Last October, I wrote a post about my wife’s involvement with Ordain Women and their initial appearance in the standby line at General Conference, requesting entry to the General Priesthood Session. It’s a short post, and you should read it for context here.
At the time, my wife and I had not begun trying to have kids, so the daughter I invoked was a hypothetical future.  Now, she’s what you might call a biological reality.
A very wiggly baby girl.
Well, another General Conference is here, and for a second and final time, Ordain Women will be on Temple Square, demonstrating their faith with their feet and with their mouths. There is little doubt that this year’s attempt will be substantively different. A few weeks ago, a little-known employee in the church’s Public Relations department issued a letter to Ordain Women in response to their request for session tickets. Besides inaccurately characterizing the action as a protest, alluding to a dialogue that hasn’t taken place (then accusing OW supporters of detracting from it), and suggesting that the hundreds of faithful LDS women take up camp with those who seek to destroy the church, the letter took the profound liberty of declaring women’s ordination to be “contrary to doctrine”.
It’s that statement I wish to pick a bone with.
First, it is solely the province of the First Presidency of the church to “declare doctrine”. This is an irrefutable fact of church policy and is, itself, a doctrine of the priesthood. President David O. McKay said, point blank, that it is preeminently the office of the first presidency to establish the doctrines of the gospel. He made that statement to the twelve when a young seventy named Bruce R. McConkie published a book brashly titled Mormon Doctrine. President McKay was appalled. On his first perusal, the prophet declared it to be “full of errors” and assigned two Apostles to make a comprehensive list of errors. They identified 1,067 of them.
1st Edition of “Mormon Doctrine”
McConkie’s chastisement was conducted in private, as his father-in-law (Joseph Fielding Smith) was an Apostle. President McKay made him promise not to issue a new edition. Unfortunately, the general membership of the church went positively ape-$#!+ over a book that claimed to authoritatively settle doctrinal questions, and the volume sold phenomenally. McConkie later broke his promise to President McKay, issuing a new edition, with most of the same “errors” present while McKay was still alive. The church continues to be beset by McConkieism to this day, because despite its known errors, Deseret Book was hesitant to stop publishing one of its best-selling volumes until mid-2010.
Ordain Women is often accused of not understanding the revelatory order, but they understand it better than most. They seek a declaration on this subject from precisely whom they ought to expect it–the only body authorized in Zion to speak to the matter. They understand the nature of church-wide revelation and know that it only comes after much fasting and prayer, and if our history is any indication, after much tribulation. They do not expect an answer overnight, but they do want it to become a priority… a matter of prayerful discussion and consideration. Ironically, the PR employee who declared OW’s cause to be contrary to doctrine is, herself, a woman. Institutionally speaking, she has less authority to declare doctrine than my twelve year old nephew. Perhaps it is cynical of me, but I think the church enjoys a distinct advantage in having these patent declarations come from a woman and, also, from someone with no governing authority. In the church, sadly, those things are one and the same.
Second, there is absolutely no authoritative statement to preclude the ordination of women. To the contrary, there are numerous sources (including the temple endowment) that indicate plainly that priesthood is a vital part of women’s eternal work and their eternal identity. Joseph Smith made numerous statements equating the work of the Nauvoo Relief Society to priesthood, and indicating such was the order in previous dispensations (specifically during the time of Paul and, more anciently, Enoch). Likewise, Joseph established a patriarchal order of the priesthood, wherein women who received the second anointing with their husband were declared to posses “the fullness of the priesthood”. (See Geoff’s great summary of the fluid nature of priesthood doctrine) None of those statements resemble a definitive “yes”, to the ordination question, but neither do any of them resemble a definitive “no”. The closest thing to a “no”, I have ever read regarding women’s ordination came from Spencer W. Kimball in 1978 (note the year) in the Deseret News (note the source), wherein he stated “we don’t expect any revelation regarding women and the priesthood”. You can read that statement a lot of ways. In context, it sounds a little like Jeffery R. Holland’s tongue-in-cheek “one miracle at a time”. No matter how I read it though, I can’t distort the statement to say, “women will never hold the priesthood.”
