Mormon Feminism

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    1/8

    M o rm o n W o m e n 's F o r u mVOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 SUMMER 1995AN LDS FEMINIST QUARTERLY ~

    KSSUES KN CONTEMPORARYMORMON FEMKNKSM

    LYNN MATTHEWS ANDERSON

    Editor's note: T he fo llo win g w as p re se nte d on 7 Apri11995 at th eMormon S tu die s C on fe ren ce s po nso red b y th e U nive rsity o f N ottin g-ham, Nottingham, U K _WHEN I SPEAK of Mormon feminism today, I am speakingspecifically of the concerns of mostly North American, Eng-lish-speaking women who tend to be middle class, There aremany different kinds of feminism, and there has always beensomething of a gap between the concerns of what can becalled first-world feminism and third-world feminism. Third-world feminism concerns itself largelywith basic human living conditions inwhich women (and children) findthemselves and seeks redress for eco-nomic and political injustices associ-ated with gender and poverty. For thepurposes of my paper today, however,I am going to focus strictly on middle-class concerns which at least on thesurface appear to have little if anythingto do with issues of poverty or secularpolitical empowerment.

    When I use the term "Mormon

    own selfless will that we become gods ourselves-in order tocomprehend the significance of the questions of a Mother inHeaven and women and priesthood authority.

    In the late 20th-century Mormon church, all worthymales from age 12 and older are ordained to various officesin a lay priesthood that provides the governing structure ofthe church. Although Mormons view priesthood as themeans by which God empowers human beings to ministerto one another, Mormon priesthood carries with it an addi-tional aspect: it is the means by which men are to become

    like God. But for however clear Mor-mon scriptures are about men's ulti-mate destiny, women's place in Mor-mon theology is fraught withuncertainty and ambiguity.' This is notonly because Mormon scripture is castin androcentric language-that is to saythat the scriptures talk about human-kind's ultimate destiny in terms thatrelate primarily to males and not fe-males-but also in the sense that ourreligious rituals are also centeredaround male worship activities.

    Nowhere is the ambiguity and uncertainty aboutwomen's eternal destiny more evident nor more poignantthan in the consideration of the Mormon doctrine of aMother in Heaven. As far as we know, the doctrine was firstenunciated in a hymn written by a prominent 19th-centuryMormon woman, Eliza R. Snow, who claimed that shelearned it from the prophet Joseph Smith. Numerouschurch authorities in both the 19th and 20th centuries pub-licly endorsed the doctrine; the most authoritative confirma-tion was an official statement of the First Presidency in 1909:"All men and women are in the similitude of the universalFather and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughtersof Deity." 2

    Wom en's p lacein Morm on th eo lo gy

    is fra ug ht w ithu nce rta in ty a ndambiguity.

    feminist" among non-Mormons, I nearly always encountersuch comments as, "Isn't that something of an oxymoron?"When I use the term among Mormons, I nearly always haveto explain that being a Mormon feminist does not necessar-ily mean that one is lobbying for women to be ordained tothe Mormon priesthood, although my paper today will likelydo nothing to dispel that myth.

    Possibly the most problematic aspect of Mormonism forthe Judeo-Christian world to accept is its radical anthropo-morphizing of deity-that is, Mormons believe that humanbeings and God are literally the same species. It is absolutelyessential to understand these two points-that Mormons be-lieve God is a glorified human being, and that it is God's

    1

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    2/8

    OurH eavenly M otherc o-crea ted u s, b utto a ll a pp ea ran ce s

    However, the doctrine has not been canonized nor ex-panded beyond the vaguest of inferences-that there simply"is" a Mother in Heaven. Instead, speculation has filled thevoid of information. Some believe that knowledge of theMother is withheld because with it we would then have tograpple with the issue of polygyny-not just the polygamouspast of our pioneer ancestors, but with the uncertain specterof polygyny in heaven. Indeed, those who accept heavenlypolygyny as a given are not shy aboutquestioning whether we have morethan one mother in heaven. In concertwith this, some people, including sev-eral notable past Mormon leaders,have promulgated the idea that thecreation of spirit offspring is preciselyanalogous to the creation of humanbodies. Such unbridled flights of fancyhave led some women to wonderwhether "heaven" will be an unendingseries of pregnancies; others worry thatif the sperm-to-ovum ratio in the here-after parallels what it is on earth, an ex-alted man would need to have literallythousands of polygamous wives to populate even one worldsuch as ours.

