On Asking Questions and Patiently Hoping for Changes

I'm grateful that Church spokeswoman Ally Isom (in her RadioWest interview with Doug Fabrizio) acknowledged there is room for healthy dialogue and even for questioning.  Naturally, most of the revelations Joseph Smith received were because members brought issues to his attention or he himself asked a question.  People help shape the content and context for prophetic inquiries. So in a very real sense, there’s always been trickle-up revelation.

But while listening to her on the interview, I was frustrated that spokeswoman Isom kept conflating a bishop in a disciplinary hearing with God--not to mention the audacity to suggest it is always the member's choice to stay in the Church rather than be excommunicated, and not acknowledging the reality is that it is the choice of one man in a position of "a little authority" (regardless of whether or not he is exercising unrighteous dominion) as to whether or not the accused remains in the Church.

Apparently there are too many literalistic Mormons who seem to conflate God and the prophet too. These folks seem to believe that if God wants change he will literally dictate it to the prophet, as though the prophet is a puppet, so they assume we mortals can just sit back and wait for divine direction.

But from my experience and also in history, I see that God expects for US to make the first move. WE humans decide to act or take a question before the Lord and THEN hope for divine direction.

I'm not crazy enough to think that in 1978 "God changed his mind about black people" or that humans pressure the Lord anymore than he pressures us (which is pretty much zilch). The only real power he has to effect change over us is through love, and there’s a lesson in that for us.  He doesn’t coerce, and nor should we.  I think the Lord waits patiently for us to figure things out on our own.  He had made it clear he “denieth none that come unto him, black or white, bond or free, male or female…all are alike unto God”. But WE didn't get part of that before 1978 until WE changed our perspective.

Historically it has taken us mortals (even our prophet leaders, since they’re not raised in a cultural vacuum) a long time to realize what God already desires for his children. With Paul and all the other prophets, we "see through a glass darkly." But God waits patiently and lovingly for us to correct our perspectives and figure out His will for ourselves. He even shows long-suffering to apostles who live so set in their ways and convinced of the rightness of their position (even though their position turned out to be wrong, and regardless of the "certainty" they spoke with that they knew or "know" Gods will.)

I personally think there's still part of that "all are alike" scripture (and no, he's not referring to biological/physical sameness) that the Church collectively isn't understanding right. Instead of believing Him and taking His word that "all" are alike unto God, in terms of who can or can't be ordained to the priesthood we continue to deny those who happened to be born female, and regardless of their spiritual strength, leadership talents, and the worthy desires of their hearts.

God has never declared that holding priesthood keys or offices was or is some divine gender role--we the people have projected antiquated gender roles onto God.

I think those of us who believe the ninth article of faith--that many great and important things are yet to be revealed--should be patient, but I don't think we need to be passive.  As President Kimball once wrote in a letter to his son Ed: "Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on a couch."

As a historian I'm fascinated by these issues and look for background, context, and reasons—cause and effect—which impact the how and the why things happened the way they did.  Those lessons have much to teach us in the present and the future.

Ironically, another change occurred in 1978--the prohibition (yes, there was a prohibition) on/of women praying in Sacrament meetings. The "Brethren" explained that the policy (set in 1967) "had no scriptural basis and should be abandoned." I believe that there are still gender prohibitions without any scriptural or doctrinal basis that should likewise be abandoned.

And for the record, it wasn't until April of 2013 that a woman first prayed in General Conference. Of course, if you think change comes to passive puppets without any effort on our part, then you probably believe that Ordain Women had nothing to do with that (even though faithful feminists had been seeking after that very thing for years), and also that last October just happened to be a good time to begin televising the General Priesthood Session of Conference (which really should be called the General Men's Session, since women also exercise priesthood power and authority*.)

*Elder Oaks's recent conference talk explained that women already excercise priesthood power and authority, but do not currently hold priesthood offices or keys. He didn't provide a reason, footnote, or citation as to why this is the case--just an assumption that the historical patriarchal pattern is divinely decreed. (Historically we also know that some prophets and apostles also had assumed the racial priesthood ban that ended in 1978 had originated with God, yet the Church's recent "Race and the Priesthood" essay correctly places the ban's origins with Brigham Young in the context of the racism of that day and age.) Elder Oaks did acknowledge, however, that in the temple women perform priesthood ordinances and exercise the priesthood keys of the temple president, though he did not explain why women are banned from performing ordinances outside the temple or why they cannot excercise priesthood keys outside the temple, such as by serving on a stake high council under the direction of or by virtue of the keys of the stake president.

"Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices"

The question is "why?"

Speaking Words of Wisdom

From Margaret Blair Young's post: "Here I Stand. God Help Me, I Can Do No Other.":

When I spoke to a friend recently who is questioning his faith and no longer feels comfortable at church or in the temple, I suggested that he find his own sacred grove and nurture spiritual feelings while the faith issues work themselves out. This person finds spiritual comfort through music, which can lead to spiritual awakening. Songs ranging from “Lead Kindly Light” to “O Happy Day!” can touch us with a sense of the divine and help us seek truth without the burden and pollutant of anger. The statement, “I have been deceived!” is full of anger. If it becomes the starting premise for a spiritual journey, the journey will end in a tempest of rage. There are always other angry people to support angry statements, and those who phrase their fury cleverly are often rewarded by words like “courageous” and “unflinching.” There will always be angry communities. Even if we feel anger is justified, I would urge all of us to ponder the words of Desmond Tutu: “Each act of forgiveness, whether small or great, moves us closer to wholeness.” Consider that statement with the Savior’s poignant question: “Wilt thou be made whole?”

The statements, “I have been loved!” or “I have been forgiven!” lead away from anger, and tend to come in private, reflective, redemptive moments.

I, Margaret Blair Young, have been loved by parents who were faithful to each other and to their beliefs. I have been loved and protected by God. My testimony is not founded in objective fact—which might exist in mathematics but is rare in religion—but in joy and love, which are the fruits of the Spirit. Such feelings let me know that I’m in tune with the divine. As I continue on my spiritual journey, I do see miracle after miracle, which I would not see (and perhaps would not receive) were I whirling in the winds of anger. Anger always confuses perspective and direction and becomes its own tempestuous support—the hurricane under the large and spacious building...

As I have grown and now find myself in my 60th year, revelatory instruction has urged me to flee from argument, to hold out my arms to those who are hurting, to prove my love before I prove my point. I have not always succeeded, but I know that I have been so instructed ...

As to the question of the day—that gender question—I predict, under no authority whatsoever, that we will see significant change and growth over the next twenty years. It will be slow, and those who will be a part of it must be patient and humble. I predict that we will see the ordination of women—but not in the way OW has framed it. I suspect that women will be ordained to a female order of the priesthood, and will be ordained—put into order–to carry out specific assignments. For me, the Divine Feminine is ORDAINED to nurture. This idea is something I have grown into. As a young person, I was antagonistic, argumentative, ready to debate just about anything. At least that’s how I appeared. Actually, I was deeply insecure but had a good vocabulary and used it as my shield. As I have grown and now find myself in my 60th year, revelatory instruction has urged me to flee from argument, to hold out my arms to those who are hurting, to prove my love before I prove my point. I have not always succeeded, but I know that I have been so instructed. I have dealt with difficult circumstances as a mother, but have felt supported in all of my trials—not just so that I could feel comforted, but so that I could comfort my children and bear them up.

The best image I have ever seen of the Divine Feminine is in the film Tree of Life. That woman, that grieving, graced, and graceful mother is the quintessence of how I view the Divine Feminine. I hope she is what I am becoming...

I believe in Heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and Mother; in Jesus Christ who is my exemplar, and in the Holy Ghost, whose peacemaking and consolation I have felt in my most difficult moments. I believe in the divine nature of all human beings, and honor all honest spiritual quests.

I believe in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in its essential points through Joseph Smith, flawed though he was. I believe that he did not fully understand his own prophetic gift, but that God was nonetheless able to work through him. I seek to hold to the core of that restored gospel and not to tarry in the cluttered suburbs.

I believe in visions and revelation. Though I have not had visions, I have many friends who have. I have had revelations which continue. I have had more miracles than I can count, and many which I likely didn’t recognize at the time.

I believe in the power of faith, which works by love, and in love, which casts out fear.

I believe in eternal progression, that “second chances” go beyond this life, that we continue to learn and to grow, and that our potential is infinite, even godly. I believe this “eternal progression” applies to the Church as well. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ will, in the eternities, include all who choose to come unto Him regardless of what denomination they chose earlier. I know of no other Christian religion which holds such an expansive view of human and spiritual possibilities. We aren’t talking about equality but about glory.