Finally, the extent to which we don’t have a doctrine on this point is utterly astonishing. One of my wife’s responsibilities with Ordain Women includes checking the daily emails sent to the Ordain Women account and, according to her, the only thing that’s clear is that nothing is clear. The sheer range of beliefs on this issue is staggering. They get everything, from the most vitriolic, misogynistic, hate speech you could imagine, to the sincerest expressions of love and support. If the occasional email excerpt Danielle shares with me is any indication at all, “folk doctrine” is alive and well in the church. At some point, I’d love to see a comprehensive list of reasons people have claimed OW is out of line published, just so people could witness how far we are in the church from consensus on this subject.
All of the hullabaloo surrounding the relatively straightforward aims of Ordain Women, their simple and totally unthreatening public action, and the church’s “unofficial-official” responses to it have only confirmed the need for this group to exist.
So it’s conference again. And, again, I’m going to have to stay home and puppy-sit and miss my beautiful wife. Again, she will stand in a line and ask in faith for a meager demonstration of her equality and value in this church that she loves with all of her heart. Our daughter will be with her this time, cradled in her womb; the only reason either of us needs for this act of faith … a better world and a better church for our daughter. Again.
Jared Mooney
Jared Mooney is a video and audio systems engineer from Boston, MA. He has the world's awesomest wife, daughter and puppy. Argue if you must.
All posts by Jared Mooney
LOVE.
This rules. Thanks for writing it.
A round of applause from me! Great piece. I too would love for the words and messages of mormons to be published on this matter. It would do SO MUCH to show the true nature of Internet Mormonism.
Well said, Jared! I admire you both so much, for your faith in the gospel and the church, and your faith in changing what needs changing. You will be excellent parents.
Amen.
Very well-stated. Because of the prevalence of folk-doctrine, and the stamina of McConkie’s book, I’d LOVE to see a new book; a detailed list of ALL CURRENT doctrines. And it wouldn’t hurt to include in it a detail of any of the current doctrines which differ from previous doctrines.
I enjoyed reading this. And good luck to the women of OW this weekend. May they be met with listening ears, hugs and handshakes.
Thanks for this. I like seeing more perspectives on Ordain Women. We need more open discussion on the subject. Much appreciated!
Great writing and analysis. Why do you say that for the “final time, Ordain Women will be on Temple Square, demonstrating their faith with their feet and with their mouths”?
Ordain Women will continue to have public actions that advance the cause of ordination, but they have said that this will be the last time they intend to stand in line for priesthood session.
I’m basically neutral on the Ordain Women front. I see nothing wrong with seeking answers to questions. I will say, though, that I feel some of OW’s methods are suspect and, like it or not, border on embarrassing or shaming the Church into capitulation. Also, their mission is not presented as, “We want to know if women can have the priesthood.” It is, “The women should have the priesthood. Give it to us.” There’s a big difference there.
But my main thing here is that of course the movement over Conference is a protest. What else would you call that? I don’t agree with OW being lumped in with garment burners and the like. They are hardly of that ilk. But a protest = group of people marching for a cause and using a visible moment to do it. It doesn’t matter if it’s positive or negative. A protest is a protest, and protest is totally fine. Raise awareness. Find answers. Have your voice. But let’s call it what it is.
I’m fine personally calling it a protest. But the organizers do not characterize it as a protest. And I can understand why. Foremost, they are not there to express anger or dissatisfaction. They are there to ask a question and make a demonstration.
I’m honestly curious about people who claim what OW is doing is hurting the church (The Meridian article even said they were “hindering the work”. If the church can be so easily embarrassed or shamed by women asking for equality, women probably really need equality… and then the church has REASON to be embarrassed. If the work is so easily hindered by some ladies standing in a line, I’d submit we have greater cause for worry.
