I have been reading Sue Monk Kidd's book, "The Dance of the Dissident Daughter" and came across a passage today that really struck me:
A woman in Deep Sleep in one who goes about in an unconscious state. She seems unaware or unfazed by the truth of her own female life, the truth about women in general, the way women and the feminine have been wounded, devalued, and limited within culture, churches, and families. She cannot see the wound or feel the pain. She has never acknowledged, much less confronted, sexism within the church, biblical interpretations, or Christian doctrine. Okay, so women have been largely missing from positions of church power, we've been silenced and relegated to positions of subordination by biblical interpretations and doctrine, and God has been represented to us as exclusively male. So what? The woman in Deep Sleep is oblivious to the psychological and spiritual impact this has had on her. Or maybe she has some awareness of it all but keeps it sequestered nicely in her head, rarely allowing it to move down into her heart or into the politics of her spirituality.
Kidd was raised in a home that practiced the Baptist religion and I do not know much about that particular religion. I am happy to say that the church we currently attend is actively trying to eliminate sexism and the pastor refers to God as she and he. I actually find myself feeling somewhat uncomfortable when the pastor refers to God as she, but I equate that discomfort to years of hearing God referred to as a he. I do not know much about the hierarchy of Presbyterianism, but I do know pastors can be male or female and other positions held within the church are not delegated based on one's sex.
I am going to write now about the LDS religion, based on my perception and as always, I hope if you are reading this and you have a different perception you will voice it.
The LDS religion seems to separate roles based on sex a lot. Only men can serve in the highest positions of the church: President, The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Bisohp and the Bishopric. Women do have roles that oversee areas, but they seem to be related only to the women and children and not governing church doctrine. When children are baptized they are baptized by men and the mother remains in her seat. When babies are blessed men bless them and again, the mother stays in her seat. These last two examples especially baffle me, because the mother birthed the child, which to me should not be taken lightly.
I am fully aware that the LDS Church is not the only one that does not allow women to hold positions of authority - I think most people are aware that the Catholic Church only has male popes. I also attended a Muslim service and men and women are physically separated during prayers, so separation of persons based on sex is not exclusive to the Mormon religion (during a 3-hour LDS Service both sexes attend a sacrament meeting together, then Sunday School, but the final hour is spent with persons of the same sex).
I actually think it is good to gather together with only other women and when I attended a Relief Society Meeting, I enjoyed the experience. I was also crazy curious to know what was going on in the men's meeting. Also, the church we attend right now has a men's group that meets once a week and I have not seen a women's group. Again, I so want to attend the men's group to see if the separation of persons based on their sex is of value.
What I don't understand is being a part of something that states you cannot hold a position of authority because you are not a man. What do men have that women don't? I write this fully knowing that Steve and I, in many ways, live in a somewhat traditional marriage: he furthered his education more than mine, he works full-time and brings home the bulk of our income, while I am the one who makes doctor's appointments for Sophie and arranges get-togethers with her friends. As far as housework goes, neither of us does a whole lot of that, but when we do, I think it is fairly equal.
So I write this hoping for responses that will tell me what I am missing. Or, that women will write and admit they see there is an unfair stance of positions of power, but there is so much more in the religion that keeps them loyal and maybe they even see a change down the road.
I know it has been so ingrained in me to view God as a male figure, that even though I know God is beyond our ideas of sex, I instantly conjure up an image of a male when I think of God. My hope is to learn from others who see God as sexless and to get to that point myself. I also know that I was raised within a religion whose savior is a male: Jesus Christ. I actually think Mary was the one we should be looking to (another book by Kidd, "Traveling with Pomegranates" explores this topic) for strength and understanding. I also think we don't need to worship anything or anyone, but find what it is within ourselves and others that represents omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Heather - I can't say I am a scholar on religion by any means, but do enjoy learning about other religions other than mine, Catholic. I send my kids to Catholic school partially because I am unsure about public schools in Delaware and because I want them to be knowledgeable about our faith. I am thankful that their school does not ignore that there are other religions out there and then learn about other beliefs.
I believe that in most religions women have been given less powerful/meaningful positions in the church because we already have the most powerful position there is - giver of life. God did not choose (or trust :-) ) men to give birth and be nuturing - he chose a woman. I believe that Mary must have been one hell of a woman to live the life she was given and raise Jesus to be the man the Bible describes. As times have changed and generations have gone past, traditions within religion have changed little. I think the way our belief in religion is described says it all - faith. We have to have faith that there is a god (which personally I think everyone is praying to the same god just in different ways) and faith that the traditions are there for a reason. I think it is ok to question the traditions and definitely ok for traditions to change. For example - we now have girl altar services. Overall though we just have to have faith.
