Feminism is THE "F-word" to Mormons

My daughter is of the same value to me as my son. They are equal, although not the same.
I imagine this is how Heavenly Father view us, His children. This makes me an LDS feminist.

I recently wrote an article about my disgust for a group used a bunch of young girls dropping "f-bombs" to bring attention to their feminist organization, ideas, etc. I found the use of language by young people deplorable, but I understood their complaints.

I got few responses on an LDS Facebook page to my blog and they made me scratch my head. It was obvious that several had not even read the blog. They just saw the word "Feminism" and obviously shut down and gave into knee jerk reactions that many conservatives and, especially Mormons, seem to have.

One person wrote: "I don't think equality is as important as liberty..." (and then went on to say he wants more mercy than being treated as an equal sinner, which is fine from a spiritual standpoint, but we are talking about socially here). This person (a man) has obviously never dealt with the social inequalities women face. 

Another comment was: "A truly free people cannot be equal and a truly equal people cannot be free. If you are to look at the pre-mortal realm, what was Lucifer fighting for? On the flip side, what was the plan that we fought for? That should tell where our priorities lie." Basically, comparing women who believe they are worth the same, albeit in different ways, to Satan (because Satan wanted all the glory himself? I don't quite follow that line of thinking...). I was a bit offended.

Another comment stated that the group that created the video is also the kind of group that contributes to "gender confusion."

This led me to be confused. While I disagree with the tactics of the "f-bomb for Feminism" video, I agreed with the general premise and ideas they mentioned: focus on girls' brains, not how they look; teach boys they have no right to any girls body no matter what she's wearing; women deserve to be paid based on their qualifications.

In general, I think most LDS would agree with these ideas, as well. But because the word "feminism" is attached them, we just shut down and find a reason either not to listen or not support.

There are shades of feminism, whether you are LDS or not. But we need to learn to listen to what people are ACTUALLY saying and not cover our ears as soon as we hear "feminism." I know it's hard to agree with SOME things when there are feminists and feminists groups who promote ideas we may not agree with, like certain LGBT issues, pushing for LDS women to have the priesthood, etc. But that doesn't mean we cannot agree on some things that are labeled feminist. (In fact, I think most of things aren't even feminist, they are simply...humanist). It's like claiming you couldn't be a Republican because your favorite Congressman got caught with happy feet in a certain airport bathroom.

But we do it. And no one seems to have a problem with it because "feminism" is an F word to many LDS. If you haven't seen this video of Emma Watson addressing the UN about "feminism," you need to do yourself a favor and watch it. Now.

"Feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities," she said.

That's it. And I think that's something most LDS can get behind. Maybe you want to stay home and raise your children. Fabulous. But, maybe your neighbor does not or cannot. Should she not have the same right and opportunity to equal employment as a man? Should not your daughters be looked at as equal prospects for training and employment in the science and math fields? Shouldn't we judge the sisters we visit teach by their character and not their haircut? Would we, as LDS, have any problem fighting against female genital mutilation that takes place in some cultures? 

This might be small and minor, but something I've noticed: I do not get offered handshakes from male leaders in my congregation nearly as often as my husband (probably about half the time). Oftentimes, when I'm standing RIGHT next to him. Does this scream of social inequity? Not really. But why shouldn't I? Is my husband that much more important that HE warrants an "official" greeting, but I do not?

Or, maybe something closer to home: how about the women who are emotionally, physically, and financially abused by their husbands? Certainly, this happens in homes of every religion, including LDS (I've seen it) and it is worth being vocal against! It is worth an LDS person forgetting the stigma of the word "feminism" and standing up to say "That woman deserves the right to have more than a $100 allowance each month!" And "The mother of your children deserves more trust than you monitoring the mileage on her car and asking permission every time she goes somewhere!" And "Your children are YOUR children, too. Your wife should not have to BEG you to "babysit" them on the rare occasion she wants to go somewhere without them."

