This past week, I saw a post in my RSS feed that was actually titled “The brides of Satan.” I am not paraphrasing. I am not making this up. This is an actual, real life blog post where the blogger said:
Given the fact that Lucifer’s plan appealed specifically and directly to female spirits and their natures and did not appeal at all to male spirits and their natures, it is logical to assume that the 1/3 were all female.
I probably should have DoNotLink‘d to that post, because a sliver of me considers that the only reason someone would write a post like this is for page views. (FWIW, at this point, I am 97.333333% convinced that Matt Walsh is just writing for page clicks, and that all of the liberal outrage shares/clicks are falling exactly into his trap. That is my gift of discernment.)
I did not do that because for a variety of reasons, I happen to believe that LDS Anarchist is fully sincere in believing what he’s writing (and he has since commented on my personal blog that he did not mean that blog post as satire.) I know I’ve gotten Anarchist confused with his coblogger Justin — a confusion that has cause plenty of laughs for everyone, I’m sure — but my impression of the entire LDS Anarchist blog is that these are sincere outside-of-the-box doctrinal/theological investigations.
But let’s get back to me in bed, reviewing my RSS feed items. As soon as I saw this post, my gift of discernment clued me in on something — I knew that the fruits of this post would be that it would get posted to some liberal Mormon FB group, and it would cause a lot of drama. I knew that there was nothing I could do to prevent the drama. The only thing I could do was hope that ground zero of said drama would not be the Mormon Hub.
Fortunately for me and the other Hub moderators, it was not. Instead, it was posted to the Feminist Mormon Housewives Facebook group, which was probably an even worse place it could go. And indeed, there was drama. So much drama. I don’t want to get into the drama, because it was so much.
I just want to say a few things.
First, and as a side note, I want to say that I was able to derive a bit of Black Humor (pun fully intended) from this. See, Mormonism has huge race issues because of racist doctrine/folklore that claims that black people exist because we were not as valiant in the pre-mortal existence. As it goes, being lukewarm in pre-existence = being black in mortality. (And because the pre-mortal existence is unique to Mormonism, this racist folk doctrine is not one we can just blame on the Baptists or whomever.)
But, if we take LDS Anarchist’s article seriously, then the conclusion to draw is that women are even worse, because of the third part of heaven that went against God and Jesus, we are to believe that all of them were women. (To be fair, all of the women living or who have ever lived were not part of that third, because the third who rebelled didn’t get bodies. But it seems that Anarchist is using traits he has associated with women from *mortality* back onto women’s pre-mortal spirits, so the criticism probably still holds.)
But, as I said, this is a side note. It’s not what I wanted to talk about.
No, the main thing I wanted to talk about is the very idea of going through an exercise like this. Anarchist, for some reason, has been thinking about the personalities of men and women, and seeing how he can develop a theology (or more particularly, Mormon theology) from various axioms and conjectures. I don’t know if he is doing this as a purely intellectual and completely impersonal matter, and I don’t think he is doing it just to rile people up or just to troll. I don’t have any reason to believe that he does not sincerely believe in the work that he is doing.
So, through this exercise, he seems to be creating this elaborate theology upon the sinfulness of women, based on supposed traits of women. (Women love alpha males, and if you look at Lucifer’s plan vs Jesus’s…well, Lucifer is clearly more of the alpha male.)
I don’t understand this. Why does anyone feel the need to do this?
Or, let me ask it in a different way. Why does anyone feel the need to do this when one possible alternative is to develop a theology that affirms women? A theology that is based upon the strengths of women (however one wishes to define such).
Maybe I have just thoroughly drunk the liberal, progressive Kool-aid, because I am aware of writers and thinkers who are addressing theologies that they would say do affirm women from an LDS framework. You’ve got stuff like the sort of stuff that Valerie Hudson Cassler writes that enshrine gender complementarity — and heteronormativity to go along with it — as being “pro-feminist”. And of course, you have folks who absolutely think that the status quo of church practice, theology, and doctrine affirms women.
But when I ask for women-affirming theology, I want to know why more people in 2014 aren’t developing LDS egalitarian women affirming theologies. There was a discussion at Times and Seasons a few weeks ago that sought to “constructively engage the arguments” regarding women and the church, and one interesting thing that happened in the comments section was the post became something of a discussion that the conservatives and liberals couldn’t see eye to eye because the conservatives operated on faith and spirituality whereas the liberals were trying to argue on secular values, intellectualism, and logic. So, even if most of my question is: why aren’t more Mormons in general developing women-affirming theology, the side question would be — why aren’t even the supporters of women-affirming policies, doctrine, etc., more firmly establishing that they are speaking from a position of faith and spirituality? (The status quo is that the faith of liberals is assumed to be nonexistent, and liberals are constantly on the defensive to either change the subject or try to fit within conservative goalposts for what faith or spirituality mean.)
I digress. Maybe it’s because I am not actually a sexist, and not actually a racist, and not actually a believer in the folklores and doctrines as they have been passed to me, but I do not see the pressing urge to defend and create elaborate theologies behind belief structures that essentially degrade or hold back classes of people. I similarly don’t see the reason to try to justify LDS past policies against black folks. I don’t feel a reason to justify that God felt that way, and then to justify why God felt that way. Because instead, my feeling is that if God exists, he either doesn’t feel that way or he is not worth my time.
A Rube Goldberg Machine of Our Choosing?
