A few months ago I had a conversation with a local church leader where he asked me—with genuine curiosity and a desire to learn—what difference it would make to me if women were ordained to the priesthood. He wanted to know how that would improve Church for me on a scale of “0% better” to “100% better.”
I didn’t really know how to answer him.
A few years ago my answer would have been that the Church also needs to change on gay marriage, but that gender equality would make a huge positive difference to me (and, if gender equality happened first, I imagine it would lead to changes on LGBTQ issues). And that’s what I ended up saying to him that day.
But the reality is that at this point, my core beliefs about God and scripture and prophetic authority and many other foundational truth claims are so different from what’s said at General Conference and other official Church sources that, even if the Church started doing better on social justice, I would never really return to the type of believer I once was. While I would feel better about participating and involving my family in the Church if it embraced women and queer folks with full equality, that would be because I would think the Church was good–not because it is “True”, at least not “True” in the same sense as I thought it was for much of my life.
That got me thinking: what would it take for me to feel the same way about or participate to the same extent in Church as I used to? For me to move my one-and-three-quarters-feet-out-the-door back in?
I realized that the Church could do a huge list of things that would make me more inclined to give more of my time and means and loyalty to it—like ordain women (or, as Angela has suggested, “unordain men”), give full membership privileges including temple sealings to gay couples, repudiate and apologize for polygamy and the race-based temple and priesthood ban, spend its tithing money on humanitarian causes—but that really wouldn’t change my views on some fundamental truth claims around God and authority that I no longer share with many of my co-religionists, and that make it feel as though I live in a different universe from many of the people I associate with at Church. Like all I can do is my best to fit in–but that I don’t really belong anymore, because I can’t bring my whole self to Church or be myself around Church members.
What is really necessary, I realized, is actually a lot more simple than all of those huge changes—but in some ways a lot more fundamental.
What is really necessary for me to feel at home at Church as I once did is for the Church as an institution and in our congregations to tolerate and accept and possibly even celebrate vast differences in orthodoxy and orthopraxy among its members. To create a safe space for people to share different views about really fundamental things like whether God is (exclusively) an embodied male or the Book of Mormon is historical or whether women should be ordained or gay couples should be sealed. To practice a faith where faith and belief aren’t conflated–where faith is a way of living out our relationship with God rather than a set of statements that we either accept or reject. Where (as Brian McLaren puts it) what matters is “faith expressing itself in love.”
I suppose that for some, this view of Church is untenable. If the purpose of Church is to teach correct doctrine (i.e., indoctrinate), then we can’t really have a Church where people get to believe whatever they want. And for the orthodox, that open version of Church might actually be as uncomfortable for them as the closed version is for me.
But if the purpose of Church is to draw us closer to God and to each other, I think it might be doable. It could look pretty different, but would be based on shared values instead of shared beliefs; on spirituality (broadly defined as a connection to God, the Earth, and each other rather than whether you read your scriptures every day or attend the temple weekly); on community, and on service.
Whatever it would look like, I remain convinced that the only way to really keep a diverse group of people with a diverse set of life experiences and beliefs in the pews isn’t to try to convince them that, to the extent their experience and beliefs don’t line up with the party line, they are wrong and just need to pray harder so that they get the same answer as everyone else. It is not to tell people that their only way to Christ is Church and that if they think they can follow Christ without following Church leaders they are deceived (hear that, Kevin Hamilton?). It’s instead to ask what we can learn from each other and what our neighbors’ diverse experiences of God can teach us about God and each other.
Without that change, none of the others will be sufficient.
With that change, none of the others would really be necessary, at least not for me.*
Questions:
- If you’ve stepped away or reduced your church involvement, what would need to change for you to go back?
- Do you think it would be feasible to be in a church that welcomed different beliefs on fundamental issues? What might that look like?
*I mean, I still hate patriarchy. Like hate it. Patriarchy is the worst. But if I could say that I hate patriarchy and that the Church’s patriarchy is no exception at Church, I might feel better about attending a patriarchal Church.
