Pages

Monday, April 8, 2013

My thoughts on the ordination of women

My former roommate Andria has been getting deeply involved in the political sphere.  Pretty much every day my pinterest is flooded with her pins about equality and feminism and all sorts of good things.  She keeps a feminist blog.  She was recently featured as a guest blogger on youngmormonfeminist.org.  She was addressing the current debate about the ordination of women to the priesthood.  Here is the link to her post.  

As I was reading her ideas I came up with some of my own and I wanted to share them.  

Andria is firmly in favor of the ordination of women.  Her post systematically addresses each of the most common arguments against it.  First she addressed the claim "if God wanted women to have the priesthood then they would already have it."  I think she makes a valid point when she says that there have been very clear moments in the history of the saints where God has waited for us to ask before he has given us greater knowledge or light.  She says that perhaps God is waiting to grant women the priesthood, but he is waiting for us to be ready and to ask for that gift.  

As I said, I think she makes a fair point.  And I would look at Elder Holland's talk in this weekend's conference to confirm the principle of asking and questioning that I think many people often forget is fundamental to the LDS faith  (tangentially, just everyone please go and watch that talk again because it was one of the greatest talks I think I have ever heard).  But I think that there is a corollary that comes with that idea that Andria doesn't quite address.  As she says, sometimes the Lord is just waiting for us to be ready.  But...what if we aren't?  What then?  I think Andria would say that that is what the Ordain Women movement is all about.  Getting us ready so it can happen already.  And I can understand that.  But I think it is important to remember the balance--that is, no matter how ready you think the world and the church and the people are, if you truly believe that the Lord is in charge and that the Presidency are abiding by His wishes and it hasn't happened...well...then it isn't time.  I understand how defeatist that might sound.  I don't mean it that way.  All I mean is that, again as Elder Holland said, you have to keep perspective and remember what you do believe.  Don't abandon something you know to be good because it is not yet perfect.  I guess that is what I'm trying to say.  Don't get frustrated if things don't happen as quickly as you want.

Andria addresses men who dismiss the Priesthood as busy work and women who dismiss it as just another responsibility to add to their already maxed out schedules.  I'm slightly bemused at how she tells men who belittle the duties of the Priesthood that they deeply misunderstand the fundamental nature and significance of the authority they wield, whilst simultaneously telling women to calm down because it's not such a big deal in terms of the commitment required.  Be that as it may, I think I can respect at least the hesitancy of women on these grounds.  When I think about the possibility of adding priesthood duties to my life I literally think "awesome...another aspect of my life to feel guilty about for failing to maximize my potential..."  Perhaps it is petty of me to feel that way, but that is, unfortunately, the way I feel.  I don't think I'm "lame" for this.

And lastly, she addresses two points which I am going to combine.  She talks about the "men and women are different but equal" argument and the "men have the priesthood and women have motherhood".  Both of these are, to me at least, essentially rephrasings of the argument that men and women have different strengths and different roles to fill.  She asserts that if women are equal then they should be equally able to care for themselves or their families (or visiting teachees) if they do not happen to have a man handy to take care of the blessing and the household running--as many women do not.  She says that motherhood is not a true compliment to priesthood.  Fatherhood would be the true compliment of motherhood, and priestesshood of priesthood.  She very interestingly points out that motherhood is more a physical ability (no matter how nurturing a man might be and how rejecting of gender stereotypes...he simply cannot bake a miniature human within his lower abdomen; there is no oven there) and priesthood is a spiritual gift and discipline (a woman is absolutely capable of humbling herself and making herself in tune with the spirit).  I think that is a really fascinating distinction that I personally haven't really heard addressed before, and is definitely worth considering further.  

But this was my thought as I read her comments on these issues.  It was actually prompted by my dad and step-mom teasing me.  My dad texted asking me if I wanted the priesthood and I texted back absolutely; eventually we'd manage to excise men from the church entirely.  And I realized that that was actually an important thought.  