    These are disquieting thoughts. And, of course, a fairnumber of members, particularly those living outside of theUnited States and Canada, wonder if Mother in Heaven isreally church doctrine at all. Not only is the Mother notworshiped, She is not discussed, sung about, nor includedin the general church curriculum. She is not mentionedeven when it should be natural to in-clude Her. For example, I have readand heard many talks mentioningwhat a painful sacrifice it was for theFather to have seen the sufferings ofHis son Jesus. Wasn't this a painfulsacrifice for Jesus' Heavenly Mother aswell?

    Most Mormons don't pray to Her,particularly now that such prayer toHer has been officially proscribed onthe grounds that, unsurprisingly, there is no scriptural prece-dent for doing so." We do not know Her name, and mostMormons do not believe that revelation can come from Her.Many believe that knowledge about Her is purely tangentialto our salvation.

    "Maternal deism" best describes our Heavenly Mother'srelationship to us here in mortality. She co-created us, butto all appearances has since left us alone. Of all ironies, thismust be the most excruciating. Mormon women are con-stantly told that women are nurturers by nature, but our

    Heavenly Mother-ostensibly what all worthy Mormonwomen are destined to become-is not on the scene to pro-vide nurturing to her mortal children during the crucial testphase of our development. What kind of a mother cannotspeak to her children, nor be spoken to? And is this whatawaits women hereafter?

    The thought of an aloof, distant or otherwise occupiedMother has been so painful to some Mormons that they

    have diligently searched for ways to"prove" that She has, in fact, been ac-tively involved in this sphere. Somehave postulated that the Mother is theHoly Ghost-an idea that does not sitwell with those convinced that theGodhead must mirror the all-malepriesthood presidencies of our day."Others believe that when the scrip-tures speak of "God," they are speak-ing of both the Father and the Motheras a single unit, and that the title "Fa-ther" is to be read in the same generic,inclusive way that "men" is used attimes to mean females as well as males.

    Itrequires a very long stretch to bridge the gulf between whatvery little is actually known and what is so heartfeelingly de-sired.

    The crucial question for most Mormon feminists, then, iswhether the anthropomorphic Mormon God is a divinecouple-a dyad composed of both a Father and a Mother, co-equal in might, majesty and power; or is the Mother simplyGod's wife or one of His wives, a subordinated consort lack-

    ing authority in and responsibility forthe temporal salvation of her children?Is the Mother a passive on-looker oran active participant in what Mormonscriptures call God's work and glory?In fine, does our Mother hold and ac-tively exercise the priesthood, whichMormon apostle Bruce R. McConkiedefined as "the power and authority ofDeity by which all things exist; bywhich they are created, governed, and

    controlled; by which the universe and worlds without num-ber have come rolling into existence; by which the great planof creation, redemption, and exaltation operates throughoutirnrnensiry'T'

    IfMormon women are to take their cues from what theyexperience and are taught through the auspices of thechurch, our future appears to be one of silence and obscu-rity. As it stands, what we do know about being exalted is, asI mentioned before, virtually 100 percent male-oriented.Our scriptures speak of male deity creating this world and

    has since left usalone.

    What kind of amother cannot speak to

    her children, nor bespoken to?

    2

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    3/8

    thus we believe that exalted men will build worlds and ruleover them. We know from experience that we pray to a maleGod and thus infer that male gods will be prayed to. Con-sider, too, the Mormon temple ceremony called the endow-ment. This is a dramatic reenactment of the creation of theworld and a highly literalistic portrayal of the events sur-rounding the Fall of Adam and Eve and their being cast outof Eden. God the Father is depicted as orchestrating all theevents from the celestial realm. Yet He is seen time andagain all alone in the heavenly courts; the Mother is no-where to be seen, not even as a silent onlooker to the pivotalevents leading up to Her children's mortal existence.