Latter-Day Saints, this kind of behavior against women is not what we, as LDS, believe is acceptable treatment of women. We need to stand up and say, "Your wife should have equal access money to get what she needs and the family needs." We need to say, "You CANNOT play video games all night long while your wife struggles to keep her head above water with the kids." We need to say, "You are partners. You are EQUAL."

This should not be unnatural for us. When people accuse the Church of sexism, I have often told them, "Men are held to the same sexual and moral standards as women. There is no different in standards between the sexes." True, women cannot have the priesthood and I am not arguing that they should because that is a doctrinal issue (but I do believe women could and should have more leadership within the Church without the priesthood; different topic for a different day). BUT, we as LDS should be able to vocally say, "I believe my mom, my sister, my wife, my daughter should have equal rights and opportunities as men and boys. They should not be reduced to the parts of their bodies, the way the look, etc." 

That is feminism and, while we don't have to take it as far as many do, I believe we should be able to comfortably say, "I'm Mormon and I'm a feminist because I believe women have EQUAL VALUE as men." We don't have to say that men and women are the same because we are not the same (thank goodness). But we can be feminist in the way that we believe women's intrinsic value, women's contributions, and women's potential has equal VALUE and deserves EQUAL opportunity to be considered and to grow as men's. 

And that's why I'll confidently say I am a feminist because:

• I believe women should be paid as equals of men for the time spent in the office (I understand women leave the workforce to have children and, except for leaves of absence, they should be paid the same).
• I believe women should not be reduced to the size of their booty, type of purse, hair type, waist size, etc.
• I believe women are responsible for their own actions. I also believe men are responsible for their actions towards women and no one should ever say "She was asking for it" when a woman is raped.
• I believe women to be incredibly capable leaders in whatever arena they choose to be in and no one should say "Real women stay home" or "real women go to work" or "real women have curves" or "real women work out" or whatever. Women should be themselves. Their best selves. And we should stop judging them/each other.
• I believe women have the right to question the status quo without being labeled "a radical feminist." 
• I believe women should be respected as human beings.
• I believe women should be honored, protected, and respected...the same as how men should be honored, protected, and respected.
• I will raise my daughter to be strong, opinionated, educated, and that she is NO LESS than her brother.

If you believe things like this (and others), you may be a feminist, too.

No Bombs for Feminism, Not Even Children's F-Bombs

I have lots of problems with this video clip. In fact, I hate this (and I don't "hate" much). And, yes, I see the irony that I use the word "hate" when this is an anti-hate group. Whatever.

I have very few problems with the premise of the clip: of course, we need to teach our boys that it doesn't matter what a girl is wearing, they have no "rights" to her body, women deserve equal pay for the time they are in the office, etc.

In the press release about the video where little girls drop f-bombs to prove a point, the company who produced it says this, "Asking the question, “What’s more offensive? A little girl saying f*ck or the sexist way society treats girls and women” these adorably articulate little ladies in sparkling tiaras turn the “princess in distress” stereotype on its head and contrast the F-word with words and statistics society should find shocking such as “pay inequality” and “rape.” 

And, in response, I will ask "What's more offensive? Exploiting these "articulate" little girls and asking them to drop f-bombs to prove a point or pretending it's for anything but increasing their revenues?" Because it certainly won't garner support for their cause from anyone who doesn't already support it. I mean, I support it (in theory) and I'm REALLY put off by this.

Don't get me wrong, I live in the world of little girls. I have a 5 year old daughter who WANTED to dress up like a princess for the last 4 years, despite my best efforts and much to my shagrin. 

I also live in a world where little girls are offered sexualized Halloween costumes (yes, as young as 4 and 5 years old). I live in a world where parents seem eager to get their kids to grow up quickly and, as a result, strip away their innocence. An innocence that seems bombarded even by the Disney channel.

I also understand the challenges of being a woman in our society. I was fired for being pregnant (basically). I've experienced obvious and subversive sexism in the workplace...and every place. I think women should be paid equally for the amount of time they are in the office. I think we should have better maternity policies. Etc, etc.