Matt Bowman once described that one reason it’s hard to figure out what Mormons believe is because Mormons simply don’t have a lot of official beliefs. The lack of an official theology, of course, does not prevent Mormons from theologizing (and theologizing often!) But concerning this mass of theology and trying to sort out what can be institutionally supported, Matt wrote:
But there is no creed, catechism, or systematic theology to hold Mormonism to any fixed point, and therefore, the cluster of ideas that make up Mormon doctrine, all of which at some time or another seemed the unvarnished truth to some group of saints or another, is in a constant state of evolution. Forty years ago, it was common for Mormon leaders to denounce birth control from the pulpit: today, contraception is explicitly condoned. That which Mormons generally believe are those things currently emphasized in official venues. This means they are accustomed to rolling their eyes at worn, little repeated ideas taught fifty or a hundred years ago. “Brigham Young said a lot of things,” when uttered with the right degree of weariness is certain to gain sympathetic chuckles in any Mormon gathering. Consequently, church leaders are generally content with letting ideas no longer appealing simply die out, rather than issuing formal repudiation. There is a great deal which Mormons might believe; there is very little that they must believe.
“There is a great deal which Mormons might believe; there is very little that they must believe.”
I feel that, if theology is the work of constructing Rube Goldberg Machines as Adam Miller proposes — a work of often overwrought creativity and care performed with building blocks (and things that aren’t really blocks at all) that are altogether too much for the task, yet are what we have — then can’t we choose better to what creative ends we employ our building blocks? If we might believe many things, why do we have all of these long and involved theological discussions on why women are bad, why the status quo on the Priesthood is right, why LGBT folks are misguided, etc.,?
Maybe I’ve just thoroughly drunk the liberal progressive Kool-aid, but my questions remain:
Why can’t we have a woman-affirming theology?
Why can’t we have an LGBT-affirming theology?
Do we not have the building blocks? Is Mormonism so encumbered with racism or sexism or heteronormativity that it is not possible to build up a credible Mormon feminism? A credible Mormon acceptance of LGBT?
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t find Cassler’s views affirming. Sadly, the complementarity approach appears to be the current approach though, if Elder Hallstrom’s very rapid skip through the roles of men, women, priesthood and nurturing at the European womens’ meeting are representative.
Coming on top of the Hosea the topic in Sunday School lesson last week, I have to wonder if what we’ve been living over the past centuries since might not be the world in which a Heavenly Mother has indeed been cast out as described, which restoration has still to occur. This is just my mind wandering.
The women in my family, immediate and extended, find great happiness and completeness in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ which it shares. I am one of those who think the Church is already women-affirming. It is also men-affirming, and children-affirming. It is affirming of all those who want to repent of their sins and walk a Christ-like walk.
Hedgehog,
I agree with you on Cassler, but I wanted to note that because I am aware that many people would off the bat disagree with the claim that there aren’t women-affirming theologies (it only took us *2* comments to get a “status-quo-is-already-affirming” comment.)
I find your second paragraph extremely interesting, especially to the extent that folks like, say, Terryl and Fiona Givens run with Mormonism’s concept of a feminine divine as being a huge win in Mormonism’s favor.
Relating to Hedgehog’s second paragraph, it might almost be that we’re in a state of (arrested?) transition with regard to the restoration of the notion of the feminine divine. A parallel might be the Kirtland Temple – “Look, we’ve restored temples! – but we really don’t understand yet what they are and how they’re to be used; there’s a lot more yet to come.” We have some inkling – “through a glass darkly,” if you will – of our Heavenly Mother, but, hopefully, there’s a lot more let to come and what we do have, while beginning to be affirming, is still just scratching the surface.
I’d bet those Saints at the Kirtland dedication thought they had the whole kit and caboodle, too; it sure went a lot farther than they had ever imagined.
Cassler……grrrr.
I was a pedestal living woman once, too. Ji, Based on what I know of the rumblings in SLC that there are male allies there listening and trying to do the best they can: you would consider them to not want to be Christlike.
Sometimes I worry about a system that produces so many people unable to see complexity and gray and unable to consider a complex human relationship with God we have set up here in these latter days. I firmly believe our HF honors our agency so much, that our GAs are not Jesus Zombies.
As for theology, ZD blog had a great 2 part series of homosexually affirming mormon theology, but for some reason I can’t find it now. If I can find the link I’ll come back and repost it.
PS the fallout in The FMH thread was bad. We were all grateful for you!
Aren’t egalitarianism and specifically “woman-affirming” theologies mutually exclusive?
#6 In what way? If I admire a painting does it devalue anything I’m not admiring at that particular moment?
Why can’t we have a woman-affirming and LGBT-affirming theology? Because the church has been hijacked by conservative leadership and the false assumption that conservatives operate on faith and spirituality whereas the liberals were trying to argue on secular values, intellectualism, and logic. This assumes that all secular values are not inspired yet some must have been! Slavery and racism to name two. This also assumes that logic and intellectualism is not inspired and this assumption flys in the face of scripture like the glory of God is intelligence and study it out in your mind and ask.
I think what LDS first and foremost is a tightly knit tribe rather than a religion because “eternal doctrine” comes and goes and is modified over time. Gynocracy is tribal. Hate and fear are great unifiers and and nothing is more tribal than an “us vs. them” mentality; LDS vs “the world”, LDS are persecuted for their beliefs, marriage = 1 man and 1 woman, heterosexuality vs homosexuality. Exclusivity is highly tribal. Child to death indoctrination helps keep the the tribe glued together, it is insurance against evidence to the contrary which is routinely denied out of hand regardless of it strength while the church in the background quietly changes a word or three to dodge the new incriminating evidence.
