“We began as a group of women talking about our lives.” So begins the collection of essays that comprise Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings (in the words of Claudia Bushman). And so begins feminism in general, for certainly this is how women shared their experiences and talked about their struggles. There’s something powerful about a group of women talking about their lives.
Like any good anthology, this one is organized mostly chronologically, and while it isn’t comprehensive, it samples from a diverse array of perspectives. Co-editors Joanna Brooks, Rachel Hunt Steenblik and Hannah Wheelwright do a noteworthy job pulling it all together into one comprehensive tome. All anthologies are subject to the criticism of what is (outrageously) left out or what is (mysteriously) included. Yet this one does a pretty good job, in my opinion, of bringing together different women’s voices and experiences, spanning generations and paying appropriate homage to our fore-mothers as well as our contemporaries.
If you haven’t read it, it’s truly a must read. As another reviewer, Caryn Riswold of Patheos said:
Mormon feminists experience what most feminists of faith have heard at some point. Utter dismissal of the possibility of their existence. . . . In response, scholars, activists, and writers within each tradition have had to document their history, make their theological case, and engage their scriptures as robustly as any conservative traditionalist would. In order to achieve meaningful institutional change, unimpeachable work and confident testimony is required.
While Mormon Feminism doesn’t attempt to prove that Mormonism is a safe haven for all feminists, which is demonstrably false, in presenting these essays in one volume, side by side, it amply demonstrates that not all feminists are the same, have the same aims, the same approaches, or the same conclusions, although at core, we all want to believe the promise from 2 Nephi 26:33:
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
The book is divided into 4 parts, chronologically: Foundations (1970s), Lived Contradictions (1980s), Defining Moments (1990s) and Resurgence (2000s). There were some gems in the introductory chapter that might have been parlayed into its own 5th or possibly 5th and 6th parts. Examples of pre-correlation feminism are clear and a stark reminder of how much we’ve lost in understanding women’s roles in the church and how much women have lost in terms of community involvement, influence, independent oversight of our curriculum and budgets, and freedom to use spiritual gifts. Most of these losses stemmed from the correlation movement, although some pre-date that.
Why is this book so important? Many reasons. First, it’s important to record that these are thoughts of women engaging with our common faith, Mormonism. That we exist. That we think. That we envision our role in the kingdom of God, and as we engage with and wrestle with that, these are some of the things that we have wondered. So often in history, women’s voices have been silent or at least unheard. This book ensures that some of what women have thought and felt in connection with Mormonism will live on.
Secondly, as a missionary minded person, I’m always impressed with the importance of how our books will be perceived by outsiders. Are we putting messages out there of inclusion that attract people of quality into the body of Christ, people who are not necessarily like-minded, but people of heart, might, mind and strength who will push us to grow and improve as a people? To me, the existence of an anthology of this type (as well as the diverse writings to be found in the bloggernacle) performs a valuable service in demonstrating that ours is a living faith. We aren’t mindless drones or automatons. We are each of us striving to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are, in essence, uncorrelated, messy and sincere. The sisters whose thoughts are represented in this book illustrate very capably that we aren’t all painted with the same brush. If we could get them all in a room together, it’s doubtless that would be a noisy, spirited, and glorious discussion.
As an example of the importance of this type of illustration in making Mormons more accessible, I’ll quote from one of the essays by Judy Dushku called simply “Feminists”:
In a letter to the editor dated August 1877, a Philadelphia woman confessed that until she read the Women’s Exponent she had not looked upon “woman suffrage in Utah as worth a fillip.” Under polygamy, she had assumed, “each man has not merely his own vote, but just as many votes as he owns wives, and that each woman is either an oriental doll or a domestic drudge, with neither impulse nor impetus towards an individualized existence.” The outspoken feminism of the Exponent changed her mind and she acknowledged that “the women of the States have jumped at very unjust conclusions in regard to their sisters in Utah.”
