I recently attended a conference in which Richard Bushman, Fiona Givens, and Terryl Givens fielded questions from an audience. One of the questions dealt with female ordination to the Priesthood. Fiona Givens answered that she disapproved of such efforts. Her belief is that ordaining a female into a male priesthood is problematic. As a self-identified feminist I find myself agreeing.
On Wear Pants to Church day I proudly wore a purple tie in support. When it was time to request prayerful consideration of women praying in conference I wrote in encouragement. With all of that said, I cannot get behind current efforts to ordain women into the Priesthood.
Now, before some of you call me a sheep in feminist clothing, let me elaborate. To give context to my views we need to explore the discipline of critical race theory (CRT).
Critical race theory is legalistic in nature but has implications outside of the legal realm. Legal scholar Roy L. Brooks gives a good summary of CRT:
[CRT] focuses on the various ways in which the received tradition in law adversely affects people of color not as individuals but as a group. Thus, CRT attempts to analyze law and legal traditions through the history, contemporary experiences, and racial sensibilities of racial minorities in this country. The question always lurking in the background of CRT is this: What would the legal landscape look like today if people of color were the decision-makers?
Aspects of critical race theory inform my opposition to ordaining women. Theorist W. J. T. Mitchell claims that a, “‘color-blind’ post-racial world is neither achievable nor desirable. Against popular claims that race is an outmoded construct that distracts from more important issues, Mitchell contends that race remains essential to our understanding of social reality. Race is not simply something to be seen but is among the fundamental media through which we experience human otherness. Race also makes racism visible and is thus our best weapon against it”
CRT contends that assimilation can be oppression. While colorblindness and, in my view, blindness to gender is seen as benevolent; in reality it can be oppressive. America has a history of integrating other racial traditions into another to reinforce white male supremacy. This presupposes that white male tradition is superior and should be dominant.
Similar to W. J. T. Mitchell I see evidence that being in a sex-blind post-gender world “is neither achievable nor desirable.” What I see is a growing trend to institutionalize the dominance of white male tradition. I think ordaining women to a male priesthood would only further that cause.
However, while I don’t support giving Mormon women the Priesthood I hope for and push for equality in the Church. What I would like to see is a better and more equal celebration of the LDS women faith tradition. And while I don’t see motherhood as something that equals Priesthood, I think strong women leaders could make a tradition that equals male Priesthood tradition.
To achieve that I urge Mormon women everywhere to claim the power that you can access. Our doctrine allows for Priestesshood and a Heavenly Mother. Our doctrine allows for strong opinions and strong blessings from women that are equally important and valid and can breathe new life into a living Church. While I have always been taught that the Priesthood is the power of God given to men to act for and in behalf of others, we need a similar view that women have just as much access to the power of God to act for and in behalf of others as well. There is absolutely scriptural and historical reason to support that kind of equality. Our canon is the only canon that, instead of segregating into more than and lesser than, specifically states that all are alike unto God.
Ryan Freeman
Ryan Freeman attends BYU and is majoring in English. He currently lives at home in Springville, Ut, making sure he takes advantage of free rent. He is an active member and loves exploring early Church history.
All posts by Ryan Freeman
Great post and so great to see you guys post oppositional thought pieces! Seriously, awesome on both fronts!!
I’ll kindly disagree with this. I think it doesn’t work to use race as an analog to women’s issues within the rhetorical environment you established. You could place this blog post into a pre-1978 world, replacing allusions to ‘women’s issues’ with ‘race issues’ and argue that assimilation (priesthood expansion) would be oppressive to black people. If that argument would have failed then, we ought to wonder why it wouldn’t fail now.
“I think ordaining [black males] to a [white male] priesthood would only further [the cause of institutionalizing the dominance of white male tradition.”
It would depend on WHY the argument would have failed in 1978.
I agree with Tyler, I don’t think your argument holds up. It assumes right off the bat that Priesthood is something that was ever meant to be “men only”. Priesthood does not have a sex. The Power of God on Earth does not stem from the penis, so women are not trying to be part of a male Priesthood, we are trying to be part of the power of God to bless the lives of others on Earth, and also to participate in Church government.
