Moderate Mormon Feminist Wish List 2015

We saw a lot of feminist changes in the year 2014 in the LDS church, big and small. We saw women of color praying for the first time in a General LDS Meeting, CES policy changes of women with children at being able to teach as a full-time employee, and many more.  As a moderate Mormon Feminist, I advocate for baby step changes that help expand the understanding of the role of women in God's plan. This morning on twitter I put together a list of wishes of my own, big and small, that I'd like to see happen as a Mormon Feminist in 2015:

• Women may serve as witnesses in and out of the temple 
• Women can serve in Sunday School Presidencies (and eventually, as Clerks)
• Primary teachers will share stories of women from the scriptures for our young girls and boys to look up to.
• more depictions of biblical characters as not just white Europeans
• That I never hear another lds (wo)man say "I don't respect women who don't respect themselves by covering up" and instead respect all humans regardless of what they wear because they are children of God.
• That lds youth will learn principles of +body image in modesty lessons  
• never give up hope, be grateful and long suffering 
• We begin celebrating all the ways fathers nurture children
• a new policy that allows women to hold their babies for their blessing   
• No more Mormon LGBTQ suicides. No more homeless Mormon LGBTQ youth. 
• the #ldsChurch change the name of priesthood session during #ldsconf to "Men's Session"
• That mothers of children younger than 18 can be temple workers just like fathers can.  
• My daughter's activity day leaders will skip modesty shaming and have a career exploration day
• be grateful for baby steps and bear my Christ-based testimony more often
• a woman of color praying in a general session of #ldsconf 
• that wearing #pantstochurch isn't seen as a protest or statement, but just a valid choice for Sunday best
• when possible, replace "Heavenly Father" with "heavenly parents"
• the #ldsChurch curriculum department produces a "Teachings of Eliza R. Snow" for 2016
• more 8-11 yo girls get to participate in pinewood derbies than ever before 
• when teaching the law of chastity, we cover consent - what it is and isn't, and help a lot of people avoid a visit to the bishop's office this year

Change has got to start somewhere, right? Do you have any Mormon Feminist Wishes for 2015? Remember to be grateful for every baby step change, and remember that the core of what we want is to improve Zion with a heart full of love!

Why I Speak

On Sunday it *may* have been the last fast sunday in my current ward. Since mormon open mic day is one of the few ways my voice and testimony is heard, you may see my face up there about 50% of the time (this was the first time I was never asked to speak in a ward I lived in).

I bore my testimony about telling the story of how I hate scratching backs. It's just really annoying to me. But my husband loves it and often asks for a back scratch, esp cuz I have killer nails. So I scratch his back and do something I don't want to do because I love him, because I want to show my love for him.  Similarly sometimes the church "experience" is hard for me and other people, whether they be LGBT, single, divorced, etc. Even my mom said it was difficult to go back to church after my younger sister died. And even though it's hard, I show up because I love my Savior. I want to show my love for him.

For the rest of the meeting I felt there were topics covered that could have been considered rebuttals: ie if you just read your scriptures you won't be confused, just obey and don't have questions and you'll always be safe, etc.  I felt like there were similar rebuttals given after I was on the front pg of the Rexburg paper for wearing pants to church.  There was a definite uptick in the number of topics of "obedience is the first law of heaven" and "don't have any questions" in church talks after that.  Now whether any of these have any correlation or causation is anyone's guess.  I guess whether they are or not is beside the point. 

The point is, is that it is hard to speak.  It's hard to be a minority opinion.  It's hard to disagree with a majority and know that you are doing good in this world when they see you as wrong and harmful.  A few weeks ago I asked for comments to be submitted from readers if they felt me sharing my story had helped them at all.  (1) reading these definitely helped me because I'm going through a "tired" period right now and (2) hopefully those who disagree with me can see I can still do good in a different way then they can.  We're all just here building the kingdom in our own ways y'all:


You have helped me see that it's okay to ask questions. It's okay not to know the answers. Mostly, though, you've showed me what it is to love. Even in the face of open hostility, which is something I greatly admire. I think we need more open thought, discussion, inclusion, & yes -LOVE (the very kind Christ himself espoused in sermon after sermon). I am thankful for your thoughtful discussion, insightful study, and Christlike spirit of love towards ALL...no matter their reaction to you (which can be hard, I admit). You've also made it possible for me to see that we don't have to agree to talk & then still be friends. :) The world needs more of that. The world needs more Kristine!
-Katie