I believe in the vision of Eve not as the cursed but as the courageous one who understood that we must pass through sorrow in order to grow. I think of Eve as figurative and symbolic of all women who listen not only to their husbands but to the word of the Lord, sometimes mediating between the two voices (which may be at odds) and thus helping to direct the companioned life.

I believe in the power of faith catalyzed by love as inherent in what we call the priesthood of God, though I do not pretend to understand the fullness of that priesthood.

I believe in the restorative power of the temple, though I recognize that it is not restorative for all. It is my sacred grove, where I leave the world for a time, where I become consciously still and so can feel the presence of the divine. I wear my temple garments with joy, and see them as the emblem of my own priesthood strength.

I believe in the power of church structure, that wards shepherded by imperfect men and women (I see both the bishop and the Relief Society president as shepherds) can provide community, aid, and instruction for all who seek a moral compass and friends to journey with. I would change many things about the manuals, the music, and the length of meetings, but I believe in the intrinsic value of the structures.

I believe in family as the basic church unit, and in our ability to learn the most essential lessons as children, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters as we simply try to get along with one another.

I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is dynamic, that we are YOUNG, and currently experiencing a growth spurt which is at times ugly and sometimes embarrassing. We have pimples, and we are thinning out. Our coordination can be awkward, and we can say impetuous and thoughtless things. Nevertheless, we are growing into something magnificent. If we knew all of the stories from around the world of those who have joined the LDS community, we would be in awe of our fellow members and amazed by our privilege to associate with them.

I believe that the men and women who dedicate themselves to serving the Lord within the LDS structure are almost all sincere and are often inspired—more often than many suspect. They weary themselves to spread the good news of the gospel or to tend those who join the Mormon community wherever it may be, and they do it with little or no compensation. I cherish the volunteer aspect of the Church, and the fact that everyone is asked to do something to keep the community alive and loving. We fail sometimes. But if each does all that they can in the spirit of love, we arise again and move forward.

I believe that as I seek to identify everything “praiseworthy and of good report” within the Church, I will find it. I believe that when I find something less than praiseworthy, I should talk about it, but in the spirit of community and respect, not as gossip or with antagonism. I seek to focus on the lovely.

I proclaim my faith in this gospel. Here I stand as a committed member who will not be moved from this place. God help me, I can do no other.

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/welcometable/2014/07/here-i-stand-god-help-me-i-can-do-no-other/#sthash.ipHRxok8.dpuf

Keep Calm and Carry On, Carry On, Carry On!

Carry on!

Posted by Kate Kelly on Jul 8, 2014 in Blog |

Joy and Sorrow

By Kate Kelly

Like so many of you, I have been moving forward these past two weeks with a heaviness in my heart. I have been focusing on positive self-care. I have made it a point to spend time with family, go on many bike rides, and surround myself with true and stalwart friends. Amid the sadness and pain I have experienced, I’ve been reminding myself of the beauty and magic of life, and all that is wonderful on this earth. There is so much to be joyful and hopeful about. I have experienced what many who experience grief do: sorrow and loss, but also rebirth and a new-found wonder.

Let me be perfectly clear: what happened to me was wrong. It was abusive. It was unfair. It was unacceptable.

But, my reaction is mine to choose. I choose to move forward with grace in the face of brutality, unkindness and the sometimes hideous reaction of human beings to someone else’s tragedy.

I choose joy. I choose passion. I choose the delicious freedom of authenticity.

Points of clarification

There have been so, so many of you who have been with me on this journey. So many of you are fighting online battles in my defense, with those who are reticent to exercise compassion. To you I want to offer some additional information that may help clarify events.

I did not choose to “go public” with my church discipline:

I requested that information about my disciplinary process be kept in strict confidentiality. On May 6 I received an email from my Stake President, Scott Wheatley, that said, “because you have carried your campaign for ordination far beyond the boundaries of our Stake, and have previously told the media and the public that you are a member in good standing, it may be necessary at some point in the future to correct the public record regarding your standing in the Church. For these reasons, I cannot agree to the request in your email for absolute confidentiality.”

