Lisa Butterworth wrote a post titled the F-Word: Feminism. Is feminism dangerous? Many faithful Latter-day Saints may be concerned that Mormon feminism is a road to apostasy. Is that true?
GT: Do you have any ways to assuage that fear for people who are active LDS that are thinking, “I don’t know if I should listen to these two people. One is out of the church in one is barely hanging on.”
Sara: Yeah, right.
Nancy: So one thing I’ve done is I’ve surveyed Mormon feminists and when I surveyed Mormon feminists, when we were experiencing that great big bubble of hope during 2012-2014. Yeah. That great big level of hope. I surveyed Mormon feminists in 2013, about 1800 Mormon feminists, and I think it was 70 something percent of that group was active. And most Mormon feminists at that time were active and it was a very exciting time to be active, you know? And, they were active and, overwhelmingly, not only were they active, but they had some kind of calling. And many of them had temple recommends. At that time, most people were saying that their participation in Mormon feminism was helping them to stay in the church because it was helping them to negotiate and navigate those difficult points and to give them resources and community and support where maybe they would’ve just left if they hadn’t had community and resources and support to stay in the church. And then at other times, Mormon feminists, in the example of people leaving has helped people leave. Mormon feminism both helps people to stay in the church if that is what their goal is and it helps people to leave if that is what their goal is. And I think that the community…
GT: Let me stop you for a second. Was that your goal?
Sara: To leave? No, but…
GT: Because the reason I’m asking that is because there are going to be people who will say, “Well, if I support it, then I’ve got one foot out the door.”
Sara: Right. It’s tricky. I’m trying to gather my thoughts and figure out the right starting point here. The whole idea of Mormon feminism, helping people to stay or to leave, I relate to that and I resonate with that. I think it didn’t so much–well from personal experience I’ll say this. My faith crisis or my big turning point was when I went to the temple when I was 21. I was about to get married and I went and received my endowment the week before my wedding. I had no idea but walking into the temple I felt completely clear and completely hundred percent all in with the church. And leaving the temple I felt like everything had changed and I didn’t know who God was anymore. And that was very uncomfortable and what I needed at that point, what I wanted more than anything was to see examples of people who had a difficult time with the church for whatever reason, and still stayed because I wanted to stay more than anything. But I didn’t know, you know, looking at my family and my ward. It seemed like everybody was just really comfortable. And so, I thought, “Well, how do I stay if I’m not comfortable and if I have questions? Right? And so Mormon feminism, the people I met, the stories I read, really did help me to stay for 10 years. And because of all these external events: excommunication, exclusion policy, Mormon #MeToo, and sexual abuse, and stuff. I think I have also seen examples that convinced me that there was also a way to leave in a healthy way. Not that that was what I wanted to do, but when I felt that spiritual prompting, that that’s what my next step was, I felt okay. I have seen from these people’s examples that I can do that, and I can still be a spiritual person.
Early Mormon women blessed by laying on of hands. If the practice returned, would that be good enough for the Ordain Women movement, or do they require ordination? Must women be ordained? Nancy Ross and Sara Hanks answer that question.
GT: Are you still a member of Ordain Women?
Nancy: I mean, I still have a profile of a website, and I’m still supportive of the organization.
GT: And you’re being ordained this Sunday [July 29] anyway.
Nancy: That’s right.
Sara: Ordained woman.
Nancy: Yes, Ordain Women! We’re doing it.
GT: You’re going to be ordained. My question is actually two questions. Number one, what if in say October General Conference, President Nelson got up and said, “Okay, we’re going to go back to the idea that women can lay hands on the sick like they used to do even into the early 20th century. Would that be good enough for Ordain Women? Or, do you think that women still need to be ordained to priesthood office?
Nancy: Do you want to comment?
Sara: I would say nothing less than full inclusion and full opportunity for every member of the church would be quote unquote sufficient. Any step in the direction of progress on any subject, in any community is great. Any step. Great.
GT: So you would welcome the laying on of hands.
Sara: Oh, I would welcome that completely. I would be so excited about that. I mean I would be overjoyed. But in terms of Ordain Women as an organization, I think they chose their name very specifically. It’s Ordain Women, not like give women–I mean, it would be a very long name, but it’s not like Give Women More Opportunities. It’s Ordain Women.
LDS women out there–would you like to be ordained, or are you happy with the status quo?