BTW - I came across your blog through Facebook and enjoy reading it when I can. I was always more of a math/science person in school and didn't shine in language arts, so when someone is able to write as eloquently as you do I am very jealous. I am a huge reader and read a book about a year ago that is a novel about Mary. Thought you might enjoy it. Here is the link for it in Amazon. Just in case the link doesn't work - it is called Mary of Nazareth, A Novel by Marek Halter: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307394840/bpo01-20#noop
Another side note - One of the things I have enjoyed most about Facebook is learning about people I knew in high school. I wish I had gotten to know so many people better. That includes you!
Kristy,
I am so glad you commented and I am extremely envious of anyone who has aptitude in the fields of science and math. Like you, I also wish I'd known some people in high school better and I am definitely looking forward to our next reunion!
The book you recommended sounds great, I'm going to see if our local library has it. I love what you wrote, "Mary must have been one hell of a woman to live the life she was given and raise Jesus to be the man the Bible describes."
I have heard others say what you did, which is that women are given the power to give birth and I agree, that is a huge position, but of course there are some women who cannot give birth or do not want to. I know there are also men who are incredibly nurturing. I am not disagreeing with your statement, I just think there are some women who have more of an inclination toward spiritual leadership than some men.
Faith is something I definitely struggle with, I do have faith in there being something else, but I feel limited in my worldly knowledge to know what that something else is. I definitely feel it is part of my journey on earth to be open to all possibilities and learning about various religions helps me tremendously!
Was your husband raised Catholic, too? My hubby was and he definitely has some ties to it still. We do not practice anything specific, but try to tie in the best of the religions we know.
Heather, I'm so glad you mentioned this on Facebook... I really have enjoyed the entries I've read on your blog!
I wanted to respond in part to some of the questions you had about gender roles in the LDS church. I don’t know if this will help or not, but to be precise, only men who are married can hold the highest positions in the priesthood, or in the Church (for a specific reference, see Doctrine and Covenants Section 131, which states that the highest order of the priesthood is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage: being sealed in the temple. This is an ordinance that both sexes are involved in and receive equal blessings from).
The Family Proclamation (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html) states that: “fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” Notice the word primarily, not solely. Also, they share the responsibility, but they do still have roles. That’s God’s way of getting things done, covering His bases.
Yes, I said His, but that is not to disregard the doctrine that in addition to a Heavenly Father (God), we also have a Heavenly Mother (see the LDS hymn, “O My Father, hymn 292, verse 3). Just like men who are not sealed in the temple cannot obtain the highest priesthood, God could not be God without having an eternal companion, his wife. Women in the LDS church are treated with so much respect, so much reverence, that we rarely talk about our Heavenly Mother, and that’s out of deep respect. That might be hard to understand, but I think of it as being similar to the way God’s name was not used very often (especially in Hebrew tradition).
As far as separation for Priesthood and Relief Society go, I think that sometimes we just need time to be with others of the same sex. I love Relief Society and I love Sunday School, but there is a huge difference when there's mixed company. In my mind, that's not good or bad, it just is. The actual curriculum in the classes is more or less the same. I asked my family what they learned in church today, and my brother said they talked about mothers and daughters in Priesthood… the same thing we talked about in Relief Society. I’m sure their lesson was vastly different than ours was, but that’s probably just what they needed, and it was just what I needed.
As far as what men have that women don’t, or what women have that men don’t, I believe there are differences. These days, those differences are being challenged, and so it’s hard to accept, but men and women are very different. Men have the priesthood, yes. But women have motherhood, and that is honored in the LDS church. Like your friend said, the ability to give life is very noble; a huge and powerful position. I hope this helps maybe broaden your understanding of LDS doctrine. I sure still have a lot to learn!
One final thought that just came to me. I think it’s sad that women have been trying to become more and more like men rather than embracing their womanhood. Not that the things they’re doing is really “bad” (like wearing pants… I love pants), but I just find it sad that women have been prone to think that to become equal with men, they must become like men.
At the last Ex-Mormon conference, the arrival of a new infant was celebrated having the WOMEN gather in a circle to pronounce a blessing on the baby. Each woman placed their left hand under the baby, the right hand was placed over the left breast of the woman standing next to her. It was the best blessing ever. I dare say attendance as fast and testimony meetings would soar if this were introduced into mainstream Mormonism.