Hi Kristine! I for one do not want you to stop blogging or speaking out. Venturing into this world of Mormon Feminism has been scary and downright lonely at times. I have found a kindred spirit in you, and I appreciate that I can reach out to you across the internets when I'm feeling isolated in my own ward. I especially appreciate your experience with your Bishop that you shared on BCC. It gave me hope that someday I can talk with my priesthood leaders without fear of punishment. I'm really struggling with this fear in the Kate Kelly excommunication aftermath. Should I speak out about inequalities that I believe are so hurtful to our youth? Or is the risk of rejection from my family or the risk of punishment from my ward too great? Keep writing. Keep thinking. Keep feeling. I like having you around.  -Elaine

Just having a friend who is MoFem helps me. Knowing that you struggle with the same sorts of questions but find a way to make it work helps me keep going. Your blog has led me to articles that have helped me articulate my feelings on feminism as it applies to churchy things. 

Over the last few years it has been such a relief to find an entire community of like minded people when it relates to the gospel/church. I've always struggled with some of the positions the church has taken on topics such as gay marriage and women's issues. Contrary to the beliefs that more "liberal" blogs like these cause people to stray, I have found my testimony to be strengthened. Knowing that there are others with the same concerns as me who have managed to maintain a positive relationship with the church, hold a calling and stay active in the temple gives me hope. It shows me that there is room for me in the church. I completely believe, as you said Kristine, that there is more than one way to be a Mormon, and that it's important to have every kind of Mormon in our congregation. I am grateful for your words, and even more grateful for your courage. I know that what you do is not easy and has caused pain, but I have definitely been strengthened by your words, especially since they are filled with so much love.  -Teresa

I have really enjoyed your blog. I was randomly googling a few months back and found this site. It has definitely made me feel less alone. I only wish you blogged more often! I was excited to see your post on By Common Consent and have since enjoyed your "Kristine A" comments on different sites.  To further encourage you (or maybe freak you out a little), you have even become a household name in our home. When talking about my online reading with my husband, I describe you as "my Kristine" and the Dialogue editor Kristine as "the other Kristine". We have both cheered "my Kristine" on as you have bravely asked important questions and exposed yourself to criticism. Go Kristine go!  On another note, you also helped me discover Rachel Held Evans, whom I now love. So thank you for everything and keep up the great work!

I've enjoyed your writing, both here and in comments on all the blogs. Sometimes I need to hear someone being calm and reasonable instead of only angry about the deficiencies in the church. I can do angry on my own very well! So it helps me to have people who can discuss issues without bringing in all the hate we're seeing too often in the blogosphere. I'm not as moderate as you seem to be, but I love discussions where we can all look at each other's ideas respectfully.

Your blogging has helped me! I have had similar feelings in and about church for a long time. I just felt like I was the only one, which shows me there are probably many who feel this way. I have felt a connection to everything you have written about. I've been through too much in my life to not have shaped some of my views. Sometimes I think the people with the 'Let it go' sentimentality have simply never experienced much of life outside their bubble.

So I love reading your blog because you ask the right questions and you are looking for answers in the right places, like through prayer and contemplation. You rationally try to see both sides of the issue. You give me hope that one day I will have the courage to actually tell people my true inner thoughts when the difficult subject of feminism comes up in conversation.

Although I can't say that I've really been struggling in the time that I've known you and been reading your blog, I know that I have been inspired and intrigued by many of the ideas you've shared and discussions you've started. I remember when we first became friends on Facebook I felt very defensive about some of the negative comments that were being made to you and about you -- I felt defensive about someone I had never even met! I believe that the main reason for that (besides generally not wanting people to be hurt) is that I could sense your goodness and sincerity right from the start. I'm so glad you're you and you're here, on the internet, so that our friendship can keep growing even from a distance. -Lindsay

Kristine, you have helped me to see the importance of communicating with clarity, effectiveness and
compassion. I know that this is a weak spot for me so I have become determined to improve. You have shown me that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you for your example, I truly appreciate it. Our friendship means a lot to me. -Annette

Book Review: Women at Church by Neylan McBaine

Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact by Neylan McBaine
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is not most mormon feminists' favorite book. You may think with how I've been promoting the things Neylan has been saying lately that she is my favorite person and that her views match mine. They don't. She may understand and empathize with my position, but she is decidedly traditional and conservative in maintaining gendered spaces and continued complimentarianism within the LDS Church. There are definitely some pages and sections that I was uncomfortable with and are not my favorite; so take heart, ye non-mormon-feminists, there shall likely be much you like herein.

