I really like the ideas that Caroline and others have recently proposed. Such feminist assertions are heartening, and are evidence of a growing activist consciousness that’s quite encouraging.
I’d like to take this one step further by posting this Radical Mormon Feminist Manifesto that’s I’ve been drafting with some fellow feminists. For now, I see this document as a work-in-progress. I hope that you will comment on whether or not you agree with its assertions, or you will suggest edits. It is my hope that this document can become a “proclamation” that will speak for many Mormon women who are invested in social change.
We are Radical Mormon Feminists. We are men and women, gay and straight, white and of color, of varying ages and abilities, from many nationalities and economic backgrounds. As such, we write this proclamation to assert our needs and our agenda for those oppressed by the church’s stand on issues of gender and sexuality.
We affirm that as the LDS Church moves into the 21st century, it can no longer ignore and reproduce the multiple oppressions of sexism, racism, and ableism that are endemic in its patriarchal hierarchy.
As such, we assert that we will no longer passively submit to secondary status within the church for ourselves or our friends and family who are members. We subscribe to the tenet that our “God is no respecter of persons,” and that God looks upon and understands the motives of our hearts as no leader – priesthood or otherwise – can. We embrace a Savior who reached out to all people regardless of their sexuality, gender, national origin, or ability; and commit to striving to reach out to all in the same way.
Additionally, we reject church teachings about the eternal nature of traditional gender roles and will not sustain official proclamations from the church leaders that reify such notions of women and men conforming to specific narrow roles such as submissive wives, full-time mothers, bread-winning fathers, traditional family members, head-of-household males, and priesthood-leading husbands. Instead, we sustain expansive acceptance of equal partnership between two adults in marriage; co-parenting by natural and adoptive parents; community support for single parents whether natural or adoptive; equal career encouragement and opportunities for both genders; and family teams that head households together in love and togetherness.
We believe that God ordains both men and women to have spiritual power for blessing, healing, and leading and desire women to be recognized in such roles. As radical Mormon feminists, we call for women and people of color to be included in all levels of leadership and where homosexual, intersexual, and transgendered people participate in full fellowship and temple ordinances.
While we affirm the free agency of each individual to make their own choices about Mormon belief and practice, as radical Mormon feminists we take a stand and assert our unwillingness to support patriarchy and the gendered hierarchy and oppression that results from it. We recognize the many righteous, well-meaning men who preside as faithful and loving leaders. We do not wish to remove them from their leadership roles. We only wish for the opportunity to join them as we work as one people to build the peaceful Zion community imagined and sought after by our ancestors. We do so with millennial fervor, calling for the day that all children of God are welcomed equally into the Mormon fold.
We acknowledge that large changes seldom happen overnight. We suggest the following as beginning steps to achieving the goals discussed above:
1) Call couples to serve in bishoprics together. Allow women to interview and hear the confessions of other women.
2) Jettison boy scouts and create the same youth programs for girls and boys.
3) Drop the “preside” language about marriage. Focus on co-equal partnerships.
4) Make priesthood ordinations optional and/or given as a young person desires it–sort of like a patriarchal blessing. Allow both girls and boys the same opportunities for ordination.
5) Let women learn their husbands’ new names at the temple veil.
6) Allow same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple, even when local laws don’t allow legal marriage.
7) Let women plan and speak at their own RS Conferences w/no men involved.
8) Allow women to preside over official meetings, such as sacrament meeting
9) Turn the focus from bishops making the callings to self-callings – let both men and women volunteer and seek out roles they are interested in (even if men want to be in primary or women want to be in leadership)
I’m a woman, a Mormon and a feminist and I can support only two of those items, #2 and #5. The others are either impractical (people choosing their callings? Who chooses outside of their comfort zone? That’s a recpie to limit peoples’s growth) or straight-out blasphemous.
Congratulations, you are truly radical.
If you’re truly being radical, why do we still need Relief Society? Or why would we have RS conferences as such?
I think that choosing your own callings, or at least being able to clearly state your own preferences would work. It does work in the real world in volunteer organizations. And I’m not sure that the current system works all that well– there’s a lot of passive aggressiveness involved, with people who just don’t do their callings or do a bad job, etc.
PDOE, I’m wondering why you think that #7 is impractical? Women aren’t capable of planning conferences without a man to tell them what to do?
Oh, Paula, I agree about RS. I’ll strike that part. Thanks for pointing that out!
PDOE: I’ve been involved in many organizations (including churches) where people choose their own ‘callings’ and it works quite well. Why do you think it would limit people’s growth? IMO, that’s like saying that we limit our growth by choosing our own spouse or career.
1) Call couples to serve in bishoprics together. Allow women to interview and hear the confessions of other women.
I think this already works wonderfully with the mission president/wife calling. I would feel so much more comfortable having temple recommend interviews or confessions with a woman. Many times a bishop’s wife, if she is at home more than her husband, becomes involved in ward “situations” anyway.
I don’t think this is impractical or blasphemous. We already have precedents (Temple Pres/Matron is another.) But I see no way in my current position as an active Mormon female that I could have any influence in helping this come to pass. Do you?
2) Jettison boy scouts and create the same youth programs for girls and boys.
I’ve already been helping bring this to pass when I had the calling of Activity Day leader. I met with the girls weekly, took them on hikes and canoeing, and didn’t feel the need to ask a “priesthood leader” to go along. (I must warn you, I was “spoken to” about being inappropriate.)
3) Drop the “preside” language about marriage. Focus on co-equal partnerships.
This seems relatively easy to do within individual marriages. PDoE, do you have a problem with this one?
4) Make priesthood ordinations optional and/or given as a young person desires it–sort of like a patriarchal blessing. Allow both girls and boys the same opportunities for ordination.
No matter what we do, I doubt women will be able to influence this one. And I suspect that even most Mormon feminists would disagree.
5) Let women learn their husbands’ new names at the temple veil.
That is only fair. Do you think Temple Matrons might be able to bring about changes in this venue? (There might be a few other things that could happen in the Temple to make it more comfortable for feminists!)
6) Allow same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple, even when local laws don’t allow legal marriage.
Another controversial one. How many Mormon women would support this?
7) Let women plan and speak at their own RS Conferences w/no men involved.
Also…let women call and set apart their own counselors, teachers, and workers in their organizations and do program planning without having to get “approval” from men. If men are going to call women to these positions, they should trust them enough to let them run it themselves.
8) Allow women to preside over official meetings, such as sacrament meeting
Why not?
9) Turn the focus from bishops making the callings to self-callings – let both men and women volunteer and seek out roles they are interested in (even if men want to be in primary or women want to be in leadership)
I sort of see PDoE’s point on this one. However, women should feel more free to discuss their desires and situations when being considered for a calling.
Jana, I still think we should talk about “fear” in relation to a Feminist Manifesto…but maybe in a separate post. Don’t want to thread-jack!
BiV:
I think the discussion might be appropriate here. If it becomes a threadjack, we can bring it back around or start a separate post.
When I was discussing this Manifesto with some Mormon women, some said that they were fearful of supporting something so contraversial. So let’s talk about fear. What role does fear play in preventing us speaking out against injustice? What are we afraid of?
1. Interesting how this manifesto essentially discounts the entire D&C. and the current prophet and apostles. Nice. It amazes me when people so flippantly dismiss tenets that thousands of Saints have died protecting, defending and believing. I guess it doesn’t matter that the Spirit has borne witness to millions that Joseph Smiths revelations are true. We should deny that witness because your finite understanding tells you that it isn’t nice.
2. It’s also surprisingly easy for you to dismiss the program (Boy Scouts) that has been instrumental in keeping so many young men active while they go through testimony-trying times in their lives. Thanks for trying to destroy a program that meant so much to me and so many others. What an excellent display of selfishness.
3. I love how you claim that the patriarchal priesthood is contrary to the Savior’s feelings on the issue. After all, six of the twelve apostles were women, right?
4. Self callings? Are you kidding? Did anyone think this through? The Lord has established a clear precedent regarding the nature of a calling. As if just a volunteer program would work. Imagine the power-hungry who would “volunteer” to all manner of positions?
“Why, I think I’ll call myself to be an apostle tomorrow.”
“Oh Sorry Dave, all the apostolic callings have been taken”
“You elitist bastards!! You’re excluding me”
Where would you draw the line?
5. I find it questionable for you to be so convinced of the church’s oppression in supposed opposition to the true will of God (which oppression, by my watch, would have been occurring since Adam) and yet still be a member of said wicked church. Is it fear of leaving? Fear that you are actually wrong? I don’t understand why you would stay.
Dear Ryan:
I am not afraid to leave the church nor am I afraid to act according to my own conscience and to bear witness to injustice.
YMMV 🙂
Ryan – LDS doctrine supports continuing revelation, i.e., blacks getting the priesthood. While some may have viewed that as going against the D&C, eventually a prophet received revelation that it was time for a change. Some of the things in the manifesto do go against the D&C, but some actually do not.
Also, I don’t think the idea is to discredit or discard of the “scout” part of “boy scout”, especially since it is so helpful to so many, as you say. I think the idea is to discard of the isolating “boy” part of “boy scouts” and re-create the same helpful, testimony-building, meaningful program as “boy and girl scouts” that is inclusive of both genders.
And, I don’t think the self-calling idea means that if you get an inkling to be something (like an apostle) you get to be it, no more than me saying I want to be the treasurer of Microsoft makes me the treasurer of Microsoft. But does mean that I can approach a leader, express my desire to serve in a certain role, and expect to be respectfully received and seriously considered for the request I am making.
One of the beautiful concepts of the LDS church – is its capacity for change. Perhaps the change called for here is radical, as the title indicates, but some of the changes mentioned therein are worth kind consideration.
Ryan,
Please read our comment policy. Disagreeing is fine. Being outrageously rude is not. I haven’t yet decided whether or not to delete your comment.
BTW, I think JS might be first in line behind some of these ideas if he were alive today. He had his problems (polygamy) but he was actually quite radically liberal minded for his day. Much like Jesus who also was radically progressive regarding issues of gender.
Jana,
I love this part.
“We subscribe to the tenet that our “God is no respecter of persons,” and that God looks upon and understands the motives of our hearts as no leader – priesthood or otherwise – can. We embrace a Savior who reached out to all people regardless of their sexuality, gender, national origin, or ability; and commit to striving to reach out to all in the same way”
I like your ideas in the next paragraph about broadening proscribed gender roles for men and women. While my personal opinion is that co-parenting is ideal, if I were to change something I would emphasize that families should decide for themselves what their gender roles should be, whether that be mom staying at home, or dad.