They’re not being admitted to Priesthood session, because it’s specifically held for men. Just as the session held specifically for women was held last week. How many men did you see lined up asking to be permitted to enter the women’s conference? Zero. Because they get that hey, there’s a session for men, a session for women, and a bunch for both. It’s not like any “man secrets” are shared, and you can watch it online anyway! But there’s no sense in asking to attend the men’s session, when there’s a women’s session as well. May as well be asking to use the Men’s restroom when there’s a Women’s right next to it. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions, wanting greater understanding, etc, but there are better ways to go about it. Let the retaliatory replies begin…
Were there men at the women’s session? There were? Was one of the speakers a man? I could have sworn there was a male speaking at that meeting. I’ll have to double check to be sure.
Look…if women held the priesthood then they would and could be called to the offices of the priesthood. In other words, women could be an Elders Quorum President, a Bishopric member, or even the Bishop. By acting in these capacities they would not be able to fulfill, to their fullest potential, their role as a mother.
While my wife, or any woman in the church, is amazing and could fulfill the callings of the priesthood vastly better than any man. I’m sure many men would admit to that as well. That, my friend, is why women SHARE the priesthood with men. Without a woman the priesthood is nothing. Any great man has an even better woman to assist them with their calling. But that does not mean they should HOLD the priesthood. Additionally, by men holding the priesthood, and only sharing it with women, does not mean that men are superior. We are equal but not the same.
What I pray for you, and many others who are confused by this dilemma, is to understand that by women taking on these roles in the priesthood their time, skills, energy and tender care would be taken from the home. I, as a man, simply cannot fulfill that role. Only my wife can provide that level of care and teaching. It simply cannot be done because that is not my role. It is what makes me different (not the same) but still equal to her.
Sorry, but you CAN do those things in your home, and should be doing them. Men can and should be as nurturing as women have become because they are mothers. This is called fatherhood.
However, by your logic, which is rampant in the church, I see no reason women who never marry or are unable to have children can’t be serving in priesthood offices. Further, I am an empty nester. I would not be hurting our home and family if I were now called as a Bishop.
Fathers would benefit from becoming more nurturing in the home, and women would benefit from having experiences to enrich their lives beyond the home. Best of all, the church and hastening of the Lord’s work would be tremendously enriched by ordaining women.
You are right. I CAN do those things in the home. But I cannot do them in the same way. I can be nurturing in a fatherly way, but not in a motherly way. Look at it this way, who is the first person that a returned missionary runs to when stepping off the terminal. It is their mother. Mothers have a role that men simply do and cannot have. It is not inequality, it is difference.
1/2 = 0.5. 1/2 is different than 0.5 but that does not mean they are not equal. They play different roles at different times in math. The same is with men and women in the church.
In regards to you being an empty nester, women not being able to have children, and women who are not married, does not mean motherhood is non-existent. My own mother is an empty nester. However, she helps the overwhelmed mothers during church and in her neighborhood. If it was my father doing that, he would do it in a fatherly way but it would not have the same effect as a women. If my mother was called to be Bishop and my father was trying to fulfill that role I strongly believe there would be imbalance. The most important place for women to be is in the home. The Lord knows this and that is why he designed his church and gospel in this manner.
He will never change this structure not because he is a sexist, bigot or otherwise. It is because it is a truth irrevocably decreed in heaven. There is no better way. Our families can be able to better take advantage of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and his gospel through this structure.
Paul Barker,
I just feel like always responding in a sarcastic tone does not endear you to anyone or to your cause. Every time I read one of your comments on a post like this, it makes me sad. I don’t even know you in person, but I think their might be nicer ways to express your opinion.
Also it wasn’t any man speaking at Woman’s Meeting, it was a member of the 1st Presidency. Both Priesthood session and the Woman’s Meeting have the First Presidency in attendance AND one of them at least always speaks at both. Which makes it equal. As a woman, I love to hear the good word from anyone, I don’t care their gender. But I especially love to hear it from the chosen mouthpiece of the Lord, or those he asks to speak on his behalf.
I’m not sure if what I’m trying to say is getting across. Sometimes I feel like Moroni being weak in my writing. And I don’t even have to carve into a stone tablet.
Alicia,
Omg phones… “There” not “their”
How embarrassing… 🙂