The book's basic premise is this:

1) the policies and structure of the Church will not change anytime soon
2) there is currently a group of women struggling with the status quo
3) why you should care about them, why are they struggling?
4) do our practices match our doctrines?
5) why shouldn't we make small changes that would help women who are struggling? what can we do locally to improve church experiences?

My basic conclusion is this: Neylan wrote a whole book without using the word "feminist." She wants to be able to have a conversation about women in the church without triggering haterz. She's not on my same page but she gets me. I can handle that. I don't think most people in my sphere of influence "get me." I consider her on the middle of a bridge between Mormon feminists and True Believing (never having doubts) Mormons (She was given FAIR Mormon's Award of Excellence 2014). The past few years have been an attempt at these two groups talking at and past each other. There has been very little listening or willingness for either side to make concessions (seemingly, I know I'm oversimplifying, but bear with me). Here is someone who is asking both sides to just listen. Slow down first, and listen.

Some of Neylan's small changes she suggests local wards/stakes might implement include: providing equivalent opportunities for youth, allowing YW to have a female companion in bishops interviews, preparing YW for church service, reviewing the rhetoric of how we praise women in general (instead of individuals), empowering female leaders with appropriate titles, using female sources of doctrine, improve how men speak at and to women, and providing more service/relief opportunities. Each of these can be done without any directives from SLC.

I appreciate how she continually points out that to orthodox members, why wouldn't we want outsiders and even our own "currently investigating" young women to see improved optics? It would only help in the long run, right?

I'm a moderate Mormon feminist who advocates for changes via baby steps. If I had my druthers my top 3 immediate changes would be to:

1) equalize structure and funding of youth programs (activity days)
2) replace all "mother/wife/woman" day worship with RS study and teachings of Christ (ie don't celebrate mother's day at church but use it to speak abt Eliza R Snow, or stories of female disciples during Christ's time, or just Him); in addition have Teachings of the Prophetess Eliza R. Snow for a RS/PH manual
3) recognize not all our daughters/sisters/YW will be wives or mothers, and structure our lessons and programs to focus on discipleship in whatever form it may take, without valuing one type of discipleship more than another

I suppose I could fit all of these changes into her categories, but my desired changes require change from the top down. The opposite direction Neylan suggests, she uses as her "muse" church member and Harvard professor Clayton Christensen's "disruptive innovation" theory that in large bureaucratic institutions, needed change often happens from the ground up. As frustrating as it is to acknowledge I don't see any of my first 3 desired changes coming any time soon - the only option I have left is following the pattern of #womenatchruch.

1) use this book to have uplifting and constructive conversations with friends, family, ward members, local leaders
2) do what you can, then let it go

I fear this is my only option. Yet it still gives me hope.

___________________
Further info:
By Common Consent Book Review
The Problem with Local Change, by Julie Smith
Forget Phood, some MoFems seek a middle way


View all my reviews

A Reset Button

Do you guys remember back in 2009 when Hilary attempted to "Reset" relations with Russia by presenting this button (which was hilariously labeled with the word "overcharge" in Latin in error)?

In the same Spirit (without mistranslation) this is what I wish could happen, for feminists, non-feminists, anti-feminists (I'm looking at you M* and MWS), local leaders, general leaders, and every type of pundit and blogger and PA rep in between to say this all at the same time:

"I am sorry, I have made mistakes.  I forgive my brothers and sisters for their mistakes and hope for forgiveness for my own.  We are all trying to do our best to live the Gospel the best way we know how and we won't get it all right.  In that Spirit can we all just take a step back - not be threatened by each other and each others' ideas, but to just seek to understand and love each other?  We are all doing our best to improve Zion, we are going to rub each others' shoulders the wrong way in the process.  But let's not forget our ultimate goal, to love each other.  Uplift each other.  Bring us each closer to Christ.  Not through pushing or tearing each other down.  I'd say empathy is a pretty good place to start."