    Moreover, in the endowment, following the fall, Eve be-comes nothing more than a passive, silent companion.Adam takes the lead, becoming a mediator between her andGod. The wording of other parts of thetemple ceremony raise other ques-tions-for example, what does it meanthat women are destined to become"queens and priestesses unto theirhusbands," although their husbandsare going to be "kings and priests untoGod"?

    The fallen motif of a dominant-sub-missive, unequal status relationship isheld up as a model for male-female re-lations in the Mormon Church as intraditional Christendom. Ironically,even though in the temple Mormonwomen wear the same robes of thepriesthood and say the very same ex-plicitly priesthood-related words thatmen do in order to enter the celestialroom at the final stage of the endow-

    and w om en 'sexperiences in churchare so differen t as to

    lead one to th inkwe belong to twoch urch es, o ne fo rwomen and one

    for m en.

    ment ceremony, the significance of women's doing so isnever discussed in or out of the temple, and of late has beenactively downplayed. If temple-endowed Mormon womendo hold the priesthood, most are completely unaware of thefact."

    There are parallels to the division between laity and clergyand the situation that women and men experience in theMormon Church; there are also some interesting parallelsbetween our religious experience and that of orthodox Juda-ism, where men's and women's spheres of worship and ofritual are very much divided.

    Men's and women's experiences in church are so differ-ent as to lead one to think we belong to two churches, onefor women and one for men, rather than to one churchheaded by Christ Jesus. It is not particularly surprising thatthis should be so, in that church authorities have historicallyheld a highly dichotomized view of the sexes. This view isexemplified by Elder Boyd K. Packer's 1977 assertion that

    There are basic things that a man needs that awoman does not need. There are things that a manfeels that a woman never does feel. There are basicthings that a woman needs that a man never needs,and there are things that a woman feels that a mannever feels, nor should he. These differences makewomen, in basic needs, literally opposite from men.?

    Apart from certain very specific biological constraints, it ishard to imagine that members of the same species would nothold most basic needs in common, and indeed Elder Packerdoes not give any specific examples to back up his assertions.But because many church leaders make such a radical differ-entiation between women and men, many Mormonwomen, younger ones in particular, frequently feel pigeon-

    holed and stereotyped, forced into amold or a definition of "womanhood"that does not reflect the reality of theirlives as individuals. Unfortunately,women who do not fit the Procrusteanbed that male leaders perceive and de-fine as "womanhood" are often sum-marily dismissed as not being "true

    Men's

    "omen.Elder Packer is also on record as

    stating that it is the goal of feminists todestroy all distinctions between thesexes.f Yet, on the contrary, feminists-at least all the Mormon feminists Ihave ever met--certainly acknowledgethe gross biological distinctions be-tween women and men. What I as afeminist reject is when biological dis-tinctions are used to justify unequal

    treatment. Indeed, the facts of biological maternity havebeen historically used to deny women property rights, suf-frage, equal opportunities for education and employment,fair compensation and equal standing under the law.

    I believe leaders' erroneous views hamper their ability torelate to and work well with women. It doesn't help thatmost of the top leadership have very little recent (if any) ex-perience in working with women as peers in the day-to-dayworld. They are surrounded by men, they meet with men:the women they see are in very confined roles and circum-stances-the wife of a particular stake president, the motherof the children of a particular church leader, and so forth.Even when they are confronted with exceptional women,there is abundant rhetorical evidence to show that leaderstend to focus on the stereotypical maternal aspects of evenan exceptional woman's achievements, rather than what shehas done to stand out.