Hence, I felt I only had control of how the information about me was conveyed, and the power to tell my story myself, not whether or not it would be made public.

The Bishop who excommunicated me, Mark Harrison, did not initiate the disciplinary process against me or give me any direct council:

December 12, 2013 I met with President Wheatley at his request. President Wheatley emailed me before the meeting and said, “I would like to discuss your efforts regarding Ordain Women and hope to have Bishop Harrison join us.” [emphasis added] Bishop Harrison accepted his invitation to attended the meeting, but did not conduct or chime in much at all. The meeting was conducted by President Wheatley and he largely dominated the conversation. I blogged about the meeting here in December. My take-away from that meeting was that I was not at risk for discipline.

May 5, 2014 was the only other meeting I had with my leaders regarding Ordain Women. I was shocked when President Wheatley requested the May 5th meeting, I told him that I was in the process of moving out of state, as I mentioned to him in December, and was no longer able to meet with him. President Wheatley insisted I meet with him in an email saying he could meet, “anytime, day or night.” He also requested a “move restriction” be placed on my records in order to convey to me I had no choice but to meet with them, despite the move. I was stunned at the sudden urgency of a meeting as I was literally on my way out the door. However, I met with him, under duress, during that stressful time of selling all of my belongings and packing up my apartment, hoping to get the newly placed “move restriction” taken off so I could move on in peace.

Bishop Harrison did not attend the May 5th meeting. President Wheatley specifically said in the May 5th meeting he had no intention of convening a council in absentia. He made no indication that formal discipline was eminent.

There was no additional follow-up from Bishop Harrison regarding either of those meetings in person, over the phone, via email or otherwise until I received the notice that he was convening a disciplinary council on June 8, weeks after I had moved out of his ward.

In fact, just days before our move my husband and I saw Bishop Harrison and his wife at a ward member’s home. He wished us luck on our journey to Kenya and bid us farewell. There was no mention of any pending meeting, disciplinary or otherwise by him. My impression was that we left on good terms and would not hear from him again. He had never reached out to me directly before, despite several emails I sent him requesting he come to me for information on Ordain Women if he was ever troubled by my involvement. 

Aside from quietly attending the December meeting President Wheatley convened, Bishop Harrison never came to me to engage in any conversation about Ordain Women with me directly.

I am not encouraging people to leave the church:

I encourage everyone to find a safe space where they can be their authentic selves and live with integrity. If you feel emotionally capable of staying in the church, I encourage you to stay. However, as active members of the church who see problems with gender inequality, I encourage you to continue to raise questions about women in the church. People of conscience should raise their voices. If you stay, speak up.

It’s not too late.

I am appealing the decision to excommunicate me and it is not too late for the leaders involved to do the right thing. In a recent talk Elder Holland said, “however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made … It is never too late…”

In fact, it’s not too late for the church to do the right thing for Margaret and Lavina and all of the others who have been harshly punished for speaking out in favor of equality in the church. Just as the church teaches individual church members to correct past mistakes, the institution can also rectify old wrongs and heal old wounds. The Church has shown some signs that it is willing to make amends and correct errors of the past.

In fact, it wasn’t even too late for Helmuth Hübener, a young Mormon of extraordinary courage who was summarily executed for standing up to the third Reich in Nazi Germany. Ten days after his arrest by the Gestapo, Helmuth was excommunicated by his local church leaders in absentia. He spoke of his excommunication as more painful than his wrongful conviction by the Nazis. The day he was to be executed, Helmuth wrote in a letter to a fellow branch member: “I know that God lives and He will be the Just Judge in this matter… I look forward to seeing you in a better world!” However, even in Helmuth’s case it was not too late for the Church to do the right thing. After the war was over, he was posthumously reinstated in the LDS Church and had his ordinances restored. His records now indicate he was excommunicated “by mistake.”

One of the most beautiful and comforting things I learned as a young Mormon girl is that repentance is real. We can always forgive, forget and move on from past error or pain. In my personal case, and in the cases of so many others, it is not “everlastingly too late.” I have two levels of appeal, which I intend to pursue. One to President Wheatley, my initial accuser. If unsuccessful, I will appeal to the First Presidency of the Church, as is my right.

Regardless of the outcome of my appeal, my heart will go on beating and I will move forward, confident that I did the right thing. I spoke the truth, with love. I acted with integrity, as I was taught in Young Women. I stood together with my sisters.