Separate but equal didn’t work for races, and it doesn’t work for sex either.
This model assumes that priesthood of all believers was *ever* supposed to apply only to men. It’s not a question of “inducting girls into the boys’ club.” It’s a question of taking the clubhouse that was intended for everyone to use, and telling the boys who put up a “No Girls Allowed!” sign that they must take down their sign and share equally with their sisters
I am going to go with Tyler and EOR, I really am not sure how I feel about ordination, but I think you don’t even take into account the real issue. That without the PH black men and their families were not even allowed in the temple. While women are the covenants and the promises are not the same. I think that you probably mean well- but until you have tried to actually see how much your privilege as a white middle class american male, you cannot see the systematic exclusion and what that actually means.
I really have to go with EOR the scriptures are clear that the PH is God’s power and has no race or gender attached to it.
Why do you think that priesthood is male? It’s the power of God. And if you want to say no, it’s ‘the power of God given to MEN’ and men means men, well then pretty much all of scripture needn’t apply to people like me. Though what ends up being more true is that men end up choosing when men means men and not people; they are the ones with the power, afterall. You might try applying CRT, or more to the point CFT (critical feminist theory, which does and has existed for awhile) to your analysis here.
And per the above commenter – would you have made the argument pre-1978 that since black men were barred from receiving the priesthood, it was somehow inherently racial?
Not sure if you were referring to me here. If so, my answer is no. The priesthood is not inherently racial, nor gendered. The ban(s), on the other hand…
Oh sorry I was agreeing with you not arguing with you. The question was addressed to the author.
And seriously the more I think about it the more it annoys me that you couldn’t even bother to mention CFT. Or perhaps you didn’t realize it existed?
CRT is a theoretical framework for examining a power structure that is facially neutral but nevertheless perpetuates privilege. It’s absolutely NOT a theoretical framework for upholding a facially discriminatory power structure that keeps the privileged group in exclusive power over an institution, and I’m frankly pretty horrified to see it used that way.
Shorter: CRT is what you use *after* you abolish segregation, and using it to argue *for* segregation is an abomination.
So why is it that you think that institutional authority is so inherently male that allowing women access to it somehow constitutes being gender-blind? Because that’s a big problem.
I don’t care particularly about female ordination, if we can break down the male-only hierarchy a bit without ordaining women. I would love to see women be able to help with ward administration a bit more- why not have female Sunday School presidents or ward clerks? Why should a worthy man spend decdes of his life away from his family on Sundays, while his college-educated wife might be able to share that load and give his time with his children? I would LOVE to see women be able to talk to a female representative about morality/chastity issues. And I get wildly frustrated by many TBM arguments against ordination (not necessarily this post at all, but the strawmen arguments about unrighteous desires or how women already have the priesthood). It’s a very nuanced issue, certainly not just “pro-ordination” or “against ordination”.
Yes to everything you have just said!!!!!!!
i appreciate the argument, although i disagree and see it as faulty. women asking for ordination aren’t asking to be inducted into the male only priesthood, we are asking to be inducted into the priesthood of God, which to me is not gender specific. you can call it a priestesshood if you like, since that fits our current rhetoric. but it isn’t different, it isn’t separate. it is a different word for the same thing: the power of God. same power, same authority.
and i am a little tired of the vague assertion to claim the power we already have. “I urge Mormon women everywhere to claim the power that you can access.” well what does that mean exactly? what power do we have? because everyone has a different opinion and no one agrees. to me, the only definitive answer is ordaining women, because until it is official we will never agree. and the rest of your final paragraph almost goes there, actually:
“Our doctrine allows for Priestesshood and a Heavenly Mother.” right so let’s ordain the ladies then.
“Our doctrine allows for strong opinions and strong blessings from women that are equally important and valid and can breathe new life into a living Church.” agreed, so let’s ordain the ladies so our opinions can be heard as institutional authority, and we can give official blessings with the power we apparently already have.