The battles of the sexes among almost all animal species are real, a product of our evolution. It is an innate instinct to men to try to assert their authority over women, since mate choice in humans (and virtually all animals) is female selection. Thus religions (from a sex point of view), are just another game pawn for men in their battle for domination. I always knew women held the real keys....
Lyndon Lamborn (Logan UT native)
Heather--
One of the things I love most about you is that you are so open to learning and accepting of others' views whether they agree with yours or not-- and that you are willing to be honest about your questions, your beliefs, and give others an opportunity to respond and represent their views.
Lindsay N said most of what I was thinking as I read your blog, so I won't repeat it. I just want to share that as a woman in the LDS church I feel anything BUT relegated to a 'lower' position. Men and women are so different in such positive and complementing ways. I am so grateful to have men (and particularly now an amazing husband!) who has the strengths and the knowledge and the 'thinking' patterns that complement my own unique set of skills. He fills a role in my life that I wouldn't be able to fill.
At the same time, I am grateful to have been given the role of mother and nurturer. When we think about what that role entails I believe it is the greatest honor God could have given women. Just as my husband has his way of showing me how much he values me and my contribution to our marriage and our home, I believe that giving women the role of 'mother' is God's way of honoring women and showing them how much He values them. He needed good, strong women in the home to raise sons to be prophets and leaders and to raise daughters to be mothers to continue to raise sons and daughters to rulfill their respective roles.
That said, I should also mention that I have held numerous church callings and I have never been made to feel that the men's callings were more important than my callings. In fact, to the contrary, as Relief Society President or Young Women's President or Primary Presidency I was always treated with the utmost respect and the men I worked with made it clear that their role as priesthood leader was to support and lift, and the work I did in my calling was a key to the success of the organization. Even now in my role as Gospel Doctrine teacher, the men in my class are amazing in their support and appreciation.
As for a separation of Relief Society and Priesthood meeting- it's a lot like different learning styles. While teachers try to utilize the various learning styles to reach all students in their classroom, in a church setting one of the easiest ways to meet the differing needs is to have a women's organization that can meet the needs of women that differ greatly from the needs of men. The way things are taught and discussed in Sunday School and Relief Society are very different-- but both extremely valuable. Together it creates a whole-- an experience of spiritual growth and fulfillment.
I hope you know how much I appreciate your friendship and admire you. You have been a wonderful asset to our neighborhood and have enriched my life in so many ways!
Lindsay and Sharilee -
You are both amazing and strong women - I've witnessed your strength and dedication to causes, so I know you value the gifts you have, because you so willingly share them with others: Lindsay, in your teaching you are a constant giver and Sharilee, in the community work you do you are building a stronger foundation for many.
I pondered what you both wrote and I can see how differences compliment relationships. Steve and I have very different parenting styles and I feel like we both learn from each other and give Sophie various outlets to express her best self - or maybe we just cause her a lot of frustration!
I guess what bothers me is the obvious roles of leadership men can hold in certain religions that women are forbidden to hold - it would be different if women could hold them, but just hadn't. When I attended an LDS Church service and saw the men sitting at the front, or circling the infant in blessing, I felt like women had been relegated to positions "in the back of the bus."
I heard that women can have revelations for themselves, but men can have them for their whole families, i.e. how many children a couple should have. Again, maybe I'm wrong...it's just what I've heard. My first thought was how much power a woman gives up in her marriage if both believe the man has this right over his wife.
Also, some women cannot or do not want children, so what do you see as their role in a marriage?
Thank you for responding - I like to push my comfort zone to reach beyond its current specifications, and only when you present your views can I do that, you give me growth!!
Lyndon - When are you going to write your post? I can imagine the ceremony was very symbolic and freeing for women. Ah, symbolism and ritual, fascinating things!
OK. I'm going to throw in my two-cents worth. I would also like to preface it by saying that I'm willing to contribute to the conversation because I know that you have the utmost respect for the beliefs of others and I have never felt belittled or insulted by your questioning my beliefs. You may disagree, but you always do it respectfully, and I love that about you.