As we finished our our conversation with Sara Hanks and Dr. Nancy Ross, I asked them what their feminist favorite essays were.
Here are some questions:
- What are your favorite essays from FMH?
- Is there such thing as a faithful feminist?
- Is Feminism an f-word? Would it be better to come up with a new term that is less toxic?
- Would the LDS Church split like the Community of Christ did over women’s ordination?
- Has there been a noticeable drop in activity among women since Kate Kelly’s excommunication?
Wheat & Tares 
We recently moved into a new ward. It is a ward of high turnover as many people are in the area while pursuing a variety of graduate school programs.
Last night, we attended a “Meet & Greet The Bishop” for new ward members. There were about 30 of us. The bishop asked that we introduce ourselves and share something about ourselves. As people did that, I saw the LDS dynamic kick in: Each man introduced himself and told a little about himself and his wife. Out of 15 couples, only 2 women had their own voices.
A few years ago, I watched a video of a John Dehlin panel discussion held at Sunstone. I watched this same dynamic. The panel and the room was seated as couples and every interaction was led, answered, instigated by a married man while their wives either sat silently or whispered to their husbands the things that they wanted spoken.
Mormon Feminism. At this point, I think the goal needs to simply encourage woman to speak for themselves. Until women in LDS culture can individually find their voice, nothing will move forward. Once women can speak for themselves, everything else will follow,.
For me, feminism was the pathway by which I lost my belief. But, I think that the true faith crisis was really only precipitated by the election of Trump. Before that, I was content to wait patiently for the church to change. (Although, it does seem like they are regressing in women’s issues right now.) But with the election, seeing so many Mormon friends fall all over themselves to justify the election of a man who is absolutely devoid of virtue in order to avoid voting for a woman whose life choices they disapprove of, I began asking myself why do Mormons view women in such a distorted way? The answer was obvious. It’s the patriarchy. Then I began to ask myself why does God demand a social order that demeans and dehumanizes women? My answer was that he wouldn’t. That was the beginning of the end for me. Since then, my literal belief just melted away, and all that was left was a list of what’s good and bad about the church community. The ‘bad’ list now far outweighs the ‘good’ list, so I’m looking for the exit now.
Like to be ordained or happy with the status quo?
Neither.
My focus is not on women receiving ordination. I believe that that there are other, different, changes that will need to be made within us as individuals and congregations as well as families that will be the most vital keys to the door that leads to solutions and equality. So I’m focusing on those.
And I certainly do not believe that the division that exists between men and women in the church now, and the way it is too often understood, reflects the celestial order of things. Therefore, I am certain that we have a long way to go.
I believe that both men and women are called upon by God to be prepared to officiate in Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood ordinances and should be prepared to do so. And I believe that when God indicates that you are to be prepared for something, it’s a very good idea to prepare.
So, among those other, unamed things above, I’m working on becoming prepared, both personally and intellectually, for when I am called upon to do that.. When that happens isn’t as important to me as is whether or not I and my sisters, feminist or otherwise, are prepared. Discussing ordination with them will not be the key to that. There are, however, other things that we can do with great love and careful thought that will be..
It’s tough to have a productive conversation on this topic within the confines of orthodox Mormonism when the answer to the question “Why can’t women hold the priesthood?” is some variation on : “Just because.” Two or three generations ago, there were some justifications that could be offered that sounded plausible to most people. But society has changed and women have equal opportunities in most areas of society: employment, education, even the military. Those old justifications don’t work anymore for most people, even within the Church, and “just because” doesn’t satisfy anyone for very long.
My sister listened to my FMH interviews and has been telling me how feminist friendly her ward is. For example, instead of young men (priesthood) passing out the programs, the bishop has asked the Young Women to do it.
Also, yesterday in Relief Society, the bishop came and said they weren’t going to sustain RS teachers in Sacrament meeting anymore, but he would ask for a sustaining vote in RS only, like they do for the men in Elders quorum. Does this happen in anyone else’s ward?
Because the Teacher pass out programs in my ward, and I think they still sustain RS teacher in sacrament meeting in my ward.
Schism: I feel like I saw more friends leave the church over the Nov 2015 policy than over feminism per se, but they were definitely teetering already because of that. At least the treatment of women is nothing new (a small consolation?), even if the lack of progress was and is disheartening. But the exclusion policy represented an active retrenchment effort with little discernible benefit (and no correlation with Christianity), and I think it was the last straw for many people already feeling marginalized or angry.