“While I have always been taught that the Priesthood is the power of God given to men to act for and in behalf of others, we need a similar view that women have just as much access to the power of God to act for and in behalf of others as well.” super easy, ordain the ladies and we will.
“There is absolutely scriptural and historical reason to support that kind of equality.” yup, so let’s ordain the ladies!
“Our canon is the only canon that, instead of segregating into more than and lesser than, specifically states that all are alike unto God.” exactly our point.
so let’s ordain women.
Sorry guys, I’m tied down with work at the moment. I appreciate the comments and I’ll respond to questions and comments when I get some time later today.
Laurie,
I did realize it exists. Not an expert by any means. I’d love some insights from that, and I’ll respond more when I’m not as busy.
Your argument assumes that ordaining women will create a gender-blind religious group. There is no basis for this assumption. There are numerous ways that Mormon men, differentiate and discriminate against Mormon women beyond unequal authority. Gender-blindness as described in CRT theory would require that the vast majority of a social group (approaching 100%) would not differentiate men from women. Ordaining women doesn’t even get you fraction of the way to that standard. Take a look at other religions that have ordained women. None of them are reporting problems consistent with CRT theory.
Furthermore, as someone who professes that he, “…loves to explore Mormon history.”, I am sure you are aware that Mormon women were permitted to perform priesthood ordinances independent of their husbands up until 1900, and that when Joseph Smith created the Relief Society he endowed it with the “ancient priesthood”.
How do explain these little historical problems with your already flawed CRT theory?
Google: female healing ritual Journal of Mormon history
Yes! Why is this never brought up by those “against” female ordination?!
There is an existing disparity between our temple ordinances and the teachings outside the temple. I can’t quote things exactly without breaking my covenants, but I’m pretty certain I’ve been given priesthood power and that I have the right to call upon that priesthood power, though at present there isn’t an ordination or specific guidelines for anointing or uttering blessings by the laying on of hands. I’m not pushing for ordination. I just want answers that make sense as to why this disparity exists. Joseph Smith ordained women. He ordained African-Americans too. Doctrines have changed and the existing explanations seem more culturally instigated than spiritually revealed.
I also have to respectfully disagree. In the LDS Church, the priesthood is not merely a boy’s club. Rather, priesthood office is coextensive with ecclesiastical power. To empower women, we have to either: (1) ordain them or (2) sever the link between ordination and power. I think ordaining women is much easier, because unlike the link between power and ordination, there is no scriptural basis for the ban against the ordination of women.
I think this analysis was essentially dishonest. Instead of asking “what would the church look like if all people had an equal opportunity to participate” this writer employed a version of Critical Race Theory that asks what it would look like with the affected group in charge. In other words, with women only running the church. What an insulting premise. Why would anyone begin to examine the question this way, except that person is hoping to find against the proposal?
Ryan,
Thanks for the post. It looks like you are taking a lot of heat here for what you wrote. I know I speak for all the Barker brothers when I say thank you for proposing an alternate view than what we tend to find on Mormon blogs and face book groups.
What I like about your analysis is that, unlike what us Mormons have done in the past, you didn’t invent some theology. So, if women’s ordination does come, we won’t have to deconstruct some theological scaffolding like we are still doing with blacks and priesthood.
Thanks Michael Barker. I appreciate the opportunity.
CRT doesn’t apply because female ordination is not focused on making the church gender-blind, it is focused in going women access to authority and organizational decision-making. In the LDS church you have neither without priesthood.
To argue in favor of priestesshood is one of two things: a. to argue for ordination but with a different title; or, b. to argue for separate but unequal access (which is no progress at all).
Hey guys. I appreciate the discussion. It sounds like there is a lot to address!
Maybe a little more background on me. I have pretty strong tendencies towards deconstruction and postmodernism. This led to a total collapse of my faith a few years ago. I understand a lot of the frustrations and understand this is a sensitive and complex issue. If I had read this post a couple of years ago my view would have probably echoed many of yours.