I'm going to add my voice to the others and say that I too have never felt belittled or that I am a lesser member or of lesser importance because I am denied the priesthood. We, as members of the LDS faith, believe that our church is simply a reorganization of the church that was established by Jesus Christ when he was here on the earth. Christ is at the head, and we have 12 apostles and an acting presidency, all with the pristhood. Christ and his apostles we believe also held the pristhood. They were all men. That is the way it was set up, according to our beliefs, and that is the way it continues.
And that is fine with me. I don't want the pristhood. With it comes a lot of responsibility that takes these men away from their homes and families much of the time. I personally feel that as a woman, I am naturally the nurturer and I want to be home to take care of my family, not being constantly pulled away by the demands of the congregation. The few callings that require the priesthood are very demanding and I would not want to be a part of it anyway.
But, I think in other callings, the men and women are equal. I serve in the primary now (the children's organization) and there are just as many men serving in the primary in our ward as there are women. Granted, that is unusual, but it does happen. also, if you ever watch General Conference, an equal number of men and women are both speaking, giving instruction to the followers of the church.
Some of these women, who hold very high positions in the church, have never been married or had children. they speak a lot to the women in that same situation. Regardless of wether you've had the opportunity to have children or not, you are always a nurturer, always involved in the lives of the other children and women in the ward, and always highly valued.
The baby blessing thing doesn't bother me at all. I gave birth to my children, I nursed them, I'm home with them all day. I am front and center in their lives at all times. My husband being the one to bless them is special to him. Every other moment in their lives it seems like I'm the one that is there for it...the blessing is his. its just about all he gets.
And at Coleman's recent baptism, I definitely wasn't sitting. I was front and center at the font, watching. My eyes were the first he saw when he came out of the water. Loved it!
Its often joked among members of the church that the Lord gave men the pristhood so they would have something to do, because women do everything else. In a way, I think thats true. Perhaps I am naieve or following blindly with faith. I have pondered this subject. I've prayed about it and really strived to understand my true feelings on it. My true feelings are that it just doesn't bother me that I don't have the priesthood. I know that I am just as valued in the church as my husband is, that my role in the church is important, that I'm respected, and I am a very loved Daughter of God.
Thanks for always being the epitome of tolerant and understanding. You're awesome!!
Heather - my husband was also raised as a Catholic, but neither of us was raised going to church every single Sunday. I definitely agree with you that there are some very nuturing men out there. I know some families where if the husband had not been so nuturing I really would have worried about the kids. Some women just don't have a nuturing bone in their body - and that's okay.
I read the posts that your friends from Utah wrote about LDS. I really enjoyed learning more about the religion and how much they do value women and mothers. I think that in general a woman should at least be allowed to make the choice of whether or not she wants to hold the highest position in any church. God's greatest gift to mankind was free choice. We are free to choose how we want to practice our faith with the many types of religion. Why can't we have free choice within the different religions?
Heather--you wrote:
"Or, that women will write and admit they see there is an unfair stance of positions of power, but there is so much more in the religion that keeps them loyal and maybe they even see a change down the road."
So much has been written from the LDS perspective here, so I just wanted to add something that I read a few years ago that basically expresses how I feel on the subject, in words that are so much more clear than I can come up with myself.
It's from a book entitled "The Simeon Solution: One Women's Spiritual Odyssey" by Anne Osborn Poelman. Mrs. Poelman is a member of the LDS faith, but didn't become one until she was in her thirties or so. She holds multiple medical and science degrees, and has written at least two medical school textbooks that I know of. (In fact, when my father was attending med school at the U of U, she was one of his professors.)
Anyway, in her book, she starts out by talking about a dinner party that she hosted, and how the conversation turned to religion. One of her guests asked a "frank but well intentioned question . . . as to how Mormon women felt about not holding the priesthood. Did we feel slighted? Unequal? Oppressed?"
She goes on to describe the conversation a bit more, including some of her own philosophical answers to the question, and then she writes this, a statement that resonates with me so very well:
"'I'm not sure exactly how to put this. you may think my view is rather simplistic. But to tell you the truth, the whole issue of women and the priesthood really isn't very high on my spiritual 'worry list.' I don't know precisely why modern-day women in the Church don't hold priesthood offices. Quite frankly, it doesn't bother me. I'm not even sure it's relevent.'
That provoked expressions of surprise. I continued, 'I know the gospel is true. I also know the restored Church is the Lord's church. And I really believe that if and when it's appropriate, any changes will be made by revelation through the prophet. In the meantime I'm content. I can put issues like women and the priesthood on my spiritual back burner.'"