So, LDS as a tribe more than a religion fits the evidence of who the organization is much better than calling it a religion more than a tribe. For believers a Godly rationalization for this may be God’s promise to never take the gospel/priesthood from the earth again. To insure this God may have wrapped a tightly knitted tribe around the gospel/priesthood as armor to protect it’s long term survival. While this argument tends to justify the “follow your LDS leaders” right or wrong TBMs they are hopelessly lost in the conflation of the armor with the gospel itself, a point progressive members are attempting to bring to light.
Do women and LGBTs really need to be held down as an underclass to protect the survival of the gospel/priesthood in 2014? The church is no longer a tiny congregation needing incubator coddling.
alice, by affirming women qua women, you are acknowledging and/or reifying a gender difference. I can see how that would be necessary to remediate existing inequality, but once a state of egalitarianism is reached, doesn’t it defeat the purpose of true egalitarianism by being, at best, “separate but equal?” And if we’re talking about a theology and wanting it to be true in any kind of eternal sense, it can’t really be remedial anyway.
re 6,
Kullervo,
Only to the extent that we don’t have accumulated institutional/social discrepancies between genders.
Or, as you yourself note, “once a state of egalitarianism is reached…”
“Why can’t we”
You aren’t one of “us” Mormons so please don’t pretend you are until you repent and get rebaptised. To answer your question: yes, you are too secular and liberal to see spiritual truths. In fact, too many who claim the title Mormon are and poison the fruit of the spirit.
Jettboy’s attitude is another good answer to the question; “Why can’t we have a woman-affirming and LGBT-affirming theology?”
Jettboy,
As a side question, is it possible for members to just be rebaptised? Wouldn’t they actually have to leave the church first?
Howard,
Duly noted, haha.
Andrew S, understood, and that was my first point about remediation, but the problem is that we are talking about theology. If it’s merely remedial, then it’s not really true in an eternal sense. So Mormons might need women-affirming policies in pursuit of an egalitarian theology, but if they have a women-affirming theology in pursuit of an egalitarian theology, then they’ll have been teaching heresy to get to truth. So it seems like a true egalitarian’s answer to the question of “why can’t Mormons have a women-affirming theology?” is that it would be a false theology.
Maybe I’m getting egalitarianism wrong though.
Kullervo,
I was thinking about that part of your latter comment as well. That is an interesting train of thought.
But my thought in response was: why is affirmation zero-sum? In other words, why wouldn’t an egalitarian theology — to the extent that it treats all folks positively rather than treating all folks as being equally horrible — not be affirming to both men and women?
I do think that women-affirming policies are also necessary, and I am open to the possibility that I am using the wrong terms, but I do think I’m talking about something different than terms. If it helps to rephrase, what I’m ultimately asking is, “Why do we have people who want to establish that the eternal truth about the female gender is that they are enticed to Satan? Why can’t we have folks saying that the eternal truth about the female gender is positive?”
I see that as affirming theology. Yet, such an affirming theology would not be incompatible with saying that the male gender is also worthwhile, that they are both worthwhile, etc.,
I think that I have to clarify egalitarianism to contrast from complementarianism, where people try to argue for the comparable value/positivity/worth/etc., of each gender, while still stratifying them. I think complementarian theology could be conceptually women-affirming, but in popular discussion, it often looks like a veneer/rationalization of status quo chauvinism to me.
Does that make sense?
You have made me glad that my need for pseudonymity online prohibits me from participating in the FB threads, however left out it makes me. *LOL*
One comment of many I could write here
” liberals are constantly on the defensive to either change the subject or try to fit within conservative goalposts for what faith or spirituality mean.)”
I find liberal, mainly extreme liberals, to constantly being on the OFFENSIVE trying to re-define gender roles based on a secular view. And while some practices in the church could bear a major overhaul (and some already have), re-defining history and bringing up the past, attempting to impose their own will ( as opposed to God’s will) are tactics used by these extreme liberals in their fight to make the Church look more like the world.
…but if they have a women-affirming theology in pursuit of an egalitarian theology, then they’ll have been teaching heresy to get to truth.
This doesn’t necessarily follow. The gospel can easily be seen as progressive OT > NT > BoM > sealed portion, each eclipses the other in turn as it moves toward oneness. Or else why is anything more that the OT given or if not progressive why is it not given in total all at once? Clearly the gospel and it’s theology IS progressive. Why can’t a women-affirming theology in pursuit of an egalitarian theology be a stepping stone toward oneness? To me it seems a natural.
Jeff,
I definitely think that liberals basically working from a secular framework also pose an issue (hence the whole T&S comments discussion on conservatives speaking from faith/spirituality and liberals speaking from secular values, etc.,)
That’s what I was trying to address with the earlier part of the aside — liberal faith is assumed to be nonexistent (it’s just secularists in church), and the liberal response is to try to change the conversation (in the sense that we don’t want anyone second guessing our faith) or to try to fit (poorly) within conservative definitions…
So my question is more like, why wouldn’t liberals be on the offensive to try to redefine gender roles based on a spiritual/religious view?
And my fear is that it can’t be done, but I don’t think that’s true.
As I’ve commented on another blog post, I think there are ways to be more “liberal” while still not looking identical to “the world.” On the LGBT issue, it seems very obvious to me that the church could advocate the similar white-picket-fence-family model to gays and lesbians as it does to straight members and that would immediately lead to increased retention for LGBT folks who grow up Mormon. And yet, that would look different from the world in that things like clubbing, hooking up, etc., would be forbidden and discouraged.
Yet, we don’t really see much advocacy for this. There’s secularism and then trying to fit the status quo.
