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.

'Just let 'em die'...really?

Universal healthcare. Obamacare. Tea Party. Ron Paul. Rick Perry. Ugh.

As the mom of a 6 week old and 2 year old, I'll keep this short. Healthcare is a complicated issue. As a citizen of the richest country in the world, I don't think anyone should die because they can't afford expensive treatment that will save their life or greatly increase their quality of life. However, I also don't think American citizens can be required to purchase a product by the federal government.

Understanding these basics about me, here is my response to Ron Paul's ridiculous "Let them die" moment during the last GOP debate when asked what should happen to a healthy 30 year old man who doesn't purchase health insurance but finds himself in a coma:

Make them pay after you save their life. We garnish people's wages for child support, etc., why couldn't we do something like that after the state fronts the bill to save a person's life? If someone requires treatment and they don't have insurance, take 10% (or whatever) out of their pay check until the bills have been paid. Having your wages garnished would totally suck, but there's the accountability...and you get to live.

People should not be required to purchase health insurance. However if they make the choice not to buy insurance and find themselves in a serious/life/death situation, they should absolutely be treated. What would happen if someone got into a car accident and they come into the ER bleeding all over the place in need of a blood transfusion, but they don't have insurance? Just let them die on the table? Who will pay for the clean up? Not that guy because he doesn't have insurance and now you let him die.

While Ron Paul is correct in that there needs to be accountability for those who don't do their part and buy insurance, the price should not be their life. But we are a compassionate people, and there is room for compassion and accountability. That's my plan, do you have any ideas?

LDS Putting Off Marriage

Many of us may have heard (or heard about) Thomas S. Monson's, president and prophet of the LDS Church, address to the men of the church encouraging them stop putting off marriage. Apparently, there is a trend in the church of young, eligible LDS men who are intentionally not getting married as young as they used to. I was amused that the Sacramento Bee, a Gentile newspaper, saw this as news. The answers to the question "Why?" seem to be obvious: school, career, enjoying bachelorhood, not enough money and/or not enough time.

When I first heard about and read President Monson's address telling young men to stop waiting to get married, I was a little put-off for those young men. What's wrong with wanting to be financially prepared for marriage? What's wrong with waiting until you're done with school? What's wrong with waiting until you're "ready"? (Ok that last one is a trick question; my favorite answer to "How do you know if you're ready to get married?" is "When you're ready to accept the challenges." Otherwise, I don't think anyone is ever "ready").

However, as I read the article and reflected on my own experience, I do think a lot can be lost as an individual and married couple by intentionally putting off marriage until one is older and "ready." I love what Professor Holman in the Sacramento Bee article says: ""When you scrimp and sacrifice together when you're young, that brings you closer."

Holman puts so succinctly how I've felt about getting married at the ripe old age of 20. I NEVER thought I would be one of those LDS girls to get married young, but that's how it worked out for me. I have often thought about how certain things would have been easier if I had waited to get married. However, when I reflect all the growing I've done with my husband, I know that I am stronger and we are stronger because of all the things we've gone through together. In explaining this to other people, I tried to give them the visual of two tree roots growing together to make one, stronger root. Cheesy, I know.

And, indeed getting married young and sacrificing together, really may play a part in why LDS marriages last longer and LDS have fewer divorces. Not that getting married is the answer to lowering the divorce rate; there are a lot of contributing factors, including how LDS look at marriage and their general level of commitment (the #1 determiner of whether a relationship works out).

I know what many are going to say about why people should not get married young, especially women. Here's an example of the things I've heard: "You need to figure out who you are." "Don't you want to have time just to have fun?" "I don't want to get married until I have enough money." "Don't get married until I'm done traveling and doing everything I want to do." I've heard the same things when it came to having children, too.

I never knew exactly how to respond to questions like these because I do think it's important for young people to have the readiness needed to enter into a marriage responsibly, but that's different for each person and doesn't depend on age. I discovered a great response to these questions in an article titled "Defending the Family in Troubled World" by Elder Porter (a church general authority). He highlights teachings of Christ and the prophets and framed them in a way that is relevant to this issue, which really boils down to why family, including getting married, is the most important thing any person can participate in and be a part of. In 2 Timothy 3:2 it says,"“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy …" (not a good thing).

Elder Porter stated that what we constantly hear in our world now is: “You’re number one,” “Do your own thing,” “You’re special,” “Find yourself.” He continued on, "Such messages are so pervasive that we unconsciously absorb them and sometimes repeat them. Yet they are diametrically opposite from the message of the Savior, as recorded in similar language in every one of the four gospels: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39).