Pipe dream?  Yeah I thought so, too.

Dear Bishop

Man I am on a roll this week with my second guest post:

Dear Bishop

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

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:

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?"

Faith, Hope, and Love

There have always been disputations about doctrine amongst believers, even back to the New Testament.  That's okay. But let's not elevate ourselves above each other -- what can we learn from this?  How can we stretch and grow?

FAITH
I do know I feel prompted to share and speak.  I have faith that there is a reason I'm being prompted to share (regardless of the outcome).  So what if changes I want to see never happen in this life?  Well, I know God loves me and I also know that God is not a jerk.  I have faith that all will be right in the end.  I have faith in the atonement, to heal all hurt and pain.  I have faith that He knows more than I do.  I know that I don't know everything, I am human.  We all are.   I know that there is no human alive that can comprehend the works and power of knowledge of God.  We earnestly make a lifelong effort to do so, and we are commanded to try to pattern our lives after our Savior.

HOPE
Sure I want to see incremental changes.  I am seriously stoked to receive more light and knowledge regarding women's priestesshood and Heavenly Mother and all that jazz, whenever it comes.   I know that we have very little knowledge about how things work in the next life (other than spread the Gospel, we do have that scripture).  I do know I will be happy, and I need to trust God.  I need to follow His plan for me.  I need to respond to promptings of the Spirit.   And other people need to respond to their promptings, and I have no idea what theirs look like.

I need to bring others to Christ.  Because I hope that's what I'm doing here.  Making a place that is safe to have questions, and leave it in the Lord's hands.  To trust Him.  I hope that's what I'm communicating.  And also to acknowledge that it is HARD.   Hard to live in this culture that tells you not to question, to be silent, to go away.   And also to show: have hope!  Change is trickling down, even if it took years to decide to put up a portrait of women, they did it!  Change is slow, especially in our organization.  So cling to your hope - and if you can't find a space for yourself, make one.  You belong here.

LOVE
It is okay to question, to want things to change, and usually we are brought to these views by something that hurt - that changed our minds and our hearts.  God has a role in these things.  We can feel our sadness and hurt, we can mourn that what we have now is not more - but we must bury our anger and bitterness at that funeral.  We can feel those feelings - but we must let them go.  Don't lose your passion and don't be silenced, but anger and hurt are never good motivations.  Love is.  In all things act in love, and find God's love in your life. 

I know that everyday I find happiness.  I find God's Love for me.  I find it in my expanding group of friends (yes this introvert is making friends).  I find it in tender mercies.  I find it in the budding flowers and the sunshine and the cuddles of my daughter and holding my friends' babies and warm socks.  I find happiness in my green apple carrot juice and my husband's five o'clock shadow and his kisses when he gets home from work.  I feel happy when I study my scriptures, I even feel happy struggling with messy topics and questions.  I feel happiness when I meet a friend online who has questions like mine, and we can strengthen each other and lift each other. 

And we all have a shared goal:  Zion.   We can't have Zion without each other, and we have got to give each other room to exercise our Agency, and work out our salvation before the Lord.  I know how to help people do this:  love them.  Commandment 1:  Love God.  Commandment 2: Love others.....not just those who are easy to love.  Those that are HARD to love. I need to soften my heart to those whom I find hard to love.  This is my challenge. 

 FairMormon, These Are Our Sisters

President Uchtdorf explains, “[W]hen it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and exclusively appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.” The Merciful Shall Obtain Mercy

I think we shouldn't apply this quote to others but to ourselves, I cannot see another person's heart when they say things online to me or stand in line at temple square - I need to let go of anger and bitterness towards others for their actions and words.