Kullervo and Howard,
Are revelations of previous eras essentially heresies to later eras? Seems like an eternal theology would not require revelation…
Regarding #20
The current black and white LDS thinking tends to make teachings of previous eras heresies in later eras as witnessed by the number of Presidents and GA’s thrown under the bus to make sense of the ban on blacks fiasco due to
secular enlightenment, prophetic awakeningrevelation. But the gospel itself need not nor the theology if it’s constructed in a forward looking way that say emphasizes and embraces love and oneness as major themes in place of othering and exclusion.So was it Jeff G who had a post somewhere trying to address the conservative liberal divide by suggesting that each tend to mistake the other as consumers, rather than believing participants. I forget where, but it was an interesting perspective.
Andrew,
“liberal faith is assumed to be nonexistent (it’s just secularists in church),”
See, I don’t believe that one bit. What you have on the bloggernacle are those who self-identify as a liberal and in the same breath, claim a lack of faith in some or all areas. That does not necessarily define a liberal theologically view as it pertains to LDS theology.
Maybe we should call them “less than believing world-viewers.”
I’ve always claimed that the Savior was a liberal (in today’s terminology) based on his teachings about the poor and how to deal with our fellowman.
So, maybe the term liberal is really a misnomer
“As a side question, is it possible for members to just be rebaptised? Wouldn’t they actually have to leave the church first?”
No. Mormons who entered Utah during the exodus were baptized again. Insofar as you consider yourself an atheist and apostate, then rebaptism isn’t out of the question. Perhaps I was wrong in assuming you had taken your name off the membership roles.
As to my dismissiveness to the major question posed here, I think that women-affirming theology is unnecessary and based on secular ideology heresy. Your example of the domestication of gay relationships is also an example of trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The arguments against feminism and gay relationships is based on a belief they are diametrically opposed to the gospel, and not some kind of aesthetic manipulation.
I think the main reason LDS liberal faith has been painted to be nonexistent is this is one of few arguments LDS conservatives have actually bested LDS liberals with by successfully (but wrongly) defining them by conflating LDS liberal ideals with the political/secular model implying that secular deduction is the only driving force. In this way LDS liberals become equated with “the world” and as every chapel Mormon knows the world is enemy of the church! But was that the case with slavery or civil rights? My belief is that those movements were both necessary and inspired by God because LDS “prophets” were too busy being engaged in defending the status quo with outrageously ridiculous folklore doctrine spoken from the pulpit with great certitude and exaggeration as if it were eternal truth to actually see the need for change or hear what God might have to say about it! And LDS conservatives grabbed the high ground by aligning with and amplifying
blindlyfaithfully following our Prophet/GAs right or wrong (more often documented wrong than right btw).LDS liberals repeatedly fail to understand that the very concept of and use of the word “equality” is a fail with both TBMs and church leadership who revere an unequal social hierarchy and therefore the argument must be re-framed using LDS-speak to gain any chapel traction. This oversight was very apparent with OW who framed their argument almost totally in secular language that was easily identified by chapel Mormons as “other” and immediately dismissed. This re-framing isn’t easy as alternative gospel related concepts must be identified and used in place of “equality”. Focusing on NT stories like Jesus’ respectful and giving interaction with the women around him, His failure to mention homosexuality at all with regard to His gospel, beatitudes, loving oneness in place of fear and hate will in the long run encourage the church to turn from a Mosaic Pharisaical OT gospel of fear toward the yet unfamiliar NT gospel of Jesus Christ.
re 22,
Hedgehog…I had not read that post yet, but a quick google search does show “Three models of Church Membership” by Jeff G.
re 23,
Jeff,
I think we’re getting around similar concepts, and yes, the terminology is probably lacking. maybe the issue is (maybe???) more like…why do we see politically liberal/progressive folks but not so much theologically liberal folks?
re 24
Jettboy,
interesting point on the history. I’d wonder how much of that has carried forward to the present. To confirm, I absolutely am on the records, part of those membership figures the church likes to bandy about.
I think your last sentence is a pretty direct answer to the questions I asked in the post. Why can’t we have feminist and LGBT affirming theology? Because such theology would necessarily be secularist, and from the secularist perspective, Mormon theology is necessarily sexist, heteronormative, etc.,
I think the qualifications of being able to claim a position of “faith & spirituality” are different for liberals vs. conservatives. The minute that a conservative member hears a progressive liberal believes in a non-literal translation of the Book of Mormon, as one example, the conservative member often disqualifies the progressive liberal as speaking from a position of “faith & spirituality.” The progressive liberal then needs to resort to a different authority (logic and reason), since the conservative now doubts that there is common ecclesiastical ground with the progressive liberal. It’s not fair to immediately cast doubt on someone’s testimony like that, but it happens a lot.
As far as that LDS Anarchist post, that guy uses bizarre stereotypes and demonstrates an incredibly naive understanding of the harlot as symbol of the great and abominable church. Btw, for anyone interested, the Harlot was early on established as a symbol for philosophies opposing God in Proverbs where she was a foil to Lady Wisdom, the righteous woman symbolically representing the path to God.
Andrew,
“why do we see politically liberal/progressive folks but not so much theologically liberal folks?’
Well, nowadays, the political divide is one of polar opposites and stereotypes such that a political conservative cannot possess any liberal views and vis versa.
In my mind, a liberal in the Church cannot necessarily espouse an idea that is contrary to what scripture teaches and really be a liberal doctrinaire. However, while a conservative may view the story of the flood as having covered the entire earth, the liberal might consider a limited geography or that the story is a useful allegory. The overall lesson is valid for either view.