I personally love this part, though I know church leaders, and most members, aren’t ready for it.
“We believe that God ordains both men and women to have spiritual power for blessing, healing, and leading and desire women to be recognized in such roles. As radical Mormon feminists, we call for women and people of color to be included in all levels of leadership and where homosexual, intersexual, and transgendered people participate in full fellowship and temple ordinances. “
I think I could get behind all 9 of your suggestions, though I feel much stronger about some than others. For instance, I strongly agree with 1, 3, 4 and 5.
Overall, I like most of your ideas in here. I suppose one thing that holds me back from completely embracing it is the “manifesto” tone. I have my opinions, as you know, but I am more comfortable expressing them as opinions rather than in manifesto form, formally calling the church to change. Does that make sense, or does that make me a wimp?
Ryan, it’s interesting how you can barge into a feminist forum and arrogantly argue from a purely patriarchal position.
1. You’re discounting the fact that Jana and others are working from a conscience that is at least as divine and as morally grounded as your testimony.
2. The young women do not have a program comparable to the Boy Scouts in the Church. It’s surprisingly easy for you to dismiss this male privilege. What an excellent display of selfishness.
3. Ryan, you missed the fact that all of Jesus’ apostles were Jewish. None of them were black or Asian or Native American. By your reasoning, when the priesthood was extended to all those other races, Latter-day leaders were acting contrary to God?
4. Many churches are based on the concept of receiving callings from God without human intermediaries. They seem to do quite well.
And here’s a list of elitist bastards for you: No man set No man or woman set Susan B. Anthony apart to fight for women’s suffrage. No human set Gandhi apart to free India. No one set apart Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks to fight for civil rights.
5. True, leaving is an option. But it is possible that some people love the Church, and believe in that kernel of truth AND are committed to the the equality of women and men.
I’m usually a pretty nice guy on the ‘net. But for you to barge into a feminist forum and speak this arrogantly push your agenda and to do so in such a condescending tone in arguments filled with questionable authority is downright rude. As it says in the comment policy, “This is not the place to question another’s personal righteousness…or to disrespectfully refute people’s personal religious beliefs.” Your language essentially calls anyone who subscribes to this manifesto selfish, thoughtless, fearful and unbelieving, if not unrighteous. Even if you believe that these things are true, this isn’t the forum to insinuate such things.
Sorry, everyone, for continuing Ryan’s threadjack. You can see that it’s brought out the best in me (sarcasm alert). I hope you’ll ignore us and return to a conversation that at least references the combined Mormon feminist foundation that the Exponent is built on (which PDoE, Paula, and BiV were doing quite well before Ryan arrived).
Caroline, thanks for your positive thoughts on what was said in the original post. I think #1, 2, 3, and 5 are the ideas I feel most strongly about.
I *really* love the idea of women confessing to other women. *Especially* young women. I was quite intimidated as a 12….13….16….even 17 year old girl, sitting across a large desk from a large man I hardly knew, and asked questions that I either didn’t understand, found embarrassing, or just plain made me feel uncomfortable. I think a woman would naturally approach these delicate subjects with more care and I think young girls would feel much, much less uncomfortable talking to a mother-type figure as opposed to a man in a suit.
Also, in my BYU wards, the bishops wives were always very actively involved in leadership. They may not have been officially called, but it seemed like they did just as much as the bishops. We loved having the “first lady” of the ward around (I’m joking about the title, although it almost seems appropriate) and it doesn’t seem that far of a stretch to me to call a man and a woman to preside over a ward.
Having stumbled upon this rather unexpectedly, and not one to comment often on blogs, you can take these comments for what they’re worth.
First, re: journeygal’s comment (10:30), the manifesto does say “Jettison Boy Scouts.” It does not say “include girls in the Boy Scouts program.” Seeing as how some people see the Boy Scouts program as quite effective at its stated goals, getting rid of something that works could reasonably be seen as counterproductive. I think a program for girls, the same as if not exactly similar to the Boy Scouts, would not be a bad idea.
Also re: journeygal (10:49 comment), a “woman would naturally approach these delicate subjects with more care and I think young girls would feel much, much less uncomfortable talking to a mother-type figure as opposed to a man in a suit.” In my opinion, this comment flies in the face of the premise of the manifesto proclaiming the absolute equality of men and women. There is very little reason to believe that a woman in a suit and a man in a suit would elict extremely different responses from young women and men. A young woman could be just as easily intimidated by an older, imposing woman, or just as easily comforted by a “grandfatherly” man.
As for the rest of the manifesto, it would seem quite plausible if it weren’t for gender essentialism, which seems to be a settled doctrine of the church. Until this is no longer the case (which seems unlikely), many of the points of the manifesto are moot, though there are certainly some reasonable suggestions in there.
Why do you think it would limit people’s growth? IMO, that’s like saying that we limit our growth by choosing our own spouse or career.
if you believe that callings as they are issued in the mormon church are divinely inspired, then choosing what you want to do could be seen as a limit to growth. clearly you don’t share that belief, but you ought to respect those who do, eh?
i’m having a hard time getting my mind around why you want to spend the time trying to change mormonism instaed of going to (or starting?) a church that suits your manifesto. not here to say ‘go away’ but if you dislike so much of what mormonism entails, why even be a mormon anything? it seems a bit much for someone who seems to pretty much detest everything about the religion’s structure and teachings to try to overhaul it. not sure that puts you in the best position to be demanding change…perhaps you are a touch biased?
yeah, got to go with the comment that says this one is truly radical and just leaves me scratching my head.
actually, i for one would appreciate if you leave my church alone, though, cuz i kinda like it how it is…and i’m female and consider myself a feminist of sorts (obviously not of the ‘radical mormon’ type. wow. still kinda blown away by this one)
Most of Ryan’s comments I will ignore in their trollishness. But this one thing he said: “It amazes me when people so flippantly dismiss tenets that thousands of Saints have died protecting, defending and believing” reminded me of a great quote from Jared Diamond (_Collapse_): “The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity.” Change is not only good, it’s necessary for growth and survival. The history of the church since its inception is nothing if not frequently changing, so why stop at the threshhold of gender and sexual orientation equality?
Also, for him and the last anonymous, I never understand people who accuse others of hatred and disrespect when what you’re clearly trying to do is introduce positive change to an organisation you care very much about. The invitations to just leave by fellow members is a sad commentary.
Finally, I really like your manifesto. One thing I’d like to see is some tolerance built in for non-members and/or inactives. Treat them as equals as well – and more specifically, allow them to share in the lives of their loved ones as equals by allowing family and friends to attend temple weddings (therefore, not privileging TR-holding members over non-TR holding people like family members…in a church that’s so family oriented, it makes no sense).
I’m a tad worried about posting this comment, but it’s a question I’ve had for quite some time, so I’m just going to do it.
In regards to numbers 1,4, 6 and 8 (and also to not sustaining the Proclamation on the Family, which might be seen as scripture): I am having a very hard time understanding why, if one has so many issues with a church – and some of the defining parts of that church – one chooses to still identify as a member of that church, and participate at all in any part of that church. I just don’t understand.
Julie P, I think one answer is that many people who question the church’s current policy on gender issues do believe that church has a lot of wonderful, truthful teachings. Many believe the JS, though a fallible man, was truly inspired by God to restore the church.
Bottom line is that many people don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. There’s a lot of good there, we just just hope for some progress. And like RE stated, our church is founded upon the idea of progress and change (continuing revelation) so I think there should be space for people to express hope for change.
Jana,
I’ve spent a bit of time wondering about my discomfort over your manifesto. This discomfort troubles me since I basically agree with your ideas in there.
I think I can now better articulate why I feel this way. It’s the authoritative tone. Authoritative is what church leaders do (and what so many of us don’t care for)- and as you know we here at expblog generally try to avoid this kind of tone. Instead we speak from personal experience and personal understanding. So while I understand you are confronting authoritative with authoritative, it seems jarring to me since, in this space at least, I’m so used to conversation, opinions, questions, and personal experience.
Truthfully? I am reflexively, almost viscerally, put-off by the word “Manifesto” — and actually avoided reading it for a few minutes (which feels unsettling, because I am so interested in your thoughts, Jana, and usually devour them).
So I wanted to explore my reactions to this word.
I wrestle with absolutism in every form — and I think one thing I love about the gospel (if not always the church) is the way it forces one to deal with ambiguity (including reconciling general principals with personal revalation — Abraham/Isaac, woman “taken in adultery,” Mary/Martha, Nephi/Laban, love neighbor vs. obstacles to that, justice/mercy etc. etc.).
This is a bitter and sweet struggle, and I’m better for it. I like having room to question, like the process of petitioning God with my questions, and one of the few changes I would unequivocably fight for is more room (culterally) for people to question and wonder without fear of judgement or reprisal.
Maybe (and only maybe?) that’s why the I bristle at the word “Manifesto” — it feels like drawing lines, feels too dogmatic, feels less like hearing each others stories and learning from them. If I’m reacting this way — as a friend and fellow feminist — I wonder about the efficacy of this format? Not an answer, just a question . . . .
I’ll add this to the critique: in addition to issues with tone, there are several parts of the Manifesto that are there albeit unwritten:
We believe that the current leadership of the Church is radically out of touch with the will of God for the Church, but that we are in touch with the will of God for the Church.
We believe that virtually every part of the Church’s understanding of order, pattern, method, approach, leadership, decision making etc., is wrong.
I could go on. But it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous to present this as ‘about feminism’ when it is really ‘about the structure’ of the Church. You need to write about seventeen posts making the case for why a manifesto from a small group of church members is an appropriate way to go about suggesting change before you even get to the feminism part.
And, perhaps needless to say, I think you’ll have a very hard time making your case that the church is not only grossly wrong about almost everything it has ever said about gender but also grossly wrong about everything it practices and teaches in regard to order, revelation, and decision-making. You aren’t in baby and bathwater territory here–you are remodeling the bathroom.
Thank you for the thoughtful and provocative comments.
To Caroline and Deborah specifically: yes, I agree that the tone of this document is really different from typical XBlog posts. I’ve been reading a lot of feminist manifestos lately and they inspired me to test the waters for doing such for mormon feminism. By their form, such manifestos are authoritative and they elide nuance in their call for change. Yes, the language in this manifesto is very strong–perhaps abrasively so–but I wonder if there isn’t a time that such strength is called for?