I'm going to go all historical on you now and take us all back to high school.  Do you guys remember Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education?  These were two of those landmark cases you learned about in your social studies class that shaped the history of America.  Specifically, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education dealt with the philosophy of "separate but equal" during the time of segregation (were gonna go ahead and pretend that time is past, despite this slightly gratifying (they're forcing change!) and simultaneously vomit-inducing (they even had to have this fight in 2013????) story that recently came to my attention...I just can't get side-tracked by that issue just now).  Essentially, in Plessy the courts legitimized segregation, claiming that as long as everything was equal it was totes fine to keep them dark kids separate from them light kids.  This was in 1896.  60 ish years later, Brown overturned this legal precedent, famously asserting "'Separate but equal' is inherently unequal".  Integration painfully ensued.

Those words.  "Separate but equal is inherently unequal."  I think those words have sunk deep into the American psyche since 1954.  I think they have really been at the heart of the seemingly endless struggle for equality for all the people (all of them...women, gays, blacks, immigrants, whatever).  See, we look at something like Plessy v. Ferguson and we can see exactly how awful that decision was.  There was no equal.   "Separate but equal" meant "We get the nice stuff and you get the shitty reject stuff."  During the days of "separate but equal" everything was horrible.  During the days of "separate but equal is inherently unequal" things started to get better.  And we've spent the last 60 years drilling that into our minds.  If it is separate, distinct, or apart then there is an inequality there.

At the same time, however, somehow that idea has paradoxically been fused with a sort of obsession with personal independence.  Equality has come to mean that every person is able to do every thing for themselves.  If you are dependent on another human being that means that they hold power over you and must therefore consider themselves superior to you.  Sometimes, of course, this means opportunity if not actual ability--"I could definitely learn to be a mechanic if I wanted.  I simply choose to invest my time elsewhere and pay this fellow to mechanic for me."  You get the point though.  Everyone must know they have the option to do everything for themselves if they wanted to.

So when I joked with my dad that ultimately we feminists were going to get rid of all the menz in the church and get things done ourselves it suddenly occurred to me that maybe we should think about that.  The Ordain Women movement is, as Andria said, about granting women the ability to take care of their and their families' priesthood needs themselves.  Which is good, right?  Equality is being able to take care of yourself by yourself.  You don't have to depend on anyone else; no one else has power over you.

Except I can't help but think about the idea of a community of saints.  That is the ideal toward which we are working, isn't it?  A loving, close-knit community of saints who care about and serve each other.  That is the goal.  If we are all striving to become fully independent so that no one needs anyone else, somehow that just doesn't feel like a loving community to me.  So let me ask you this.  What if the reason that women don't hold the priesthood has absolutely nothing to do with their abilities or the lack thereof?  What if it is all about teaching us to come together?  What if the whole point is that you can't do it alone?  Even that single mother.  Maybe the gift she needs isn't that she can bless her children herself; rather it is that some brother in the ward has the opportunity to come serve her and strengthen the bond between them.  

It requires a fundamental shift in perspective to look at the "gender" rolls of the church in this way.  It is a shift from viewing male and female interaction as competitive and antagonistic to complimentary and constructive.  I can understand why such a shift may well be impossible for a lot of women.  I don't think I will ever become a true feminist (a fact which I am completely ok with) because I will never see the battle in every day life like they do.  And I'm glad that they do.  Their efforts have materially improved my life.  But I think that this is an idea worth considering.  "Separate but equal is inherently unequal" may or may not be the great truth we believe it to be, but I submit this: "different but equal" is not the same evil as "separate but equal".  As some banal YA book once said: a key and a lock look completely different to the point that if you knew nothing about them you might never believe that they were companions; indeed, each serves a completely separate purpose.  Yet neither can fulfill that purpose without the other.  Sometimes differences bring us together so that we can combine our strengths and abilities and become better than either of us were apart.  Better than we ever would have suspected had we insisted on doing everything alone.

It is important to understand that I don't have any sort of fundamental problem with the idea of women being ordained to the Priesthood.  I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of lobbying the leaders of the church to affect changes we think are necessary (aren't we supposed to believe that they're inspired?) but I appreciate the importance of having the debate.  If the first presidency ever comes out with an announcement that women are to be ordained to the priesthood I will not have a problem with that, though I understand many likely will.  But I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic because they feel true and important to me.  I hope they do so to you.