Wheat & Tares 
Silencing and authoritative attempts to to coerce/ control both actions and thought are the biggest problem I struggle with in my continued church attendance. I am going to be me and think what I think. If you want me there accept me as I am, don’t try to guilt me into pretending I think differently. I think our cultural behavior is in conflict with D&C 121
If there were true dialog up and down within the church structure and actionable change coming about as a result, if there was open reporting and accountability for finances, if there was an opening up of leadership and participation for women, LGBTQ, and BIPOC individuals and finally if there was serious reflection about both church history and political stands in relation to church principles and not political platforms.
Always enjoy your posts, Elise. I stopped going to church 16 years ago, and officially removed my name from church records after it announced support for California’s Prop 8 measure. I spent time exploring other denominations for a time, though it was only a year or two before I drifted to being agnostic, then firmly atheist. However, I did find that Universal Unitarian congregations, both in Salt Lake City, where I lived at the time, and in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where I now live, are very much the accepting sort of place you describe longing for. Sadly, I think that’s really the only “church” you’re ever going to find that’s as open-minded and altruistic as you’d like. I stopped going to Unitarian gatherings after a few times, though, as I came to value spending that time with family and on hobbies that were more fulfilling.
Always enjoy your posts, Elise. I stopped going to church 16 years ago, and officially removed my name from church records after it announced support for California’s Prop 8 measure. I spent time exploring other denominations for a time, though it was only a year or two before I drifted to being agnostic, then firmly atheist. However, I did find that Universal Unitarian congregations, both in Salt Lake City, where I lived at the time, and in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where I now live, are very much the accepting sort of place you describe longing for. Sadly, I think that’s really the only “church” you’re ever going to find that’s as open-minded and altruistic as you’d like. I stopped going to Unitarian gatherings after a few times, though, as I came to value spending that time with family and on hobbies that were more fulfilling.
Good questions…
And the final answer for me personally was that the church doctrines and I do not have the same shared values – so our relationship at best will be a community “Easter and Christmas” / Support the Family deal.
The church as a community places great value on women fulfilling roles that I do not. Despite what many women have told me over the years, how I perform my female gender is not the way the church culture and teachings think that I should and is not comfortable for the leaders.
I do not privilege hierarchies of power over networks and taking stakeholders seriously. I prioritize my role as a “parent” and not as a “mother” – and that isn’t how the storyline goes in Relief Society. I do a crap ton of “presiding” over chores and family meetings, “nurture” using cognitive empathy instead of the traditional “compassionate” or “emotional” forms of empathy (which are supposed to be “spiritual gifts” of mine?), and “provide” many things that my children need. At best, I am a “good partner” to my husband. At worst, “I am a thorn in my husband’s side and a menace to LDS society”. Either way, my family structure being a last sentence loophole in the uncanonized proclamation is not a glowing connective recommendation for reconciliation.
My base assumption about life has evolved that “One Size Fits All” does not work and cannot work to “save” anyone – so there isn’t “One Covenant Path” to use as template. That is a current deal-breaker.
I am not interested in being part of an explicit hierarchy at church anymore. I am interested in connective networks with merit-based (not gender-based) leadership and subject matter experts who deal with the nuances between church teachings and non-church science observations/theories extensively to help out everyone.
BOTTOM LINE: I could be a “Christian” and valued by God for who I am – and that will not authentically happen at church.
WHAT IF?
What if the church came out with a complete 180 on how to perform gender and that gender even mattered in building communities of saints (and became the best ally same-sex individuals had).
I would spend years being suspicious of whether the church had truly changed and actually had a place for me that allowed me to be an educated/thoughtful/cognitive thinker/philosopher/counselor instead of a “female domain activity coordinator/teacher” in a women-centric sphere. Is there enough time in my lifetime to overcome those empathetic ruptures between what the church expects and what I could in theory actually provide?
WHY AM I HERE?
I am here because I am still reconciling my heritage and teachings from the church. I am still in community with active. believing members.
Just a few easy changes:
1. Decanonize Section 132 and the entire PoGP (BoA at a minimum).
2. Renounce the doctrine (not just the practice) of polygamy.
3. Grant women full priesthood authority.
4. Eliminate temple restrictions based on sexual orientation.
5. Open the financials – complete transparency.
6. Release and designate emeritus status to all general authorities upon reaching age 75.
7. Remove the name of a 19th century despot from all Mormon educational institutions.
“I suppose that for some, this view of Church is untenable. If the purpose of Church is to teach correct doctrine (i.e., indoctrinate), then we can’t really have a Church where people get to believe whatever they want. And for the orthodox, that open version of Church might actually be as uncomfortable for them as the closed version is for me.”
