounts of the First Vision, Race and the Priesthood, Polygamy, DNA Studies, and the refutation that we believe we'll Become Like God and get our own planets). I mean, they're not having bishops read the essays from the pulpit (I wish) but at least publishing them is a step. Yay for steps. This could actually be a step towards retention and new conversion!
In conclusion, I want everyone to get rid of the notion that the only thing good for the Church is to only have one perfect, conformist, foot forward. The story of the bible is rife with imperfect humans and prophets and their story of their attempting to communicate with God and rise above this world. You guys, the Bible is a mess! We find ourselves in their weaknesses, and we know if they can do it, we can too. Anytime you want to accuse Mormon feminists of being divisive and hurting the Church, I want you to remember the quote I shared from Rachel Held Evans on my own blog post about On Being Divisive and Becoming One:
However, what the OW have done is take their cause to the Court of Public Opinion. Innumerable news outlets have covered the story, painting a picture of courageous, marginalized women finally standing up against centuries of oppression from a religious institution bent on discrimination.
Essentially, dragging my beloved Church through the muck of spin and sophistry. Some of the headlines are truly nauseating to me “LDS Church says Hugs and Heart-felt Conversations ‘Divisive’” “Mormons Exclude Women from All-Male Meeting” and endless articles more. If you choose to violate the useful maxim “Don’t Read the Comments” you will find hundreds of folks chiming in to damn the Mormon church, Christianity and all religions and belief systems of every kind.
Allow me to pose a few questions. When a group decides to take an issue to the media, exposing it to scorn, ridicule and hatred, does it increase interest in the Church or decrease it? Will the media coverage inspire individuals seeking for the truth to look at the Church? Or to turn away in disgust?
I submit that the actions of OW and its subsequent media attention will make it more difficult to overcome the wave of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping our society, that it will inhibit the work of the Lord and the work of missionaries. In this way, it is contrary to building the Kingdom of God.
Who stands to benefit from the clamor and calumny that result from OW? I’m going to go ahead and say it, Satan. Yeah, I’m sure that he is reveling in the disruption to the work of the Lord because of the methods of the OW movement. And in the resulting contention and war of words between church members because of it.I have no doubt that Satan is behind the contention and hateful things being said about each other within the Church in this situation (both sides are guilty of a lack of Christlike, empathetic understanding - don't even get me started about the 'they are stoning my prophets' accusation . . . gag). I do take issue that she represents the troll-hating comments on the internet as representative of the responses of people to the article. Most people who are open-minded, thoughtful, interested people (1) don't comment (2) don't read troll-hate comments (3) if they do, they see them for what they are, hateful trolls who don't add value to a discussion. That's just a part of the Internet, no matter what topic.
I want to take issue with her assertion that public Mormon feminism hurts the Church. Have you ever heard of the adage, "There's no such thing as bad press?" First, let's examine another somewhat derogatory, very public Mormon spectacle at the moment: The Book of Mormon Musical. What has been the Church's response? Advertising and using it as a conversion tool. It's worked, we've had converts from people going to see TBoM Musical. Second, has every single public coverage been nasty and negative? I thought a lot of it was rather thoughtful and nuanced, even if it didn't favor the "traditional" viewpoint held by most members of the Church. Especially the recent front-page NYT article about the growing role for Mormon women. Seriously, you guys, you can't buy that kind of ad-space.
So why do I think all of the movements of public Mormon feminism isn't hurting the Church, but might actually help? Well, The SL Tribune recently ran an article about why did the nearly doubling of our missionary force numbers only produce a 4% increase in converts? There are a variety of reasons, I'm sure. One thing that stuck out to me was when I saw this tweet on Twitter. I follow Neylan McBaine, an executive at Bonneville Communications and one of the brain-childs behind the "I'm a Mormon" campaign. She also founded the Mormon Women Project. I don't think she'd label herself a Mormon Feminist, but I love and respect her voice and the work she is doing to lift Mormon women's profile at the grassroots level. She's amazing. Back to the point, she retweeted this, which I think is telling, since she's basically one of the people over branding for the Mormon church.I'm going to make a few assumptions here, but I don't think I'm going very far out on a limb. I'd say that most non-Mormons closely associate the LDS church with socially conservative politics/the anti-gay marriage movement (prop 8), republicanism (Mitt Romney), polygamy (images of Big Love come to mind), conformity (white shirted missionaries all look the same, stepford wives), and the corporatization and $ the church holds (spent more $ building a shopping mall than on humanitarian efforts).