12 comments:

  1. Emily, these are some beautiful thoughts. I haven't yet decided where I stand on this issue but it's just refreshing to hear an alternate perspective that actually makes sense to me instead of just being told that I'm too spirchal to need the priesthood. I love the idea of men and women having complementary roles. However, I also love hearing about women in the early days of the church who gave their children blessings and who healed with the laying on of hands. I am completely okay with never being the bishop, I would love to be in the circle when my babies are blessed, or be able to assist when my children get healing blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Riss, I totally understand that. I would point out this one thing though...those women hadn't been ordained to the priesthood either, had they? They were simply praying in faith. I think we should remember that just because we aren't ordained as priests does not shut us off from the power of God...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Em, I agree. However, both of those practices, common in the early days of the church, are officially frowned upon now. So, I'm not in any rush to be ordained, but I think it would be cool to have what our foremothers did. Not my decision, though. We'll see what the future brings, either way. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Important thoughts intellectually and ones I believe the bretheren have addressed specifically. Different but equal. We do need each other. We cannot become Gods alone. And God by definition is a priesthood office. I feel that I do hold the priesthood already. I feel I hold it through Jared because we are married. And i also really believe that if women were ordained the way they want that we would take away precious opportunities from the men in the Church. Opportunities that they NEED to become the men, husbands, and fathers God wants them to become. Its hard to explain but I really believe the Gospel holds everything feminists want. It just requires a different perspective for them to see that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for this post, Emily. Different but equal. And, though banal, I like the key and lock analogy. And thank you for addressing the principle of a Zion people: a community of loving saints. Our own prophet in his earlier Bishop days was a strong priesthood influence in the lives of all those widows in his ward. All great thoughts to consider and remember. Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think it's difficult and dangerous to use legal precedence in addressing issues of doctrine and faith. But to carry on in the same thought does give a chance for some interesting thought exercises. To the which I would propose an analysis through a constitutional constructionist thought. There are three separate branches of american democratic government that ideally (though rarely in reality) balance each other. It is in appropriate and abusive to the system for one branch to acquiescent or absorb prescribed responsibility. In this imaginary system, all power is separate but equal in function. That is how I view gender roles and the priesthood in the Church. There are other impacts that carry over into roles and gender if this thought experiment is applied. But I think that I've said too much already.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just found your blog through Michael Olsen, and I really enjoyed this post! I like your idea that community and mutual dependence can explain the reason behind our different but equal roles. And about your roommate's idea that motherhood is physical while the priesthood is spiritual--I would point out that any priesthood ordinance requires the presence of two physical bodies, provided by women. Also, there are many males who are born physically unable to hold the priesthood--whether through disability, early death, or even by being born at a time when the priesthood was not on the earth. There are very physical elements to the priesthood, just as there are spiritual elements to motherhood (and by motherhood I mean biological motherhood). Women hold the power to determine what kind of families children are born into. A spiritually discerning woman will know that it is best to bring children into a family blessed by righteous parents who have been sealed. And it is only when a biological mother has chosen something other than this best option that a child needs a priesthood holder to seal him to his parents. So I like to think that our "priestesshood" is our stewardship over the ordinances of birth, and men's priesthood is comprised of their stewardship over the ordinances of rebirth (baptism, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I can appreciate this post. "Different but equal" is something I've preached (very quietly, within my own home, for fear of feminists) for a long time. I've never understood what is wrong with that. Maybe this is just my view, but when I was a kid, it seemed society's emphasis was on celebrating differences (something that was admittedly hard for me as a kid). Now it feels like it has shifted toward making sure everyone is capable of doing what the other person can do. I feel that those are two conflicting ideas. "Yay! We're different! And that's good, as long as we can also be the same!"

    ReplyDelete
  9. I liked this. Thanks for your thoughts Emily. I too am not sure where I stand on this issue and have not come out to say anything. I personally feel that we will know what we don't know when the time is right. I LOVED Elder Holland's talk and paired with many others feels that the brethren answered the pleas of many without giving a timetable - it is not of men to give a timetable for something to happen. In other news, I did love that sisters gave two of the closing prayers at conference. That was a wonderful thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting post! I enjoyed reading it. There are a few things I wanted to address:

    You wrote that you were bemused about my telling men who shrug off priesthood as busywork that they don't understand it, and my telling women that the duties of the priesthood aren't as involved as they think. Here's what I meant: the priesthood is the power of God. Period. There are duties associated with it, yes. But there aren't very many, unless you have a heavy duty calling. So men describing "the priesthood" as busywork bothers me. It isn't. It's the power of God. And when women say that they would be too busy to fulfill the priesthood *duties*, I have a hard time believing it. It's more or less the duties of a member of the Church. I hope that makes more sense.