I had never thought about how taking time, energy, and other resources from my family (or future family) in the context of this verse could be me losing my life while trying to 'gain a life.' I had never thought about how all the boys I could've dated, the traveling I didn't do, the career(s) I gave up to get married and have children was losing my life in a way that is pleasing to Christ...and exactly what we're supposed to do. Losing our lives in the service a righteous spouse and raising children up to God is not something to be ashamed of...even if it means getting married younger than everyone else. LDS missionaries lose their life in this way for 2 years, too. It's something to be proud of.

Intentionally putting of marriage to partake in activities like education, careers, living the the good life, etc. is really putting off the blessings of the opportunity to grow even closer, stronger earlier with a spouse. You cannot calculate the growth, love, patience, and other Christ-like qualities that come from sacrificing, struggling, learning and growing together.At the same time, men and women are also encouraged to get as much education as possible. 

The bottom line is, don't wait for things to be 'perfect.'

How Bad Could a Mormon President Be?

That is the title of this interesting article by a radio host in Boise (who is not a Mormon). I thought it was a good question, so I'll ask it again: how bad could a Mormon president be?

My answer is: as bad as any other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. president. Would I expect any president who believed these faiths to turn America into a theocracy based on their faith of choice putting their personal beliefs into law? Absolutely not. That's why we have the government system we do. It is the person's values, record, character, ability, etc. that will make them a good or bad president.

This radio host has resigned himself to four more years of Obama. I certainly hope other American voters are not. It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama and Romney are pitted against one-another, especially if Obama decides to 'kill Romney' with personal attacks because he can't run on merit as reported on Politico.com. Perhaps if the stock market continues to crash, the housing market continues to slow, fewer people get jobs than expected (which seems to be the jobless report every time we get one), and still no one knows what Obama's plans are for anything, Americans will decide they really CAN vote for a Mormon over more of the non-hope Obama's presidency has been.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing Obama say, 'We must do better,' and 'I have put together a committee and have a plan.' I don't believe him; it's not encouraging. It's just annoying. Maybe he should go back on Oprah, that would probably help is ratings.

But I don't watch Opera either.

Gay Marriage & GOP Candidates

I found this AP News article, "Gay Marriage: awkward  issue for some GOP hopefuls," to be fascinating on several different levels.

Gay marriage is a very sticky issue for those who are really trying to appease the religious evangelicals (ie Bachman) because I don't think anyone can win by only being appealing to them, but you can lose by upsetting them. However, it is also complicated with social conservatives who do not identify as evangelicals because there is a spectrum of stances on gay marriage...just like with the GOP candidates.

I appreciated the succinct summarization of several of the candidates and their position on gay marriage. Frankly, some of them just don't make sense to me, particularly Governor Perry (Texas) who stated that it's okay for New York to do it, while maintaining that he personally against it. He's making a states rights issue, but gay marriage is not a states rights issue. It is a human issue, no matter what state you are in. It's either okay altogether (in all states) or it's not. Either you believe gay marriage is a moral issue and effects the basic unit of society or you don't. Some issues are states issues, but this is not one of them. That is not a decision that should be left up to individual states. This isn't a statement of whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it's a comment on the nature of the issue.

For Bachman and Perry to say "they respect the rights of individual states to legalize same-sex marriage, yet both also say they would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage nationally as limited to heterosexual couples" seems pretty outrageous to me. As voter, it's hard enough to know what you're going to get when you vote for someone even without glaring contradictory statements like these.

Yes, we should always expect dancing around a complicated issues from all candidates. As a voter, I would appreciate straight (no pun intended) talk and do not want to see candidates playing both sides of the fence. Be sensitive and compassionate to everyone involved, but do not say it's a State's issue but that you are personally against it. I think Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman (especially the seemingly more moderate Huntsman) may have the advantage in this category of the debate, but we will see what future statements they make...

Finally, I found it very interesting that the advice given to GOP candidates concerning the gay marriage is to simply avoid it because of the complexity and implications of the issue. I think this is the worst advice ever. Voters want to know what they're getting! The economy is a complex issue with huge implications but no one is advising candidates not to talk about it. Gay marriage is not a back-burner issue; people want to know where their representatives stand. Even if it's not the issue they are most concerned about (ie compared to the economy), they want to know what they could probably expect. Personally, if I found a candidate dodging the issue (or any important issue), I would be much less likely to vote for them.