And what could change people's stereotype perceptions of what a Mormon is, or what a Mormon has to be, than an article about how Mormon women wore pants to church? What if a woman is looking for a Church to join and wants to make sure she'll find one that will welcome her wearing pants? But she's always thought Mormonism was part of the right-wing Christian political movement? Maybe she'll take a second look because after reading that article she thinks she might be welcome there, that she might have been wrong about what Mormonism is. Perhaps changing people's ideas of what a Mormon is needs to happen before they'll let Missionaries in and listen to what they have to say. That, I think, may actually spread the Gospel. But not the articles about how they received death threats. Above the author says, "media attention will make it more difficult to overcome the wave of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping our society, that it will inhibit the work of the Lord and the work of missionaries." I think one of the things fueling the anti-religious sentiment in our society is the awful, un-Christlike things said and done in the name of religion. Maybe the hostility to different opinions on doctrine and perceptions of how to view the Gospel of Jesus Christ is what is hurting the message. In fact I find it telling that the people in charge of the 'I am a Mormon' campaign purposefully present as many of diverse and non-conformist profiles as possible.
I haven't shared this publicly before, but I was interviewed by a freelance journalist who was doing an article on the complexity of Mormon feminism. It's not an article about Mormonism, it doesn't want to teach you about our beliefs or doctrines or preach to you or convert you. Originally The Atlantic planned to publish it and they dropped it in favor of a more controversial MoFem story - the journalist shopped around until he found a publishing space. It turns out The Toast, a very secular feminist website, agreed to publish it here: "Like Wearing Pants to Church". I didn't share it before because right next to my article was one on transgender issues - and that most people I know will NOT be comfortable on this website and the things they say or discuss. If you do choose to go read it, I want to ask you to then read the comments and hear what secular humanist feminists have to say about how it changed their stereotype of religious or Mormons. This is a good thing, I think. Is there only one way to be a good Mormon? We're supposed to spread the Gospel to all the world, but are we going to screen out all progressives, feminists, etc. because they won't be welcome here? Do we really want to put ourselves into this situation?
This is one of the reasons I have not joined the Facebook Group "Mormon Women Stand." Like Lisa Downing, a conservative convert to the Mormon Church living in Texas, in a post about her conversion on her blog "Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt":
A new Facebook page, Mormon Women Stand, has gained broad appeal and describes itself as a group of “LDS Women who, without hesitation, sustain the Lord’s Prophet, the Family Proclamation as doctrine and our divine role as covenant women for Christ.” In the Guidelines on Discussion and Tone, we find, “Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God.” The passage then states: “With this in mind, anything contentious, contrary to or criticizing the teachings, doctrines or leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this page will not be welcome.”
I’m not sure how to react to this. If this group holds strictly to this platform, I, as a teenage investigator, would have had no place there. I (and my comments) would’ve been rejected for the very doubts, criticisms, and questions that lead to my testimony. In fact, I don’t think I’m welcomed there now. I continue to have questions–real doubts about some things. Yet, I don’t feel my questions call into question my devotion to the Lord, my commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or my willingness to sustain the current president and prophet.There are a lot of men and women who feel alone, ostracized, and so afraid to share their thoughts. Because it's not kosher for people to talk about questions or doubts, even how those lead to increased faith . . . there are many in our culture who need understanding so they don't feel they have to leave. There really is a cultural belief that you are not a good Mormon if you have doubts or questions. I know because consistently, several times per month, I get notes, messages, comments, or emails from people I have or haven't met thanking me for sharing. For being a voice to throughts that they are terrified to say, because they see the reaction and abuse that members get who do share. There are members of OW that receive the same types of notes. Here is one note I received yesterday.