On a personal level, I found the explanation of the church’s inexplicable opposition to the ERA both illuminating and unsettling. I was young when it happened, but given my understanding of the church at that time as very socially progressive (you youngsters will scoff–read the book) and pro-equality, I was surprised and confused by this rabid opposition to equality for women arising very unexpectedly. It is one of many things that sparked my own feminist thinking. I was too young to be aware of the tactics used to oppose it and of the animus behind those tactics, both of which are still mostly incomprehensible to me.
There are sisters who left Mormonism represented here as well as those who remained or remain in the church. Reading Sonia Johnson’s essays left me unsurprised at the outcome of her disciplinary council. I felt that while everything she wrote contained truth, it also contained too much irreconcilable difference in it. No feminist Mormon anthology could be complete without including her, though. Likewise, Kate Kelly appears in the final chapter, although I prefer her “Romantic Paternalism” essay to the one presented here.
The spiritual essays were interesting, and some were more compelling than I expected. I’ve never had a specific interest in such things as women blessing each other, although the initiatory is to me far more appealing than the endowment for this very reason. But blessing a soon-to-be-delivered mother resonated for me as something so obvious and beautiful. We truly have lost a large measure of sisterhood through correlation. When the men write the women’s programs and curriculum with input from women only as an afterthought, this is what we get.
As when it first came out, I was still unconvinced by Janice Merrill Allred’s views on God the Mother being the Holy Ghost. I found two essays on scriptures particularly intriguing: Lynn Matthews Anderson’s “Toward a Feminist Interpretation of Latter-day Saint Scipture” in which she asks which scriptures are just written for men and which for women also, and Carol Lynn Wright Pearson’s “Could Feminism Have Saved the Nephites” in which she very clearly points out the bloodlust and materialism that historically go hand in hand with patriarchy. Perhaps my favorite essay of all was the shortest (so it always is with me), Lynn Matthews Anderson’s “I Have an Answer: Questions to Gospel Answers” pointing out the odd descriptions of women that sometimes are batted around that bear no resemblance to our lived experience and seem determined in their gender essentialism to make us members of another species entirely.
Some of the feminist conclusions of the 1970s are aligned with E. Oaks assertion that women use priesthood in our callings and in concert with our husbands. It’s an interesting idea, if not fully fleshed out yet. Some women feel equality will not be achieved until women have the priesthood and are fully integrated in church governance. Others feel the priesthood must be changed to a more inherently equal structure, not a hierarchy, rather than just adding women into its existing structure. There are many different schools of thought in this book, and as we continue to see changes that go beyond window dressing and pictures hung in the conference center, it will be interesting to watch it unfold.
As Neylan McBaine points out in her fantastic piece “To Do the Business of the Church: A Cooperative Paradigm for Examining Gendered Participation within Church Organizational Structure” there is a crisis in the church right now relative to feminism: 47% of men and women who left the church in 2011 cited “women’s issues” as a significant reason for their departure. (Results for women were even higher at 63% and for single women at 70%). These are figures that can’t be ignored for long. Feminism is not the problem; it is an integral part of the solution.
Other essays that were favorites for me were Gina Colvin’s punchy “Ordain Women, But . . . : A Womanist Perspective,” and the entertaining interview between Greg Prince and Chieko Okazaki. But there are too many to mention. Some perspectives I didn’t like or didn’t feel were my own, but others resonated or broadened my own thinking. A quote I will refer to time and again was from Cecilia Conchar Farr’s essay “Dancing Through the Doctrine: Observations on Religion and Feminism”:
We . . . are determined not so much to change the church as to change the world, because when we change the world the church will follow. Instead of locating ourselves in the church, we located the church in ourselves–and ourselves in the world.
All in all, as I read, I couldn’t help but think of the Sylvia Plath poem “Mushrooms”:
Mushrooms
Overnight, very
Whitely, discreetly,
Very quietly
Our toes, our noses
Take hold on the loam,
Acquire the air.
Nobody sees us,
Stops us, betrays us;
The small grains make room.
Soft fists insist on
Heaving the needles,
The leafy bedding,
Even the paving.