That’s one example that comes to mind.
Mary Ann,
I don’t want to say that faith is opposed to reason, but it just seems to me that logic and reason can’t really be the *authority* of a spiritual perspective. This is not to say that I don’t think that there isn’t liberal spirituality…it’s just that I would think that in many cases, putting logic and reason as an authority is more of a secular thing to do.
I will have to think more on the second paragraph, of the Harlot as foil to Lady Wisdom.
Andrew, yes, that’s the one. Thanks.
Jeff, “I find liberal, mainly extreme liberals, to constantly being on the OFFENSIVE trying to re-define gender roles based on a secular view.”
Nope, just trying to expand our understanding and vision of the purpose of women (your “redefine gender roles) based on an answer to prayer (my personal revelation while in the celestial room) that I received when I was 100% TBM. I had not been versed in any secularism or feminist or humanist thinking at the time.
So, there’s that.
Here’s one part of a exploration on how lds theology could incorporate homosexuality:
The Problem of Gays in LDS Theology Pt 1, Zelophehad’s Daughters
Kristine,
I liked that ZD post for explaining the difficulty of LDS theology for LGBT issues. But at least that post doesn’t actually go into how folks could be incorporated.
Andrew,
Logic and reason can be appealed to as authority to come to certain conclusions on spiritual positions, though. Take Eliza Snow’s “reasoning” for a mother in heaven based on what she’d been taught about eternal marriage (later confirmed by church leadership), or BY “reasoning” of the priesthood ban because of his take on the Book of Abraham (later disavowed by church leadership). Many GAs back in the day would often form theological positions based on logic and reasoning (which were then taken as gospel by virtue of their positions), and not all of their conclusions stood the test of time. Logic and reason can definitely argue a certain stance on a spiritual issue. It’s the whole point of apologetic arguments — appealing to logic and reason to convince skeptics of the truth of whichever doctrine/church they’re defending. Ideally, it’s not the highest authority (which would be revelation from God), but where revelation is lacking or conflicting, it’s usually the highest authority accepted by all parties.
I personally enjoyed LDS Anarchist’s sci-fi take on Satan’s brides. We say that he is tapping into long debunked prejudices and conservative misogynist culture. But I feel like his theory fits in more with Hollywood culture, where it could spawn its own epic cinematic series.
Liberals like to think of themselves as enlightened with regards to female equality, but the fact remains that 99% of our film, advertising, and entire cultural expression is focused upon the objectification of women, or presenting them as classic feminine archetypes: temptresses, mothers, victims, etc.
Liberals within the church must remember that they are in an extreme minority, with only a very small percentage of women favoring female ordination, and a majority of women completely buying into all the basic assumptions LDS Anarchist makes about gender differences and roles. Rather than being offended at a theory which works within current cultural understandings, we should take the theory at face value, given that it reflects real paradigms that a majority of LDS women gladly accept. We can say how “some” women, (like the FMH women) might be offended at some of the assumptions LDSAnarchist makes about gender differences, but putting that aside, why not let him play to his own culture, in his own creative way?
I think it’s OK that people within the church find their own creative ways to explain realities as they see them, and if they are really conservative, they will find very concrete and literalist readings to help them out. If they are liberal, they can find more flexible and nuanced readings. But we all see through a glass darkly. LDSAnarchist sees Satan’s Brides through the glass, and I see theistic evolution through the glass. But we are really seeing the same thing. Talking about Satan’s Brides is just another way of trying to articulate a truth we all recognize, but that we all have trouble defining given our different cultures, personalities, and semantic understandings.
Andrew,
The applicable scriptures in Proverbs for the Lady Wisdom vs. Harlot position are:
Lady Wisdom – Prov. 1:20-33, 2:2-11, 3:13-20, 4:7-13, 7:4, 8:1-36, 9:1-12
Strange Woman (euphemism for Prostitute or Harlot) – Prov. 2:16-19, 5:3-14, 7:5-27, 9:13-18, Eccl. 7:26
When Nephi is interpreting his Tree of Life vision, he’s tapped into this symbol of the Harlot as the symbol of forbidden paths (towards death and destruction) as opposed to the way of the tree of life (Wisdom is described as a tree of life many times in these and other passages from Proverbs). Nephi replaces the imagery of Lady Wisdom calling people to righteousness with the Church of the Lamb of God. It then appears Male vs. Female, but in reality it was likely never meant to reflect gender traits. John the Revelator uses similar symbols: a righteous woman (possibly referring back to Lady Wisdom) giving birth to a child representing the kingdom of Christ (see JST Rev. 12:1-17) versus Babylon, the “great whore,” the “mother of harlots and abominations” (Rev. 17 & 18).
re 34,
Mary Ann,
The thought that overwhelmingly comes to mind is “the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures.”
One of the main criticisms of apologetics at least (from a conservative standpoint) is that by trying to intellectualize issues, it misses the point that conversion is not about being intellectually convinced.
But I see your point.
re 35
Nate,
I am unsure whether a minority support for women’s ordination means that folks buy into all the basic assumptions LDS Anarchist makes about gender differences and roles. After all, even a complementarian view (see again: Cassler) is not going to concede that women just are so into sin.
Obviously it would be impossible to poll, but I would like to think that most conservative Mormons would still find something off about LDSA’s post. Like, you can believe in gender differences without positing that *all of the 1/3 that rebelled were women* because of gender differences.
