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.
