the "right" kind of feminists

Queen Esther by Minerva Teichert

by Lesli Summerstay and Guest
I feel like the actions church leaders have taken in response to Kate Kelly are morally wrong. Ordaining women isn’t my burning cause, and I am not a member of it, however I would be happy if it happened someday. I didn't think trying to pressure the church to change was likely to work. How her bishop, stake president, and now the first presidency have responded, though, shows a terrible lack of caring about people like me, and an unwillingness to realize the mistakes of the institution.

Here are some things my more conservative friends have said, and my response.

1. It's doctrine.

Really? Show me the revelation. If you're claiming that God directly spoke to someone and said this is the way it must be, that's one thing. But as nearly as I can tell, some (not all) early leaders of the church thought it wasn't a good idea to ordain women, and it gradually got turned into something that it would need the word of God to overturn. Sam Brunson wrote the following about the idea of doctrine:

“I assume that most people who are uncomfortable with the aims of OW would concede that it is at least within the realm of possibility that God could announce, through His prophet, that women, too, can hold the priesthood. Conversely, I assume that most supporters would concede that it is at least possible that a male-only priesthood is God’s will and will not change.

But ex ante, we do not know which will happen. Which means that our traditional doctrine v. policy distinction (that is, immutable v. changeable), adds no value to our discussion. But it makes discussion between the two poles (and any number of points in between) tremendously charged and difficult.

Perhaps, then, we should step back from the precipice of doctrine vs. policy. Instead, we could embrace the dictionary (and scriptural) definition of doctrine. And when we want to talk about immutability, we can expressly talk about it, rather than code arguing about doctrines and policies.”  

Defining Doctrine by Sam Brunson

2. But it's been preached in conference. That makes it divine revelation.

There are direct, official statements from the first presidency saying that blacks would never receive the priesthood, just a few decades before they did. What is official now can change and the leadership will say it never was official.

In 1949 the LDS Church First Presidency issued an official statement on priesthood denial to blacks:

“The attitude of the church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time (as quoted in Black Saints in a White Church, p. 24).”
Curse of Cain? Racism in the Mormon Church

And again in 1951:

“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind; namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.… Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the Priesthood by negroes.” Official statement of the First Presidency on the Negro Question August 17, 1951

But today on LDS.org, the church now states that the reasons given were never doctrine, and imply that the policy itself was never doctrine:

“In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

…

“In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

“The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.”

Race and The Priesthood on LDS.org

^{Here is a great blog post that relates:}

The General Conference talk I want to hear

3. They have prayed about it, and gotten their answer.

Really? Show me the revelation. And if not that, show me a general authority saying, "We plead and wrestled with God for a long time, hoping to give relief to those who feel punished in the church for being women. Sadly, we have received no answer." I want to know that they see what I see and hope for what I hope.

4. But it's not a punishment! Women simply have different roles.

If a man is punished in the church, one of the things they do to him is not allow him to bless his own children, baptize them, give them healing blessings, and participate in leadership. It seems an awful lot like what is punishment for a man is being treated like a normal woman in the church.

5. But women can be mothers! Men can never be mothers. Women are more nurturing.

You're right, men can never be mothers. Men can be fathers.  That's the real parallel, and the priesthood is something besides that. Men can be every bit as nurturing as women. The three things men can't do are: 1. get pregnant. 2. give birth, and 3. breastfeed. If you say pregnant or nursing mothers shouldn't be bishops, well, that could be dealt with (but I think really should be left up to the individual). But what about single women? What about older women? What about young women? None of these affect their ability.

I want the leaders in the church to address these points. Not to call a two hundred year old policy doctrine and kick out anyone who points out that that doesn't make sense and tries to do something about it. Kate Kelley stood up for what she believed in, and did what her heart told her was right. It's possible she was wrong, but the way to address that is to give excellent reasons for the injustice, so that everyone who hears it can understand exactly why it is sadly necessary, and persuade us to their point of view. (I'm not exactly holding my breath, here.) Instead, they simply exerted the authority they have retained for themselves, and without trying to engage, just cut her off from the church.