I point all this out because I think schism/split isn’t very likely to happen at this point in history. Conservative leadership is content to let retrenchment cause people to self-select out of membership rather than try to build a more inclusive message, and people who vote with their feet don’t really constitute a schism. (The notion of the church swinging to a progressive stance and alienating the conservative base is unthinkable to me right now; the other way is already happening.) Besides at this point there’s too many things that more progressive members would want to see changed, and I think they’d just look around and say, “Y’know, we can save a few dozen steps and just go worship with the CoC or Episcopalians.”
Faithful feminists: sure, I am one. Faithful *and* bitter *and* feminist. Still waiting to see if all three can continue to co-exist or if one will win out. Bitterness is a strong contender.
I agree with Bro. Jones. The POX was a tipping point with many people, and I do personally know several people who have left the LDS Church for CoC, Anglican, and Universalist churches, upset more about the gay issue than women’s ordination, although they don’t like either policy. (Some have simply gone inactive.) I have never seen such a public exodus, but I think the brethren think the exits were worth the cost to “doctrinal purity.”
Rick B, the sustaining thing is a new church-wide directive. A letter was sent to local leadership earlier this month about it. EQ Pres + Counselors and RS Pres + Counselors will be sustained in sacrament meeting. All other EQ callings to be sustained in EQ. All other RS callings to be sustained in RS.
Like Ari, Mormon post election support for Trump has altered how I view the church. Initially, I was thrilled that Utah voted overwhelmingly against Trump during the primaries – he received less that 15% of the vote which denied him any Utah delegates. But this changed. I was disappointed that two former LDS leaders were very visible in their endorsement of Trump in the General Election (Julie Beck , a previous Relief Society General President and Robert C. Oaks, a first cousin to President Dallin Oaks, and former President of the Seventy. Robert Oaks served on Trump’s Utah campaign committee. Post election, Elaine Dalton, the former Young Women’s General President, in an LDS forum, denigrated women who participated in the Women’s March protest against President Trump (a protest my wife attended with her Relief Society president). The church had aligned itself so much with GOP interests that when I quit the party over Trump’s nomination, I found myself on the “outside” with much of my LDS ward (and my extended family). But this outside view has been enlightening.
On Mormon Twitter, there are several LDS who can rightly be described as Alt-Right Mormons. One this weekend tweeted “If you are newly sealed to your spouse, both perfectly healthy, and not attempting to bring children into the world, you’re actively choosing not to follow God’s commandments.” What is disturbing isn’t that Alt-Right Mormons exist, it’s that their views are quite welcome in my quorum. The church’s general support of Trumpism is a sign that holding on to the status quo is important.; “Make America Great Again”, after all, is a backward looking theme.
Hanging onto the stats-quo seems to be a more dominant feature for the church than anticipatory revelation. I agree with Dave B. that there isn’t doctrinal justification for women not to hold the priesthood. Or in other words, it is not the Lord who has dictated women should not have the priesthood, it’s just status quo. The fact that our church hangs onto status quo, when it actually was quite progressive in the 19th century during the first generation of LDS leaders, has given me second thoughts about the nature of revelation subsequent generations of leaders claim. We hear much about revelation being anticipatory, preparing us for the future, but some of our most signification revelations actually are reactionary. They pretty much don’t happen until much tribulation has already occurred. These include the Manifesto and the Priesthood Ban. Even 2-hour Church fits this pattern. I fully expect women will be ordained at some point and even the church’s policies on LGBT to change, but not after still much more anguish. What’s the point then, of post-tribulation revelation?
Question about the sustaining votes in RS: does someone from the bishopric got to RS to ask for the sustaining vote, or do they let the RS presidency handle it?
“Got to” should have been “go to”.
Sigh.
Rockwell,
Yes, currently, someone from the Bishopric is required to go to Relief Society to do the sustaining. The relevant policy is in Handbook 2, 19.3 “The leader who oversaw the calling, or a priesthood officer he authorizes, presents a person to the congregation for a sustaining vote.”
Note: I think it’s silly that a member of the bishopric has to go do this while a member of the Elders Quorum presidency can present their own members for sustaining. If I had my way, a member of this bishopric would have to go to EQ as well. But I’m jaded by the fact that EQ tends to issue and sustain callings without ever telling me (the clerk) so that I can record it. Ultimately, I don’t see any reason this couldn’t be consistent across organizations. In the same breath, moving the sustaining of EQ presidencies into the general meeting is a big step toward uniformity, so I’ll celebrate that at least.