There’s the rub. Thank you for saying it so well, Elisa.
For me, I see all the types of inclusion you are advocating for in this post available through the Community of Christ. Though… I suspect that has a good deal to do with me having won the local congregation (ward) and mission center (stake) lotteries. Those seem to be the lotteries people play when they seek fellowship through the Community of Christ, given that local leadership has a lot more latitude for messaging than LDS wards and stakes do. It is my personal experience that Community of Christ is succeeding in its inclusion efforts, at least for now. But by the admission of some of its members I have personally heard from, the Community of Christ paid a steep price in membership and money losses to achieve their current top-to-bottom institutional acceptance for ordained women and LGBTQ+. Like we both seem to be saying, there’s the rub.
I think it’s possible to have a pretty different worldview and set of beliefs from the typical church leader while still being an active member, although I acknowledge it seems to be getting harder. I feel like in the 90’s the church didn’t care that much what specific things you believed. Am I wrong? Lately it does seem that some leaders are clamping down and trying to purge the heterodox people and ideas, but I suspect this is a temporary swing and only a subset of leaders. At least I hope so. I think the church could find a larger tent approach that focuses on fundamental values to be feasible, but at some level there is no point to the LDS church if some core ideas are not upheld.
@yourfoodallergy, why “core ideas” are necessary for the LDS Church to have a point?
Elisa: I realize I am repeating myself from the other day but since you are asking “what would it take?” I am going to answer. For me (validity Mormon), I would need to believe in the Church’s truth claims. I would need to know that the priesthood and authority of the Lord was actually restored to the earth by heavenly visitors. I don’t believe that. I would need to believe that families can ONLY be together eternally if they are sealed in an LDS temple. I don’t believe that. I would need to believe that the Q15 are actually special witnesses of Christ and that the LDS prophet actually holds the keys to receive revelation for the Lord’s true Church. I don’t believe that.
See, if I believed those things above, I would be able to overlook the things I don’t like about the Church> I would be able to justify racism and sexism if I thought the root of it was truth. I know that sounds terrible but that’s because I used to outsource my morality to the COJCOLDS. I don’t claim to know what IS true but I know what is NOT and that’s why I wouldn’t be able to go back even if the Church does the right thing on the issues mentioned above.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist, but that being said, I could see see myself participating in, and co-operating with even a religious/spiritual organization if there were sufficient room given for ‘secular sacredness’.
Meanings matter. I don’t expect any organization to have ‘all the truth’ (that would be impossible/indeterminable) but I do expect such to value the honest and rigorous search for truth as much more important than BEING ‘the truth’.
In my mind, the scientific method, and academic search for knowledge are themselves sacred processes. The whole point is (or should be) to advance and critically appraise the body of knowledge that a society has, and find the best solutions possible for the many problems/dilemmas that exist within society.
Civic spaces of government and public deliberation are also sacred- in that these are all the part of the process whereby problems/dilemmas are identified; the public good debated; political decisions are made in the balance of majority & minority interests; after which policies become executed and their success becomes appraised in turn.
Maybe this is in reality some form of ‘humanism’ or something similar, but I fear that the church can’t/won’t acknowledge that there are serious flaws to how it defines or identifies; and later verifies and disseminates ‘truth’.
And the OP is right in saying that an important part of the problem is the church’s emphasis upon the idea of ‘absolute’ truth; based upon unreliable and/or invalid practices; which cannot be questioned, nor challenged in an institutionally-legitimate way that in turn legitimates and produces change-making (and change-makers ) beyond the barest form of “yes, we exist”.
Hell- depending upon your stake president- even a mild expression of disagreement with the church’s hierarchy re: policy or doctrine can cause the scope of your membership and within the church to be greatly restricted or even annulled.
The church is neither chiefly concerned, nor curious about the process of trying to determine truth or meaning. Let the full horror of that sink in:
“The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”
– Joseph Smith Jr.
Community of Christ, the branch of the Church that continued under Joseph Smith III, has a specific policy f “Faithful disagreement” that states that disagreement with a Church teaching or practice is NOT to be considered unfaithful.