Church leadership has provided a number of examples of Christlike approaches, particularly that of Ruth M. Todd (Church Public Affairs) in her interaction with OW last October as they attempted to gain admission to the Priesthood session of General Conference.8  First, Sister Todd was clear in stating the Church’s position. She said, “This meeting is all about strengthening the men of our church, so this is no surprise to you, that we won’t be able to offer you a ticket or a place to see it…Millions of women in this church do not share the views of this small group that has come and organized this
protest today…And some of the members feel this is very divisive as well.”  Sister Todd then reached out with charity, saying, “Even so, these are our sisters, and we want them in our church. And we hope they find the peace and joy we all seek in the gospel of Jesus Christ.” She spoke directly with everyone she could, going down the line and taking them by the hand. She engaged them as individuals rather than as opponents or outsiders with the assurance, “I am so happy to know you…”

Kylee Shields, sister to an Ordain Women member; I Am My Sister's Keeper

I understand having a difference of opinion (I have 5 fiercely opinionated sisters). I understand feeling content as a Mormon woman and not understanding why other Mormon women aren't. I understand being uncomfortable with what the Mormon Feminist women are feeling, doing, talking about, organizing, etc. What I don't understand is the hate.  I am my sister's keeper. It is my responsibility to hold her heart and be aware of her concerns. I may not understand why she decided to wear pants to church or why she wants to go to the Priesthood session, but I can certainly learn about her cause and concerns before I demonize her.

OW and Gender, Part 3: Not Equality; Accountability

PRIESTHOOD

Here I think it's important to talk about what priesthood is.  I liked Sheri Dew's definition of it being the keys, authority, and power to act in God's name.  But there are two distinct and separate areas this power is exercised: ritually and administratively.  Most of my feelings on this matter are very well encapsulated by a post found here (On Being Needed Vs. Being Necessary), it has thoughts that I believe that most of the conversation going forward shouldn't be based on "equality" but on a fuller understanding and expression of "accountability and responsibility."   I'll quote and try to summarize below.

"In the Church, possession of priesthood is not solely about the proper legitimate performance of spiritual rites and ordinances, but also about the right to speak and be heard, the power to make decisions, to be endowed with full accountability and responsibility, not just at an individual level, but also at an institutional one. Lacking these things can and often does lead to the alienation and brokenness these women have experienced solely on account of their gender."

"New practices and policies.. could be instituted in order to improve women’s and girls’ experience in the Church.  But no matter how much women are included in general processes and individually listened to by priesthood leaders, the fact that they must be included and listened to in the first place demonstrates that, de jure and de facto, women stand outside all formal decision-making, at both the general and local levels."

"Our sisters, wives, daughters, and friends deserve to be represented at every level where they have a stake in ecclesiastical decisions and events that affect them..... Merely asking for the opinions of some women would not inform our response like having women with the power to shape and mold it alongside the men they work and serve with."

"Though we believe the Church was instituted by God and its leaders can and do receive divine guidance on its behalf, it is nevertheless a human institution run by and peopled by human beings. I think this is the underlying theological defense of the status quo, that if God wants something to change, God will simply see to it; therefore, the gender of the decision-makers is insignificant because, as stewards of God’s power, they will simply receive divine instruction and all will be well, all wounds will be eventually be healed, all problems resolved, in the Lord’s own time."

"However, priesthood does not make of its holders passive receptacles of constant streams of divine revelation, but makes them responsible to make decisions of their own will and wisdom, in hope of divine ratification. How can we not include women in this process? How can we not empower women as vessels of such responsibility? Women cannot be regarded as fully human until the full measure of responsibility and accountability is theirs. This is where the charged rhetorics of modesty, pedestalization, and singularity and specialness of gender are mutually embedded–in the wonderful-terrible blessing and burden of cultural, institutional, and religious responsibility and accountability, or lack thereof. This is also why the rhetoric of “equality” should be replaced with one of responsibility and accountability. Responsibility is what is really at stake with this kind of empowerment, and it is really what we mean by “equality.” Responsibility is the decisive and irrevocable difference between becoming angels or becoming gods."

"Cultural identity that Priesthood has produced is what really is at stake for both the men who balk at extending priesthood authority to women and the women who insist that they would never want priesthood–not really because they can’t imagine passing the sacrament or doing Tithing Settlement but because they don’t want to be men, full stop."  (PS this will all be addressed in Part 3!)