We have the choice to let fear of punishment silence us. Let’s choose the courage of our pioneer foremothers over fear. Let’s choose to step into the light and speak boldly instead of hiding in the shadows. Let’s choose to speak up now, instead of accepting a deferred dream for our daughters.

I do not know what the future holds for me, but can assure you of one thing going forward: firm as the mountains around us, Ordain Women will carry on!

We've Polluted the Holy Church of God

I personally have not agreed with every move Kate Kelly or Ordain Women have made. I worry that pride is overriding her humility, and thus her effectiveness for being an agent for good. But I see some of that in myself, so I sympathize. (I should also probably add that I've also been disappointed with much of the way church officials have handled this whole ordeal, as well.)

Mostly, I listen and try to understand rather than rush to judgement. I admit, it sometimes comes easier for me to do this to the side of the underdog, but I know that I need to extend compassion in all directions.

In Mormon 8, Moroni says he speaks to us as if we're present. Then he proceeds to tell us that we've polluted the holy church of God. The worst form of pollution I see is how "Christlike" members have treated each other over faithful differences and points of concern. There has been too much of shunning, judgment, and accusations, and not enough listening, understanding, compassion, and love.

If President Monson or other church leaders have been hurt by anything that has gone down, this is what I think has hurt more than anything--not the existence of Ordain Women, but the despicable responses to OW from fellow Saints. We've polluted the holy church of God. The fruit is seen in the way Kate Kelly's "court of love" is being handled and discussed.

Of course, I'm not sure how aware President Monson is aware of the details since it has been confirmed by top leadership (though not publicized) that he suffers from "short term memory loss", or dementia.

So we need prayers for EVERYONE involved.

The Doctrine of Separate But Equal

In 1896 the all-white-male Supreme Court of the United States (Plessy v Ferguson) decided that as long as facilities and opportunities were equal, racial segregation was acceptable. Despite this early insistence, history shows that both equal facilities, and especially opportunities, were not a reality for an entire group of citizens born with a different skin color. Too often there is a disconnect between our ideals and our reality.

In 1954 the Supreme Court overturned the doctrine of separate but equal (Brown v Board of Education). Thurgood Marshall successfully argued that racial separation deprived black children "of equal status in the school community...destroying their self-respect." The burden of being separated did actual damage and shouted "inferior" to black children. Any system that separated children according to race was by its nature unequal.

After long delays (including rearguing the case after the previous Chief Justice had died), new Chief Justice Earl Warren (who was from California and had not been forced to confront segregation as it existed in the South), took some time to do some sightseeing, touring Civil War battlefields in Virginia. After spending the night in a country hotel, he awoke in the morning and was shocked to find that his black chauffeur had spent the night in the car. Chief Justice Warren was forced to confront the uncomfortable reality of segregation face to face. Hotels in Virginia traditionally did not cater to black visitors. "I was embarrassed, I was ashamed," Warren wrote years later. He became an activist, of sorts, dedicated to making sure that the ruling that came in the spring of 1954 was unanimous: "We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Now all comparisons have their flaws. Nevertheless, I myself have done a little sightseeing. I've been confronted with the uncomfortable and embarrassing reality that many in our church (perhaps because they "sleep" in luxury and privilege while others are living a marginalized reality) refuse to recognize what an increasing number of LDS feminists see: the doctrine of separate but equal in terms of gender equality in the LDS Church is problematic. To deny this is to cast aside the concerns and the pain that so many of our best women have felt. These faithful feminists have been marginalized--their feelings minimized--in favor of maintaining great public feelings of the Church and its brand.  My heart aches that so many members no longer feel they belong to our collective body of Christ.

I believe there is a place for all of us here, including those who feel perfectly content with the status quo. But while many believe in the divinity of the Church, not all believe that an all-male-priesthood-leadership-patriarchy is the ideal. Some, recognizing the Church is a human organization, suggest that it's run much more like a corporation than many care to admit. Others get defensive at just the suggestion that our current reality doesn't necessarily reflect God's ideal. I've heard some say: "If God is in charge, surly he would have fixed it if there was truly a problem. God wouldn't allow sexism to exist within his church". (Brother Jake explains that Mormons are not sexist.)