In addition, polygamy has never been taught, although we have baptized polygamous members in India, they are not allowed to take on additonal wives after joinging the Church.
At this time, we have women priesthood members, even in the Apostleship and First Presidency. LBTGQ+ members can be married in the church and serve in priesthood roles they have been called to.
Such a great conversation and I very much understand how you feel Elisa. Ten years ago, becoming more affirming of minorities would have been sufficient for me to say that mistakes were made, prophets are human, and could move forward. Not so today.
Of course improving the treatment of minorities would make me more proud of my affiliation with the organization, it wouldn’t change my belief system. I think the only thing that could change my belief system (as alluded to by several commenters) would be full transparency.
Let me what you are doing with our contributions, and why it’s not enough that we still can’t have meaningful youth budgets and still have to do local bake sales to send our kids to camp. Tell me the process behind each policy and doctrinal change, whether it’s that (1) God and/or Jesus appeared to you physically to deliver the message; (2) you had a dream/vision; (3) the FP and Q12 came to a unanimous position on something; or (4) other method. Open up the vaults and let us experience our history firsthand. Lastly, apologize when you cause harm regardless of intent.
This would be an organization I could take seriously and could wrestle with doctrine along with my lived experience. Because currently when everything is a revelation, nothing is.
This would work for me because I still believe in a divine something. I can see why the answer for many would be that nothing could truly bring them back.
I’ll try to answer the first question. I have two different standards depending on where I live.
If I lived in a Mormon-majority community, my bar for returning would be lower. If the church were more inclusive on a range of issues–women, race, and lgbtq+, for example–and more Christian with its finances, I’d be willing to accept a lot of the history, bureaucracy, truth claims, Masonic rituals, etc. just to fit in the broader community. Mormonism is part of my cultural identity, and attending church would be just another cultural act.
I currently live on the east coast, so my standard is actually much higher. In addition to the policy changes I mentioned, the church would have to be in fact what it claims to be. Church leaders have set an absurdly high bar by claiming it is the kingdom of God on the earth and the one true church. They would need to tone down the rhetoric, offer a more nuanced explanation of what the church is, and more wholeheartedly embrace and follow Christ.
Elisa: Unsurprisingly, I too would feel somewhat compelled by your vision. My best friend’s mom was ex-Mo, and they attended a UU congregation after leaving the Church. What is so appealing about that church is that you literally can believe anything you do. Nobody is going to hound you out or try to control your thoughts. Nobody cares if you believe in reincarnation or Christianity or Buddhism or are even an atheist. You are still welcome.
A core problem is that I think only (maybe) a Pres. Uchtdorf and possibly a few other sleeper apostles could accept a Church that didn’t require total fealty to them and the organization to be considered an acceptable participant. It’s quite a bait & switch they’ve got going on here. Those who are saying that it was always like this are, I think at least, retconning. I suspect that the rising intolerance for progressivism among the conservatives in the country is driving this wedge even deeper. (Both sides are intolerant of each other, but only the conservatives in the Church wield control). The more this divide continues, the worse the Church becomes.
For me, the church would have to change course and honestly seek after truth, and get over the stupid assumption that they already have all the truth there is ever going to be in the world. And, um, they can’t get there from where they are at. They assume they already have 100% of all the truth in the universe and so no need to look at anybody else’s opinion. This is the reason they can’t even begin to admit mistakes, examine things like ordination of women and gay marriage sealings. They ignore many facts from the church’s history, cherry picking “faith promoting” facts and ignoring non faith promoting facts. They ignore science that isn’t convenient, like that green tea is healthy and prohibiting it is just traditional part of WoW. They simply do not value truth.
So, once they honestly start to value truth, I will see if they can admit past error, then consider if they have changed enough that I want to be part of it. But, I won’t hold my breath.
Great post, Elisa. Before my faith deconstruction decades ago, I used to think the UU people were nuts–they got the worst part of Mormonism (the activities/community), but they don’t believe in anything (which to me, back then, meant that they weren’t keeping any covenants, so they weren’t going to get any reward). I think a lot of orthodox Mormons still see things this way today. If there was no strict and simple to understand dogma served up each week with grand promises of reward for staying on the covenant path, I suspect a lot of Mormons would leave pretty fast.