Speaking as a conservative TBM girl, yes, most conservative Mormon women would find something “off” about that LDSA post. I don’t know any Relief Society group (thinking of the dozen or so I’ve been in) that wouldn’t be in an uproar over it. I’m not surprised it went nuclear over at FMH. I know some men who’d want to agree with the post, but I’d hope they were in the minority as well. They would be smart enough not to admit it out loud to their wives, anyway….
How many successful women led religions can you think of? Women led religions typically dekve into the forbidden such as witchcraft or goddess worship.
Delve
Nate: “a majority of women completely buying into all the basic assumptions LDS Anarchist makes about gender differences and roles.” Absolutely not buying this at all, and not just about LDS Anarchist’s misogynist conclusions. I sit in RS, and I would say it’s probably more like 20-30% of LDS women who benefit from and see nothing wrong with the incessant drum beat of gender roles and the pedestals on which they perch. The majority of LDS women feel that they are more than just a gender stereotype and should be taken seriously, not patronized or coddled. And believe me, most of them can tell the difference. They might endure it and they might consider it not a deal-breaker, but that’s not “completely buying into” it either.
Winifred: “How many successful women led religions can you think of? Women led religions typically delve into the forbidden such as witchcraft or goddess worship.” I would have said something like this before I read about Asherah worship and how it was suppressed by the Israelite clerics who couldn’t control it and considered a female deity in competition with their authority. That was several thousand years ago. Have things changed? And what’s the difference between witchcraft and priestcraft or between goddess worship and worshiping god? Sounds to me like some folks just like to smear the feminine divine in whatever form. We are told we don’t talk about HM for her protection, and yet historically, it’s been male religious leaders who have attacked her and suppressed her.
Andrew S: I see two main reasons we don’t have a woman-affirming (or LGBT-affirming) theology at present: 1) some don’t like affirming anyone, preferring to rail on obedience, subduing the natural man, and reining in our passions – the natural man is an enemy to God vs. a focus on human potential to become gods, and 2) a focus on gender roles and “ideal” families creates a lack of empathy and intimacy. We see the other sex as incomprehensibly foreign to us, and magnify that times a hundred for gay people. Rather than relating to one another as real people and knowing each other as individuals, not just superficially as stereotypes, people are encouraged to see all women as alike and all men as alike, but both of them necessarily and deeply different from one another. That kind of a foundation is a non-starter for seeing things from that person’s perspective.
Maybe I overstated it when I said “most” women buy into LDSA’s assumptions about gender roles (his assumptions of gender roles, not his misogynist theory.) I may be one of those men who is guilty of assuming that the status quo is working well for the majority of members, when maybe it isn’t, or maybe a strong minority is being so turned off by it that it is indeed a major problem.
Have there been any studies or statistics done on actual percentages of LDS women who feel objectified, unheard, or unhappy with gender roles at church? The only one I can think of was the one that stated that a strong majority of LDS women don’t want the priesthood.
I am suspicious of all the noise the bloggernacle makes about this issue, because the bloggernacle is an extreme minority of LDS membership, with a very different perspective than your average member. How can I trust that the anguish and outrage expressed by members of the bloggernacle reflects a problem felt by the majority of women in the church?
I don’t personally think that church policy should be beholden to minority interests. The church is not for “the one.” The church is for the many, and individuals within the church reach out to “the one.” So I need to know whether feminist concerns represent a majority, or a minority interest. If majority, then I agree there is a serious problem. If minority, then its maybe good to be aware of, for political correctness sake, but if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. But then again, I am not a universalist. I don’t believe the church is for everyone. For whatever reason, God made this a conservative church, best suited to conservatives, with a few liberal guests who are tolerated up to a certain point. While that is not ideal for liberals, maybe God doesn’t want a lot of liberals in the church. We have lots of other fulfilling philosophies, values, and knowledge to fall back on, which God has also given us. He will forgive liberals for leaving the church if it stretches us beyond the capacity of our sensitive and enlightened souls.
I am suspicious of all the noise the bloggernacle makes about this issue, because the bloggernacle is an extreme minority of LDS membership…I don’t personally think that church policy should be beholden to minority interests.
Would that have included the ban on blacks? If not would that because you believe there is some over riding truth that all men are created equal? Does it then follow that women are created less equal than men?
Nate,
Maybe we’re not on the right page. What I take to be “LDSA’s assumptions of gender roles” are not merely that “LDS women don’t feel objectified, unheard, or unhappy with gender roles at church.” No, LDSA’s assumptions about gender roles are that women want to be with alpha males, and so they want to be with Satan.
I also want to point out that not supporting ordination for women doesn’t equate to being satisfied with the status quo. It could be that people are not satisfied with the status quo, but do not want the priesthood or do not believe that lacking the priesthood is the source of any problems (and that being ordained to the priesthood wouldn’t be a solution for any problems.)
I think that even if the bloggernacle is an extreme minority of LDS membership, the other problem is that the *average churchgoing member* is also a minority of LDS *membership*. If you want to use the 15 million number, you’ve got to also buy what it means, especially if you don’t think that church policy should be beholden to *minority interest* (which, I suspect you actually *do*…you want it to be beholden to the active, conventionally faithful minority interest over less engaged, disaffected, disaffiliated, etc., — at least, that’s what I get from your comment that you’re not a universalist).
Nate: Andrew’s spot on in saying that LDS Anarchist’s view of women is emphatically not the church’s treatment of women, and yet neither, IMO, are really acceptable as is. Women in the church don’t on the whole LOVE how the church views them or the roles they assign to women. There are some who do benefit from patriarchy who are probably terrified of losing a male provider to whom they have been taught they are entitled for support. But I would peg that percent at 20-30% of women.