Because of my understanding of history and the way God has dealt with humankind in the past, including within our own faith, I no longer believe in a God who micromanages us. God doesn't rob us of the opportunity to gain nitty-gritty experience and to learn sometimes-painful lessons for ourselves. He lets us struggle--sometimes a long, LONG time--to ultimately learn his will and correct our own wrongs.

Sometimes it seems that the ultimate truth hides in plain sight: "He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God." (2 Nephi 26:33).

If we truly believe this--that all are alike unto God--then we all ought to be more committed to promoting equality (including gender equality) better than we have traditionally done. (See here for a great example of teaching Mormon women, patriarchy, and equality in a higher education setting by a BYU-Idaho professor.) We should especially stop insisting that things are the way they are because God wants them to be that way.

The actions of Ordain Women within the past year certainly brought this back into the collective conversation, for better or for worse. I've already written about some of the parallels I personally see in history, so I'm not going to belabor the point here. But there's an interesting scene in a film about the Civil Rights movement entitled "Freedom Song" that I can't seem to get out of my mind. After some disturbances in the community involving race relations, one particular white women asks her black housemaid if she had heard about the disturbances (which she categorized as "race riots".) She went on to say: "Made me so upset I couldn't sleep...God made us to be separate. He must have a reason. Finally I realized it must be because he wants us to know our place and to stay in it. Otherwise there would be disorder, and God doesn't want disorder."

I personally believe there is more in store for a woman's place in this church than is reflected by the current order, or the status quo. I still believe, stronger than ever, that women belong in all places where decisions are being made. It doesn't seem right to me that half of our "fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" are not inherently part of the decision making bodies of our church unless invited there by benevolent men--and this based solely on the fact that they happened to have been born female.

No, I believe, with many others, that "all are alike unto God" (2 Ne. 26:33). 

On Ordain Women, Priesthood, and "either the Church is all true or false"

I've been commenting quite a bit on Jana Riess' excellent blog posts lately (especially here, here, and here). I figured when my comments begin turning into book length form, it may be time to simply drop them here on my own blog:

[Responding to Jason, who said that having Ordain Women in the standby line distracted from the spirit on temple square and the inspiration he was wanting to feel at Priesthood meeting, I wrote:]

I can tell you’re very sincere. I hope I can share a different perspective without taking anything away from your own. What I don’t understand is why it’s such a big deal to the Church NOT to allow them inside. To me, the way to make sure you don’t detract from the Spirit is to just say “the more the merrier” and let them in. Having sisters inside next to us doesn’t distract from the Spirit in our other meetings. If we must have gender segregated meetings (and I’m all for that) then let’s call it the “Men’s Meeting” along with the General Women’s Meeting they just held the week before the Priesthood Session. Our leaders have made it very clear that men ARE NOT the priesthood.

Also, please consider how saying that it is all about YOU and YOUR feelings without considering those “selfish” women’s perspective comes across, ironically, as very selfish.

Finally, please take the time to read this excellent post by a friend and former colleague of mine (who recently completed five years of service as a bishop) and who went to witness Ordain Women in person at the very same meeting as you:

Pride of Lionesses: My experience standing in line with Ordain Women


[He thanked me for responding and said he would read it when he got home.  Then he said that Ordain Women's "tactics would be inappropriate at any venue. It’s ok if you and I 'agree to disagree' on certain issues, but please tell me deep down in your gut you agree their approach should be reconsidered". I responded with the following:]

To be perfectly frank...I’m somewhat ambivalent about it.

On the one hand it’s clear that they were asked not to come and they came anyway (although by most accounts were well behaved and peaceful), but because of this there are some who obviously see this as rude and disrespectful and therefore not “well behaved”.

However, there are others who view the request for them NOT to come or to stay in the “free speech zone” as rude and equally disrespectful.

Some on both sides view the other as irrational and unChristlike. (I personally think it would have been completely rational to simply honor their request in the first place since women are allowed to watch the proceedings anywhere else. And had the Church done so there would have been no harm, no foul.)

If you put yourself in the shoes of the supporters of Ordain Women, it’s kind of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, don’t you think?

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich coined the phrase: “well behaved women seldom make history”. (I actually bought my wife a key chain with this quote at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis.)