Since my faith deconstruction, I now see things much differently. I don’t “know” much of anything about Mormonism’s/Christianity’s supernatural truth claims, but I do find a lot of value in Christ’s teachings/values. I currently have to ignore much of what is taught in Mormon meetings and replace it with my own thoughts or reading on my phone. I also have to find my own ways to serve in my community. It would be nice if Mormonism actually taught things I believed in most of the time and provided real (non-proselyting) opportunities to make my local community and the world as a whole a better place. I have a found a couple like minded Mormons that I have face to face relationships with, and I really value these relationships. For that reason, I always keep my fingers crossed that you and people like you, choose to stick around.
I have a somewhat Machiavellian idea of how the Church could allow this sort of thing to happen in Mormonism. Whenever the Church has a problem, it creates a “program” to solve it. The Church could openly acknowledge that it has a big problem with losing their faith and leaving the Church. To solve this problem, the Church could create a “Struggling With Faith” or (SWF) program. Yes, the name is somewhat negative, and people in the program would be looked down on by orthodox members–and that’s precisely why it might work. Since orthodox members wouldn’t be interested in and wouldn’t feel threatened by the SWF program (they aren’t struggling with faith, after all), they wouldn’t object. Furthermore, it isn’t hard for most orthodox members to see how keeping SWF members participating is superior to losing them altogether–they might return to orthodoxy, after all (but returning to orthodoxy would *not* be the goal or purpose of the SWF program).
You don’t want to create 2 separate churches–in the (very) long run, the Church would probably be better off eliminating the SWF program–so SWF members and orthodox members would still be in the same ward and probably attend sacrament meeting together. However, SWF members would have their own 2nd hour meetings. SWF members would still be allowed to give talks/lessons (even in sacrament meeting), but the one requirement is to stick to positive statements of faith/belief rather than negative. For example, SWF members could talk about how they value serving others or how they believe in an afterlife. They would just be asked not to give talks in which they talk about how they *don’t* believe in the Family Proclamation (however, it would be fine to talk about how they love their LGBTQ brothers and sisters and how they hope for better things for them in the future), BoM historicity, etc. In other words, SWF members would be asked to focus on the values/spirituality they do believe in, but also asked not to bash orthodox Mormon beliefs–at least not in front of orthodox members. There probably is a need for SWF members to be able to vent their frustration with orthodox Mormonism, so there could be some regular meetings for SWF members only where this could be safely done. Again, respect for the orthodox Mormons would need to be emphasized so that SWF people didn’t start openly bashing the orthodox members and their beliefs. SWF members would have their own lessons that just focused on shared Mormon values, personal spirituality, etc. There would be no requirement for belief in supernatural truth claims at all. Worthiness interviews for the temple and otherwise would still be required (until the Church finally gets rid of them), but the SWF interviews would only ask about the shared values of Mormonism instead of supernatural truth claims (I suppose that orthodox members might object to having SWF members attending endowment ordinances, so maybe that would be off limits, at least for awhile, but they could do baptisms and attend sealings for relatives?). Maybe the Saturday evening session of GC is transformed into an SWF session where only shared values and personal spirituality are discussed. The Church would use some of its massive wealth to start funding service projects in local communities and throughout the world. The SWF program would take the lead on these activities, but orthodox members could also participate. SWF program members might still be required to tithe, but 100% of their tithes would be guaranteed to go directly to the humanitarian projects. Over time, the interaction between orthodox members and SWF program members would break down barriers, and Church leaders could gradually move the programs for orthodox members closer and closer to the SWF program until they were essentially the same. At that point, the Church could just eliminate the SWF program since it would no longer be needed (this might take several generations). There is obviously hardly any chance that anything like this could ever happen–one can always dream, though.
Thanks, Elisa, for your thoughtful post. My activity, commitment, missionary service, donations, and other sacrifices were based on my belief that this was the only true church and the sole holder of the authority needed to grant me the assurance that my family relationships would carry on in the next life. I no longer see it that way. While that realization initially broke my heart, it’s subsequently become liberating to detach myself from the unnecessary complexities, and fear, they impose on members. So even if they make the necessary changes and apologize for their horrendous past mistakes, their credibility with me is lost. The remainder of my life will be spent enriching relationships with my spouse, children, and grandchildren as well as addressing real human needs where I see them.