But do the creators of this video actually thing this helps the cause? Because it doesn't. Do they think the future of this cause is teaching our daughters to be crude, coarse, and rude? Because if that's the future of gender equality (which, granted may mean something different to them than it does to me), than I want very little to do with it.

It's embarrassing.

This video made me think of a quote that has seriously shaped that kind of woman I am and want to be: "The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined."

Call me old fashioned. But I've been that cut-throat, cursing, coarse woman. And I hated it; I didn't realize it, but I did. I was always stressed out. I worried about appearing weak, about appearing to be less than my male peers. And as someone who's identity relied on being strong, I didn't see any other way. Then I realized it just wasn't working. It wasn't working for me. Even before I became a mom, I realized that I am more ME, I am more WOMAN, I am more PERSUASIVE, I have more INFLUENCE when I am tender, kind, refined, and COMPASSIONATE. And it's not because I'm a push over (my parents and husband think I suffer from Oppositional Defiance Disorder; I probably do).

Be firm. Be opinionated. Be respectful. OMG, be civilized!

Would I wash my daughter's mouth out with soap if she used the f-bomb in support of equal pay for women? You betcha. Because all that does is degrade her as a person and certainly does not garner support for an important issue. You want to raise awareness and gain more support for women's issues? Than use Emma Watson's speech to the UN as an example.

Don't drop f-bombs for feminism. In fact, don't drop f-bombs at all! I'm trying to find a way for this blog not to turn into an etiquette and manners issue...but maybe that's what our society needs. Apparently we want our women coarse and hard. But now we want our children to be that way? And it's not just this video; there are thousands (millions?) of clips on the internet of children beating up kids (and adults), swearing, doing adult things, etc...and their a parents laugh. They approve. They encourage.

I hate hearing men or women speaking (and acting) in such a way. Why? Because it devalues them and what they're talking about. How can you take anyone seriously when they're all like "Eff that! Eff you!"? My reaction when I hear children using language like this? I cringe. I literally cringe. They use it because they've heard it. They've been exposed to ugliness. Children should not be exposed to ugliness and they should not be used as tools to spread such ugliness. These children should be taught better. They can BE better.

Other than getting children to do our dirty work in a dirty way, how else can we catalyze the changes that our world needs? I love this quote: “Be a Mother who is committed to loving her children into standing on higher ground than the environment surrounding them,” Marjorie Pay Hinckley.

And this isn't just for mothers. It's for anyone who deals with children. For any kind of mentor of any kind of developing person. Love children in ways that makes them want to be better than the world we live in. Then our boys won't ever say "Well, she asked for it." Husbands won't hit their wives, employers will want to do right by all their employees.

You can't f-bomb your way to that result. You just can't.

The Atonement Overcomes Motherly Anger

"Anger is not an expression of strength. It is an indication of one’s inability to control his thoughts, words, his emotions. Of course it is easy to get angry. When the weakness of anger takes over, the strength of reason leaves. Cultivate within yourselves the might power of self-discipline."-Gordon B. Hinckley.

Who could get angry at these cutie patooties?!

Hi. My name is Vanessa. I'm a wife. I'm a mom. And I get angry. 

Not "call-CPS!" angry. But definitely un-Christlike anger. And usually at the most Christlike beings I'm in contact with: my children.

I've been known to yell. I'm working on it. I've been known to scream occasionally. I'm working on it. I've been known to throw things (not in front of my kids...unless it was toys or clothes I'd begged them to pick up for days).

And I cry. I weep for this weakness I have not yet been strong enough to overcome. I apologize to my children and ask for their forgiveness and explain that mommy should not have yelled. I kneel down at my bedside and pray to my Father in Heaven who blessed me with these children and ask His forgiveness. Why do allow myself to rarely get angry with other people...often going to great lengths to try to understand their point of view, but start yelling at my kids after they continue to get down from the table and run around for the 10th time while we try to eat dinner as a family?