I am well aware that most mormon women, even feminists, won’t feel comfortable with this document (hence, the “radical mormon feminist” title). But I think that discomfort can be a productive place to start a conversation–as you have all shown.
To RE: Can you suggest a few sentences or a paragraph that would address the needs of the ‘less-active’ and non-Mormons? I agree that this group isn’t well addressed by the manifesto and I welcome your input.
To newposter: Why not have _both_ ‘grandfatherly’ and ‘grandmotherly’ leaders for members to work with?
I think these things are end points, rather than starting points. In addition, I’m not sure that groups who face, or who have faced, racial, cultural, or ability-based discrimination in the church are the natural allies of those seeking ecclesiastical gender equality. They may have different agendas for change, or they may have strong inclinations toward models of gender relations that we as feminist Mormons dislike.
Anyway, here’s my point-by-point response.
1) Call couples to serve in bishoprics together. Allow women to interview and hear the confessions of other women.
I think that if we make provisions for service by couples who still have children who need time and attention, and if we find a work-around to provide bishopric service opportunities to singles, the couple thing is a good idea – it splits the work and may strengthen the marriage. But gender segregation in the provision of ecclesiastical services will only strenghten currently existing gender divisions.
2) Jettison boy scouts and create the same youth programs for girls and boys.
In the US, lots of folks like the Boy Scouts. Elsewhere, it’s often been tacitly replaced by extensions of the youth program. Leave it alone, it’ll sort itself out.
3) Drop the “preside” language about marriage. Focus on co-equal partnerships.
Please do.
4) Make priesthood ordinations optional and/or given as a young person desires it–sort of like a patriarchal blessing. Allow both girls and boys the same opportunities for ordination.
I hope to see a true priesthood of all believers in our church some day, but we won’t have that if we don’t require ordination for all adult members.
5) Let women learn their husbands’ new names at the temple veil.
Good idea.
6) Allow same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple, even when local laws don’t allow legal marriage.
No, allow same-sex couples to be sealed when local laws do permit marriage or other unions. Otherwise, we’ll have folks whose religious obligations aren’t reinforced by their civil obligations, which has in the past been messy.
7) Let women plan and speak at their own RS Conferences w/no men involved.
So long as the RS and the Priesthood are segregated, women should plan their own meetings. But further gender segregation is divisive and destructive. Instead, incorporate women as speakers in the Priesthood sessions.
8) Allow women to preside over official meetings, such as sacrament meeting.
Good idea.
9) Turn the focus from bishops making the callings to self-callings – let both men and women volunteer and seek out roles they are interested in (even if men want to be in primary or women want to be in leadership)
Been there, done that, couldn’t buy the t-shirt because no one would take responsibility for having it printed. I got stuck running the entire children’s ministry in an Episcopal parish once because no one “had time” to help. They had plenty of time to hang out during our after-church coffee hour, though. Let’s just work on eliminating the gender bias, huh?
newposter: I believe the manifesto states that a couple would be called in bishoprics together, to “allow” women to confess to a woman. That implies that an individual could choose whether to confess to the man or woman or both.
actually, i for one would appreciate if you leave my church alone, though, cuz i kinda like it how it is…
Minor point, but I just have to threadjack a bit here. Anonymous, the thing is, the orthodox position that you seem to embrace is that it’s actually not your church. It’s Christ’s. And whatever our other disagreements, I think we shouldn’t assume the right to patrol its borders. If we truly believe this to be the Church of Christ on Earth–as I do–then I think we have to be really careful about questioning other people’s association with it. Undoubtedly we’re all associating with it for less than absolutely pure and correct motives. But the tough Christian answer to our impure motives and misconceptions isn’t to send the dissenters out the door until they get themselves orthodoxed up. It’s to invite them in more fully.
OK, personal bone picked. Back to the topic at hand (sorry, Jana).
Minor point, but I just have to threadjack a bit here. Anonymous, the thing is, the orthodox position that you seem to embrace is that it’s actually not your church. It’s Christ’s.
OK, then, please leave Christ’s church alone, because the bulk of folks in the church I feel He is guiding it through the leaders this “manifesto” wants to undermine (feels more like overthrow). It’s not anyone’s place to fundmentaly change it in structure, teachings or doctrine (which is what this manifesto seems to want to do). there isn’t really anything “mormon” in this manifesto. you want a new and completely different church, so why not leave mormonism alone and find or create that church? (again, not trying to say “leave!” but just not understanding this desire to remake mormonism from basically ground zero when there are other churches that probably make this manifesto seem like remotely reachable).
perhaps i should just say that i second what julie smith said….
Personally, I don’t mind the WORD Manifesto, but you could write a WoManifesto.
I am not crazy about this one–I suppose I am not radical enough. It seems that you are perhaps writing for a group other than Feminists, and including critiques that reach far beyond feminism as I understand it. For example, I think it is possible to be a feminist without being crazy about the idea of same sex unions.
I agree that the tone is somewhat caustic.
Newposter – in response to your observation of my statement that “woman would naturally approach these delicate subjects with more care and I think young girls would feel much, much less uncomfortable talking to a mother-type figure as opposed to a man in a suit” flies in the face of the premise of the manifesto proclaiming the absolute equality of men and women……
You’re right. Poor expression, on my part – it was my emotional response to memories of feeling so uncomfortable. I like what the anonymous poster said much more about allowing choice in which gender to communicate/confess to.
In my case, I’d feel more comfortable with a woman, but the choice should be the issue here.
I find the word manifesto a bit of a put-off as well, but couldn’t quite figure out why. Caroline nailed it with here authoritative description. Somehow the word manifesto has arrogant connotations in my mind.
What i love about this post is that you have actually stated what you believe in. I have often read some of your posts, just curious what other women in the church are thinking. I was never quite sure what the underlining theme was, but now I see it. So thank-you for that, because now you have revealed yourself.
I now have to worry about sisters in the ward judging me that if I don’t believe in the above I am some how against women, or somehow oppressed, and Let me reasure you I am neither. I believe in every doctrine of this Church, I may not understand it’s purposes but I have prayed about it and with every fiber of my being I believe it to be revaled from God.
And Until the Prophet, who I have raised my right arm to the square and who I willingly choose to support, like many of you. Until he recieves a revelation to change the order of Church Government I will work with I have been asked to work with. I am a woman of Faith, and I love this Church Dearly, the way it is.
And if the day were to come that it were to change because of a Manifesto, rather than revelation from the Prophet, It would cease to be Gods Church.
Anon 12:38,
Thank you for your comment. Let me just clarify one thing, though. This Manifesto is a collaborative product and is not a statement of my personal belief. 🙂
That said, I stand behind the Manifesto, but I don’t see it as an expression of personal testimony.
(talking about my fear again…)
I’m afraid of Ryan because he is my husband, my Bishop, my home teacher. I’m afraid he will take away my temple recommend, my calling, my eternal marriage.
I’m afraid of the woman who says, “if you dislike so much of what mormonism entails, why even be a mormon anything?” She is my Relief Society President, my best friend, my daughter’s second-grade teacher. I’m afraid she will take away my reputation, my children’s respect, and leave me lonely and outcast.
I love radicalism, I love your strength, I love people who stand up for injustice and what they believe in. (It’s why I came to love Joseph Smith in the first place.) But my mantra has never been “I am strong, I am an Amazon.” Often my mantra is: “I will NOT cry until I get home, I will NOT cry until I get home.”
On this thread you have been called impractical, blasphemous, radical, flippant, of finite understanding, dismissing, selfish, questionable, afraid, limiting, biased, authoritative, jarring, dogmatic, undermining, and caustic. It has also been implied that you are trying to destroy Christ’s church, are not being led by the Spirit, do not support your leaders, and are not a Woman of Faith. I’m sure those things had to hurt. I feel hurt, and they weren’t attacking me, and they aren’t even people I know. When it comes from your most intimate associates, it is too much to bear.
That’s why I am afraid.
BiV – thank you, thank you, thank you for that response – very profound and very well articulated.
BTW, the reasons you express for coming to love Joseph Smith in the first place is the same for me and also why I still respect and am intrigued by Joseph Smith to this day.
I am not trying to compare anyone to Joseph Smith, however, I think that he was a radical and that he was subject to the same type of name calling (and worse) that you mention here. I have a great respect for people who have the courage to say what they sincerely believe in a well-thought-out and respectful manner, whatever their religions or philosophies may be.
The radical part of the LDS church – the part that allows for change and continuing revelation and eternal progression and intellectual advancement so much that it teaches we will someday reach God and be a perfect Zion community – that radical part is one of the parts I still believe.
I love this call for change. Thank you for having the courage to post it, Jana.
OK, then, please leave Christ’s church alone, because the bulk of folks in the church I feel He is guiding it through the leaders this “manifesto” wants to undermine (feels more like overthrow). It’s not anyone’s place to fundmentaly change it in structure, teachings or doctrine (which is what this manifesto seems to want to do). there isn’t really anything “mormon” in this manifesto.
In reply to Anonymous (11:35), Jesus Christ didn’t start a church. His followers did. Early Christianity was based on the principles Christ taught, but most of the structure and institutional forms it took later were not Christ’s doing. (An excpetion would be the sacrament).
Jesus himself fundamentally challenged the structure, teachings and doctrine (and Pharisaical folk doctrines) of his time. Christ is our exemplar, yet you say it’s not anyone’s place to challenge off-the-mark notions or less-than-Christian practices in today’s church? I don’t follow.
I’d like nothing better than for the modern church to mirror early Christianity more closely than it does. That would create a more gender balanced structure, since women functioned in every ecclesiastical role at every level in the church. If you’re interested in reading more, check out “When Women Were Priests,” by Karen Jo Torjesen. Plus, there are plenty of precedents for women’s leadership in the Old and New Testaments and early Mormon history.
BiV:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on fear. I am in a place in my life where fear just doesn’t seem to have a hold on me. I suspect that this could change at some point, but right now I’m just not afraid–of people disliking me, of failure, or of church censure. I think the lack of fear stems from the fact that the past year or so I have believed and acted more authentically than ever before. For me, living so close to my Truth precludes fear.