    Until male leaders come to realize that women are more

    3

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    4/8

    Our relationship w ithGod is that of a

    fa ther alone w ith hisc hild ren -a sin gle-p ar en t h ou seho ld _

    Sex-based s truc tur ingsends the clear

    message that men aremo re impor ta nt to th echurch than w omen.

    than just potential or real mothers, just as men are morethan just potential or real fathers (or priesthood holders)-until the truth becomes evident to them that women are fullhuman beings with the same kinds of aspirations, intelli-gence, talents and capacities as men-male leaders will con-tinue to ignore the scriptural, historical, sociological,organizational, psychological and other evidence that doesnot support the status quo.

    A monolithic view of women (andof our Mother) is not only damagingto real, live women and men, but alsolimits the church's ability to avail itselfof the full potential of all of its mem-bers. The problem is not with the ideathat the most noble and glorious call-ing for women is to be mothers. (I ama mother, and I believe it is a nobleand glorious calling.) The problem ismultifold: for one thing, there is nocorresponding glorification of the roleof fathers in our church culture; for an-other, there is a problem of how men growing up in a par-ticular culture have chosen (consciously or unconsciously) todefine motherhood and womanhood. As envisioned bymale church authorities, our Mother occupies Herself withidealized, traditional womanly tasks. But the stereotypical,Victorianesque icon of the stay-at-home mother-somethingwhich is not accessible to women throughout the world, noteven as an ideal-does not reflect the reality of most women'slives, nor does it come close to defining or encompassing theworthy aspirations of numberless women.

    Several ironies have not escaped en-tirely unnoticed in this. First of all, theideal Mormon family is authoritativelydefined as consisting of a father and amother and their children. Yet our re-lationship with God is that of a fatheralone with his children-a single-par-ent household.

    Second, the argument that God theFather is completely sufficient to re-spond to the emotional and spiritualneeds of all His children renders ma-ternal nurturance irrelevant, furtherundercutting the ideal two-parent model.

    Third, while there is no question that the Father doesnurture us, it is obvious from both our rhetoric and practicethat this particular lesson has not been divined by Mormon-ism in general-namely, that males can naturally nurture,too, and that to do so is a principal role of a god. But like therest of the world, we have divided labor roles, following tra-ditional Christendom's insistence on interpreting God's

    4

    words to the fallen Adam and Eve as some kind of mandateto arbitrarily divide sex roles into public and private, maleand female, rather than interpreting these same words asGod's description of what life in a fallen world would belike-in other words, as something to be overcome, not per-petuated.

    Some have asserted that the priesthood has been given tomen (and only men) to help them overcome the obstacles to

    intimacy, nurture, service and love,and to help them become Christ-like,with the corollary argument thatwomen don't need priesthood becausethey are "naturally endowed" withthese virtues, naturally more spiritualthan men.

    The problem with categorical assig-nations based on sex-that men by vir-tue or necessity of being male holdpriesthood and that women by virtueor necessity of being female do not-isthat such categories ignore the needs

    and capacities of huge numbers of individuals who simplydo not fit the categorical descriptions. There are manywomen who are not naturally possessed of those Christlikeattributes which holding priesthood ostensibly teaches men.Why would not such women benefit from the" gentle com-pulsion" of the priesthood? God, after all, looks upon usand treats us as individuals, not as members of any particu-lar category.

    Indeed, how else can women come to fully emulate JesusChrist if we are not given the opportunity to learn to exercise

    His power? This leads to a much morebasic question: Is it a woman' destinyto become like Christ? Is this some-thing that is realistic for her to set hersights on, for her to expend her effortsand energies on? Our lesson manualssay that it is, indeed, our place and ourduty to emulate the Christ, but how farcan we extrapolate from this? This con-sideration is central to Mormon femi-. ,rusts concerns.

    While the categorical restricting ofcertain necessary positions only to

    those holding the priesthood may not be a problem in Utahor other places with a large Mormon population (particularlyin active wards with more than enough people to fill roughly200 job slots), it has had a disastrous effect on the quality oflife for many LOS families in the "hinterlands." It shouldsay something to us that Mormon men spend less time do-ing homework and having talks with their children than donon-Mormon rnenl? Mormon men are burdened with mul-

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    5/8

    Count lessopportunit ies to servehave died w aiting formen to dec id e ma tte rs

    best decided by thewomen who wouldhave done the w ork.

    tiple callings, taking them away from their families night af-ter night, weekend after weekend. If the church really valuesfatherhood, should it not do everything in its power to keepfathers at home as much as possible? It makes utterly nosense not to use women in areas where they outnumber themen eight to one or more (especially if the women are nolonger actively rearing children or never have had childrento rear).