"But the institutional Church is nevertheless of vital importance to its members. It could never cause so much pain, joy, sense of community, and alienation if it were not. If there is another way to irrevocably and formally fold women into the decision-making process at the local and general levels, I’m all ears"

"Regardless of being able to show that women were once ordained at various levels (as can be more or less demonstrated in both Mormon and Christian history), that there is here and now a need that has gone unmet demands that we start doing things differently. If that means giving women the priesthood, I am in favor. If alternatively it means restructuring the priesthood so as to decouple it from administrative authority and limit its functions to more spiritual matters, thereby freeing women to participate administratively and have a voice of institutional power, I am in favor. If it means giving women a female priestesshood that is distinct from male priesthood but with equal and responsibilized authoritative stewardship, I am in favor. If it means not necessarily giving women priesthood but placing them on councils where they have a more equal say and vote, where they become systemically necessary and not merely appealed to if arbitrarily fortunate enough to have priesthood leaders who truly care about what they say, that is at least a leap forward. Even gradual changes in a direction that looks something like this are better than nothing. What matters is that women be empowered to speak and serve and bless in the religious community no less than their brothers. What matters is that when a woman speaks women and men should sit up and listen, not just because she might have priesthood or legitimate authority of some kind, but because there are no institutional barriers providing a convenient excuse not to listen to her. What matters is that building the kingdom of God is an effort that requires all of us in our full capacity, liberating us to use whatever talents we have at our disposal. There are so many women who are outstanding leaders in the workplace, but whose leadership isn’t nearly as vital in our ecclesiastical context. There are so many other women who could learn to be these outstanding leaders in a pastoral context if given the opportunity. What about women counseling with others about suffering, faithfulness, the temple, sexuality, etc? What about women feeling more capacitated to participate and contribute in a multitude of different ways? What about men and women together trying to figure out how to strengthen families while discussing what it could mean for men to be men and women to be women? How much closer to Zion could we leap then?"

"Most important here, though, is the increasing alienation so many women in the Church are feeling within the structure as it currently stands. A Mormon “priesthood of all believers” may not ultimately be the answer, but it is acutely appealing in fully responding to this growing alienation, because it makes precisely that structural change that would plug women fully into the heart of the life of the Church. Could Church leaders prayerfully enact something like this, something of which there would be divine approval? I think the answer is yes. Priesthood is a sacred God-given trust, not alone to passively listen for God’s will and carry it out but to freely use that power, the privilege God has given holders of the priesthood to righteously engage in service according to the stewardship they have been given."

"In the end this is an argument for formally and radically weaving women into the heart of the ebb and flow of Church life, giving them voices that are systemically necessary, a part of the conventional function of the Church, the equals of men in speech, institutional power, and responsibility. The current priesthood-driven structure seems to insist that ordaining women might be the only present way of really doing that,  though what seems paramount is ultimately seeing the realization of these fundamentally necessary goals, regardless if priesthood is the vehicle to make that happen."

I very much apologize for block quoting - but . . . he speaks what my heart feels. Please note that I don't place any timelines or stipulations on changes or improvements. . . But I agree with my cousin yesterday who commented 1) we discount how long God waits until the population is open to receive further revelation before giving it and 2) the doctrine of our Gospel and teachings in the temple whisper very much of a shared power dynamic.  Much of this belief comes from the commandment that we have to become ONE upon marriage.  The we have God the Father and God the Mother***** who are one  . . . I don't know when changes or revelation or anything will come.

But I do believe now is a good time to have respectful discussions about these issues - AND all voices should be included in these discussions.  This is not currently happening.  The scriptures are replete with examples of prophets questioning things they thought were always true (Nephi having to kill Laban) or prophets who wrestle with issues before God (Enos).  The scriptures teach me that questions and wrestling with them is okay.  That my faith has been strengthened and deepened through my questions and wrestling.  And everyone's path in faith back to God is different.  And we should respect each others' journeys.

*************The Reference for "God the Mother" is found in the comments below

OW & Gender, Part 2: Why I Disagree With Ordain Women

ORDAIN WOMEN

First of all, if you haven't yet, please go read Ordain Women's FAQ page and a handful of their profiles.  Now, whether you agree with these men and women or not, please acknowledge their bravery and courage for taking the risk of putting a profile up.  The consequences these faithful members face is real in their lives.....wowza, right?  Looking at those profiles, I am filled with a confirmation that these are my brothers and sisters sitting next to me in the pews and holding callings with me and leading and loving my children in their callings, etc.  I don't want them to leave!!