I know, though, that my lack of fear is coming from a position of privilege: I have a supportive spouse and I am economically secure. And that’s why I see the need for the change called for in this Manifesto. For it pains me to know that some of you can’t speak or live by your Truth because of the social ramifications that could result from it: you may disrupt your marriage, lose your church membership, or be ostracized by your LDS community. IMO, that’s just not right–that speaking from your conscience about your religious or feminist beliefs can have such serious consequences. That is _oppression_.
A call to arms containing the word “reify”?!?!
Jana,
Your provacative language are bound to provoke backlash, even in those that might feel sympathy for your cause, and doom your provisions from the start. They show an arrogance and complete lack of deference to the the Lord God or His and Her preferences. There is no sin in having desires for change, but demanding them,and ramming them down the organization’s throat is another matter entirely.
What acts of civil disobedience are you going to use to push your platform through? What bridges are you going to burn.
You would make about as much progress, and convince as many people by starting your own Church of Mary Magdelene, Christess of Latter-day saints and giving the document as a revelation.
I recently listend to an NPR Speaking of Faith Podcast featuring Sister Joan Chittister, who many say would be the first female bishop if women were to be ordained in the Catholic Church. She’s amazing.
In this interview, while her viewpoint is clear (women should be ordained), what she calls for is a conversation about women’s ordination. She calls her church leaders to start asking the question, start praying, start discussing this issue.
In that spirit, I think I might be more comfortable for calling for a conversation about gender and ordination among church leaders. Like Sister Joan, my opinion has already been formed, but I guess I’d like church leaders to organically come to the same conclusion through thoughtful prayer and discussion. Calling for discussion rather than calling for change might avoid some of the absolutism that is uncomfortable for some. (though I realize that change would pretty much destroy the manifesto part of this manifesto.)
Jana, I just want to say thanks for being so brave. When someone writes a book on Mormon feminism in all its various forms in the 21st century, I have a feeling this manifesto will be cited a radically progressive statement.
You see? Doc, don’t you think you could at least be kind? If you are concerned about the points you mentioned, couldn’t you respectfully say something like:
“I didn’t notice a provision in your manifesto for what the Lord God has planned for the Church.”
or
“Do you plan on using civil disobedience to promote your platform? I worry that you may end up burning bridges.”
Otherwise you are treating feminist concerns with a lack of respect and contributing to the fear and oppression that give rise to our dissent. Can you understand this?
I’m still mulling over my reaction to this post. I suspect the way list is framed will cause many people to render quick judgment; I worry it simply reinforces a view of feminism as “otherness” — a distrust in “those feminists” . . . when so many LDS women have been trying to expand the definition of feminism to help Mormon women of all stripes find common ground.
I’m sympathetic — oh so — to BIV’s feelings of fear or judgement. But that’s part of my dislike of words like manifesto or proclamation (when the church uses them or when we use them) — it feels like it draws us vs. them boundary lines. And we are wired to distrust “others.”
I’ve been thinking a lot about Margaret Young’s thread about Mormon Literature over at T&S. It was essays and fiction by Mormon women that not only helped my find my voice (starting as a pre-teen) but also helped me find my way within the church. I still believe that the parable will have efficacy that the maxim cannot approximate.
Of course I have my own hopes — lesson manuals that included more words and stories of women; a renewal of the historic mission of Relief Society; more diversity (ethnic, marital, occupational) among female general leadership, etc.
So what — for me? For now, I do my best to tell those stories when I teach, speak and write; to overtly support the service and leadership in my ward’s RS; to speak up when I hear exclusionary comments; and to strive to be person the YW can look up to as one model for how to live a flourishing life. It also means I support the right of you (and those who helped you write this) to express your hopes in the format that feels right to you. (And my right to critique it 🙂
This is a fantastic idea! Having something concrete to rally around makes keeping and gaining support for change much more effective. With that said, I have a few issues. The first being homosexual sealing’s. I am very much a feminist, but I can’t think of anywhere in the Bible or Book of Mormon where homosexuality is made out to be OK. Maybe I’m wrong, if so please correct me. As for the RS conference with no men, I think that’s only fair…or maybe women could be a part of priesthood meetings. Either way, attendance should be equal. Final critique, I truly believe Bishops are inspired to call individuals. To take away that tenet of the calling would take away an important aspect of the Bishops purpose. However, if women were serving WITH their husbands as BishopS then I think equality could be achieved.
The rest of the manifesto was really quite good. I especially like #2. I know I was always really annoyed growing up when I would see and hear all about the cool things that the boys were doing and feeling quite dejected that I only got to create paper heart shaped cards…because that was really going to help me in the real world. I say start ’em young. #4 and #8 were also excellent. Keep up the good work. I look forward to a finished product after everyone’s comments have been taken into consideration. This is how all the greatest documents were created, including the declaration of independence. All if it through debate and thought…Ryan. That’s what this is about. It’s about THINKING. No need to attack someone’s thought process. That’s what we’re here for, to think. I know this is a concept lost in the LDS culture, but to follow without questioning and thinking is stupid and God does not want stupid servants.
This post is fascinating to me, but I still struggle to understand what you might call the “church worldview” that such a manifesto as this exists in. I assume (although perhaps incorrectly) that the manifesto is not claiming that God is the one who needs to change, but rather that God would agree with these changes and it’s the church leadership who needs to change. If such is the case, though, then it does, as Julie Smith points out above, indicate an awfully wide gulf between God and the leadership of the church. Indeed, if #6 aligns with God’s will, then it would turn out that not only are the prophets not on track, but going in the complete opposite direction. If such is the case, what authority do prophets and apostles of the LDS church have and what claims to truth can they make?
I ask the following question, not as a rhetorical weapon, but as a genuine theological question, what’s wrong with the RLDS church, now Community of Christ? It seems to me that if I held the beliefs stated in the above manifesto, their church would be extremely attractive. They hold many of the same traditions as we do – our history, The Book of Mormon, D&C, even much of our culture of wards and stakes and so forth, and yet they have a sense of democracy and much more of what they consider gender equality. They do have female apostles after all.
Again, I’m not trying to say go join the RLDS. I’m just trying to figure out, given a worldview that encompasses the above manifesto, what makes our church more attractive than theirs?
Eric:
I appreciate the kind tone of your comment. Thank you.
I _am_ interested in visiting the Community of Christ church. I have enjoyed reading about their traditions on their website.
Your comment begs the larger question, though, of whether one should leave the church if it’s so dissatisfying and find a new religious home. I think the LDS church makes it _very_ difficult for members to leave w/o huge social ramifications. For example, for some women to leave the church, they would also be making the choice to leave their marriages (because their husband won’t tolerate a non-LDS spouse). They might risk losing custody of their children or they might not have the ability to financially support themselves on their own.
For me, I feel the need to call for change in the LDS church because it’s where I’ve grown up and I feel like I will always be “Mormon” to some extent–no matter where I choose to worship on Sundays.
Fun post, Jana.
I agree with Eve and others — it’s really as much your church as it as anyone else’s. You’re a member of the community.
A few quibbles:
First, ableism. Um, I realize that this may be a concern for some folks around here. On the other hand, I think it’s kind of silly to mix it in with sexism and racism. We don’t have any proclamation about the handicapped. We don’t have institutionalized segregation. Handicapped members suffer from neglect and private slights, but that’s a very different position than women (or, for many years, Blacks) and I think it just muddies the water to mix it in.
So I’d recommend that you replace “ableism” with “homophobia” in that sentence. Not to endorse ableism — but I don’t see it institutionalized in the same way as racism, sexism, homophobia.
Second quibble: “We are men and women, gay and straight, white and of color, of varying ages and abilities, from many nationalities and economic backgrounds.” Um, please don’t tell me you just said “men and women” in that order in a Radical Feminist Manifesto. 🙂
“homosexual, intersexual, and transgendered”
A gay friend of mine hates the term “homosexual” — he says it’s too clinical. Also, it seems that you combine groups here — lesbians, gay men, bisexual people. Why not use a different terminology? For example, I’ve seen the label, “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered” before in descriptions of gay-rights groups.
Anyway, just a few quibbles. Carry on. 🙂
In reply to Anonymous (11:35), Jesus Christ didn’t start a church. His followers did.
i suppose here we will have to agree to disagree. i believe most church members believe that Christ is actually and literally at the head of the Church, leading it, directing it, guiding its leaders on doctrine and teachings and structure and even many policies and programs. i don’t hold up prophetic infallibility but i don’t look at Christ as simply a distant observer of the church simply standing back and letting mortals run the show without His involvement. the church is His. 3 nephi sort of makes that clear in my mind, as do the d&c and testimonies of current leaders.
biv, i am sorry my words made you feel afraid. i really was trying to ask to understand why, if mormonism is perceived to be so fundamentally off in so many ways, what keeps one wanting to try to change it rather than find something that feels more consistent with one’s beliefs? like another commenter said, this is not meant as a weapon but a real question.
jana – a huge concern i have with this manifesto is that there is no room for women in the church who are happy in the church with things as they are. this radical feminism draws a deep, hard line and leaves a good chunk of mormon women out. it builds walls…that doesn’t strike me as consistent with what feminists want…don’t they really want room for women to be happy and fulfilled in their own ways? what of the women who feel that way in the church as is? or is this a narrow feminism that doesn’t want a broad reach but seeks to champion change?
there is fear on the flip side of this manifesto — a fear of disagreeing with it and being seen as sexist or blind or passive or uncaring or not supportive of women. what can one who disagrees say, really? the tone seems to really want to silence any opposition at all. it just seems to take what is perceived as divisive in the church and create new lines of divisiveness.
The question of finding a new religion that fits better with ones views is an interesting one and one I have struggled with for years. Through much thought, deliberation and prayer I have come to the conclusion that I can’t just leave because this gospel is true. It’s leaders are fallible and just as subject our cultures faults and bias as the next guy. Nevertheless, they have been called and ordained by God. I really do feel and believe that given enough time and questions the current patriarchal centered organization of the church will change. It’s just a matter of preparation. There are a lot of LDS people in the world and they too need to be prepared to receive more truth. It is my opinion that more of this truth concerns women and their role of leadership within the church. I could be wrong, but I don’t feel that I am. For that reason, I feel an intense desire and urgency to prepare those around me for the change that is bound to take place. God prepares His people, and we have lived in a world of patriarchy for a millenia. It takes humans a little time to get used to change. It is sites like these that help to bring about that change. It’s about awareness. Don’t give up on the gospel. It’s true. It’s perfect. People make the gospel imperfect. Stick it out, but don’t be quiet about the injustice you see and feel. Scream your objections from the pews. More and more LDS members are getting prepared to hear feminist voices. The very existence of this site proves it. Leaving the church will help no one and nothing. Be the change you want to see.