The church’s public-relations wing says they have entertained "other feminists who have come in, and we’ve had really meaningful conversations, really important conversations," the spokeswoman said. "But when you use a grammatical ultimatum — Ordain Women — that presents a problem. ... It’s really a matter of intent, a matter of method."

So, their problem is with the name, and the tone? I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous.

There is no way to reach higher authorities in the church than by what Kate Kelly did. That is a huge problem. They tell us if we have a question to go to our local leaders. If they or we send it further up, they refer it back to our local leaders. Local leaders can’t receive revelation on ordaining women (or any other church policy/doctrine issue). The only way to address the general authorities was to do what she did. They don’t see it as a problem I guess—they just want us to talk to our local leaders and have them tell us we are wrong and pray more till our doubts or questions or feelings of wrongness subside. But it doesn’t work. And if you are unlucky enough to have the wrong local leader you talk to, they might discipline you for what you say. There’s no real way set up to be heard. I understand it’s hard in a large church. Sure, the leaders are busy and can’t be dealing with everyone. That’s why in order to be heard, Ordain Women needed to show them it was more than one or two people that felt this way. If they aren’t going to come up with some other way to be heard, they shouldn’t punish her.

Again, I’m not a member of OW. My problem is how the church has treated them, brushed aside their questions, didn't answered them, treated them as other, and then excommunicated their leader, and is now putting out an official statement justifying instead of rectifying the action. They are justifying instead of helping to heal people. Instead of helping to heal divides, they are making the divide worse. They gave no new info in their statement and did not at all address the real concerns people like me have about the REAL inequality of men and women in the church. Women have no power and almost no voice. That is a real problem. (Even if women are never ordained, it needs to be addressed.)

I worried that the actions of the OW movement were too much too soon, and might close doors. (It has also done a lot of good--opening up for more mainstream discussion things that used to be taboo.) I never thought the leaders would try to excommunicate the leader of OW. She believes and was asking for them to pray for revelation. How hard would it have been to dialogue with her group? And say whether or not they had prayed and directly to them what the answer was? How hard would it have been to allow them to enter the priesthood session? That would have been the Christlike thing to do, on both counts. Not ignore her, call her and her group ‘other’ and ‘extreme’ through the PR department, and then ultimately excommunicate her. This behavior makes me feel unsafe in the church, along with many, many other feminists. It is hurtful, whether we are members of OW or not. Their rationalization is flawed and wrong.

some quotes:

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”      – Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

"Election, not compulsion is the genius of Christian philosophy. Ridicule and ostracism often amount to compulsion. I deplore their existence. I fear arrogant dogmatism. It is a tyrant guilty of more havoc to human-kind than the despot ruling over many kingdoms."  -Elder Stephen L Richards in the April conference 1932

Some good related links:
This is Not Love: The Excommunication of Kate Kelly

excerpt: "I know that sometimes folks have to be cast out from the community. I do. I understand that there is no “good” way to do this. And I fundamentally, deeply, soulfully, thoroughly, utterly and completely disagree that Kate Kelly needed to be excommunicated for any reason, pragmatic or otherwise. But I suppose I can see how someone might reasonably disagree with me about that.

What I can not abide, what sparks in me feelings of intense anger and distrust however is the insistence that this happened because of her choices and because of their love for her. That is nonsense.

The church chose to set an arbitrary line where Kate stood, there was no way she could have known where that line was. And while they have every right in a functional bureaucratic corporate Church sense to set arbitrary boundaries and cut out people who don’t suit them, even if they’re doing what they think is necessary and right (about which I disagree), that action is not loving, nor in-line with Christ’s teaching about the body of Christ.

I will admit, I expected more from the church, I thought we had matured beyond this, I thought the church had learned hard lessons and would realize that we are strong enough and brave enough and loving enough to hold together even with fundamental disagreements.

