Part II: On Activism 4.

Towards LDS Feminism

Now that weve completed Part I: Gendered Theology, its time to begin Part II: On Activism. Lets start off with a chapter on LDS feminism issues.

Rebuttals to Common Anti Equality Arguments

What is the current status of women in the church? This section will hit some of the common defenses made against the accusation of LDS sexism.

Margaret Toscano, MWF Founder

I attended my first Sunstone Symposium in August of 2010. That symposium accelerated the progress of my feminist awakening. During the Mormon Womens Forum (MWF), I heard the panelists (including Margaret Toscano of September Six fame) talk about several of the ways that LDS leaders and members try to prove that we really do treat men and women equally in the church! Given the obvious inequity, a number of creative approaches have crept in:

Myth Men start out spiritually inferior to women, and having the priesthood balances them out (the notch-downmen approach, popular folklore in male LDS circles) Motherhood and the power to conceive a child is so awesome, men need priesthood to make them equal to women (the notch-up-women approach, popularized by Uchtdorf, Faust, and others, e.g. Hinckley's "women are the crowning creation" language)

Rebuttal (A) The claim is speculative. (B) No mother sees her newborn son and exclaims, "I can't wait for him to be ordained at 12 to equal so he's finally equal to my daughter." (C) Men are no more or less spiritually crippled/in need of a handicap to bring them up to snuff than are women. (A) Nope. Fatherhood, not priesthood, is the counterpart to motherhood. And under current constraints, turns out, both men and women are needed to procreate. (B) This myth magnifies the dark underbelly of pronatalism. Some women are infertile! Are we to conclude that, once this primary source of their self-worth is extinguished, that they are now less female, or perhaps second class? Infertile men at least still exercise priesthood. 1

(C) Not all women become mothers (or spouses, which LDSs hope accompanies motherhood), but single men are ordained as a matter of course. Women and men are equal, they just have different roles Governance has always been the litmus test for equality. You can tell a marginalized class by their exclusion from access to voting and public office by either law or glass ceiling (think Blacks, Jews, Irish, women, etc. in history). Separate but equal only holds up when there's a discernible, relevant difference (forcing a female but not a male to undergo a pregnancy screening, for instance, might qualify as just discriminationexcluding a woman from pursuing public office or the apostleship does not). Youre kidding, right? Heavenly Mother and scriptural women get as much stage time as Passerby #16 in Hamlet. Prayers, scripture, temple, and Sunday services teach male narratives written by male authors to male audiences using male pronouns and encouraging worship of a male and that males male child. This wouldnt be so bad (i.e. the male narratives, especially Christs, could be interpreted as universal human stories) except for your dogged insistence about the eternal significance of gender roles and the differences between the sexes. A worthy woman isnt permitted to represent Jesus at the veil, ostensibly because, in emulating her Savior, maleness is more significant that faithfulness, worthiness, or discipleship. Women don't participate in general governance (matters that pertain to the community as a whole). They only lead subsets of the whole (e.g. the Relief Society), and are categorically excluded from at least the top five levels of the hierarchy globally (FP, Qof12, Presidency of the 70, Quorums of 70, Presiding Bishopric) and the top three locally (Stake Presidency, Stake High Council, Bishopric).

There are women in the scriptures, and we believe in Heavenly Mother

Women do lead in the church!

A tale of three pictures

Check out all that pink! See, we are definitely into women leaders and gender equality

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/media/lay-leadership-infographic.jpg/blog

Well maybe not 50/50 male-female per se...

Oh sh**

In conclusion, LDS women are accorded less dignity than LDS men, as evidenced by their exclusion from community governance boards. Women make great bishops Now that weve addressed some of the common defenses against the accusation of LDS sexism, we turn to the subject of female ecclesiastic leadership. At BYU, I was one of a handful of men who chose to attend the Womens Leadership Conference. It was an inspiring experience for me- my pen was flowing with notes, and I felt to emulate those women. That was not my last brush with female clergy. A few months ago I attended an all-black protestant congregation. The parishioners were extremely nice and the preacher, a woman, delivered a substantive and uplifting sermon about receiving chastisement from the Lord. Partway 5

through the service, a few members performed some hymns while she engaged in the laying on hands and whispering to the burdened, sick, and troubled who congregated at the front. It was a sacred experience for me, to witness her ministering just as the Savior did in His day.