Rockwell, a member of the bishopric presents the sister for sustaining in RS.
Edit: Benjamin already answered it, sorry.
I understand and appreciate the logic, but there is another perspective. If this becomes a matter like unto that of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram versus Moses and Aaron, it is probably best to take counsel from Moses and Aaron. Certainly, there was an emotional appeal to what Korah, Dathan, and Abiram said, and they persuaded many — but it was reasonable and honorable for others to choose to follow Moses and Aaron instead.
I am presently on holiday in New Zealand, where the prime minister is a young woman who is very popular, and who left the church over the treatment of women and gays.
As has been said above, there is no reason for not treating women and gays as equal, except lack of leadership.
I had trouble during conference not asking whether each person shown still supported Trump
“Is there such thing as a faithful feminist?”
All people are faithful to whatever “ism” they cling to whereupon they become an “ist”.
“Is Feminism an f-word?”
So it seems. Right after e-words and before g-words. But you may be asking whether it is a trigger word, or has baggage to use an older metaphor with the same meaning, and yes, it tends to have baggage particularly with boomers that remember Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem and others. Google “all men are rapists”.
“Would it be better to come up with a new term that is less toxic?”
The value of re-branding is overestimated in my opinion. In the end it is still “I want something”.
“Would the LDS Church split like the Community of Christ did over women’s ordination?”
What is more likely is an exodus. An exodus of one kind of they do, and an exodus of another kind of they don’t. It is already underway.
I hadn’t thought about it, but FMH is hampered by the fact that its Facebook group often slides into the worship of wine or coffee and its leaders tend to be examples of people who have left the Church or tell others that leaving is a fine and acceptable thing to do.
I’ll have to reflect more on that. This interview jelled that for me so I’m where I’m trying to sort that out , but that hit me as a core feature suddenly rather than a data point for some people.
Stephen – I hear you there. I have no less love for anyone who has made the decision to leave the church, but it changes the discourse substantially. I don’t think it’s “wrong” [big airquotes] but it tends to create a discussion that is not as beneficial to me personally. As someone who is desperately trying to maintain my membership and my status inside the church, “Just leave!” is not an instructive argument no matter where on the political or belief spectrum it comes from.
Just to familiarize readers with the saga of ordaining women in the COC, here’s a brief breakdown, and how the LDS might mirror it:
1. With the church leaning left since the 60’s, articles/essays in RLDS publications advocated women’s ordination.
2. Resolutions to General conference calling for a vote on the issue were voted down or tabled for future discussion.
3. The reaction to people leaving the church over apathy was sensitive and compassionate.
4. A 1982 resolution called for the issue to be placed in the hands of the Prophet.
5. In 1984 (next conference) a revelation authorized women’s ordination; passing by a majority vote.
6. An estimated 25% of world church membership withdrew. Reaction to people leaving was “Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out”.
7. 34 years later, church total membership still hovers around 250,000.
Point 2 won’t happen for the LDS; and points 3 and 6 are probably reversed.
Markablog—in addition tithing revenue fell 50%.
SRM: True, and it continues to fall as the General Authorities embrace more left-wing social agendas. Members will donate to keep their local congregations operating and that’s all.
I know of a nearby COC congregation that built a new facility with local funds only; refusing General Church funds so as to not be beholden to them. They also re-named their congregation “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” When their Female Apostle paid a visit and said get with the program or else, the assembly told her to get out.
In the first video, Nancy states:
“There are problems in the way the LDS community treats women and LGBT people and people of color and others… Mormon feminism was to try and help make that easier.”
She make’s the point that it’s the structure of the church that is the source of problems for discontent and anguish, not Mormon feminism.
Markagblog writes “When their Female Apostle paid a visit and said get with the program or else, the assembly told her to get out.”
Straight the way and narrow the gate versus wiggly the way and “what gate?”
Bro. Jones writes “As someone who is desperately trying to maintain my membership and my status inside the church, “Just leave!” is not an instructive argument no matter where on the political or belief spectrum it comes from.”
Agreed; leaving a church that does not make you happy is no guarantee that the other choices will succeed where the present choice has failed.