I like that phrase: "spiritual back burner". The fact is, at any given time, I have a few things on my spiritual back burner, and I'm okay with that. There is enough that I do know, and that makes sense to me, and that feels absolutely right to me on a deeper level than I can even explain, that when things like this pop up, I can put them on my own spiritual back burner, and wait for a time when I'm able to understand/accept it more.
* * *
In light of some of what has been written here, I think you might find it interesting to know that Mrs. Poelman never gave birth to children. She married late in life, to a widower, who had a few (grown) children. When I read these words for the first time, and they resonated so well with me, I hadn't married yet, and I was childless as well.
I just say that to make the point that while I do think that the opportunity to bear/raise/nurture children and be in a marriage is a great gift and one that I'm grateful to (finally!) have; for me, the opportunity or lack of opportunity to do so hasn't impacted my feelings about the issue of women and the priesthood.
* * *
One more thing and then I'll end this book-of--comment: I do so appreciate the respect that was shown in your original post, and in the comments here. It's so refreshing to have a religious discussion that is so respectful to so many different views. Thanks to you Heather, and thanks to all the rest of you who have commented as well.
This is Sharilee10: Amen. So well put Charlotte. I also want to comment on the issue of revelation but will wait until I get to a real keyboard!
Charlotte - I want to read that book from which you quoted. It's funny how different things strike us based on our own experiences and perspectives. Maybe I notice the "no woman as a leader" because of getting to see the changes within my parents' religion growing up - from having only male ministers to having female ministers - and being married by a husband/wife ministering team. For some reason I just cannot get past that! Maybe my spirituality is too shallow :)
Last night I tried praying to Heavenly Mother and loved it! I felt such a radiance emanating from this presence. Again, I think if there is a God that God is so beyond our comprehension, limiting it with a sex is strictly a humanmade concept, but it works for me!
Laura - thank you for your input, too. It's funny, because your perspective is so selfless, while I thought, "I am raising these children, I should be up there blessing them!" :)
Heather--
You are more than welcome to borrow the book if you like. I had to find it to put the quote in the comment, so I even know exactly where it is, which is saying something with me and books!
Charlotte - may I come by sometime and pick up the book? Also, I'd love to see all of you before we move!
Absolutely! I've sent you an e-mail with our address. It will be fun to see you again!
Heather, I just want to say amen to Lindsey's post, Sharilee's post, and Laura's post. They said exactly what I wanted to say, just with better words. A really great thing for you to read (which was quoted by Lindsey) is the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", found http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html
It illustrates the roles of men and women. I just want to add my feelings that I have NEVER felt discriminated against as a woman in the LDS church. Men and women have different responsibilities, both of which are necessary for the family, for the church, and for society to function properly. Men hold the priesthood, as someone else mentioned. This is not a power they have to hold over us, it is a power they use to serve us. An interesting thing about the priesthood is that a man cannot use it to bless himself, only other people. Just because I don't hold it doesn't mean I can't benefit from it.
It surprised me to see this was an issue. Like the other post, it never even occured to me that there were things I "couldn't do" in the church. I have always felt a part of things. Even as a teenage girl I held positions of "authority".
Thanks for letting me be a part of your blog! Hope I wasn't being too redundant with what other people put, I just wanted to say "hear hear"! :)
Hey Kellie -
I'm so glad you commented too! It's so interesting to me to read the perspectives of others and see how so many factors play into how we view things.
I tried to think about this today in another context: my marriage. Again, Steve and I tend to be traditional - he has the higher degree, the full-time job and I tend to do a lot of the doctor appointment making/playdate setting for Sophie. It's just how it is. I guess I accept it, because I love my role and because I know I can get a higher degree, work full-time, etc. if I want to.
I think I would understand the LDS doctrine more if it stated that 1 person in the household is the nurturer and one holds the authority of giving blessings, but it didn't specify which person that would be. I think couples naturally take on differing roles that compliment one another and do complete the family, but I'm not sure it has to be determined by the sex of the person. Does that make sense?
About a year ago, when my parents were visiting, my dad was looking at a picture of the authorities of the LDS Church (I don't remember the titles, but I think the president, council...I'm sorry, I don't know the exact persons) and my dad, who never came across as a feminist to me said, "There are no women!" It made me pause. I know the pastor of my parents' church is a woman - they've had a few women pastors - and I think that perspective, for my father, has made a huge impact.
Do any of you who are Mormon see a day when women will take on roles of bishop, councilpersons, president, etc.?
Post a Comment