Average women in the church don’t sit around in awe of the men afraid to make decisions or give input (on the contrary, even the most TBM women are plenty pissed off when they are ignored or disempowered in their callings), average LDS women are are baffled when we have to teach a lesson on the priesthood because it is boring and doesn’t pertain to us and therefore it’s largely irrelevant (before every single lesson on this topic I have heard the teacher grumble about having to teach on this topic because we are so clearly not the target audience), nearly all mothers see right through the notion that motherhood is somehow the pinnacle of female existence (and if they don’t, give them 5 or 10 years of experience), and even the most faithful TBM women, except a handful of Dolores Umbridges, see that the modesty discourse has gone completely off the rails and are unhappy about girls camp restrictions and girls being policed and shamed in front of their peers.
I’m just telling you what I hear in Relief Society. Every ward differs, but I’ve been in many wards in my lifetime. Women aren’t docile idiots, contrary to popular belief. They just have been culturally conditioned to get along and not make waves because it will do no good anyway. If they have a testimony, they put up with it until the putting up with it erodes their testimony. RS is one place they can usually say what they think, among other women.
“I don’t believe the church is for everyone. For whatever reason, God made this a conservative church, best suited to conservatives, with a few liberal guests who are tolerated up to a certain point. While that is not ideal for liberals, maybe God doesn’t want a lot of liberals in the church. We have lots of other fulfilling philosophies, values, and knowledge to fall back on, which God has also given us. He will forgive liberals for leaving the church if it stretches us beyond the capacity of our sensitive and enlightened souls.”
Speaking as a non-LDS person who has nevertheless more than a passing interest (and even fondness) for LDS folks, I’m unsure where to begin with this statement. But for starters, substitute “male” or “white” or “upper middle class” or “North American” or “Republican” or “capitalist” for “conservative” in that statement and those same words with the prefix “non-” for “liberal,” and what kind of a church do you end up with? And what might Jesus have to say about it all, as well?
substitute “male” or “white” or “upper middle class” or “North American” or “Republican” or “capitalist” for “conservative” in that statement and those same words with the prefix “non-” for “liberal,” and what kind of a church do you end up with? And what might Jesus have to say about it all, as well?
Great point, very well demonstrated Rich!
I love how the title of this post nearly sounds like “Why Can’t Mormons Have Nice Things?”
Nate wrote:
I keep reading this and hearing this, but this is not true in my experience. I might have a semi-unique perspective though. We move, a lot, so we might attend several different wards a year. Because of the overnight shift my wife usually works we also might attend regularly any of the wards that might work better time-wise. The number of people that have feelings and thoughts similar to the noise expressed in the bloggernacle is higher than most assume. In fact, most of the thoughts I hear expressed could have been lifted whole cloth from bloggernacle comments. This is true across a large swath of the western US, including the times we spent in the Rexburg area. Just because they aren't expressing it online doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the same concerns and thoughts.
It might be that we are, in a way, 'self selecting' in what we hear, what with my wife being the primary wage earner and myself the primary home maker. So, we might hear things that wouldn't normally be expressed as openly to, say, a more average (conventional) member. It is consistent though.
One other thing to consider, more often than not, when I ask why they don't vocally express things in church, their reasons will come in two flavors. “Why bother, it doesn't do any good / not worth possible contention”, or “I don't like being judged for how I feel / believe”. Dog-piled, it's an odd turn of phrase, but I have heard it more than once, and truthfully, we do dog pile. In church and online.
Andrew: “LDSA’s assumptions about gender roles are that women want to be with alpha males, and so they want to be with Satan.”
Point well taken.
You all could be right that the minority perspectives of the bloggernacle are more widespread than I might realize. And Andrew makes a good point that all perspectives are minority perspectives when you start to analyze the diversity within the church.
hawkgrrl, i’m getting ward envy again – quit making your wards sound amazing!
The more I listen to this discussion, the more I wonder if I fall into the “liberal, but faithful” category somewhat. If so, I posit that everyone falls into this category in some things, but never in everything.
Also, you don’t hear from them because it is impossible to have a united front the way those more purely conservative or liberal do. To the liberal group, your inclination to support leadership despite their sins is a betrayal of the cause. To the conservative group, acknowledging the sin of leaders is betrayal of loyalty. To liberals, the lack of activism to change what us wrong is as incomprehensible as getting a spiritual confirmation of an unorthodox concept is to the conservative.
Floating between the worlds is a cold and uncomfortable place. Most of us manage to pick a dose for that reason. Once we do, our associations convince us to accept the rest of the ideological package, even if we aren’t truly converted deep down to everything. Over time, we tend to become more converted through boundary maintenance and a need to protect our position in our community. We sell our less important beliefs for that security.
But I believe none of us are as consistent to the packages of beliefs we call “liberal” or “conservative”. We just seem that way.
Pick a dose = pick a side. Swype errors…
SilverRain – well, yes, as an independent, I tend to think we are all independents to some extent.
I tend to agree with the comment that there’s no point airing grievances at church because nothing will change anyway. People share their views where it’s safe to do so, often in RS (rather than Gospel Doctrine), and if RS isn’t safe, then to a neighbor who’s a trusted friend, or in the hallways. Not everyone is entitled to know everything I think at all times, nor am I entitled to know what they think. Trust is earned, and intimacy is not a right.