With that said I am definitely not trying to engage in dishonest or insincere tactics. I understand many of you will disagree. These are my thoughts. They are where I’m at. I think it’s a discussion worth having.
In response to many of the comments I would like to clarify some things I probably should have explained better in my post.
First, Critical Race Theory is not an axiomatic moral position. It is a school of thought and is not a proven thing.
Second, Critical Race Theory informs my views. It does not mean that Critical Race Theory endorses all of my views. But exploring the world view that is inherent in CRT has informed my view and helped articulate what I have seen and what I believe LDS women are experiencing. This may be better stated in the fact that someone informed by Marxism may pick and choose and develop an idea based upon that information. That does not mean they are fully reflective of Karl Marx’s ideas.
I do think it is important to caution against some of the arguments I have heard from those who are pushing for the ordination of women. One of these is that gender is simply a social construct. In these conversations I have been wary of arguments that gender is just a social construct. If this is the case, we need to explore whether it is a valuable or valid construct. Is the “male” construct more important than the “female” construct? Are these constructs socially and economically beneficial? I am opening that up for discussion.
What I hear from many LDS sisters is that they feel like secularism is positing the typical “female” construct is less than and that there is a trend pushing towards a more “male” construct. This is the type of white male dominance i was suggesting.
When we look at the surveys and see that a majority of LDS women do not want the Priesthood, strong words such as brainwashed are used. Again, I would like to reexamine that conversation. Why are we so insistent on pushing them towards a construct that may be our own? Is that fair?
As far as furthering equality, someone commented I was vague on where to take it from here. In this, I should have clarified that that was intentionally so. I currently find myself promoting the idea that LDS women need to determine what tradition they find most valuable and make those decisions. I see a lot of good that can be used in that category, but I don’t want to really set standards for that construct.
Thanks again for the comments so far.
I don’t know any Mormon woman who thinks that *secularism* is positing that typical femaleness is in a “less than” position to typical maleness. We wouldn’t blame secularism for that, when we have the temple teachings to make that connection for us. According to the temple, as a woman I am servant to my husband in this life and the next (in the anointing). I am a possession (in the sealing). I am separated from the Lord and my husband stands between me and the Lord (the endowment). Most Mormon feminists see the secular teachings as offering us a viewpoint that suggests that women are self-owned, authorities of our own selves, direct servants of our causes (not someone else’s servant, so that we are not making decisions in our own lives).
If the surveys were asked differently, the numbers would come back differently. We have been impressed that priesthood is for men — and that we are bad if we do not honor that. But what if the survey asked, “Do you feel that women are capable of being ordained to the priestesshood to which we are anointed in the temple at this point in time?” I bet the answers would go up.
My feeling from your vagueness was that you were offering that women should “seize” authority, essentially from no where. Or that we already have it. I say, if Mormon men need to be ordained by the laying on of hands, then so do Mormon women.
Overall, I agree with your last two paragraphs. I wasn’t trying to offer that women seize authority. In my original post my urge was to “claim the power you already have.” Maybe I should have kept that wording. I think you’re right that if the question was “Do you feel that women are capable of being ordained to the priestesshood to which we are anointed in the temple at this point in time?” Answers would go up. So are we asking the wrong question? Do we need to find a way to strengthen those teachings in the Temple?
By asking the question in a manner guaranteed to invoke learned-fear in women, I would say that maybe a “women don’t want priesthood” conclusion was wanted.
I think we cannot begin to address priestesshood until we begin to address female self-ownership. In the temple today, women are given to men as servants (the anointing) are separated from the Lord (the endowment) and are given to men as possessions (the sealing). That patriarchy that means that men own women, are served by women and can answer for women needs to end in our temples. That we put these kinds of dynamics in our foundational family agreements is every kind of wrong. We plant poison seeds and hope they don’t grow. We show men that women are under them, and expect them not to abuse the women? We are partially to blame for domestic and patriarchal abuse that does happen, because of this.