It seems unlikely that someone who believes God leads the church would think a blog manifesto a good way to tell God how he should run it.
People who don’t believe God leads the church have LOTS of ideas how it should be run.
It’s leaders are fallible and just as subject our cultures faults and bias as the next guy.
Your comment shows that you, like the leaders, are fallible and subject to your culture’s faults and biases. Ordain women! Marry gays! Drive a hybrid! Boycot Walmart! Buy local! …can’t wait to learn which other of your cultural biases God’s told you to prepare us for…
“don’t they really want room for women to be happy and fulfilled in their own ways?”
The answer to this question is yes – feminists almost universally agree that women should be given the opportunities to learn and develop their talents and abilities. I don’t see anything in Jana’s post that disagrees with this statement. I don’t understand why faithful LDS women would be threatened by the substance of the ideas expressed in the Manifesto.
We may disagree with its tone or the fact that Jana, et. al. are non-priesthood holders proposing sweeping changes in the Church, but what about the essential ideas expressed here? Is the idea that women should have the opportunity of holding the same authority as men really that heretical?
Jana, I admire your courage in posting something like this. It certainly get discussion going and raises consiousness about struggles women like myself have within the framework of the church. It’s not a very well-behaved thing to do, but as Laurel Thatcher Ullrich says “Well-behaved women seldom make history.”
I do think one of the anon posters brings up a valid point, namely, is there room here for women who are happy with the way things are? Admittedly, that’s a hard position for me to empathize with anymore because much of the current policy with regard to women leaves me aching inside.
ECS, I appreciate your comment and feel similarly, although I can understand why some women feel threatened by this challenge to authority. I was socialzed to say things like “I wouldn’t want the priesthood anyway” and to basically never question authority. I was socialized to be well-behaved and keep quiet. Stepping outside of those roles feels like a threat to people who were raised like me. I’ve reached a point where I just can’t behave in those proscribed ways anymore, but I understand where the defensiveness comes from.
I’m sad that discussions like this seem to bring out the worst in some people. Whether or not we agree on feminist issues or degrees of authority, I think we would all agree that God is Love and the gospel is one of love. There are ways we can disagree but still treat each other with respect, as a number of commenters here have shown.
A quick comment on #1: I would love to have women conduct my temple recommend interview — but wouldn’t empowering the RS president to do this make more sense than a couple bishop? It would reaffirm the powerful role of Relief Society as a spiritual organization — but more practically, couples aren’t always equally suited for such a job. And it would exclude from such leadership single women and women in interfaith marriages. As one of the latter, I am grateful for the RS because it allows me to minister to and lead sisters regardless of my marital status.
I would focus much much more on reclaiming/revitalizing the history, mission, and distinctive nature of Relief Society. My membership in RS, and belief in its spiritual endowment and promise, is at the very core of my Mormon identity. I vote for consciously reaffirming our own distinct history (healing blessings, a more autonomous RS, the focus on education and scholarship, civic involvement, speaking up on behalf of women’s rights worldwide, etc.).
To respond to some of the comments about not wanting change in “my” church, well, it’s my church too. And was the church of my ancestors. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen quite a few changes, and if you add in my ancestors, you’d have to count quite a few more. Everyone has to learn to adapt. Many of those changes came about because of suggestions or pleas from the membership, or because of outside forces. The change to two piece garments is one example of a change because of requests from the membership. So I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all to ask for change. In my lifetime, I’ve seen women lose a great deal of control over their own organization: loss of the RS magazine, loss of control of budget for RS and the RS room itself, which used to be a more separate entity. On the gain side, as far as the institutional church goes, we’ve gained the chance to give prayers in Sacrament Meeting, and most wards now have a changing table in the men’s room. It doesn’t seem like much of a net gain to me.
(And I’d bet that those changing tables are there because of women’s comments over the years. This was discussed a few times in Exponent II, 20 or 30 years ago.)
As for the “manifesto”, I’d suggest taking out the same sex marriages. Not that that I don’t support gay rights, but because I don’t think it’s a part of feminist issues.
I don’t understand why faithful LDS women would be threatened by the substance of the ideas expressed in the Manifesto.
becuase in my mind, ends don’t justify means, and also because i think some of the ideas are doctrinally unfounded.
undermining authority as this document does, assuming that feminists’ points of view are more accurate, more loving, more godlike than those of prophets is just plain wrong in my mind. i don’t expect prophetic views to be popular in society’s interpretations of things, and i think we will actually see them become more divergent, not less. i highly doubt that blogs will be the force for change in the future and i find no value in thinking that somehow reading blogs will prepare me for revelations in the future. if anything, they make me hold tighter to what the prophets are currently saying. i also think external forces on change are a bit overstated. sure, something like two-pieced garments is no big deal, but changing fundamental doctrines just isn’t going to happen as a result of social forces.
BiV: What I am afraid of is your opinion that you are allowed to question authority, structure and gospel, but *I* am not allowed to question you. If you reread my original comment, you will see it was not in any way one of those “if you don’t believe – just get out!” comments, and instead an honest, curious and deep question. Apparently it’s not allowed because it will make people afraid of the social ramifications of their questions and choices within the church?
In reply to Anonymous (11:35), Jesus Christ didn’t start a church. His followers did.
i suppose here we will have to agree to disagree. i believe most church members believe that Christ is actually and literally at the head of the Church, leading it, directing it, guiding its leaders on doctrine and teachings and structure and even many policies and programs.
In reply to anon 11:13, (sounds like a Bible verse reference almost) I have no difference of opinion that Christ is ultimately the head of our church and many other churches today. However, that was NOT the case during his lifetime/ministry on earth. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about early Christianity, not what today’s Mormons believe. I don’t agree that Christ has anything to do with policy setting in today’s church; there are too many contrary to his spirit and teachings (spending millions to fight gay marriage rather than poverty).
i don’t hold up prophetic infallibility but i don’t look at Christ as simply a distant observer of the church simply standing back and letting mortals run the show without His involvement. the church is His. 3 nephi sort of makes that clear in my mind, as do the d&c and testimonies of current leaders.
That’s not what I said, either. My point was that Jesus Christ did not start a church in his lifetime. Early Christianity as practiced by Christ’s followers was far more egalitarian and women-friendly than Mormonism of today is.
Since I’ve studied early Christianity and women’s roles in religion, I wouldn’t mind going back to earlier, more egalitarian models for church leadership, worship and pariticipation. It would address some of the gender imbalances the [woManifesta] brings up.
Most Mormons aren’t aware of just how radical Christ’s teachings were. I find it kind of amusing that Jana and others contributing to the [woManifesta] are being accused of the same things Jesus was for his radical teachings. Makes me think you’re on the right track. 🙂
Julie P, I’m not BIV, but I’ll attempt to answer a bit. Sometimes the question you asked is genuinely a question. But often it’s more of a dismissal– a way of saying I don’t have to listen to your issues because you’re just a whiner or an apostate, and if you’d just leave the rest of us would be quite happy without you. It gets very tiresome. But if this is genuinely a question on your part, here’s one good answer:
http://www.newordermormon.org/why_we_choose_to_stay.htm
As for me, I stay because of many of the reasons listed there, and because I find much good about the church. But as I said in my last post, there have been a lot of changes in my lifetime alone, and many of them were not particularly for the better IMHO.
“I agree with Eve and others — it’s really as much your church as it as anyone else’s. You’re a member of the community.”
Kaimipono,
Don’t you think its Christ’s church more than its yours, mine or Jana’s? The manifesto is doomed among Mormons by its treating the church as a social club and failing to acknowledge that the church is Christ’s kingdom, and that he leads it. Mormons who think Christ leads the church (and I imagine most active members think this) will be offended by this attempt to, from their perspective, tell Christ how he should lead his church.
When I used the term “my church too”, I was thinking of something that Camilla Kimball said, at least I think it was Camilla Kimball, but I could be wrong. The main idea was that you shouldn’t let anyone else push you out of the church through remarks about your behavior because it’s not “their” church– it’s “my church” too.
Jana,
The document doesn’t even attempt to engage the question of God’s omniscience, nor does it confront the very Mormon concept of prophetic authority. Until it does, I don’t see any way in which it can even be called Mormon. It reads more like a laundry list in a political platform.
The tone is unnecessarily belligerent and bullying. It reminds me of the neighborhood busybody who knows, just knows what is best for everybody and is determined to see that they get it, whether they want it or not. And to simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement about the deficiencies of Mormons is pretty smug.
I find your answer to Eric R. unsatisfying. Sure, there is a social cost to be paid when leaving the faith. People get divorced over that all the time. But about 85% of those people are men who lose their children and their marriages because they leave and the wife remains. Your focus only on the women reveals your own bias and sexism.
The last point about self-calling pretty much sums up the entire document. If we boil it all down, we are left with this: Why can’t we do whatever we want and still call it Mormon?
Bored,
If the people I worshiped with this morning saw this, about 90% of them would experience it as something deeply hurtful, on the order of a physical assault. Your ward is probably no different. How, exactly, should we expect them to respond? The document comes right out and calls Mormons sexists and racists, and implies that Gordon B. Hinckkkley presides over a corrupt and evil organization. We can’t, as Jana has admitted, be “a little abrasive”, and then decry the tone of the comments that follow. The post is a throwdown, and we don’t need to look in the comments for a lack of respect. We can find plenty of that in the document itself.
Caroline,
I’m afraid that from my perspective, this post mistakes the baby for the bathwater.
Kaimipono,
I question whether this is as much Jana’s church as anybody else’s. While there is no doubt a sense in which Mormonism will continue to influence her, she simply is not as engaged anymore. She and her husband have decided that the costs outweigh the benefits, and they have left. They also have chosen to remove their children, in an effort to shield them from the evil the church seeks to inflict upon them. Let’s honor them for having the courage to follow their convictions, but let’s not pretend that it doesn’t matter.
My point was that Jesus Christ did not start a church in his lifetime.
that assumes that He wasn’t involved in the creation of the church via his leaders then and i think that is an incorrect assumption. i think he was involved then as he is now.
just have to say, “what mark iv said.” those are my thoughts but articulated so much better than i ever could have.