I have gotten better, though. What pushes me to be better and not just throw up my hands? Other than just trying to continually improve myself it is this: they yell and scream at each other and me now. It is embarrassing and humbling. As far as I can tell, it's too late for my 5 year old who has seen too little too late in my improvement with patience. Yesterday she SCREAMED at her brother for not joining in her celebration that both kids had buckled their seat belts before I had. Poor brother.

There is no part of parenting that is scarier or more humbling than realizing that your children are a mirror of you. The qualities or actions in my children that are most frustrating to me as a parent? Yeah, they got that from me. It's probably the same for you.

Bring in the "I'm a failure at life" ice cream.

Ok. Pity party over.

But here's the good news that I've realized. Some of their best qualities, they also get from me. Their compassion, their love of learning, their love of hugs and kisses, and their musicality.

And here's the really good part. I have wasted a lot of time wondering "Have I ruined my kids lives? Will they grow up screaming at whomever they get frustrated with? Will they ever be able to have jobs?! Are they going to end living in a van down by the river??!!" (bonus points if you catch the reference)

Here's what I realized: the Atonement of my Savior Jesus Christ is never more applicable than during parenthood. I try. I try and I try and I try. Sometimes I fail. But because of the Savior, that does not mean that I am doomed or my children doomed. I honestly, 100 percent try my best to be a good mother. And sometimes I lose my ish. Because of the atonement, though, that doesn't mean I am a bad mother and I haven't ruined my children. 

Realizing the atonement applies to parenting like any other aspect of life has taken tons of stress off me. I know I'm doing my best. My father in heaven knows I'm doing my best. My kids know I'm doing my best. We read our scriptures, we pray together, we learn together. Sometimes I screw up and I am weak when I need to be strong. But an infinitely loving Heavenly Father has given us his Son, so that's not necessarily a deal breaker.

Here's the bottom line: I know, I trust in the Atonement. So that as long as I keep trying, keep moving in the right direction, my children will not be punished for my shortcomings. They will be fine. 

Why do I tell you this? I once read an article by the National "Mom of the Year" (who I think was from Utah). Her article basically consisted of this: she admitted she used to be a yeller. She yelled at her kids a lot, until an incident that made her realize she had gone too far. Her older kids remember the "yelling mom," her younger kids never knew that mom. And that gave me hope. It gave me hope that I can change and my young children will some day forget yelling, angry mom.

I've always appreciated moms who kept it real. Who admitted they were exhausted, who admitted that being a mother sucks sometimes. It made me feel...NORMAL. So, while I try to be optimistic and happy, I'll always keep it real. So here it is. I get angry at my kids. I yell. But I'm working on it. If this is you, too, or you have some other struggle, let's work on it together and trust in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 

Doing that, you can know that everything will be alright.

The World's Hatred of Women

This post may be a little behind but it's one that I've been rolling over in my mind for a couple months now, since a particular event occurred.

The event to which I refer happened in May when a "virgin" shooter (isn't that a catchy name the media gave him?)  targeted women of sorority house at the University of California Santa Barbara. I was sickened to hear the specifics of how this man specifically targeted women for all the difficulties he perceived he had with the opposite sex during his short life (even shorter if you consider he probably wasn't physically sexually mature for more than 5-6 years). His hatred for these "sluts" (read: all women) was so intense he wanted to "punish them for not being attracted to me."

Sickened.

I was sickened for the lives of those who were directly impacted simply for being a woman. I was sickened to think about raising my children in a world where violence is an all-too-common response to frustration. I was sickened for my daughter who must grow up in a world where men EXPECT women to have sex with them and it is "weird" (or even "wicked") for them not to.

As an LDS woman, I have been reading, hearing, and discussing much on the role of women in the church (see my previous post about women and the priesthood), so my mind naturally tried to find some connection between this emotional story and what had been on my mind so much recently.