When the above is addressed, then the men of the church and the women of the church will easily be open to the idea that both sexes are intended to progress on the earth as well as in heaven. I think it would accomplish nothing to extend women the priesthood while still failing women in the temple. Universal priesthood would be easily introduced as a policy change- no revelation needed. In all the scriptures “men” means “men, women and children”. (except, we say, the ones about priesthood). The policy change would be to remove the exception.
Well reasoned M. Just wanted to chime in and concur with your assessment of the challenges introduced by the temple presentation, and the inconsistency of that presentation with our broader teachings about egalitarian marriage. My conclusion at this point is that we just really lack accurate insight, revelation, and scriptural narrative about women, and need to seek for it as a people. Including a revisiting of the inconsistencies in our endowment and our teachings from the pulpit. BTW, they’re currently filming a new temple endowment film. Hoping for more changes, like the changes that happened in the last new film.
What I see is a growing trend to institutionalize the dominance of white male tradition. I think ordaining women to a male priesthood would only further that cause.
I have also observed this trend, especially within the church. However, church history has shown that this objective has been competently managed without ordaining women to the priesthood. In fact, it has been enhanced by assigning women a lowly “auxiliary” role and refusing them access to priesthood authority. Please see this: http://www.the-exponent.com/ordination-is-the-answer-to-correlation/
Exp
If there is a new temple endowment film, maybe women will not be less-than.
Who wants to make bets.
In fact, I’ll go one further. I predict that in the new film, nothing will change regarding Mormon misogyny/patriarchy/male-ownership/control-of-females. We have people like Ryan to thank for that. You are not a “self-identified feminist”, Ryan. Just your headline is a perfect trolling of every Mormon woman. Thanks a bunch.
Jenn,
I totally agree to this is not a yes or no issue. I personally would prefer, as a woman, to be ordained to the priestesshood, and to have most church callings open to any holder of the priesthood or the priestesshood. Organizationally, there would only neef to be a few callings where which power to act in the name of our Heavenly Parents on earth that you hold, and those would primarily deal with matters of sin and repentance, where it would have sense that the leader of the authority with “organizational responsibility” over that person, would be the one to council them.
I know others have ideas on how that structure should be implemented, and I think that if we all pray to know the will of our Heavenly Parents on this matter, that it is more likely that they will share as much of the gospel as we are ready to receive.
Amen, sister.
Good for you for expressing your ideas here. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. And for weathering the barrage of opposing viewpoints.
Here’s what I think. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again.
What we see within our patriarchal system – what we call the priesthood or power of God – really isn’t male at all. It’s the power of two Gods combined: a man and a woman. Since the priesthood or “power of God” only exists because “neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord” the idea that it should be held and exercised only by men is a crime against heaven.
Having said that, I personally don’t feel that ordaining women must happen immediately. Nor will such ordination immediately fix the problem. Although, at some point, it’s bound to happen. The world at large is patriarchal. We’ve got a long way to go, folks, to clean up that mess.
However, I personally trust that the promises apparent in the temple and in my own heart are real: There is equal potential for power, might, glory and divine light in each sex. Eventually our corrupt, imperfect system will have to mirror the Divine Design of shared Godly Power. Think about it. .. God the father only has “priesthood” because he is joined with God the Mother. It’s not a male priesthood. Period.
When women are fully empowered, acknowledged and utilized in leadership roles the “order of the priesthood” as we now understand it, may very well alter its own structure and functional form, simply because women [who tend toward less hierarchical, more cooperative models of organization] would be full participants.
Then what we call a male priesthood would be transformed naturally into a divine design currently modeled by our Heavenly Parents. Not male. Not female. Just Godly. After the order of The Son of God. This is where we are ultimately heading.
I personally feel this conversation, right here, is part of the process. Who knows how many decades or centuries it will take to get us there. But we’re obviously moving in the right direction. Wow. That was a lot longer than I intended.
Thank you for your thoughts Melody! I can tell you’ve given this a lot of thought and have some awesome insights. I really enjoyed reading your post.