Our hammers, our rams,
Earless and eyeless,
Perfectly voiceless,
Widen the crannies,
Shoulder through holes. We
Diet on water,
On crumbs of shadow,
Bland-mannered, asking
Little or nothing.
So many of us!
So many of us!
We are shelves, we are
Tables, we are meek,
We are edible,
Nudgers and shovers
In spite of ourselves.
Our kind multiplies:
We shall by morning
Inherit the earth.
Our foot’s in the door.
The church is currently regrouping and re-amoring it’s defenses along a new boundary line after loosing ground for years on a number of social issues including feminism. Can they hold this line? It appears they intend to but less apparent today they are facing the work product that has been distilled from the bloggernacle entering into the chapels and it will slowly begin to change how both unassuming members and future leaders think as a slow-motion evolution begins to take place.
Yes, Jesus was a feminist!
I just started reading this book and it is awesome!
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Great review, Kristine!
Read and recommend.
Kristine didn’t do this review, although she did review it a couple months ago. This was me.
The podcast was great. Guess I need to read the book next.
“When will Mormon feminists truly feel welcome at church? I can’t say. Change is hard, but for the powerless to make change takes more than diplomacy and may be ultimately futile. ”
Do you mean powerful? I’m sorry but I don’t understand.
I have a lot of thoughts, but want to take the moment now to thank you for the poem. I read it late last night and could almost feel the mushrooms growing outside in the first warm night of the year.
I’ve ordered my copy of this. It sounds like it’ll be an interesting read. RE the question you raise about feminists feeling welcome at church, I think it depends on the kind of feminist you mean. As someone who has, for years, vocally advocated for changes in thinking regarding homosexuality, women and the priesthood and a number of issues regarding gender and identity politics, all it’s gotten me in terms of my own ward is a lack of friends, a death threat and good Christian folks writing the bishop saying I shouldn’t be at church. Part of that may be my personal style, part of it may be the ideas I have about things.
A few of my less radical/more diplomatic friends have managed to carve out a slightly larger social space in their various wards, but even they recognize that institutions change much more slowly than people would like them to and that includes, certainly, the LDS church. I like the Farr quote a lot (got to meet her when i was at BYU many years ago) and I think that’s maybe a better way to think about things. History teaches us that this church re-configures history according to its own needs and retrenches itself along the most conservative doctrinal lines possible until its hand is literally forced by outside forces. If one is even slightly left-leaning, that can make it hard. But books like this at least let us know we’re not alone and provide valuable perspectives. Thanks for the review.
Eeep! Sorry Hawk! Excellent review!
GBSmith: When I refer to the powerless trying to make changes, I mean women trying to create equality in the church given our current structure or LGBT people trying to create inclusion. When the powerless (in the structure) seek change, it’s a tough row to hoe.
Brother Sky: Of course, I think you are right. E. Oaks meets a broad definition of feminist in that he is vocally for women being paid equally for equal work, at least in the workplace (not sure within the church’s paid positions). Most women in RS are feminists in that same sense or in the sense that everyone in there believes we should have the vote, we should be taken seriously, and our opinions matter. What seems to get the stinkeye are liberal tactics (petitions, demonstrations) which makes me think the tone policing is mostly political. I’m not a huge fan of liberal tactics either, but that’s because I see that they are ineffective. A Neylan McBaine will do just fine. A Kate Kelly did not.
I feel like it’s time for me to reread this. Lusterware may be the only thing that keeps me in the church. And I do love the diversity of views – I love the image of putting all of us in one room and having some serious disagreements and discussions.
When will we ever feel welcome? mmmm, I’m hoping in 20-30 years.
“hawkgrrrl on April 18, 2016 at 5:51 PM
GBSmith: When I refer to the powerless trying to make changes, I mean women trying to create equality in the church given our current structure or LGBT people trying to create inclusion. When the powerless (in the structure) seek change, it’s a tough row to hoe.”
Thanks for the clarification and FWIW, I totally agree.