And here's what I came up with: as much as feminists (and those who oppose the church on whatever gender issue) try, they can never say the church hates women as much as the rest of the world does. Yes, I've seen people say the church hates women. But, why then, do I feel the best refuge for my daughter is within the fold of the church?

Because the gospel teaches the "why" of women; the divine reason for women. To lead His children back to Him. To serve, to love, to be pillars of the community, to study, to pray, to teach, to be mothers (and have mother hearts for those who are not mothers in this life), to be companions, and more.

The "why" of women in the world is to do whatever they want, to focus on oneself and just make yourself happy, sexual freedom, etc. In fact, there isn't really a "why" for women in the world...which is perhaps why there many problems. You cannot have a purpose without knowing why.

Men have come to think that it's ok to use women's sexual freedom for their own gratifications (of course, who are most women going to practice their freedom with?) and, so, have come to expect it, even when they have no right to. One night stands, children without commitment, etc. Men expect women to have sex with them...even if they don't really want to because that's what modern, Sex in the City, sexually freed women do.

Like this shooter. He expected sex. He expected women to be attracted to him. And when it didn't happen, he took his frustration out on them. Certainly this is not the fault of a woman or women, in general. And certainly almost everyone condemns his actions, but HOW did this happen? How is that we still battle the issue of rape and other domestic violence against women when, apparently, gender issues have made such "progress"?

It is a cultural failure. In a culture where an NFL player gets only two game suspension for beating a woman 1/3 his size into unconsciousness (his then fiance and now wife...don't even get me started) or you can get a longer sentence for playing online poker than sexual assault (at least in my state), what do we expect? Seriously, what do the stories on the news tell us about how the secular world values women?! In our increasingly secular culture, we treat women as something fun for a one-night stand, not a creature of intrinsic, divine value. Never is there a story about a woman giving up her time, talents, and energy to improve the world because, really, the world doesn't care about that. We care about sexy women. Successful women. We care about Kardashians (full disclosure, we have been known to watch an episode or two).

To me, THAT is a culture that hates women. Or at least one that does not regard them highly.

My hope lies in raising my daughter in an LDS culture where, it's true, she may never be bishop, but she will certainly know she's good for more than a good time or even a prestigious corporate career where she can be labeled "a successful woman." Some feminists may say, "But that's the subtle sexism that will keep women in the church down." Perhaps. But being a woman, a mother, a wife in the church is more than position of leadership. It just is more. It is a divine "why." And those who are part of the church can understand the "why" of women in the church is much more profound than the "why" of women that the world offers.

I'm not usually a "The world is evil and we're all doomed!" kind of person, but when I look at the way I feel valued as a woman in the church (even though I can't hold the priesthood) and the way the world values women, I cannot help but be extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise my daughter in the church.

Mormon Women and the Priesthood: My Thoughts

There is a lot of buzz in the world of Mormon feminism, which, to be honest, is not a world that actively engage in because I get really irritated by the way the discussion devolves into "that's why I left the church" and "it's such a cult" etc. And when I get irritated by things like this it affects me and my home life, so I've learned to partake sparingly; enough so I know kinda what's going on, but not enough to spend hours reading/responding to every single comment on a FB thread.

However, this is a topic that I have been pondering and quietly discussing with close family and it has consumed me enough to bring me out of my 3 year blogging hiatus (I've been busy blogging for businesses, building another business, and raising my kids). It's also something I've been thinking and pondering for a long time and I finally feel like I'm a place with a firm and thought-out enough opinion to share. And perhaps this is an opportunity for like-minded women who aren't looking for conflict to also think and ponder it.

Not that anyone has to read this or care, these are simply my thoughts that I'm hoping this will let me sleep at night once I get them out (I am very much a cathartic writer).