    The same sex-based structuring unintentionally sends theclear message that men are more important to the churchthan women. For example, what is communicated whenchurch authorities say that women are and should be lead-ers, yet current policy excludes women leaders from leader-ship meetings, or when all the top-down-directed efforts toreclaim less-active members in the North American North-east Area focus entirely on potential or actual male priest-hood holders, with no correspondingeffort or energy whatsoever directed to-wards reactivating women.I?

    Men on the general level are mak-ing decisions for and about womenwith very little and often no input fromwomen-not even from the womencalled as general auxiliary leaders. Thislack of input at the general level is re-peated at every level. Women all overthe church, regardless of their "politi-cal" persuasion, are telling the samestories of having their views and inputoverlooked, ignored or even deni-grated.'! In practical terms, the trans-formation of the church's women'sorganization, the Relief Society, from an independent, self-fi-nanced, female-led partner with the priesthood organizationto simply another correlated auxiliary with a de facto leader-ship of men has meant that many worthy projects and ideashave been killed or hobbled because women have had to askmen for permission {and sometimes for money} to rendersome kinds of service. Countless opportunities to serve havedied waiting for men to decide matters best decided by thewomen who would have done the work.

    Recently, the Church of England was torn asunder overthe issue of women's ordination. One of the most specificconsiderations was whether a woman priest could ade-quately represent Christ, which ties back to the previousquestion of whether it can be a woman's destiny to becomelike Christ. That question hinges on whether or not thesalvific Christ transcends or is rather defined by His male-ness. The conservative position asserts the latter; thus, asChrist was a man, those who execute the priestly offices inChrist's stead must be men. Some have asserted, most nota-bly Pope John Paul II in recent times, that Jesus' having cho-

    sen only male apostles is meant to serve as a procedural blue-print for all time. The pope's argument that Jesus was" per-fectly free" to choose women, despite the enormous culturaland social prejudice against women in first-century Judea, isdocetism of the worst sort.'! Although Mormons have notgenerally used this kind of argument much, the late Presi-dent Howard W. Hunter may have been alluding to it whenasked by the Los An ge le s T im e s about the possibility of or-daining women to priesthood. President Hunter replied:"At the present time there isn't an avenue of ever changing.It's too well defined by revelation, by Scripture. And we fol-low strictly the scriptural passageway in matters of that kind.I see nothing that will lead to a change of direction at thepresent time-or in the future."!3

    Was this God speaking, or simply Howard W. Huntervoicing an opinion? Yet for many Mormons, this is a moot

    question. If there is explicit revelationabout or interdiction of women's ordi-nation in Mormon and biblical scrip-ture, I have not been able to find it.Indeed, biblical references to Deborah,Huldah, Phoebe the deacon and so onlink women to priesthood-like officesand prerogatives. Perhaps we need toconsider, as more and more informa-tion comes to light about the practicesof the first-century Christian churchand women's place and roles therein,just how closely we approximate "thesame organization that existed in theprimitive church" (Sixth Article ofFaith).

    But we needn't look back so far to find good reason toquestion current policy. Even I can remember being taughtin church that although women cannot exercise the priest-hood, they nonetheless hold it "jointly with their husbands."In retrospect this seems analogous to a woman holding avalid driver's license while living in Saudi Arabia, wherewomen are not permitted to drive. I also remember discus-sions in religion classes at BYU about an order called the"patriarchal priesthood" into which temple-endowed, mar-ried women enter with their husbands. Again, this is not anactive exercising of priesthood on the part of temple-en-dowed married women. However, "fundamentalist" Mor-mons-those who persist in practicing polygamy to thisday-point to early church leaders' teachings about this "pa-triarchal priesthood" to justify not just the taking of morethan one wife, but also for women performing blessings ofcomfort and healing, tasks which are now male-only priest-hood tasks in the monogamous mainstream church.