I've also listened to several sermons preached by female episcopal clergy. I've seen women engaged in every imaginable Christ-like service. When I served as Sunday School president, I treated my female secretary just as I did my male counselors, asking for ideas and opinions- it just seemed strange to esteem her otherwise2. As a fresh zone leader, I recall felt slightly embarrassed to ask for a report from a particularly capable and mature sister missionary- it seemed backwards, I wanted to learn from her. At BYU Law School, I was surrounded by female powerhouses who outperformed me and many of my male classmates on every conceivable metric. The women I worked with there are most definitely cut out for high leadership positions, and I dont just mean the faculty. Their governance cups runneth oer- it is indeed hard for me to grasp their deference to LDS governance sexism, when my potent female LDS colleagues routinely shatter glass ceilings in comparable environs.

I would have had zero qualms about serving under her, too. Ive had multiple female direct supervisors for jobs and spent a couple decades happily subordinate to my mother: female leadership of men is a no-brainer and a non-issue

Sexist governance? Thumbs up

Speaking of performance, we know that women perform ordinances inside the temple. Why would they be inherently unfit to perform ordinances outside it as well? Especially given the evidence that they governed and performed ordinances in the primitive church? Our pioneer foremothers of the Restoration movement gave blessings, anointed the sick and pregnant, etc.: why not rely on that precedent as we rely on the precedent of Elijah Abel with respect to ordaining black men? I'm just baffled. Wouldn't our church be better if we esteemed women as equal to men in both practice and precept? If God can cause babes to prophecy, surely He can cause His daughters to be capable of governance? We have ample historic, pragmatic, and moral reasons to justify the reform. I am convinced that LDS women would be awesome bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, apostles, and the Prophet. Wouldnt including women in high callings enrich our tradition, rather than impoverish it? Where would our Church be now if wed had women apostles and prophets over the last century- wouldnt it just be better? Women are visionary, creative, vibrant, rational decision makers, they really really are. Ive never seen better leaders than among their ranks. Why are we behind the curve? We should be on the leading, not the lagging, edge of promoting social justice (the way *ahem* Jesus was). It is a tarnish to our progressive tradition that, rather than embracing gay marriage early on as a natural outgrowth of our inclusive, pro-family orientation, we instead adopted the digressive position of opposing marriage equality. Say we prophetically started marrying gays in 1952- can you imagine how good wed look now to be on the right side of history?

Much as we were years behind the American zeitgeist3 in rejecting racism, however, we are sadly lagging in rejecting the "wild fruits" of heterosexism and sexism in our culture. The cost to our LDS communities, in terms of hemorrhaging feminists and pro-gay members, is staggering and unnecessary.

It is a sad reflection on our Restoration tradition that we are so far behind the advance of social justice- our race-based priesthood allocation, woefully backward same-sex-relationship rhetoric, and adherence to unsupported and harmful gender role assumptions do not reflect well on the brazen progressive tradition of Mormonism's teen years. Im convinced we can do better as a maturing LDS community. We should have been embracing gay families and same-sex marriages for decades in keeping with our revelatory tradition, rather than rejecting and marginalizing them as part of a bizarre alliance with societal and conservative religious elements that condemn same-gender love (you know, the kind of love, unity and commitment demonstrated by the three males in the Godhead or First Presidency, for instance).

Culture of the place and time; the German word for timespirit, more often translated as spirit of the age. It usually refers to the prevailing mood or attitude of a given period

Same-sex unions aren't ALL bad

We should have been ordaining women for decades, too. Its 2012, though, and we cant go back in time. If we cant lead the pack, at least lets make some big strides to catch up. Pragmatically, the sooner we come to our senses and abandon sexism, the more PR points we will score- rather than another disaster that results from being so painfully behind (1978 was LATE folks, dreadfully so). Please brothers and sisters4, lets lay down the weapons of our sex warfare deep in the earth and covenant to leave them there. Some more iniquities inequities I list here a few more evidences of sexism: Men are expected to serve 24-month missions. Women serve optional 18 month missions. Why? Women are precluded from holding leadership positions in the mission field5. Again, why? District leader is not a priesthood office, folks, and Sister Missionaries carry a minister card in their pockets too (not to mention an extra two years of crucial maturity). Sunday school presidents are male-only. Why again is a penis needed for that role? Marriage is a give-and-take relationship-- that only goes in one direction. Sealings: *Officiator to the groom+ do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife Officiator: Sister ______ do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife Polygamy- yep, we still practice it (with a face-saving chronological separation these days, luckily). Well, technically we only practice polygyny (man+ many women); alls not fair in love and war, theres no polyandry (woman+ many men). Agent-Smiths-only manual, 3.6.1:
4 5

And otherwise gendered siblings Though I hear the temple square mission is an exception, darn apostates

o o

Women: A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. Men: If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man.