    So it seems like one of your main concerns is that by ordaining women to the priesthood, we would become independent to the point we that would sort of take over, rendering the men unnecessary. I think that's a valid concern, but I'm not sure it would happen. Priesthood authority is given by those who have the proper keys, and, at this moment, that would be the male leaders of the Church. Suddenly being ordained to the priesthood wouldn't mean that we wouldn't have to listen to our leaders. And holding the priesthood allows you to serve others, but not yourself; we would still be in need of one another's help. And we would always need one another's help anyway, because everyone has different strengths, and we all experience different trials in our lives.

    Speaking of which, the Ordain Women movement is about raising awareness that there are some women interested in holding the priesthood, and that we would like the leadership to consider praying about it and seeking further light and knowledge on the matter. You bring up a good point that some women aren't interested, and that it may not be the right time. But some of us are interested and are ready, and we at least want the Brethren to be thinking about it.


    ReplyDelete
  11. Women have in the past been excommunicated for advocating the ideas of women needing or deserving the priesthood. Emily I appreciate the wisdom you display here in not infusing the false religion of feminism with the pure religion of Christ. Honestly today I look at this issue as well as Gay marriage and others as issues that Satan is using to lead away many of the elect. We were warned that this would happen and it saddens me to see so many church members in open or quiet rebellion against the church over these issues based on how they "feel". I get that many people feel conflicted, but we have all agreed to sustain our Prophet as just that, a Prophet, a seer, and a revelator. This kind of social advocacy is in my mind very akin to rebellion against God. While I respect everyones right to sincerely seek after light and truth, I do not feel that this proto feminist movement in the church is about that at all. It is like Satans quest to usurp the power of God, powers which can only be handled and maintained by the principles of righteousness. People I know are leaving the church because they cannot reconcile themselves with the church's stand on gay marriage, so this issue has already been and will likely to continue to be just such an issue. I see this as so symptomatic of the problems we face as a church today, that Satan is having increasing success in sowing discord and disunity within our ranks through the guise of false equality and equal rights for all. Those ideas directly contradict the teachings of our Heavenly Father which delineate separate and distinct roles for Men and Women that are tied up in our eternal salvation. As a people we risk incurring the wrath of God by trying to force Him to accept our views and I think the church needs to be called to repentance sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hyrum: calm down.

    Emily: Thank you for being respectful of Andria in response to her post. You bring up some good points and keep an open mind. This is the kind of discussion we need to keep having for us to progress.

    Hyrum: Now, back to you, my brother in the gospel. First off, I respect your commitment to God and to His Church. It's good that you desire to follow the path of Jesus Christ and not be swayed from it. The key point that you fail to understand in all of Mormon feminism is that we're not seeking to change God's will, only to seek it. Many, many feminists have had personal spiritual experiences that have led them to believe what they believe, and you and I have no right to tell them that their personal revelation was false. If it was, God will help them understand the truth in His own time and His own way. Mormon feminists feel that there are many current practices and teachings of the Church that have strayed from the path of Christ, and plead as those who have been mistreated for generations for their Shepherd to bring them comfort. That comfort may not come in the way we expect, but I can assure you that closed-minded remarks branding all of feminism as false religion and Satanic will never bring comfort to those who stand in need of it.

    Hyrum, please, as a follower of Christ, open your heart to your sisters and brothers who are honestly hurting and diligently seeking for help. While there may be some who claim to be feminists but who are simply seeking to rebel, true feminism is about being willing to mourn with those that mourn, comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and bear one another's burdens. Mormon feminists don't want to start their own religion; they want to call down the powers of Heaven to establish true religion here on Earth. Church doctrine has changed in the past as a result of people like Andria (and Emily!) who took the time to consider if things might not be as they should be, and God answered their prayers and questions when it was time.

    So you don't have to agree with feminism, or even believe that any of its goals will be achieved. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water; feminists are children of God, too. And as far as I can tell, most of them are honest seekers of truth, not Satanic seekers of power.

    ReplyDelete