    Such teachings, becoming less and less commonlyknown as the church grows larger and larger and its teach-

    5

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    6/8

    T he c hu rch 'sow n stud ies havesh ow n th at virtua llya ll w om en in th ec hu rch d esire to bemore in v olv ed indec is io n making .

    a t issue is howch ild re n, g irls in

    p artic ula r, c om e toview th em selves a ndth eir re la tiv e v alu e

    as members o fth e c hu rc h.

    ings become more and more homogenized and condensed,make it increasingly difficult to ascertain anyone doctrine'slegitimacy, historicity or applicability to current policies andpractices. This difficulty in some sense seems particularlyironic in light of some recent official backpedaling awayfrom what was once touted as the "glo-rious hallmark of the restoration," i.e.,explicit doctrinal revelation from God(as opposed to "administrative revela-tion"). Such backpedaling has led meto wonder if this verse from the Bookof Mormon might apply to us in thechurch: "Woe to those who say, wehave received the word of God, and weneed no more of the word of God, forwe have enough! ... from them thatshall say, We have enough, from themshall be taken away even that whichthey have" (2 Nephi 28:29-30).

    Many are quick to point out that itis only a relative handful of women(and men) who are questioning the status quo. I am re-minded, however, during this, the 75th anniversary of thepassage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States, which granted women the right to vote, thatit was a relative handful of women who met at Seneca Falls,New York, in 1848, whose efforts led to many laws that ame-liorated women's legal standing, eventually culminating inthe passage of the 19th amendment.Yet regardless of their "political" per-suasion, the church's own studies haveshown that virtually all women in thechurch desire to be more involved inthe decision-making councils of thechurch at all levels. Elder Russell Bal-lard, a current apostle, recently re-sponded to this issue by encouragingm~e leaders and the local and stakelevels to be sure to include women'sinput in their councils.l" However,there is still no decision-making coun-cil at the general level in which womenare invited to participate.

    Finally, sex-linked priesthood fos-ters a basic inequality that is contraryto the egalitarian model found in theBook of Mormon-one in which the leader is no better thanthe follower. While we hear and say, for example, that anursery worker is as important in her/his work as a bishop,stake president, etc., we accord far greater honor to priest-hood offices than we do to non-priesthood offices, notwith-standing that all offices and callings in the church are

    6

    essential to its proper function. We claim the various courte-sies are simply tokens of our respect for the office of thepriesthood. But there is no meaningful way to divorce an of-fice from the person called to that office. Children in particu-lar do not see an office as the recipient of respect; rather,

    they see human men and boys beinghonored, deferred to and given privi-leges. When this occurs in the name of"respecting the priesthood," we seemto wind up doing exactly the oppositeof our stated intentions: we dishonorthe priesthood and we show disrespectto God by creating a system that makesus all unequal.

    There is no doubt in girls' minds, atleast, that "men are more importantthan women in the church." Again, itis not that the work traditionally as-signed to women isn't just as vital tothe proper function of the church, justas the laity's work is in many ways as

    important as that of the professional clergy, but women'swork is less visible, considered "auxiliary" and not accordedvisible tokens of respect and honor. This is not simply amatter of stroking the egos of adult women. What is at issueis how children, girls in particular, come to view themselvesand their relative value as members of the church.

    Girls' feelings of being less important than boys are exac-erbated when, at age 12, the boys be-come part of the formal power struc-ture of the church by being ordainedas deacons. There is no equivalent ex-perience for a 12-year-old girl-no con-crete tasks for her to perform in herward, no expectations tor her to pro-gress through a visible course ofgreater responsibility. Girls constantlyread in the church's youth magazineand hear church leaders speak in glow-ing terms about what an enormousblessing and privilege it is for youngmen to hold the priesthood. Whatthoughtful 11-year-old girl is not goingto feel in some way cheated when sheturns 12 and cannot be ordained? (Or

    What is

    at the very least wonder what is wrongwith her that she cannot be ordained.) And, of course, thechurch sends no message that she is expected to seriouslyprepare for the great Rite of Passage-full-time missionaryservice.