Most Mormons aren’t aware of just how radical Christ’s teachings were. I find it kind of amusing that Jana and others contributing to the [woManifesta] are being accused of the same things Jesus was for his radical teachings. Makes me think you’re on the right track. 🙂
i find this logic almost funny because this document is really only radical in relation to the church, not society. if anything, your logic, imo, you has basically shown how the church continues to be “radical” in the way the Savior was, because it takes positions and has its elements that are unpopular with society’s views. thus, the church must be on the right track. 🙂
Perhaps some of us who don’t “just leave” might have a testimony that this is Christ’s true Church.
So much of modern Mormon revelation comes to its prophets only as a result of their questioning God and receiving a corresponding answer. God rarely (if ever) sends modern prophets lightning-bolt revelation out of the blue. How can God answer a question that is never asked? And how can prophets (or any of us) ask questions so completely outside our life experiences that they’d never occur to us. My grandfathers would never question whether or not men should be The Church Leaders, because That’s The Way It Is And Always Has Been. My son, on the other hand, asks, “If women lead companies and countries fight fires and run for president, why aren’t they Church leaders, as well?”
This Manifesto creates the discussions that may make us start thinking, “Well, why do we do things the way we do – could there be a better way?”
Personally, I would LOVE to see a church that incorporates the ideas presented in Jana’s manifesto with the doctrines of eternal progression taught by the LDS church. After all, if women are going to become goddesses and men are to become gods, they’ll need lots of practice in ALL kinds spiritual, physical and psychological leadership and mentoring.
Interesting post. I disagree with most of it but to each their own.
The question I have, and it is a sincere one, is regarding Number 7. If you believe that President Hinckley is a prophet of God, why wouldn’t you want to hear from him at RS meeting?
I understand that you feel that there is inequality when men can speak at RS meetings, but woman can’t speak at Priesthood meetings, but I think there is a danger in wanting to distance yourselves from the Prophet.
BIV-
Then let Christ lead it, not Jana.
And how can prophets (or any of us) ask questions so completely outside our life experiences that they’d never occur to us.
they don’t have to experience everything personally to know that these concerns exist and if it needs to be addressed, imo. if they know through their prophetic calling that things are right as they are (which, for example the proc on the family indicates is the case, plus other pretty direct teachings that are repeated – they are confident in their positions on these things), then they will have no need to ask about these things, messages from disgruntled folks notwithstanding. not that they don’t care about the PEOPLE who have these concerns, but they can’t change these ISSUES due to social pressure. i don’t see them asking if what they think is asking amiss. (i also have a hard time seeing them respond to something or someone that calls their very prophetic callings into question…how can they? why go to a prophet to ask him to change something when you don’t support his prophetic role in the first place (referring to this document, and those who support it, not necessarily all individuals here…)?
and lastly, let’s suppose he DID (or has?) prayed about these things and gets different answers? then what? people talk about how we don’t need to listen to everything prophets say because they are not perfect, but i see NO indication of any consideration that these points of view (any or all of them) could be wrong. that without any authority or calling to do so. pretty mormonly radical, indeed.
It’s proposals like this that turn some of us away from the label or even the concept of feminism. Ouch.
“As such, we write this proclamation to assert our needs and our agenda for those oppressed by the church’s stand on issues of gender and sexuality.”
I do not believe that women are oppressed, even if it is true that things are out of balance. Also, I find it interesting that you so easliy insist on your right to reject official proclamations from the leaders of the church and then turn around and say you want to preside in ward meetings. I would not want a bishop, male or female, that expressed so rebeliously his or her refusal to accept offical proclamations. Can you imagine, newly called Bishop, Sister Johnson, calls on her ward to reject the Prophet. Unfortunately, I do believe that if you were ever the Bishop of a ward, you would do just that.
Eric said”For example, for some women to leave the church, they would also be making the choice to leave their marriages (because their husband won’t tolerate a non-LDS spouse). They might risk losing custody of their children or they might not have the ability to financially support themselves on their own.”
What does that have to do with the Church? If you want an issue lets not marry Lame-O’s. Have you ever read a priesthood Manual? There are no secret lessons on how to get your wife to do what you want or what to if your wife decides to leave the church. Even if one spouse leaves the church, The Church Always supports the family. I am so tired of women marrying these men who are lazy,unsuportive, and shelfish, And then Trash them, you choose to marry them.(And I am not talking serious abusive issues, just a jerky husband)
Here’s a newsflash– if your husband demeans you, supresses you in anyway, doesn’t listen to your opinions,is abusive or a jerk.– Not the Church’s fault… he is just an ass.
Laura C.
“This Manifesto creates the discussions that may make us start thinking, “Well, why do we do things the way we do – could there be a better way?”
I love this comment. Were we not commanded to first study these things out in our hearts and minds? I think that is an open invitation for questioning. If something is true, it will hold up to questions. If not, well then something has got to change. Joseph Smith began the church with a question, he continued to lead the church with questions…many of them questions the members posed to him…do you really think he would want that to stop? Do you really believe that Christ would want us to stop asking questions?
Of course not. That’s an insult to our very divine natures as intelligences.
“Personally, I would LOVE to see a church that incorporates the ideas presented in Jana’s manifesto with the doctrines of eternal progression taught by the LDS church. After all, if women are going to become goddesses and men are to become gods, they’ll need lots of practice in ALL kinds spiritual, physical and psychological leadership and mentoring.”
Word.
deborah:
“allows me to minister to and lead sisters regardless of my marital status.”
Huh. I hadn’t thought of that. That’s a good point.
Anonymous:
“It seems unlikely that someone who believes God leads the church would think a blog manifesto a good way to tell God how he should run it”
Don’t underestimate the power of the blog. President Bush wanted to shut down multiple blog sites during his administration due to their intense anti-war stance. If they weren’t a threat, do you think he would even care? Of course not. Furthermore, if they are so insignificant, why do you spend your precious time trying to fight what is being questioned and posed on this blog site? If you don’t think change could occur due to the interaction found upon this blog, why waste your time?
Furthermore I don’t believe anyone on this site is trying to tell God how to run the church. Questioning is the only way change and answers are found. Maybe you should read Laura C’s comment.
“I am so tired of women marrying these men who are lazy,unsuportive, and shelfish, And then Trash them, you choose to marry them.(And I am not talking serious abusive issues, just a jerky husband)
Here’s a newsflash– if your husband demeans you, supresses you in anyway, doesn’t listen to your opinions,is abusive or a jerk.– Not the Church’s fault… he is just an ass.”
I have to wonder if you’re married…
Furthermore, if they are so insignificant, why do you spend your precious time trying to fight what is being questioned and posed on this blog site? If you don’t think change could occur due to the interaction found upon this blog, why waste your time?
really, i don’t in any way fear the effect blogs can have on the church at large (i think they can influence individuals, but the church will be what it is whether we choose to jump on the train or not). the church has never been about taking popular stances and responding to societal pressure. i’ve never really agreed with the idea that our questioning and searching is supposed to be about changing the church; it’s supposed to be about changing ourselves and firming up a testimony. not that we can’t ever give feedback, but a. why spend time in an indirect way (blogs) rather than using the approved channels to get feedback actually where you want it to go? and b. we should not expect that we always will know what is best and right. in the end, we aren’t the ultimate decision makers, ya know? we sort of agree to that by being members of the church, imo.
President Bush wanted to shut down multiple blog sites during his administration due to their intense anti-war stance. If they weren’t a threat, do you think he would even care?
why did he care, though? because his position relies on popularity points and poll results. prophets, on the other hand, are in their position because the Lord called them to be, who have come right out and said that they don’t care about what popular opinion is of them or their positions on things. they can’t or they wouldn’t be trustworthy.
Furthermore I don’t believe anyone on this site is trying to tell God how to run the church.
that’s the way the manifesto comes across to me. perhaps you read it differently?
“that’s the way the manifesto comes across to me. perhaps you read it differently?”
I do read it very differently. Let me point out the paragraph at the begining of the Manifesto.
“For now, I see this document as a work-in-progress. I hope that you will comment on whether or not you agree with its assertions, or you will suggest edits. It is my hope that this document can become a “proclamation” that will speak for many Mormon women who are invested in social change.”
Jana says “many Mormon women” not God or ALL Mormon women. It seems to me she is merely trying to raise awareness. Of course this is just my view, I’m sure she could tell you better.
Amen to Julie M., Eric Russell, and Mark IV.
Honestly, Jana, I’d be interested in seeing a list of things in the LDS Church that you actually want to see preserved. In line with all of the things you mentioned, would there be any commandments left? Would it be presumptuous, for example, for a Prophet to tell his/her people that they must not engage in sexual activity before marriage? Would there be any point in people making eternal covenants if it were deemed uncompassionate to discipline those who break them? (You didn’t state these things, but they seemed to be implied by the tenor of your message.)
Your suggestions would reduce Mormonism to “let’s include everyone in full fellowship no matter what they do, so long as they (1) don’t kill someone else, (2) don’t make someone else feel bad for his/her choices, whatever they may be, and (3) do their family history.” Such a Church would require no real sacrifices of its members and would therefore be completely ineffectual as Christ’s church on the earth. But, then, you don’t believe this is Christ’s church. Well, then why change it at all? To protect Mormon women from a patriarchal hierarchy? Couldn’t that best be accomplished by them leaving the hierarchy altogether? But, if they leave, then there are averse consequences for them, as you mentioned in your response to Eric Russell. That’s a different issue. If that’s your main concern, then it seems your best course would be to quit poking at Mormonism’s main tenets and instead encourage members to show love to those who have left the flock. You’re not going to do that effectively, however, if you abuse Mormonism’s core teachings and suggest that faithful members are bigots. It’s undiplomatic at best.
Incidentally, Mormonism isn’t a list of arbitrary rules, some of which are nice and others of which are not nice. The principles are aligned with universal laws. Does change happen? Obviously. Should it? Absolutely. But, some things may never change because that change would conflict with universal laws by which God himself is bound. I don’t know if the male/female priesthood division is an eternal principle. I wouldn’t have a problem if President Hinckley announced tomorrow that women could be ordained to the priesthood. It wouldn’t shake my testimony. It also wouldn’t shake my testimony if I found out that the gender divide of the priesthood is an eternal principle. The point is that I believe in a benevolent, omniscient God who knows what’s best and whose spokesperson on earth currently is President Hinckley. (Which isn’t to say, obviously, that I don’t believe in personal revelation.) What is considered progressive by our society at the moment may not turn out to be progressive when all is said and done. Hence the need for a prophet. But, you’ve doubtless heard this line of reasoning many times before…
My X2blogfriends:
I’ve been away from my computer for most of the day so it’s been interesting to return home late tonite and see how the conversation evolved during the day.