Scenario A: Mark is sealed to Mary. Mark divorces Mary, letters flutter back and forth between the Agent Smiths that oversee Mark and Mary, then Mark gets sealed to Martha. No problem. Scenario B: Jenny is sealed to Johnny. Jenny divorces Johnny, letters flutter back and forth between the Agent Smiths that oversee Jenny and Johnny, then Jenny gets sealedmarried to Jimmy. Woman must be sealed male attachs, not the other way round

And did you hear about the debate over whether women should be permitted to offer prayers in general conference? Really? It's 2012, 90 years after the victory of womens suffrage in America, and we're haggling about whether a woman can say a prayer at general conference?

As mentioned already in chapter 1: ritualistic de-individuation for women but not men. Sexist facial veiling is not unique to our LDS tradition:

Get mad already! As many MoFems have noted, the vanguard of patriarchy in the LDS church is its women. It seems most active LDS women embrace the current structure, and many of the MoFem subset care more about Heavenly Mother and blessing their children than they do about governance. I hope to convince more MoFems to be indignant about governance inequality, and for two reasons. (1) If you win the governance battle, blessing kids and preaching Heavenly Mother will follow (2) Governance matters. Women are being treated like children at Thanksgiving. Even if you personally are content with the kiddee table for whatever reason, please be mad that your sisters who want, and are qualified, to sit at the Big Table are denied the privilege. Angry activist women = the #1 most important ingredient for catalyzing the change required for eventual governance equality.

10

Lessons from Bottgate

Did you follow Bottgate in February/March 2012? The fiasco erupted upon publication of Washington Post reporter Jason Horowitzs article on LDS racism, where he quoted from an interview with BYU professor Randy Bott (a mentor and teacher of mine Ive known for a decade.) I will do strikethroughs in the following to drive home the analogy between race and sex discrimination (words in blue are my additions). From the article-

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, were black. One of Cains descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Eve was the first to partake of the fruit. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham Moses as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus daughters of Eve were thus black and barred from the priesthood. Its not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religions founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the mark on Cain to determine who should be banned from the priesthood was the flat nose and black skin curvy body and short genital tubercle. Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested that the ban on blacks women

11

resulted from the consequences of the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence. a bizarre non-sequitur between Eves conduct and the fact that one is born a female. As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-Earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan God women just arent built to govern things. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades. God has always been discriminatory when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people all that he seeth fit. Bott compares blacks women with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her fathers car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks women were not yet ready for the priesthood. What is discrimination? Bott asks. I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldnt have been a benefit to them? Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks women on Earth although not in the afterlife protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. You couldnt fall off the top of the ladder, because you werent on the top of the ladder. So, in reality women not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.

Most Mormons have little trouble rejecting Brother Botts reasoning. I am not alone is seeing no good explanation for our racist priesthood allocation practice except we were wrong. However, I join a slimmer minority that reaches the same conclusion with respect to our sexist priesthood allocation practice. Nonetheless, I published a parody of the LDS Newsrooms response to Bottgate: Future PR Department Statement: We Arent Sexist Anymore
Response 29 February 2082 Salt Lake City The Church issued the following statement today in response to news media requests: The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott III in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said. The Churchs position is clearwe believe all people are Gods children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate sexism in any form. For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for female members. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended weeks ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding. We condemn sexism, including any and all past sexism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Official Statement
The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, black and white, bond and free, male and female; all are alike unto God (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Churchs official teaching. People of all genders have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed

12

misogyny. During this time some females were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining female members, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three weeks ago extended the priesthood to all worthy members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world. The Church unequivocally condemns sexism, including any and all past sexism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2076, then Church president Gordon Hinckley III declared that no one who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another sex can consider oneself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can one consider oneself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a child of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children. Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.

Youll note that the date given is 2082- I sincerely believe that date can be sooner, and as I will explore below, I support a Governance Equality by 2042 campaign. I truly believe the steps Mormon feminist activists take now will help decide the forty year difference, but given the trajectory of the zeitgeist and the justice of the cause, it will come sooner or later.

Further light
God has yet to reveal many great and important things6. I'm determined to do my part to help make our tradition revelatory and filled with light and answers from heaven again, rather than maintaining a vice grip on the incomprehensible. Our heterosexist and sexist problems can be addressed; the targets to aim for, as I've argued in numerous forums before and will continue to maintain, are (1) governance equality and (2) marriage equality. Treat similar things similarly- that is the obligation of fairness, and the privilege of Christians. Oughtn't we all to wait for further light and knowledge before discriminating based on our assumptions? Can you imagine this conversation at the judgment bar? Picture yourself as an LDS bishop who, as a matter of conscience, performed a same-sex marriage between two loving, committed members of his singles ward.