Speaking historically, I have no problem with civil disobedience of the past, whether the Montgomery Bus Boycott or the Lunch Counter Sit-ins. I’m sure those white restaurant owners and patrons thought that those blacks who peacefully sat in at the lunch counters and politely asked to be served were also being “rude and disrespectful”.

If you pin me down and force me to tell you what I think I agree with, here’s what I think I’d say I agree with:

“I won’t cower to, privilege, or be afraid of authority. I give respect only where respect is deserved.”

“The very notion of Jesus being the author of women’s subjugation and spiritual disempowerment is a contemptible sacrilege. Mormonism’s contemporary sexual politics has more to do with outdated American 20th century cultural and social practices than it has to do with God.”

“If this religion is the international movement that it purports to be it might be time to shuck the barnacles of its host nation so that it can finally become both universally relevant and locally appealing – and that, as a minimum, means healing the institutional breaches in religious practice and leadership between men and women.”

(These comes from Gina Colvin's "Reflections after Temple Square: Furious musings from the periphery")


[A different person ("GR") responded to those statements I quoted from Gina's blog, and wrote that "the comment that Mormonism’s contemporary sexual politics has more to do with outdated American 20th century cultural and social practices than it has to do with God is not the comment of someone who has a firm testimony of the gospel and the Saviours position at the head of it. Either this is the TRUE church or it isn’t." I responded with the following:]


Thank you, GR, for sharing your thoughts. I sincerely appreciate the conversation. I hope I can disagree with some of what you share without coming across as disagreeable.

This binary thinking is extremely problematic, not the least of which would mean that the Lord doesn't honor the agency of the prophet at all, and that the prophet is therefore nothing more than a puppet. Also of consequence is that you then directly put the blame on God for the status quo where one half of the membership is barred from certain offices based solely on their biological sex, rather than chalk it up to the fact that we are all products of our time, and that we and all the prophets "see through a glass darkly" as we walk by faith rather than have direct knowledge as though we (or the prophet) has a clear Heavenly Fax/Phone number. The church has continually evolved and adapted throughout time as humans bring their concerns before God and God honors the desires of our hearts. The one true constant in this church is the fact that it continually changes and improves and progresses past the "status quo"--and thank God for that or blacks would still be barred from our most sacred temple rituals, and black men from holding priesthood.

Please don't assume that things are the way they are because God wants them that way. God doesn't micromanage us. Acknowledging the human element in the Church, as well as the fact that there have been errors in the Church in the past (such as that priesthood ban and also the rationales once used to defend it and that are now completely disavowed) and logically the fact that errors can occur today doesn't mean there is no divinity in the Church. It's not all or nothing, black or white.

I wish that more members would be less prone to dig in their heals and defend the status quo as though their testimonies depended on it, and allow for change and revelation of many great and important things, as their faith should require of them. Hugh B. Brown, who served with David O. McKay in the First Presidency, once said: "while I believe all that God has revealed, I am not quite sure I understand what he has revealed, and the fact that God has promised further revelation is to me a challenge to keep an open mind and be prepared to follow wherever my search for truth may lead."

The Church is not an essentially divine organization marred only by the human weaknesses and foibles of its leaders/members. We--the church--are entirely a human organization responding to the divine with which we have in faith been touched. (Hat tip to Phil Barlow for this insight.)

Please allow me one final correction to your comment. It wasn't the presiding bishop but rather Elder Oaks who said that women in this church already exercise priesthood power and authority, but that they do not hold priesthood keys or offices. (And by the way, neither he nor President Monson have ever said that women shouldn't be ordained. Elder Oaks simply said that they (the "Brethren") don't have the authority to make that change by themselves--meaning that only God can make that change through a revelation.

I openly admit to being perplexed, however, and not because my faith may be less sufficient than yours. I'm perplexed at how Elder Oaks definitively claims that this is the way things are by "divine decree".

I don't think it was ever divinely decreed that 12-year-old prepubescent boys could or couldn't hold offices in the priesthood, and yet they now do.

It is encouraging, however, that Oaks concedes that women exercise priesthood authority and power. But I still wonder how long before he realizes it's not that much of a stretch to assume that if women can currently exercise priesthood authority, that it really shouldn't be a big deal for them to also hold priesthood offices and keys. As far as I know, God hasn't ever said that his daughters cannot hold priesthood offices or keys simply because they were born female.