I just can not understand why the leadership can not see the value in sharing the management?
hawk: I think you’re right about liberal tactics not being effective. I’ve always seen the ideal version of the LDS Church as being a bottom-up sort of organization, that people could take their concerns to leaders and be heard, to have some real dialogue, even if it didn’t end up changing things. That’s obviously not the case and it seems that with all of the emphasis on obedience and correlation, the top-down structure is being reinforced, thus making it even more resistant to dialogue, protests, etc. Kate Kelly didn’t do well and neither, apparently, did Jeremy Runnels, who today announced his resignation from the church. Interestingly, he claims that his leaders were unable to answer even one of the questions raised in his letter to the CES director.
Whatever folks may think of the Kelly and Runnels cases, I think it’s clear that the church and a majority of its members have trouble dealing with anyone who has questions about their faith, church history, etc. Yes, Runnels and Kelly “went public” with their issues, but even those who don’t, those who try earnestly and sincerely to get their questions answered are much more likely to be ostracized than welcomed. I guess that’s one consequence of the lock-step gospel. I’m with Kristine A. Maybe in 20 – 30 years things will change.
“Whatever folks may think of the Kelly and Runnels cases, I think it’s clear that the church and a majority of its members have trouble dealing with anyone who has questions about their faith, church history, etc.”
I don’t think it’s what you ask as how you ask it.
GBSmith: Actually, I think it’s about WHERE you ask it. I know a few people who are struggling and instead of talking with someone in an official church leadership position, they seek out sympathetic friends and run things by them. And perhaps this is the best way. A lot of it depends on how one views what Sundays at church are for. Are they chiefly for edification and community building or are they for asking difficult and complex questions? How/where one approaches seeking solutions to one’s doubts/issues might depend on the answer to that question.
“I don’t think it’s what you ask as how you ask it.”
I’m not sure this is true. I think the real problem is if you accept the standard answers given. You can ask any questions you want as long as whatever answer your priesthood leader gives you satisfies you. If you don’t agree with the answer once it is given, that is where the problem lies. All the time I hear people complain that questioners who continue to question aren’t sincere. If they were sincere they wouldn’t still be questioning because Mormonism has answers. Go ahead and ask if women can have the priesthood, as long as when you hear no as the answer you accept that. Go ahead and ask about Book of Mormon historicity as long as you’re satisfied with the answer of “pray about it.” Go ahead and ask about LGBT issues as long as you can accept that homosexuality is contrary to God’s plan and gay marriage is the number one contributor to the downfall of society.
Maybe the key is to stop asking questions at all. We already know they don’t have the answers. That doesn’t mean we don’t question. We just stop going through the same futile process.
One thing I feel pretty confidently about is that I can discern truth as much as anyone else. I don’t need to ask. I can question without asking. And just being there, sharing my own thoughts and opinions while respecting where other people are in their thoughts and opinions might be the only way to create change that lasts.
Ebk
Very well put.
It’s much more complex than just how you ask and where you ask. The “how” encompasses not just tone, but the vocabulary and phrasing. “Where” encompasses the context – private vs. public, seminary vs. institute, youth sunday school vs. gospel principles vs. gospel doctrine, even RS vs. EQ/HP (my husband said several times that I’d love the complex discussions allowed in his small EQ group). But you can’t forget about the “who.” If you’re talking to a church historian you’ll likely get a much more nuanced answer than an average member. Ask your bishop and you may get a range of responses from understanding and compassion to suspicion and restriction on callings. Some members will freak if you insinuate anything negative about church leaders, others will shrug, and still others will agree passionately. Seminary and institute teachers have their own opinions and expertise, so you won’t necessarily get the same responses all around. There are too many factors in most situations to accurately predict the response to a question (that’s assuming your question is even perceived as a question and not a thinly veiled attack on the church).
Thanks for the review. Reading the table of contents of the book, I was impressed. I found myself asking, “but do they have…?” And they did.
I don’t want to detract from the book by explaining how some of us came to support the church’s stance on ERA, without being mindless sheep. Another time.