    According to Elder Carlos E. Asay, more young womenthan young men are inactive in nine out of 10 stakes in Eng-

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    7/8

    God gives as muchlig ht and know ledgeas people can handlew ithin their cultural

    paradigms.

    lish-speaking North America.!' Some research has suggestedthat many older girls feel that the church doesn't see them asimportant in any way other than as potential wives for youngmen and doesn't value them for the same kinds of gifts andtalents they-as well as young men-might bring to thechurch. Little wonder that when asked, Mormon girls, justas girls in the larger society, say that they would like to beboys. Virtually no boys want to be girls.

    Perhaps most serious of all is that a girl's questions aboutthese differences in roles for boys and girls go unanswered.When I was 12, I marched into my bishop's office and de-manded that he make me a deacon, assuring him that Iwould be a much better deacon than those rowdy boys. Hecouldn't answer my questions about why I couldn't be or-dained, nor did God's church have any authoritative expla-nation for excluding women. I am grateful that after mybishop's initial guffaw, he took me se-riously. Yet more than a quarter-cen-tury later, I still have the same unan-swered questions. (But now that I'molder, these questions are no longercute or funny in the eyes of those inaurhoritv.)"

    Asking for clarification, for greaterlight, on difficult subjects that affectthe well-being of a significant percent-age of saints has nothing whatsoever todo with trying to "soften the penaltiesfor sin." If asking our leaders to askGod questions which have a broad-ranging impact on the whole ofChrist's church is somehow inappropriate, then what in theworld is the point of having modern prophets at all?

    In summary, the question of ordaining women to priest-hood is much more than whether or not a 12-year-old girlshould be permitted to distribute the sacrament as do 12-year-old boys, although this in and of itself is not a trivialconcern. What is at stake is the knowledge of womankind'seternal potential-what women are to become hereafter andwhat our relational status is to men, to our children, to theuniverse at large.

    I believe God gives as much light and knowledge as peo-ple can handle within their cultural paradigms. I do not be-lieve that God approves of sexism any more than Godapproves of any other form of oppression that limits thegrowth and potential of any of God's children. To end on anoptimistic note, it seems to me that despite the long way weMormons have to go to overcome gender bias and prejudice,we are nonetheless seeing a prelude to significant transfer-mation. A shift is occurring in the official rhetoric. Studieshave shown that whereas once church leaders unanimouslyupheld the patriarchal model of the husband-as-head-of-

    household and as the ultimate decision-maker, more andmore one is hearing and reading of marriage portrayed as apartnership of equals, with inspiration and pragmatic con-siderations taking precedence over gender as to who has theultimate say-so in any given decision.

    This equal partnership model, antithetical by definitionto what has been traditionally defined as the patriarchal order, gives me hope that the larger reality may yet be realized-that we worship a God who is both our Father and ourMother, with neither subordinated to the other; whose com-plementariness is based on their own unique individualcharacteristics, rather than on gender-based, arbitrarily imposed roles.

    I fully believe knowledge about our Mother is one othose "great and important things" which God has yet to reveal (per our Ninth Article of Faith). Until our Mother is re

    vealed as God-with-the-Father to thosegoverning the church, and untilwomen's full humanity is compre-hended and acknowledged, our worldand the church will continue to sufferthe deleterious consequences of millennia of sexism and oppression. Suchconsequences for the church rangefrom an increase in women's level onon-participation and disaffection tothe widespread incidence of depres-sion among American Mormonwomen and the persistence of attitudesand practices among LOS men thatcontribute to what ought not to exis

    among us-but nonetheless does-the denigration of womenand, as a consequence, an epidemic of wife-beating and domestic abuse.