I just wanted to tell you thanks for... all you post on Facebook and your blog. It's hard to find people who have similar views and even more difficult to find those who will share them. I think you are articulate, well reasoned, and brave. So thanks. You've helped me more than you realize.You have fellow saints around you living in fear, and it's not healthy. It needs to be acceptable for people to say, "I don't know. I don't know if that's true but I'm studying it out and pondering it in my mind. I'm going to give myself room to think/study/ponder/pray about this topic/quote/subject."
Many of these doubts and questions concern our doctrines, practices, and history or past. I think anytime I'm presented with a perfectly clean history or hero (or even Church organization), a little bit of scrubbing has been done. One thing that may have been stumbling block was that a some non-Mormons knew more historical facts about the Mormon church and Joseph Smith than a lot of Mormons. For example, Joseph translating part of the Book of Mormon by putting his head in a hat and looking at a seer stone. It's a historical fact, and the Church has been wont to publicize anything it doesn't think will build faith - recently it's been taking steps towards transparency, even acknowledging work with the seer stone in a series of essays it's been publishing to make our history more transparent (The essays include the Book of Mormon Translation, Multiple Accounts of the First Vision, Race and the Priesthood, Polygamy, DNA Studies, and the refutation that we believe we'll Become Like God and get our own planets). I mean, they're not having bishops read the essays from the pulpit (I wish) but at least publishing them is a step. Yay for steps. This could actually be a step towards retention and new conversion!
In conclusion, I want everyone to get rid of the notion that the only thing good for the Church is to only have one perfect, conformist, foot forward. The story of the bible is rife with imperfect humans and prophets and their story of their attempting to communicate with God and rise above this world. You guys, the Bible is a mess! We find ourselves in their weaknesses, and we know if they can do it, we can too. Anytime you want to accuse Mormon feminists of being divisive and hurting the Church, I want you to remember the quote I shared from Rachel Held Evans on my own blog post about On Being Divisive and Becoming One:
I suspect Paul combined this call for the Body’s unity with an acknowledgement of the Body’s diversity because he knew that unity isn’t the same as uniformity.
We’re not called to be alike; we’re called to love.
We’re not called to agree; we’re called to love.
We’re not even called to get along all the time; we’re called to love each other as brothers and sisters, as people united in one baptism, one communion, one adoption.
Maybe we need these differences to be animated, to be alive, to mature. Maybe friction isn’t a sign of decay, but of growth.
The world is certainly watching. But this doesn't mean we hide our dirty laundry, slap on mechanical smiles, and gloss over all the injustices and abuses, conflicts and disagreements, diversity and denominationalism present within the Church; it means we expose them. It means we talk about them boldly and with integrity, with passion and with love. I suspect that talking about our differences is better for our witness than suppressing them, and I'm sure that exposing corruption and abuse is better for our witness than hiding them.
And when it comes to injustice, a far more important question to me than "What will the world think if they see us disagreeing?" is "What will the world think if they don't?"
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
My Big Debut
What I'm referring to is my first guest post in the true blue, honest to goodness, land of the Bloggernacle. Seen here at Wheat & Tares:
This is almost as exciting as when Kristine Haglund, current editor of Dialog: A Journal of Mormon Thought, commented on my blog. Also almost as exciting as when Neylan McBaine followed me on Twitter, although she has since unfollowed me, followed me, and unfollowed me. Let's just say Neylan and I have a complicated relationship. :)
Phew. Anyways, It's been an interesting, thoughtful few weeks for a number of reasons. I haven't blogged much, but recent changes in my life have made room for me to fit in a new post. Hopefully more will follow.
This is almost as exciting as when Kristine Haglund, current editor of Dialog: A Journal of Mormon Thought, commented on my blog. Also almost as exciting as when Neylan McBaine followed me on Twitter, although she has since unfollowed me, followed me, and unfollowed me. Let's just say Neylan and I have a complicated relationship. :)Phew. Anyways, It's been an interesting, thoughtful few weeks for a number of reasons. I haven't blogged much, but recent changes in my life have made room for me to fit in a new post. Hopefully more will follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
................