But I do have a problem with the “Christ was a feminist” meme. I am not thrilled with anyone slapping a label on another person.
One of the great contributions of the book is showing the diversity of thought among feminists. That is true inside and outside the church. Groups like Feminists for Life trace their roots to Susan B. Anthony, whose writings make it clear she was anti-abortion and blamed men for abortion. But other groups claim that one cannot be a feminist without supporting abortion on demand, and if SBA were alive today and could see how safe it was and would support legal abortion.
The “Christ was a feminist” thing strikes me the same way.
&EBK
The problem with your stance of “hear and obey” is that it cuts both ways. If you want to proclaim that everything the LDS Church says is unequivocally true, then you can’t go around proclaiming things like “gay marriage is the number one contributor to the downfall of society.” As far as I know, the LDS Church has never said that. Furthermore, the LDS Church in recent essays has officially recanted aspects of its history. If you say you strictly follow what the LDS Church says, then you can’t go around saying and defending things the LDS Church itself says are untrue.
Furthermore, “pray about it” is never an answer to a question, it is merely advice on *one* way to seek an answer. Answering a question with “pray about it” is equivalent to saying “ask around”, “Google it”, or “go to the library”. An authority who is unable, too lazy, or afraid to answer earnest questions is no authority and isn’t guided by the Lord. After all, why can’t the authority “pray about it” and pass along the Lord’s answer?
@hawkgrrl
You raise a good point. It’s certainly OK to *have* questions and seek answers until you are satisfied. I myself have plenty of questions about my own spiritual path… some of which I can barely formulate, much less ask.
As you say, there’s a time, place, and manner for raising questions, and there’s a time to keep quiet and give it time. Certainly “questioning” can be a way of expressing doubt or attack, rather than a way to gain knowledge.
The other side of the issue is that the LDS Church culture is unusually authoritarian. Even the appearance of questioning a superior or bucking the norm gets you the stink eye. As the Japanese say “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down”. I think that, to some extent, this culture is OK. The problem is that people abuse this and make it punitive.
I am pretty sure that, in the Catholic Church you could say “Hey Padre, you don’t *really* think that wine turns to blood or that the Communion wafer turns to flesh do you?” Most priests would take this as an opportunity for a nice discussion, and the questioner wouldn’t be judged nor punished for it. LDS Church members ought to be that open and fearless with their doubts and questions.
With respect to asking and answering questions:
I think one problem in the LDS Church is that people are placed in positions of power and authority when, in fact, they are not intellectually and spiritually ready for the responsibility. They enjoy the *title* and respect that goes with it, but they don’t really step up to the responsibility. They are administrators, not leaders.
In most denominations, the role of Elder is reserved for a person who is intellectually and spiritually mature and prepared to be a spritual leader. A spritual leader is prepared to answer *any* question, and to take responsibility for being wrong at times. Such a leader never abuses power, nor passes judgement, but serves the congregation with love and wisdom. The very idea of a punitive “court of love” is anathema to a true leader.
I have listened to a recording of Jeremy Runnell’s recent “court of love”. There was nothing “loving” about it. It was a tense, terse, administrative proceeding. The Lord was nowhere to be found in that room.
To Genhy who agrees with my comment above, and Elder Anderson who disagrees:
I just wanted to point out that my comment was trying to illustrate how I feel things are currently being run, not how I feel they should be run.
“Maybe the key is to stop asking questions at all. We already know they don’t have the answers. That doesn’t mean we don’t question. We just stop going through the same futile process.”
I think hawkgrrrl senses the mood of many LDS women. The wrangling about how to express doubts, how to ask “faithful questions,” how to approach leaders – that’s all in their rear-view mirrors.
I only want to have conversations about women with people who see them as equals. I can understand that many people in the church don’t see them that way. I can be accepting of them as whole people and appreciate their good points. I can work with them in our common causes. But I don’t go to them with “questions” anymore.
Kristine,
Yes! Lusterware is what keeps me going as well! I turn to that essay frequently and because of it Laurel Thatcher Ulrich is my hero.