    I do not presume to have specific solutions sufficient tosomehow lobby the brethren to implement them. Indeed,there may even be good reasons and pragmatic considera-tions that currently preclude women's ordination to priesthood. Perhaps doing so would inhibit the preaching of thegospel in lands where women do not enjoy the same level ostatus and freedom as do women in first-world countries.Yet, how unfortunate it is that there is no open discussion othese issues in Christ's restored church!

    Nevertheless, I can do what the daughters of Zelophehaddid (Numbers 27). They went to Moses and explained theirsituation and their feelings of being unjustly treated; Moseslistened, took their concerns to God, and as a result, thelaws of inheritance in ancient Israel were rewritten to include women. If the daughters had remained silent, or iMoses had refused to listen, they and coundess generationsof women would have been dispossessed in Israel. So weMormon feminists try to make our experiences, our con

    Ielieve

    7

  • 8/2/2019 Mormon Feminism

    8/8

    cerns and our questions known to the leaders of Christ'schurch-not with the idea that we have the complete solu-tion, i.e., "here's our agenda and we demand that you makethe changes we want"-but rather in the hope that ourleaders will turn to God and receive authoritative, divinely-

    NOT E S

    1 Lynn Matthews Anderson, "Toward a Feminist Interpreta-tion ofLDS Scripture," Dialogue: A Jo ur na l o f M orm on T ho ug ht,Vol. 27, No.2 (Summer 1994),185-203.

    2 Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, inBruce R. McConkie, M orm on D oc tr in e, 2nd ed., "Mother inHeaven" (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 516.

    3 Gordon B. Hinckley, "Cornerstones of Responsibility,"address, Regional Representatives Seminar, Salt Lake City,5 April 1991 , 3-4.

    4 See, for example, Janice Allred, "Toward a Mormon The-ology of God the Mother," Dialogue: A Journal of MormonThought , Vol. 27, No.2 (Summer 1994),15-39.

    5 Mormo n D o ctr in e, op. cit., "Priesthood," 594.6 D. Michael Quinn, "Mormon Women Have Held the

    Priesthood Since 1843," in W om en an d A uthority: Re-em ergingMormon Feminism, ed. Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City: Signa-ture Books, 1992), 365-409.

    7 Boyd K. Packer, "The Equal Rights Amendment," Ensign,March 1977, 7.

    8 Ibid.9 James T. Duke, "Cultural Continuity and Tension be-

    tween The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints andAmerican Society," Mormon Studies Conference, University ofNottingham (U.K.), 6 April 1995.

    10 Notes on message from Northeast Area Presidency toStake Presidents, 1993; in author's possession.

    11 Archived messages from "sister-share," an LDS women'selectronic mailing list, available from [email protected] also Meg Wheatley, "An Expanded Definition of Priest-hood? Some Present and Future Consequences," in Womena nd Au th or it y, op. cit., 151-165; Linda King Newell, "Gifts ofthe Spirit: Women's Share," in Sisters in S pir it: M orm onWomen in H istorical and C ultural Perspective, eds. MaureenUrsenbach Beecher and Lavina Fielding Anderson (Universityof Illinois, 1987), 111-150; and Jill Mulvey Derr, [anath RussellCannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Women of Cove-nant: The S tory of Relie f Society (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,1992).

    8

    revealed answers to take the place of human opinion, how-ever well-intentioned. Who will be moved upon to ask foranswers to our questions? As ever, I hope and pray it will bethe current prophet.

    12 "Pope Reaffirms Ban on Women Priests," B os to n G lo be ,10 May 1994.13 "Leader of Mormons Reaffirms Primacy of Church Teach-

    ings," L os A n ge le s Times, 22 October 1994.14 M. Russell Ballard, "Counseling with our Councils," E n -

    sign, May 1994, 24-26.15 Carlos E. Asay, address, Pittsburgh Regional Conference,

    24 October 1992.16 Abundant anecdotal evidence indicates that my experi-

    ence is not unique. See archived messages from "elwc-plus," anLDS electronic mailing list available from [email protected]. -

    mailto:[email protected]:[email protected].