People tend to have rules, formed in childhood, that bind them. These rules are also known as “values” but in my opinion values does not convey the inviolate nature of rules. These are values that you do not compromise, or if you do, place a high price on that compromise. Some may seem rather common but some may be unique to your situation. One of mine, for instance, is to not argue with my spouse for I saw my parents argue a lot and eventually get divorced. Some of the non-obvious consequences of that include a lack of family council, family prayer, budgeting, anything with a likelihood of argument.
In the case of “Ordain Women” it appears to be a desire for dominion. The last thing on Earth I want right now is to expand the pool of persons with dominion over me.
But it’s not my church and not my decision. There are some women who would make excellent leaders. Well, one comes to mind but what she did to demonstrate her worthiness was awesome! True grit.
Back to your questions:
“What are your favorite essays from FMH?” Mormon Priestess is a game changer, but there were really many great articles over the years.
“Is there such thing as a faithful feminist?” Absolutely. Without a doubt, Kate Kelly was faithful and then bewildered when she was excommunicated in absentia. There are many many feminists in this church who are active and attending. Most of them simply don’t know they are feminists or maybe haven’t yet figured out that the church’s patriarchal foundation is rotten to the core. But in RS, nearly all the women I have talked with for decades agree that women should be treated equally, that women are not a lesser version of human being. Very few of these women think it makes sense for women’s voices to be so absent at church. They agree that women should be taken seriously, and that women should have the ability to be financially independent and receive equal pay for equal work and not face gender discrimination. These are common sense positions. Most people in our era, in both political parties, are feminists in this broad sense.
“Is Feminism an f-word? Would it be better to come up with a new term that is less toxic?” The term isn’t toxic at all. The only thing toxic is the idiotic overreaction of a handful of conservatives and those who think patriarchy is a good thing.
“Would the LDS Church split like the Community of Christ did over women’s ordination?” There’s a big difference between ordaining women in 1984 and ordaining them in 2018 or 2020. CoC was an early adopter, maybe even an innovator, and only about 10% of people are early adopters. The Mormon church is a late adopter / recalcitrant, mostly due to being led by a gerontocracy. Statistically, a higher percentage of LDS men favor women’s ordination than LDS women (I believe it was a 2015 Pew survey, but I can’t recall). The other thing is that within the Church we have a priesthood of all believers (all male believers, but still), and we also have the temple in which women exercise priesthood, and Pres. Oaks has stipulated that women performing church callings do so using priesthood power. That’s a lot closer to a doctrinal shift than anything in 1984.
“Has there been a noticeable drop in activity among women since Kate Kelly’s excommunication?” This is hard to say. Women have always attended church more than men, and there has been a simultaneous loss of men and women due to faith crises. Most of the people I know who openly self-identified as Mormon feminists in 2013 have since left the church. That was not necessary at all, but I have long suspected that there is enough unexamined latent cultural misogyny among our top leaders that they don’t see a disconnect between hating feminists and feminism and furthering the interests of (their version of) women. The problem is that women who support patriarchy do so by selling out themselves and the sisterhood. If you want to understand the mindset of men who came of age in the 1940s and 1950s, watch the first couple seasons of Mad Men. The rest of us don’t live in that world any more, but some do.
It is interesting to observe that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints did not merely split, but none of the splinters is true to the former church.
From Wikipedia; In 2001, this “historical amnesia” culminated in an institutional name change: the RLDS Church became the Community of Christ. In so doing, some have suggested that the RLDS Church abandoned its past and created a new organization that was focused on social-interaction (Community) and shared mission (Christ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ
In other words, just another community church. Appeals to some, not to others, mostly a social club. Maybe entirely a social club with a Christian theme. Not exactly something one would make sacrifice of time, resources and with power to persuade to give up desired vices.
Mormonism of all flavors is also undergoing “historical amnesia” losing the distinctiveness of Mormonism. Already common procedures are now called “ministry” in conformity to social Christianity.
John Hamer said that the original name of the church in 1830 was “Church of Christ.” Community of Christ was a similar name and a sort of return to the roots.
“We proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities of joy, hope, love, and peace”. This RLDS mission statement is where the new name was derived.
All of the splinter groups, to my knowledge, retain a belief in Joseph Smith’s divine commission to bring forth the Book of Mormon. But they also believe that, at some point, he went off the rails. Splinter groups from the LDS probably don’t; I’m not sure.