Such an interesting post. The way that I Mormon is to view the LDS church much like the UU church in what I am allowed to believe. Some of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith are:
“The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we have the right to embrace all, and every item of the truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds and superstitious notions of men.”- Joseph Smith
and
“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. It looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day-Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” – Joseph Smith
(I realize that these quotes are not actively practiced at church, but I try to actively practice them in my life). So I accept the truth that I find in the LDS church and I accept and embrace the truth that I find outside of the LDS church. And I disregard the things that I find are not true within the LDS church. My wife says this only works for me because I fit the mold and have every privilege that is possible within the church (white, married, heterosexual, male, with pioneer heritage) and I agree. I am still figuring out my path forward in the church. Part of my path is to create space for those with differing beliefs and viewpoints. Sometimes I get pushback, but I have enough confidence (and privilege) not to care. I figure if I am motivated and acting out of love and compassion then I am on the right track, it doesn’t prove that I’m not a good man if I err in doctrine.
Aporetic1,
What’s the reference for these statements by Joseph Smith?
First quote:
Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri, published in Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 53–54; spelling and grammar modernized.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng
Second quote:
(Joseph Smith, Discourse, 8 Apr. 1843, JS Collection, Church History Library)
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/religious-freedom
Interesting questions. I want to see considerable change in the church for women and LGBTQ + individuals but only so that those who want to stay and continue to believe can enjoy every aspect of their belief. I’m sad for gay folk that sincerely believe but are limited in how they can love and keep their membership. Just horrible. I now see myself as either agnostic or atheist (let’s just say I’m keeping an open mind) but I can’t see any turning back to a belief in COJCOLDS. I attend Sundays when my spouse feels up to going (age and health issues), and we’re fortunate to still have sacrament meeting online in our progressive ward so will alternatively tune in to that. We rarely stay for second hour so my level of engagement is minimal and I enjoy singing hymns so there’s that. I can be touched by the sentiment and beauty in some of the music even if I’m not sure what I believe anymore. I’m not really ‘out’ to most folk that know us, only a few intimate family members and a couple of non LDS friends. I sometimes feel like a bit of a fraud but will continue this way for now for the sensibilities of my spouse – understands but I’m sure there’s a bit of sadness too. All the indoctrination of the only true path and all.
This is such an interesting question and one for which I’m struggling to find a comfortable response. I come to the conclusion that any church associated with Mormonism would out of necessity be reliant on the works of Joseph Smith. That, in itself, is going to be problematic. His works, though at times seem inspired, are clearly not what he claimed and are surrounded on all sides with problem after problem after problem. If on Sunday we’re not talking about the doctrine Joseph produced then what are we talking about and is that Mormonism? As much as I miss some aspects of life in the church I think it would take an untenable amount of reconstructing the doctrine to make it a practicable spiritual guide for me. If the ward houses became more community centers untethered to a specific doctrine where religious debate and other community events occurred I would be more inclined to participate. I’ve discovered that in place of sacrament meeting, Sunday brunch is such a better way to spend Sunday morning. It’s has has become the highlight of my week.
A big sign out front saying “Come as you are” and mean it. Worship Christ instead of leadership. I was only going to list those two things, but as I was typing more things came to mind. Why don’t we do more with tithing on a community level. Access the needs of the community and use the billions of dollars on helping people rather than spending billions on fancy Temples, shopping centers, apartment complexes, etc. Stop giving Bishops and Stake President’s more authority than they are capable of. Construction workers, school teachers, etc. are not counselors and do not all of a sudden become one just because they have “received the keys”. And yes, why can’t we all come together no matter what religion you are and have good deep conversations even if they don’t align with how you feel. Shouldn’t the purpose be to convert people to Christ? Temple questions if needed, should be about your family. Do you love your family? Do you want to be with you family for all eternity? Should not be if you drink coffee or how you wear your underwear. And why can’t we just wear garments when doing Temple work. Heaven forbid if someone saw a shoulder or kneecap.