I sure hope these GOP candidates don't listen to the professional advice-givers and start listening to me.

'Non-Christian,' 'Cult' Usage Have Same Motive

Have I mentioned that I love Michael Otterson, Head of Public Affairs for the Church? Well, I do. If I could have a dream job, it would be his, but I doubt I'd be able to state things as 'English' as he does.

In his most recent article written for the Washington Post, he talks about how the word 'cult' is still used (albeit in a sometimes roundabout way) to describe Mormons by many publications around the world. He got a little feisty. And I liked it. He explains why good journalists, who should know better, keep throwing around the word cult as a way to describe Mormons:

Because it’s a neat, shorthand and rather lazy way of putting a whole group into a box. Once labeled as a cult, there is not much need to explain all of the baggage that comes with it - the implicit ideas of extremism, mind control, authoritarianism and secrecy that play perfectly into the kind of rigid stereotypes beloved of the ignorant and bigoted. Journalists could and should do better than perpetuate this kind of shallowness when referring to the fourth largest church in the United States. Rather than continuing to parrot it, it’s time they pushed back against those who choose to use it.

My first reaction is, "Yeah, that's right! You're being lazy journalists!"

My second reaction is that using this type of pejorative language is also the reason many continue to claim that Mormons aren't Christian. As soon as a person (especially politician or pundit), says Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and all Mormons are not Christians, they are not necessarily attacking our doctrine (because they probably don't know it). They are attempting to put Mormons in a neat little box that is 'implicit of ideas of extremism, mind control, authoritarianism and secrecy...' I would also add that they are attempting to imply that Mormons are less patriotic, less moral and have a secret agenda...because only Christians can be patriotic, moral and have pure intentions (please not that last part is dripping with sarcasm). It's easier to say Mormons are a cult and not Christian than to actually do the work, research and be fair with such labels.

And probably not for the last time, it should not matter if someone is Christian or not when running for the Presidency. If Barrack Obama says he's a Christian, than he's a Christian to me. If he said he was a Muslim, fine. It is not a person's religion that matters to me, it is whether their politics, morals and views are similar to mine. If that means the agnostic candidate is most similar to me, than great; I'll vote for him or her. Come on people!

Courts Should Not Be Involved in Hindu-Vegetarian Case

This news story about 16 strict vegetarian Hindus who are suing a restaurant that mistakenly gave them samosas with meat in them has a lot of people talking. They are suing for the restaurant to pay for all of them to go to India to bathe in the Ganges River as part of a cleansing ceremony that can, apparently, take anywhere from three to thirty days.

Are these restaurant patrons taking advantage of our litigious society? Have they really been irreparably harmed? I think the answer is no to both of these questions.

I don't want to discount the feelings and emotional distress that these people probably genuinely feel by (even accidentally) offending their faith. As a person who holds strict religious standards (and Mormons are notorious for their guilt over mistakes), I can understand how seriously they are taking this. That being said, it does seem extreme to demand a trip to bathe in one of the dirtiest rivers in the world for a month...especially if there's another solution as mentioned at the end of the article.
In discussing this story, a local radio show host stated that these people had no case because they were not actually harmed. If they had been made physically sick, then they would have a case. But, because the harm was spiritual and emotional, and, thus not tangible, they should not be rewarded monetarily. He went on to say that the harm was fake because all religion was fake, even if they individuals think it is real.

While I certainly don't agree with this host that religion is fake, I do think there is a fine line to be walked when suing tangible gain for harm that one believes has been done and harm that has actually been done. I am certainly not an expert on the Hindu religion, however, as stated at the end of the article, there must be a way for this restaurant to pay for its mistake without spending the thousands of the dollars it would cost to send all these people to India for a month (maybe putting that restaurant out of business). Perhaps the cleansing ceremony at a local temple would suffice, but these people see an opportunity for more and want to take advantage. How to prove what one believes will actually cleanse them will be a tough case in the court of law with each side bringing it's own Hindu 'experts' to discuss proper cleansing rituals, etc. Seems like this case will go round and round eventually showing that no one is right or wrong.

So, maybe in that sense the lawsuit is wrong, not because of the restaurant's negligence cannot be proven, but because an appropriate way to cleanse cannot be agreed upon. The courts should have no place determining what is and is not a proper cleansing ritual for these individuals; that should be left up to their religious leaders. Since both the restaurant and the patrons and Hindus, perhaps, if the courts decide to not take this case, it will force the religious leaders of these two sides to come up with an alternate solution that can be agreed upon in the appropriate religious arena.