Please know that I’ve read all of your comments and I appreciate that so many of you have taken the time to respond. It means a lot to me to know who you like and don’t like about the RMFM.
Thank you.
Thanks for the chance to comment on this amazing post. It is wonderful for me to see that there are others, outside of a tiny group of people I know, who have thoughts and questions about feminism and the church.
I want to just say a few examples of why I agree with ideas in Jana’s posting.
1–Women Bishops (I agree with previous postings about not just couples). I have a relative and two friends who stayed in abusive marriages primarily because of the advice of their bishops. “Boys will be boys,” said my friend’s Bishop, and “You need to just forgive, and try to be more accepting of him,” said the other Bishop when they were told what was happening. It took their family’s support to finally get them out of the marriages. (Lest people think this just doesn’t happen with Bishops anymore, these incidents happened in the last 2-5 years. And as for the “Just don’t marry jerks” comment–these were all temple marriages, to RM’s, BYU grads, etc, etc. No obvious warning signs.) I believe that if women had the type of authority Bishops possess, it would help more people serve and solve problems in the ward, because women can often understand the problems of other women much better. I am not at all saying women are more empathic than men; it is just that it is hard to understand problems you have no experience with. I also agree that it may be easier for people to have a choice with whom to interview or confess. While some may say “But the RS presidents already have authority,” in the above divorce cases, the RS president was not enough–she has no authority over husbands. Sympathy and service are wonderful, but they can only go so far.
(And I have to say my husband’s opinion about Couple Bishops–“That would sure help take the pressure off me! And then they wouldn’t have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find Bishoprics in singles wards.”)
2–Boy Scouts. I definitely agree that there needs to be an equally funded program for the girls. When I was Laurel President nine years ago, I suggested for an activity that we go see the local high school play, at a cost of $3 per girl. I was told we didn’t have enough money in our budget. So we did scrapbooking, again. That same week, all of the Priests went skiing for a full day at Sundance, at a cost of at least $25 per boy.
In my previous ward, in the same month we first had the young women come by selling candy roses they had made so that they could earn enough money to have a Girls’ Camp. Then later we had two members of the Bishopric come by, unaccompanied by any young men, to ask us to please donate to the Scouting program, which we felt obliged to do. I could go on for pages…
7,8–Women presiding–It has been suggested, why have a separate RS at all? I think that with society being the way it is, especially in some cultures outside the US, we need to have a separate meeting for women. I read an article about women in Russia who were political revolutionaries. They tried to hold meetings with men present, but then decided to have revolutionary meetings with just women, so that the women could have more of a chance to find their voices and articulate their own ideas. I think that in the future, the women and men’s meetings can be together, but the way things are now, it might be best separate. But women should definitely be in charge of their own organization.
3–Drop the preside language of marriage–I wrote a little comment on the T&S blog about how the Proc. to the Fam. has been taken by some members I know to mean male authority, and other commentators acted like this was completely out of the ordinary. I wish rather than believe this to be true. I have seen too many examples to the contrary. Language and the way we describe things are so important. We use language when we pray–it is how we communicate with Heavenly Father from this side of the veil. What we call something can change the way we feel about it. “Preside” means to many people “in charge of; the boss of,” and it would be so good if we could find another more easily understandable way to describe the equality of the roles of both genders.
And to all those other comments…
Change DOES come from members noticing problems. Didn’t the Word of Wisdom revelation come after Emma told Joseph about the horrible mess the Brethren were leaving when they missed the spittoons during their meetings? And I know from a story a relative told me (so yes, this is secondhand rumor) that the Church publicized its stance on contraception being allowable after the daughter of an apostle had a difficult birth with her eighth child, and told her father, “Dad, this is enough.” I believe it is alright to state your opinions when you see there are people’s needs that could be better fulfilled in our church.
I believe our Father in Heaven gave us our agency for a reason, and that he doesn’t solve all of our problems, or the problems with the church, for us. He expects us to work together and solve them using the brains and free wills that He gave us.
Thank you.:) 🙂
Have to say…
“On the gain side…most wards now have a changing table in the men’s room. It doesn’t seem like much of a net gain to me.”
Sad to report that we’ve now been in two brand new ward buildings, in 2003 and (when our stake grew again) in 2005, and according to my husband, who would know, neither had a changing table in the men’s room. Women’s rooms did though.
Sorry that last post was so long. It just felt sooo good to say all that.
I have no problem with the idea that women could have authority roles or priesthood roles. But I would not sustain Jana, who has called for a rejection of official proclamations. And I think the women I would support, who sustain our prophet, are also people that Jana would eventually want to challange for authority. Sure, we can all “ask questions”. But Jana did not ask questions, she made demands to the point of practical rejection of the presiding authority. Though many of those who commented stated that Jana should have used softer language, they ultimately agreed with her. I am wondering if they are simply afraid that this approach may backfire. In the end do those of you who agree with Jana see the Presiding Authority as any more authoritative than Jana does?
Thanks to Julie M. Smith, Mark IV, Eric Russell, Ardis, and Kate…I’ve been stewing over this since reading it yesterday morning, and you’ve expressed my reactions much better than I could have.
I think that steadying the ark is a risky endeavor, no matter how good your intentions or how real your concerns. I find that my attempts to steady the ark only make ME more unsteady.
Its clear from the comments here and elsewhere in the ‘nacle that your concerns are deeply felt and exquisitely painful. I don’t mean to discount them or write them off. But let’s not forget that the head of this Church is the One who has felt every pain, every concern, every insult, and every oppression. He will set everything right—but in His time, through His duly called and authorized leaders.
I’m sorry if I come across as harsh or reactionary, but I have a sincere question. Where in the scriptures does it mention Jesus among homosexuals? Yes, he was acquainted with prostitutes, but I can’t think of a single place where scripture mentions Jesus among homosexuals. Your assertion that he did not care about sexuality runs into problems when you consider that he believed those cities that rejected the Apostles (and the Apostles subsequently “dusted their feet”) were more intolerable than….GASP…Sodom and Gomorrah. Gene Robinson made the same claims when he was elected as Bishop.
“Choose your battles.” In your effort to be radical, you risk being brushed aside as a nutjob. That’s the harsh reality.
Wes, I think you bring up an interesting question about to what extent we believe in ultimate authority. I think that personal authority and taking full responsibility for own our choices is an important exercise of agency. If we percieve all authority as outside of ourselves, how can we use our agency? I think finding the balance between following leaders and being true to our internal, God-given sense of what is Good is one of the paradoxes we must all wrestle with.
I’ve said this before, but I think it is worth saying again, that I truly believe each person here, from Jana to her most vehement opposers are trying to do what they think is right with integrity. I see noble intentions behind the comments on the whole range of the spectrum. If we can treat each other with that in mind instead of calling names or impugning motives, we’d be much more in line with what the true Gospel is all about.
Amy: Amen to that final paragraph.
I’m curious as to who (whom?) you think you would be presenting this manifesto. A Bishop? Even the most understanding and compassionate Bishop would say something like, “We will wait until the prophet reveals something about how to change.” Is this a Manifesto for the Prophet, then? If you believe, Jana, that Christ is the head of this church, and that the prophet speaks for Him, than it seems you are challenging not just the tenets of the organization, but rather Christ himself. Just wondering where you would take it if you were to eventually act on this manifesto, and where, as Caroline said, it would be recorded as a progressive document.
I also don’t want to get into any specifics of the Manifest–it seems both sides have been covered here, but I would like to echo the idea that the language of this document does not suggest that the author is willing to peacefully or amicably work together with current leaders to come to any kind of appropriate solution. In fact, it doesn’t even sound like you respect the Church at all. Disrespect and demanding language do little to foster an open minded debate.
My favorite part of this discussion was at 2/19/2007 01:03:00 AM when Day conceded that perhaps sex-segregated meetings were okay because the Bolsheviks had them!
The tone of several of the commenters here just makes me feel sad. I guess I find it troubling that the people who profess to be such ardent defenders of the Church of Jesus Christ can act so un-Christian towards others, especially others that are struggling. I’ve been thinking to myself for the past few hours…what would Christ think if He read this manifesto? How would He react to Jana and to what she has expressed here?
I obviously can’t speak for Christ, but I don’t think it’s too far outside the realm of possibility that He would respond lovingly and with compassion. I think He would see a woman who desperately wants to connect with Him more authentically (don’t we all?)…but for whatever reason is not able to do so. He would probably seek to understand her, and to provide her with the hope that He was still there for her.
Hang in there, Jana. God is good. He will come through for us.
I briefly read the “manifesto” this morning and thought about it for a while while while driving around meeting customers this AM.
My initial thoughts were.
1. Who posted this and what are her ties to the institutional church? TR holder? Active member?
2. Why the hostile tone?
3. What does Caroline think about it?
4. What would my tr holding wife, mother in law, mother, grandmother, and 5 sister in laws think of it?
Answers
1. If you have been around the bloggernaccle you know that Jana and her husband have left the LDS Church for the Quakers. As a result I see a LDS credibility issue here coming from the author of the manifesto.
2. See number 1 directly above.
3. Even Caroline who generally is pretty on board with some radical ideas seems a bit unsupportive.
4. The women in my life would not be on board for these radical changes.
AmyB,
After reading your comment twice I must say that I agree with this statement you made – “I think finding the balance between following leaders and being true to our internal, God-given sense of what is Good is one of the paradoxes we must all wrestle with”. I think in the process of finding that balance, if we find ourselves outside of the prophet’s circle that is a private issue that we need to go to God with. At the most perhaps a discreet meeting with our leaders is in order to voice our concerns. In my opinion, publicly calling for a manifesto that discredits or discounts or rejects the prophet, revealed doctrine or official proclamations is not how our loving Father in Heaven would have us deal with our internal struggles.
An error when posting…sorry…and also a key typo: should read
“many if not most of those who would volunteer themselves would NOT be qualified by the lord.”
Recently a few comments have stepped over the line in terms of personal insults, and thus they have been deleted.
Like Maria said, I think it would be beneficial for all of you who are slinging insults at Jana to consider for a moment how Christ himself would react, and to try to model your own reaction on His.
Ryan, it’s interesting how you can barge into a feminist forum and arrogantly argue from a purely patriarchal position.