Article of Faith 9

13

Jesus: "I'm afraid I can't let you in. You performed a same-sex marriage while on earth." You: But Lord, you plead, they were in love and chose to get married! I perform marriages for opposite-sex couples in their position- it would be unfair to say no to them." Jesus: Didn't you listen to my servants? I told you how important it is to only marry opposite-sex couples!" You: "Yes Lord, but you said it was spiritual sex that matters, then never revealed to us how to tell the difference between the two. You said each child of yours is either a spiritual male or female, but things are messy down here and there is NO test that puts everyone into two categories. How was I supposed to apply your black and white law in a world of only gray? And even if there were a clean break, I had no basis for presuming a correlation between spiritual and physical sex. Id have to assume that other anatomical features present at birth, such as permanent mental incompetence, are reflections of permanent spiritual incompetence, which is senseless since we all made a moral choice (which requires competence) to follow Thy plan, as evidenced by our presence in mortality. Also, at the moment of conception, a zygote is bipotential. The default sex is female- masculinization takes place later on during development, if it occurs at all. Your servant Russell taught that life begins at conception. Thus, we should assign spiritual sex at conception, rather than birth, in which case we are ALL spiritual females, and all couples are same-sex. I had to then choose between performing marriages for all the couples, or none. Because you said, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man, I chose all instead of none and performed the marriage. Last, didn't you also say that it is not good for man to be alone (and even if you want to strictly interpret that as males rather than humans, at least male-male relationships should be approved, right)? Didn't you teach that men are that they might have joy, and categorically prescribing lifelong celibacy and romantic deprivation countered that principle? Did you not command us to do many things of our own free will and to bring to pass much righteousness?" Jesus: "Don't question me, I am unconcerned with your technicalities. Reasoning together with Me ended with Joseph. You, Captain Epistemology, took my word WAY too seriously: I prefer a more knee-jerk approach to theology. Depart into that place prepared for deeply mistaken "equality" zealots like you! Oh, and you'll know it's not the good kind of place because women will be in charge there. Talk about messed up, can you imagine! I wouldnt let a woman make high-level decisions in a million years, and I do mean the Kolob kind. Next!" Or how about this exchange- this time youre an elder who ordained a woman, again as a matter of personal conscience. 14

Jesus: "I'm afraid I can't let you in. You ordained a woman while on earth." You: But Lord, you plead, it was my priesthood duty under D&C 20 to ordain other elders. It didnt seem fair to let only one sex govern, I was trying to favor equality." Jesus: Equality eshwality, when did I ever teach that? Didn't you listen to my servants? I told you how important it is to only ordain men! This is my priesthood, I restrict it at my whim, dont you remember the Levites?" You: "Yes Lord, but with the Levites you could tell who was in the tribe- the genealogy was clear because not much time had passed since Levi, the community was fairly small and close-knit, and there were no generation gaps because priesthood was lineal. We dont have any such black-and-white lines these days, especially on the sex axis. Plus, that priesthood scheme accompanied the lesser law, and governed all sorts of Law of Moses oddities you said were fulfilled in Christ (and that strike us as immoral, like stoning homosexuals to death). Also, your servants quoted that all are alike verse on the priesthood allocation question, and Jew/Gentile, bond/free, black/white, and male/female were all explicit dyads in the verse. And anyway, cant you just fix it, the way you do when a woman is sealed to man A, then man A dies three days later, the woman marries man B and raises a family, and only one man gets her (I know from your Word that youre into the whole woman-property thing) in the end? I know youre very powerful, I believe you can straighten out my error. Heck, you could probably even straighten that error out if it happened a billion times, youre slick like that. Last, why is it so important to exclude women from priesthood in the first place? We only have a limited number of spots in the hierarchy anyway- if we can ordain all the men to Melchizedek office at 18, why not just do the same thing with women? Spiritually, what can a man do that a woman cant (I cant think of a single thing)? What value is there in treating short people (with respect to their genital tubercle) different than tall people? Jesus: You impudent, disobedient son of a bishop, I do the thinking around here. Damn you. Next! Im waiting for messengers from my father

15

I for one am waiting for the further light and knowledge God must provide before we can apply the Proclamation's spiritual sex doctrine. In the interim, I explicitly choose to uphold the myth of human equality in preference to a practice of patently patriarchal paternalism. I hope to persuade you, dear reader, to the same position. Conclusion But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance facial structure, or on the height of his stature the genital tubercle for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. At the end of the day, I think we have to admit that we employ a philosophy of anatomy, mingled with scripture in our governance and marriage practices. There is no approach more devastating to a deleterious doctrine than to take it seriously. The twin fruits of heterosexism and sexism branch from the trunk of that epistemologically unfounded philosophy. Should we not cast off both wild fruits into the vineyard furnace?

16