Great post, Elisa. I’m with you and so many other commenters in that I still think it would be great if the Church ended the female priesthood ban and ordained women, it wouldn’t be nearly enough for me. As you and others have pointed out, the problem is that it’s a fundamentalist church. It relies on authoritarian control and forced homogeneity. Regardless of what the particular beliefs or practices of the Church are going to be, that stuff just isn’t going to fly with me anymore. I just don’t want to be a fundamentalist.
In fact, even if the Church made all the good changes and opened their books and allowed women and people of color and LGBTQ people to participate fully, I don’t think I would ever be as devoted and committed to it as I was (or tried to be) as a young adult. I just don’t believe in any organization that strongly anymore. I would think of it like a political party I supported, like it was helpful to hopefully accomplish some things I thought were good, but not anything I’d devote my life to.
I think a companion question related to extending priesthood in the LDS church is this: Is priesthood basically about hierarchy and authority or service in the stead of Christ?
“Is priesthood basically about hierarchy and authority or service in the stead of Christ?”
In theory it’s both.
The reality is probably a lot like the “Good Samaritan” story where the Priest and Levi (who had the priesthood through lineage and/or authorization) did not feel “called to minister” but the priesthood-less, non-officially authorized, impure (in the eyes of the Jews) Samaritan felt “called” and “authorized to act” in a way that God would.
I vote for service in the stead of Christ. I’m not a believer that loving God occasionally trumps loving your neighbor. And Church can never be used to replace Christ You love God by loving your neighbor. The rest is extraneous.
There’s nothing that could make me as faithful and committed as I used to be. I used to believe that I had to win the approval of Church leaders in order to be acceptable to God, and I’m just never going to think like that again.
I think in theory priesthood is about service in the stead of Christ, but in practice it’s about hierarchy and authority—especially the higher you go in the hierarchy.
At this point, I would be very happy if the church made All The Changes, but it still wouldn’t be enough to bring me back. For one thing, I wouldn’t trust them. The changes that HAVE been made always seem to have some back door that negates or minimizes them (yes there are church essays but they are buried on the website, yes the temple is different—but not that different—and they added husbands presiding to the sealing ceremony, yes the LGBTQ policy was reversed but the rhetoric wasn’t, I mean, the list goes on and on…and on). For another, the whole culture of the church would have to change, and that’s not a small thing. And finally, I already spent years trying to make it better, to no avail. I’d rather continue to focus my energy elsewhere.
Related to the OP point about authority, I want to see:
1) the church become humble
2) for leaders (a more diverse set of leaders) to be less pharisaical
3) for our culture to be more egalitarian
4) for us to actually work side by side in millennial zeal (for peace, health, literacy, eradication of poverty and strife).
5) for us to become less material, personally, collectively, and in our places of worship.
I’m so burned out on leader worship, corporate alpha males.
In masonry, egalitarianism is important. Teddy Roosevelt attended a lodge that was led by the White House Gardner. The leader of the free world deferred to a Gardner, even if in little rituals and his club. He didn’t sit in a red velvet chair, didn’t automatically “preside”, didn’t run the meeting or make assignments. Sometimes he was just an attendee. Perhaps that type of perspective helps leaders remember the temporary nature of their role and to listen to others.
Deep down, we as saints embrace egalitarianism, but our culture has shifted quite a bit into leader worship and prosperity gospel (the rich are more blessed and righteous). I felt President Hinckley worked with that humility, He and Marjorie (in their Sears or JC Penney’s clothes and geriatric tennis shoes gave off that low-key vibe. They sincerely served- with or without the titles. I don’t feel it much anymore. The spouses of the Q15 squash any humility by going around humble bragging about how great and glorious their husbands are. Barf. And the GAs (many, not all) have a lot of pride and an “I’m better than you- everything I say is for you to obey – o was a great and glorious example of LDS worldly power and success- you aren’t- God loves me most” kind of air. It’s not servant leadership, that’s for sure.
Related to this pride, I’ll reiterate our problem with the prosperity gospel, materialism, and power. We worship all of that and it’s time it stopped. I’m sick of the poor being downtrodden, the rich being the leaders, and people with mega money having their egos stroked with prestigious callings while the poor sit in the back row.
There isn’t a place for me in a church where my service and acceptance is predicated on my worldly power and success. I’m not a heart surgeon, corporate lawyer, CEO. But, in a world where Mormons are put down, we have an insatiable need to fly our champions high.
Stepping off the soap box.