First I'll tell you my conclusion (italics) and then work backwards as to what has led me to it. I am not a scholar, researcher or even particularly well-read on the issue. I am a "lay Mormon woman," so to speak. Your average person who is interested in the issues of women, my daughter, and my sisters. But here we go:

As an LDS woman, I do not feel unvalued or oppressed by the LDS Church. However, one cannot deny that with only men in leadership positions of serious weight (ie discipline, making callings, leading large groups/areas), the church is very different than it would be with women mixed in there. You cannot look at the stand during General Conference and deny the strong patriarchal leadership in the church that may not have to be as it is. If I have an issue as a woman, I would want to talk to a woman with authority (even Relief Society presidents report to the male Bishop who report to the male Stake President, etc.); issues of rape, adultery, abortion, modesty, or whatever! A woman leader with authority would certainly have a different perspective that would change the organization of the church as a whole. 

I think that one day women will be given the priesthood. It may not be given to us any time soon or even in this life and I'm ok with that. I certainly do not believe that how the church is today is how it will be forever. That is one of the reasons I appreciate the questions being raised by this movement. Having said that, I do not identify as a part of the Ordain Women movement. It just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's the name, "Ordain Women"; it feels like we are demanding it. Like any calling, you do not lobby or run for it. The Lord gives it to you. That name/movement feels wrong to me (maybe it doesn't to you and that's totally fine).

Why do I think women will be granted the priesthood at some point? One reason is based on what goes on in the temple and the roles of women therein. The other is me operating under the premise of "all things must be fulfilled." We use this as an explanation for polygamy and I will use it for women having the priesthood. In the Old Testament we have record of female prophetesses and priestesses (which also commonly used in the church to describe women); I believe that will be restored in the future because how can any woman be a prophetess or priestess without the priesthood? I'm ok if the time is not now to have the priesthood restored to women because I have faith in the Lord's timing. I'll expand on this later on.

So what happened this week that made me want to really figure out what I think about women having the priesthood. 1) There was a lesson on the priesthood in Relief Society and I was SURE it would come up, so I prepared myself (it didn't come up)  2) We talked about Deborah from the Old Testament briefly in Sunday School which got me really thinking about some stuff that just didn't add up to me 3) Two "leaders" of the movement to ordain women to the priesthood were notified they would be undergoing a disciplinary court.

The first event (preparing to hear a lesson about the priesthood) had me on the defensive of women in the ordain movement because I KNEW I would hear that ONE comment I just simply cannot stand to hear again. You know that comment, "As a woman in the church, I don't want the priesthood. I have enough responsibilities, I do NOT want the priesthood, so I don't know why they are fighting for it" etc etc. OMGerrr. I took me a long time to figure out why this statement bothered me so much and I finally figured it out: it is so entirely disengenuous. Why? Because if you really believe what you say you believe about the priesthood, why wouldn't you want it if it was given to you? I mean, seriously, if we believe the priesthood is to act with the authority of God and President Monson declared tomorrow that he received revelation to start ordaining women to the priesthood, would we really say, "Ugh, that is sooooo much responsibility. I don't want it. No thanks." Um, no. That's ridiculous. If, when I did my visiting teaching to sisters in the ward, I could give a sister in need a blessing instead of calling her home teachers to do it, that would be a great thing and not an opportunity I think any righteous sister would turn down. So please, stop saying that.

The other is the idea that women don't need the priesthood is because we give birth/life, we are mothers. I used to buy into this idea. Until it was pointed out to me that the equivalent of motherhood is not the priesthood, it is fatherhood. Motherhood, fatherhood. Men also get the priesthood but women get...an endless supply of dirty diapers to change? (I joke, I joke). However, as I talked this over with my dad and he made this point, I said, "It's not like women can just spontaneously start creating life. Men have a part in that, too. We need men." And then he gently said, "Yes. And men also need women to exercise the priesthood." Point taken. Not sure if I'm totally sold on that one, but it feels a little bit better.