SilverRain,
Great content. However, regarding these lines:
“To the liberal group, your inclination to support leadership despite their sins is a betrayal of the cause. To the conservative group, acknowledging the sin of leaders is betrayal of loyalty. To liberals, the lack of activism to change what us wrong is as incomprehensible as getting a spiritual confirmation of an unorthodox concept is to the conservative.”
I still would like to see more written/discussed about the differences in perspective on loyalty, supporting leadership, etc. Because it does seem that there is something to differentiate folks, but I’m not sure if it’s simple to describe.
Hawk says in #54, I tend to agree with the comment that there’s no point airing grievances at church because nothing will change anyway. People share their views where it’s safe to do so, often in RS (rather than Gospel Doctrine), and if RS isn’t safe, then to a neighbor who’s a trusted friend, or in the hallways. Not everyone is entitled to know everything I think at all times, nor am I entitled to know what they think. Trust is earned, and intimacy is not a right.
I agree with every word of the above – and yet… sometimes I hope something I say will get under someone’s walls and help them think a little more.
The post was about having a theology that ‘affirms’ women, and sure and begorrah, those that have to chime in for the LGBT interests, as they suppose they’re doing, wonder why it doesn’t affirm THEM. ‘Affirm’ LGBT in WHAT respect? ‘Affirm’ that the lifestyle(s) that they CHOOSE to lead isn’t leading them to spiritual death (and in some cases, to a literal early dirt nap under degrading conditions)? Affirm that the Lord didn’t really mean what he said through his prophets? The only ‘affirmation’ (no dissprect to the group know by that name) needed is that they are sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and Mother that loves them and tells them through a living prophet what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear…not unlike any “straight”!
If by “women-affirming” one means adopting feminist claptrap as the world or many corrupt religions do, then no, it won’t affirm, ever. I think Hawkgrrl captured it best, whether I agree with her in lockstep or not. Women certainly want to be taken seriously, and this “pedestal” posture sometimes is a convenient way to condescend. I was jawing with a co-worker about “feminism” this AM and made a simple observation…any man certainly has (or had) a mother, and likely has a sister(s), and maybe be blessed with daughter(s) thanks to his wife (one at a time, and serial monogamy, as I can personally attest, is rather expensive), and have niece(s) and autie(s) as well. And, of course, in time make a few, or hopefully more than a few, ‘platonic’ lady friends (be careful, you may end up marrying one of ’em). What man wouldn’t desire the blessings in life for his distaff relations and friends, and wouldn’t recoil in horror and disgust at their denial simply b/c “well…you’re a gurl…”. Let the “boys be boys” in the club in the shack in the backyard (backwards “S” optional on the door where “No gurls alloud” is posted), sure (girls, would you REALLY go in there?…eewwww..), but otherwise, take her seriously…you might even like it.
I see no reason that every seat that a woman occupies in church should be less than First Class….my pleasure in exercising the Priesthood is that I might serve them on behalf of our Elder Brother, to the extent He tolerates me.
lol typical Douglas comment.
#58 – Why, thank you, Andrew, you’re a gentleman and a scholar…
A (wo)man is known by h(er)is detractors….
Hawk girl
Kimberly on fmh openly advocates setting up your altar to worship the mother goddess. why would somebody advocate goddess worship knowing that it is forbidden?
winifred: no idea about Kimberly’s reasons. In the book Did God Have a Wife? by William Dever he explains that the archaeology record shows that the ancient Israelites nearly all worshiped Asherah (her idols are found throughout their ruins in people’s homes). It was the monolatrous priests who tried to suppress goddess worship of Asherah (El’s consort – e.g. Heavenly Mother) because they couldn’t control how she was worshiped. Here’s a post I did about it: http://www.wheatandtares.org/10529/the-plan-of-asherah/
Formally acknowledgement the existence of “Sister Elohim” would define the Church’s theological stance as henotheistic rather than strictly monotheistic. Then it’d get into the weeds as to whether there’s a superior-inferior aspect, or an “equal partnership” etc. etc. and regardless of which view you take, someone’s gonna take offense. Never mind too how Heavenly Father might take insults and blasphemy from the ignorant cretins that take His name in vain, but if they start bad-mouthing or profaning Heavenly Mother…it’s CLOBBERING TIME!! (We owe Stan Lee and Jack Kirby a debt of gratitude for Ben Grimm, aka “The Thing”).
In a way, it’s a shame, b/c IMO the sisters deserve a gender-specific role model no less than we brethren have the Savior Himself (III Nephi 27:27). Sure, they also can emulate their Elder Brother, but methinks a Heavenly Mother would do even better. Too bad their was no room for an eternal “Big Sis”. I have a “big Sis” who had my back when growing up, and still to this day had it when I was experiencing some serious personal issues earlier this year.
Still, I’m speculating, I’ll let the sisters speak for themselves as to what would affirm them and what role model(s) appeal the most.
Rough thought experiment. What if Heavenly Father is transgender or pansexual? What if he is completely woman and completely man and thus encompasses both identities? What if the reason us heterosexuals are to pair off with “neither the man without the woman nor the woman without the man” is because it is the only way we can approach the true essence of divinity. Therefore the LGBT among us may be more uniquely positioned to apprehend the nature of God on their own or need to pair off differently than cisgendered people to be able to approach who God is?
This is just a passing thought and I am not saying this is consistent with Mormon Theology or tradition as I haven’t really vetted this idea. Plus, I realize this is an old thread and no one may see this. If you follow this to it’s conclusion it may mean that in the eternities a man and wife would have to merge themselves together into one being in some manner to be able to be fully God, which is a very Hindu/Buddhist dichotomy and much less binary and separate than our western religions tend to be.