This is ancient history now, but what I find interesting is how often JohnR feels obligated, in a feminist forum, to jump in and protect us from mean patriarchal types who disagree with us. No one likes having his/her righteousness impugned, and perhaps Ryan’s tone was snide and uncalled for (wasn’t really offended enough to analyze it properly)–but if we can’t stand the heat, perhaps we should stay out of the kitchen. Or stay in the kitchen. Or whatever it is we women are supposed to do.
I personally have no problem with the word “manifesto.”
I also think that it’s possible for the church to be wrong about x, y, z and still be right about a, b, c–in which case, it isn’t nonsensical to call the leadership to repentance, as this manifesto seems to do. I don’t think the gender issue is fully analogous to the race issue, but back when blacks were denied the blessings of the temple as well as the priesthood, I would have found it very difficult to just sit there and say nothing. I’m not sure that abandoning the church altogether would have necessarily been the only correct moral choice under those circumstances. If everyone who disagreed with that church policy had just up and left, would the church have gotten a clue and integrated blacks into full fellowship earlier–or would have there been no one left who was motivated to make a change?
That said, I tend to agree with what Julie M. Smith said about remodeling the bathroom. Feminists are always saying they promote fairness and equality between the sexes, not sameness–and yet there is no way you can treat gender as analogous to race without promoting the idea of this “sameness.” You reject gender essentialism–which is the only way it can make sense to tie gay rights to women’s rights–but gender essentialism is the essence of male-female difference. I think I just typed something mind-numbingly inane and redundant in its obviousness. Forgive me, but I just don’t think you can have it both ways–you can’t be Big Tent Feminism and reject gender essentialism, a philosophy which is not only embraced by many sympathetic to feminist concerns but by many self-described feminists themselves.
I do think there are some reasonable goals here–or at least germs of reasonable goals, in some instances–but I think what you really want is a “new revelation,” a la the 1978 revelation (put it in quotes or don’t put it in quotes, depending on your personal view of that historical event), that clarifies the gender issue: is gender essentialism false doctrine, or is it a basic gospel tenet?
I was only 7 years old in 1978 so I don’t recall, but I am wondering what prompted the change made by Pres. Kimball and whether specifically that change came about because black men were writing manifestos to the prophet seeking to “call the leadership to repentence” as madhousewife said.
I think those in leadership roles can make mistakes. But this is supposed to be a house of order. Changes, even when they are necessary, often take time to implement. There are millions of members of this church who all have opinions on different issues. Coffee? Tea? 10% of gross or net? What exactly does keeping the Sabbath Day holy mean? I can’t lay out of priesthood to watch the Super Bowl? All of us have issues. Does God expect us to send Him a manifesto every time each one of us has a problem with some doctrine or policy. There is certainly a better way to handle this. Perhaps someone should spend more time studying exactly what did happen to lead up to the changes made in 1978.
“is gender essentialism false doctrine, or is it a basic gospel tenet? “
I think it is a current understanding subject to change through continuing revelation.
Wes,
YOu should read “All Abraham’s Children” which discusses race and the LDS church. Mauss reports that the change came about in part because the church was opening up a temple in Brazil, and no one could tell who had African blood in them and who didn’t. So the authorities received letter after anguished letter from mission presidents, bishops, etc. expressing concern. Then Harold B. Lee died, who was adamently opposed to extending the priesthood. Kimball came in as president and privately pulled each apostle aside and discussed this issue with them. When he felt like everyone was pretty much on the same page, he called for that meeting in which they all prayed and the answer was confirmed that priesthood should go to all men.
Caroline,
I will read the book “All Abraham’s Children” as soon as I can get a copy. I love to read and I love books that deal with history and culture.
I did not really know much of the history of how Pres. Kimball came about changing the policy on black men and the priesthood. If it is as you say, is there not a pattern here that can be followed by women? I am not saying that it is God’s intention to give the priesthood to women, but if He does have that plan, perhaps He has it planned for the next prophet or the one after that. Though that may not be encouraging to those sisters who want this change now, it certainly must be better than making these demands, and almost seeming at odds with the called leaders of the church.
I think it is a current understanding subject to change through continuing revelation.
This strikes me as a diplomatic and charitable way to say “false doctrine.” Not to put words in your mouth, though. Isn’t it your point that it’s possible for a belief to be simultaneously faulty and sincere? I’m trying to get at whether or not you think the premise that the church has built its patriarchal structure on is fundamentally wrong, or if the patriarchal structure is just a misguided application of a true principle (i.e. men and women are essentially different in a significant way).
For example, my personal belief is that denying the priesthood and blessings of the temple to people in a certain racial category was not in harmony with the revealed gospel of Christ. I think I can hold that belief without accusing Harold B. Lee (or whoever) of being a racist (though he may have been one–wouldn’t know). I can take the charitable view that his (and others’) understanding was limited, but still think he (and they) were perpetuating a false doctrine. I do see how harsh it looks in black & white, though.
madhousewife:
I suspect that JohnR felt particularly defensive on this thread because he’s my spouse. And I’ve often done the same for him when folks have stridently contradicted his blogposts. 🙂
to bbell:
I haven’t discussed my personal choices wrt to the LDS church in this post because this Manifesto isn’t all about me–rather, it’s about a community of feminists that are working on this together. But of course, if ya’ll want to know more about where I’m coming from, you can read more at my soloblog.
madhousewife,
It might have sounded like I was nicely implying that gender essentialism is false doctrine, but actually I wasn’t. I am open to believing that sex is indeed eternal; what I question are the roles and characteristics that are currently associated with each gender. It seems to me like those might change from generation to generation and culture to culture.
I should clarify that I don’t think people need to take an anti gender essentialism stance to wish and hope for women to be ordained. I think women’s non-ordination is a current policy, not an eternal doctrine. And I think there is plenty of room to believe simultaneously in gender essentialism and women’s ordination. After all even if you think women are naturally more spiritual, more nurturing, or whatever else is currently associated with females, none of that would prevent women from being excellent bishops and administrators in the church.
“I haven’t discussed my personal choices wrt to the LDS church in this post because this Manifesto isn’t all about me–rather, it’s about a community of feminists that are working on this together.”
Well that’s a little misleading; it clearly is relevant by the very way you’ve parsed your post. You stated in your original post that “‘we’ are Radical Mormom Femists.” But if you’re now a Quaker, then there’s really no “we” involved since you’ve chosen to disassociate yourself from the collective “we” mentioned in the post. Accordingly, in this case, I think you’ve made your identity one of the focal points of the post, as it goes to the entire “community” argument you advance above. That is, how can someone not associated with the community propose to speak for that community in a “we” context? And, given that you’ve left, how can we trust that the manifesto represents any other Mormon woman, so as to qualify for a “we” status?
I’m not really quibbling over semantics here as much as wondering what it is that entitles you to speak as a Mormon–and more importantly, for other Mormons–when you clearly aren’t a Mormon.
Or perhaps it’s time for me to post a Quaker Feminist Manifesto. It will start “we are Radical Quaker Feminists (except for me, since I’m not really a Quaker, or a feminist for that matter)…”
-jimbob
The church couldnt find enough women leaders to take the young women camping. Its the women’s fault the young girls cant find leadership to take them. not the men
My biggest problem with your manifesto is that it seems to have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with current notions of political correctness. Are you trying to mold God in your own image?
Personally, I’m fine with women holding the priesthood. No problem here, but demanding same-sex temple marriage? It will never happen, and there is no scripture that says it should ever happen. I don’t know if you missed the chastity memo, but HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN (as in the act). I defy you to come up with one scripture that condones homosexuality. You can’t, which leads right back to my initial point: this is a political statement that has nothing to do with religion. You’ve written the “Mormon” right out of your “Radical Mormon Feminism.”
In response to #2, I have one question: Have you ever been a bishop’s wife? I currently am and let me tell you it’s not something I would even wish on my worst enemy. I see firsthand the kind of responsibility, time commitment and the level of frustration involved. My husband is basically AWOL on Sundays and has multiple meetings and events he has to attend during the week. That is in addition to his full-time job and his share of responsibilities with our daughter. I also work full-time (not 9-5, but more like 9-9) and have a calling at church and the last thing I would want is to be dragged into shouldering even half of that responsibility on an official level (in addition to what already comes my way on an unofficial level) where I also have to be accountable for the welfare of the ward.
Sorry, I’m usually not this bitter and snarky 🙂 Some of these comments just struck a nerve with me after a holiday weekend where I had to work all weekend (including working 8 hours after my daughter went to bed, then getting 2 hours of sleep before she woke up in the morning). I guess I just envy people who have the time and the energy to be seeking callings at church.
I have never really referred to myself as a feminist, but I feel like I am when I compare myself to many Mormon women who call themselves feminists. I understand the desire for equal treatment and access to opportunities that underlies feminism, but there are so many ways in life that you can actualize the ideals of feminism. I have the same Ivy League graduate degree that my husband has, am an equal breadwinner in my home and we try to share our parental duties and make household decisions together as much as possible. Many times I meet other LDS women who passed up these opportunities early on and then somehow the church is to blame? Isn’t agency a cornerstone of the church? Sure, I’ve had moments where I feel snubbed at church but I get over it pretty quickly when I consider what I’ve accomplished (and am still accomplishing) in my life.
In response to #9 – I don’t think it’s necessarily the best use of resources to just let people choose their callings. Sure, motivation helps, but wards are complex organizations and you need someone to oversee the best deployment of those resources. You have to consider people’s skills, available free time and personal hardships etc. Also, I think it’s kind of Utah-centric to think that every ward has enough go-getters to adequately staff all the callings. I’m in a ward where people turn down callings all the time and if my husband didn’t have the ability to call people (and for it to seem somewhat compulsory) I seriously doubt we’d have even half of our callings filled.
anonymous 7:30,
I sympathize with your situation. I really can’t imagine how hard it must be to have your husband gone so much, and you so busy with work and with your child.
But I don’t think this is about seeking after callings. (Do I want to be bishop? Hell no.) I think it’s about wanting to help shoulder our fair share of responsibility. If being a bishop is a burden that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, and I believe you when you say that, I think it’s a burden that should be shared equally between men and women. Why is it right that only men should have to suffer under that weight?
Of course your personal circumstances right now wouldn’t allow you to co-bishop with your husband, even if that were an option. But I know of a lot of wonderful, righteous women out there who have more free time than their husbands and who would do a great job ministering to a ward family.