Over and over I have heard the PR department insist that so much more progress would have been made in helping women in the church if it weren’t for all the agitation. “The women praying in conference were already planned, we thought about not letting women pray after the agitation started” After all They could not be seen as “giving in” to outside pressure. And ultimately the reason for excommunicating Kate came down to a tone argument “you can ask questions, we know these questions are important and of course we love you, you just can’t ask insistently.” I find so much flawed thinking in the underlying assumptions of that whole paradigm I don’t even know where to begin.

If you love someone and they ask you for water because they are thirsty, they tell you they are in pain, even if they demand it, even if they get up in your face and scream at you, even if they throw a big raging tissy fit and your reply is, “I was about to give you water, I was about to give you an aspirin. But now I won’t because you didn’t ask nicely enough.”

And there was no yelling, no tissy fit, there were polite questions, “please talk to us,” “please pray about this”, “we will stand here and politely ask to please let us attend this meeting.” Perhaps this felt too insistent, too presumptuous, too much like yelling, too much like “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church.”

Granted no one likes demands, but “I would have given if you hadn’t asked” is still not a loving and mature answer. Your *loved* ones are not agitating and bothersome outsiders that you “can’t give in to”. Your *loved* one’s thirst and pain is not a trivial cookie to be rewarded based upon her good manners and understanding of unwritten vague rules of engagement."

On Members Disagreeing with Power
excerpt: "As I have read comments and posts about the news (so many comments!), a consistent theme seems to emerge from many of the faithful, active members’ negative responses: Kate’s and John’s questioning and voicing opinions about sexism, inequality, and other issues in the Church are inconsistent with how change occurs, and good Latter-Day Saints do not do voice such things publicly.

At its most basic level, I find this conclusion troubling because of its theological implications (if members cannot question and push leaders, then who will?) and its chilling effect on the voices of those who suffer from the pain of crushing doubt and uncertainty. But most pointedly, I also find the critique inaccurate with regard to stories about faithful saints who have also stood and voiced their disagreements. For example, I find people consistently condemning Kate for asking difficult questions, speaking factual truths about the status of women in the church, and carrying through with those questions at the last two general conferences. In reading these judgments, I wonder whether they always disagree with members questioning their leaders.

If so, do they also condemn the Woman of Canaan, who petitioned Jesus to cast a devil from her daughter, even after He repeatedly refused due to her Gentile status. 1) Despite His disciples’ request to send her away, Christ saw her repeated petitions as a sign of faith and granted her request. Or perhaps the daughters of Zelophehad, who stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, princes, and the entire congregation to ask whether the policy of male-only heirs could be changed in their circumstances. 2)  Despite the existence of an apparently Divine decree, Moses asked of God, who responded that the “daughters of Zelophehad speak right,” and it was changed."

The New Debate: What (Mormon) Women Want
excerpt by Cynthia Lee: "In the past week, I have had conversations with several of my ward members who have widely varying opinions on Ordain Women and the discipline actions. Where there has been agreement is that we should do much more to ensure that women have a leadership voice in the church and to ensure that any cultural biases against women are reformed. We should examine every area of gender difference in the church — from financial clerks to seminary teachers, from youth budgets to General Conference speakers — and determine if there is a doctrinal warrant for it. If not, we should move swiftly to end that gender difference. This would have an immediate and dramatic impact, without doctrinal change or ordination. Leadership listening to women is a well-intentioned but inadequate model for inclusion of women’s input. Instead, leadership at all levels needs to include women, through councils where women’s voices are on equal footing."

Tone Matters

Differentiate: not Excommunicate!!

Between Generations

The Faith of my Mothers

Room for All in this Church

The Power of Pain: Mourning with Kate Kelly

10 Words that Would have Altered History and Preserved Zion

Bless them Father, Even When They Know What They Do

Trib Talk: The fallout from excommunication