Gearing up for this RS lesson, I also was prepared to say that I appreciate the questions this movement has brought forth. Especially the idea of leadership in the church and tradition vs doctrine. Is it a big deal that a woman says a prayer in General Conference. Not really, not to me. But to bring attention to it and maybe contribute to that change is a wonderful thing; women should have a more visible presence in the leadership of the church. Nowhere does it say a woman can't say a prayer in General Conference. Just tradition. And that trickles down to callings women/men traditionally have. Certainly a woman should never be called to Elder's Quorum president, but why not have a female Sunday School president or male Primary president.Tradition. I appreciate the light this movement has brought to these issues because lack of female leadership in the church is one of the things that bothers me the most and I'm not even entirely convinced it has to do with the priesthood...

2) We talked about Deborah. I knew from my seminary days there were brief stories of prophetesses and priestesses in the OT, but on Sunday as we talked about it something really got my goat. I looked up "prophetess" in the Bible Dictionary (or somewhere) and it was stated that a prophetess did not have the priesthood. Excuse me? I always assumed that a prophetess would have the priesthood and that got me going. Who said she didn't have the priesthood? Where does it say that in the scriptures? How can one be a prophetess and not have the priesthood? Could a man be a prophet and not have the priesthood? I can say with almost absolute certainty that he could not, so how could a woman be a prophet and not have the priesthood? I think she could not.

The more I pondered this the more I realized Deborah would have to have the priesthood. Men, military generals even, trusted her and believed in her calling to act with the authority of God by leading them into battle. THAT is the definition of the priesthood (minus the battle part).

BUT, hypothetically, let's say she didn't have the priesthood. Let's say she was just an extremely righteous woman who had the right to receive revelation for the entire Israelite people (which only the prophet with all the keys can do, but I digress)...why don't we have women in those kinds of leadership positions (without the priesthood) now? Leading us into battle (so to speak) even though they don't have the priesthood. The whole thing didn't add up for me and, as I pondered this, I really came to believe she did, in fact, hold the priesthood.

I even talked to my father about my struggles grappling with the inconsistencies of Deborah and the whole idea of women having the priesthood. He's a temple worker, been stake Sunday School president, member of the 70, etc and someone I look to when I have serious spiritual questions. He understood my questions and basically, said "I don't know," but was much more sympathetic to the possibility of women having the priesthood than I thought he might (he is, after all, from an older generation :)). The next day I got a call from him and he said he'd pondered our conversation and had an experience that led him to believe Deborah did in fact have the priesthood. This certainly doesn't make it doctrine, but it means a lot to me to have such a spiritual man open to the possibility and inspiration about it.

After pondering and reading more about this, I feel that women of the old testament did have the priesthood and that will be restored again as all things must be. It may not be in this life and I'm ok with that. This is one reason, though, I am comfortable with asking questions but will not be "demanding" the priesthood be given to me.

3) Excommunication. A scary thought. I am not a scholar, not a self-labeled "feminist," and I am much too young to remember the September Six and all of that. My experiences in the church as a girl and woman have been much different than that of an older generation and I totally understand that. As I've said, I appreciate asking questions and wondering why. However, I do understand any organization wanting to separate itself from people who are leading members away. What organization wouldn't want to do that? The two in question have certainly contributed to members leaving. Have what they done amounted to the penalty of excommunication? I don't know. I am not familiar with either of them (like I mentioned, I try to stay away from the conflict that always follows because it is not good for me personally), but I do believe it when leadership says they do it out of concern for the individuals themselves and those they "teach." I also think the church would be very cautious because this is a different world to be excommunicating people in than in the 1970's. Having said that, sometimes excommunication is appropriate. How is that for a political answer?

For whatever reason, this news did rather force me to firm up my opinion. I needed to decide where I was at and I am grateful for it now.

I feel like I can confidently and comfortable state my position on the matter: I will not lobby for women to be ordained to the priesthood now and I honor and respect the male leadership in the Church, but I will confidently state that women did have the priesthood and prominent leadership positions (even over generals) and that women will be ordained to the priesthood in the Lord's time. I do believe, however, women can and should hold more and more prominent leadership positions  and that that will only benefit all of the children of God. Until then, I will continue to appreciate questions being asked and the effort to learn more.