One of the reasons I am not an OW member is because I look around and see easy changes that could be made in the church organization via policy changes, I enumerated on some in my first blog post:  equal funding and structure of boys/girls programs, an improved conversation regarding modesty and sexuality in the Church, female representation on decision-making boards in the Church, eliminate gender restrictions on callings that have nothing to do with priesthood rituals: stake auditor, Sunday School presidency, etc.  These are specific issues that are important to me based on my life experiences as a Relief Society and Primary President and as an accountant.  Other women have other issues that are important to them.  To me these things seem like obvious, low-hanging fruit that may take years to change and have NOTHING to do with priesthood ordination, but if no one says anything about them, nothing will continue to be done.

For example, in Elizabeth Smart's advocacy for human trafficking and sexual abuse, "Smart said she "felt so dirty and so filthy" after she was raped by her captor, and she understands why someone wouldn't run because of that alone.  I thought, 'Oh, my gosh, I'm that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of gum, you throw it away.' And that's how easy it is to feel like you know longer have worth, you know longer have value."  She was referring to the abstinence only object lessons she received in the church (no one wants a licked cupcake, chewed up piece of gum, manhandled flower bud, or any other really poor, awful, objectifying things that equate a woman's value with her virginity).  Many people criticized her for publicly criticizing lessons she received in Church about her abstinence-only education that caused her harm.  But listen, if no one ever stands up and publicly talks about how "chewed up piece of gum" is a bad, harmful way to teach chastity -- we are still going to get people teaching those lessons. 

How Ordain Women sees things is this:  for decades Mormon feminists have been asking for the low-hanging fruit.  And they've been punished and excommunicated and marginalized for publicly advocating for things like: women praying in general conference.  So Mormon feminists can continue to just talk amongst each other -- but nothing will ever change until women are actually in a position to enact the changes.  They also reason that the MoFem community is alive and well on the internets, but if all we do is just talk on the internets nothing will happen - the Church has shown that they can easily ignore FeministMormonHousewives.org and let them have a community where the complain and explain and listen to others mansplain (ha!) and not really acknowledge their existence.  But the internet created tools of advocacy too, in the case of petitioning the Church for an official policy on menstruating women and Baptisms for the Dead (policies were all over the place and haphazardly enforced to the detriment of many women) or to the action of "Let Women Pray."  (How Social Media Revitalized and Enlarged a Movement, www.academia.edu).  Because of the historical precedent established between Mormon feminists and the church organization, Ordain Women strongly believes ordination is the only answer to solving many issues.  What they see is the Church becoming more like Zion.  They sincerely have this belief that it is the only way to move forward, I do not agree with them.  The public affairs letter referred to their end goal as non-negotiable, I think the Church would be surprised how many OW would go along with an alternate solution revealed from God.  And I disagree with the Public Affairs letter that since they have a certain opinion on the way forward, that their voice is damaging to the discussion (and shouldn't be listened to).  ALL voices should be a part of the discussion, yes even these OW ladies. 

TONE AND ACTION

Kate Kelly is the founder of Ordain Women, and I have found her to be a little rough around the edges.  I have seen her easily dismiss opposing opinions and not conduct herself in a . . . well, a way that we teach our women they should act, she's a bit brassy :-)   If I think about it I'm not surprised, a woman with enough chutzpah to start this thing has got to be filled with so much passion and determination and fearlessness that she's probably the only type of woman who could have done such a thing.  Kelly is a human rights lawyer, and she observed that when working towards rights that in Africa, action received a response.  When women had a peaceful protest and quietly asked for a right which they were due -- they ended up being handcuffed and dragged away.  But the thing that began changing minds is that the men having to drag these women away were now their friends, neighbors, and family members looking them in the eyes and seeing their pain: and they could no longer ignore those feelings, they had to be addressed.  So Kate comes from a political activist background which I believe frames what she does and the words she uses (ie Equality, more on that later).

There are many members of the Church who support women's ordination (many, many of them male) who are not members of OW.  They don't agree with how she does things either or how she responds to their suggestions or correction or criticism.   Most people who are in this camp also disagree with the actions the group takes.  For example, the peaceful "action" being held during Priesthood Meeting is a point of a lot disagreement.  I do not believe it is the best foot forward, but I can empathize with them and their pain -- and I do see OW as a group that needs to be included in conversations about women's issues.

On Being Divisive and Becoming One

I've mentioned before that one of my passions is for unity in the Church.  I've posted that's one of the reasons I have real concerns about Ordain Women, is that it seems a breeding ground for contention. I'm going to come out and change my stance.  Because in the last six months I've studied so intently in and out of the temple and had such wonderful spiritual experiences, especially with my husband in the celestial room, that were prompted because of Ordain Women and the questions and discussion they are raising.  I no longer begrudge their existence.  I do think it makes my job harder, as a moderate mormon feminist, advocating for policy changes instead of ordaining women.  But I think they need to be there, even if I don't agree with their actions or their tone. 

And it starts me thinking about our commandment to become one, as the Body of Christ.  I cited that in my newspaper article in the Standard Journal.  Unity does not equal uniformity.  How can we become Zion?  By everyone exercising their free agency in only the way that makes you comfortable?  Is it possible that by having diverse opinions and thoughts and perspectives on how we are to build Zion, that it strengthens the church.  Are people who are different only welcomed in our culture and in our Church, so long as eventually they step in line and act and think and dress like the majority?Elder Uchtdorf says, "Brothers and sisters, dear friends, we need your unique talents and perspectives. The diversity of persons and peoples all around the globe is a strength of this Church." 

As a Mormon Feminist, I often end up sharing my opinions that may be different than others'.   I often am told that I shouldn't care about the things I care about, that I'm looking beyond the mark, that I'm being ungrateful, that I don't value what I've been given, or that I should just focus on loving and serving others (as if my having a different opinion on Mormon culture or church policy makes it so I'm not loving and serving others).  I've also been told I should just keep my questions, experiences, and opinions private - that putting them in public is dangerous and wrong, mostly because it shows that a member of the church doesn't agree with how some things are being done.  That I'm disagreeing.  And we shouldn't disagree in public. 

Rachel Held Evans, an Evangelical Feminist, does the same thing in a much more widespread manner than myself, she has her own post up about how she is accused of being divisive all the time, below I've quoted my favorite part of her response.  Please go read it in its entirety at the link above:

But when I began writing about gender equality in evangelicalism, it became apparent to me that no matter how careful my tone, no matter how reasoned my arguments, no matter how gentle my critique, my work would inevitably be characterized as “divisive.”

“How dare you challenge a man of God?”

“The world can’t see us disagreeing like this; it hurts our witness.”

“We should be talking about more important matters.”

“Let’s just focus on what we agree on and let these minor issues go.”

“Can’t this be settled privately and not publicly?”

"You need to calm down and stop being so emotional."

“Stop being so divisive. Jesus wants us to be unified.”

One of the easiest ways to discredit another Christian is to label their questions, concerns, or calls for justice as too "divisive."  I don’t like being divisive. Believe me. But I don’t like being silenced either.  There has to be a way to discuss controversial, difficult topics—even on social media—without resorting to outright hostility on the one hand or sanctimonious silencing on the other.  And I wonder if it begins with acknowledging that friction doesn't mean division.   We Christians suffer under this rather fanciful notion that no one in the early church ever argued about anything, that the first disciples of Jesus sat around singing hymns and munching on communion bread, nodding along in perfect agreement about how to apply the teachings of Jesus to their lives.  But the epistles would suggest otherwise. 
The epistles would suggest that when you throw together a group of people from vastly different ethnic, religious, socio-economic, and religious backgrounds there is going to be some serious friction. Within the early church raged debates over everything from the application of the Mosaic law, to whether Christians should eat food offered to idols, to how to handle the influx of widows in the church, to disagreements around circumcision, religious festivals, finances, missions, and theology.

So when Paul urged the Ephesian church to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace,” he followed this with an acknowledgement of the Church’s diversity, in which there are “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers…so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

This Body is still growing, so there will be growing pains. 

But if we love one another through these growing pains, “then we will no longer be infants…instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.  From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

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?"

I love that last line.  What will the world think of us if we are always of one opinion, thought, perspective, and dress?  It may not reflect our doctrine that free will is our most important gift that we treasure above all else.  If we create circumstances where there is only one way to be a good mormon, to use your free will in only one acceptable way, I believe that is when we may be looking beyond the mark.  This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  All are loved and welcomed at the table.