Debater Slayer and Katzpur: on Mormonism

[Debater Slayer]

You know, I'm not even sure I know why I asked you whether you were speaking of religious or secular equality, since in Mormonism, they more or less overlap anyway.

Mormon men hold the priesthood in the LDS Church. Mormon women do not. This has always been the case and, as far as I can guess, always will be the case. Now, we have a lay priesthood, which means that every "worthy" male over the age of 12 is eligible to hold it. If you were to go to an LDS worship service, you would not see men wearing the traditional priestly robes of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. You would not see them wearing the distinctive clerical collar that so easily identifies most Protestant ministers. You'd see men wearing suits and ties. If a non-Mormon male were to be in the congregation, you would not be able to distinguish him from an LDS male priesthood-holder. We believe that the priesthood is the power and authority God has given men to officiate in the ordinances (i.e. sacraments) of His Church. A priesthood holder (depending upon the level of his priesthood) can baptize someone, confirm him a member of the Church and give him the Gift of the Holy Ghost, may perform a blessing (i.e. a christening) of a baby, may pronounce priesthood blessings on the sick, etc. There is a small movement within the Church that women be granted the right to hold the priesthood. In all honesty, I would be surprised if the number of women who would actually like to hold the priesthood even reaches 1%. Even this "not your average Mormon" has no desire to hold the priesthood. I already have the right to the blessings provided by the priesthood that is held by my husband, and I believe that God values me as much as He values any man. This is something that simply does not make sense to a lot of people, and I'm afraid I can't make sense of it for them. Jesus Christ called twelve Apostles to serve with Him. They were all men. I have heard people say that this was to be expected, since the culture of His time would not have been very accepting of women in such positions. Well, maybe it wouldn't, but Jesus wasn't exactly one to go along with what was customary and accepted by society. If He'd wanted women among His Apostles, I have no doubt but that He'd have chosen women.

In the LDS Church, women speak and pray before the congregation as a whole. This is true not only on the local level, but on the level of the Church as a worldwide institution. They teach men as well as women in classroom settings. The Church has three auxiliary organizations headed by women. There is the Primary (for children ages 3-12), the Young Women (ages 12-18), and the Relief Society (all women over 18). Worldwide, there are millions of members of these organizations. Within each ward (i.e. congregation), women lead the Primary, the Young Women and the Relief Society organizations. Women sit on the general boards (worldwide governing bodies) of these organizations and comprise their presidencies. Still, interpretation of the Church's doctrines is left solely up to the Church's priesthood-holders, who are all men, and most of the individuals who make Church policies are men. Women are now being included a little more than they used to be in the policy-making process, which I believe is very important. Even if God wants to reveal doctrine through the priesthood, there is no reason I can think of for women to be excluded from other leadership activities.

In the interest of full disclosure, I would have to say that had I been responding to this post back in 1981 when both of my children were still pre-schoolers, I would have had to say that women were very strongly urged not to work outside the home. Ezra Taft Benson, President of the Church at that time, was extremely outspoken concerning his views about women in the workplace. His counsel was firm: Mothers, if there is anything at all that you can do to avoid working outside the home, do it. Basically, women were expected to stay home and raise the children while men were expected to provide for them. If it meant her children going without food or shelter, a mother (particularly single mothers) would be considered justified in taking a paying job, but there were really no other extenuating circumstances. I can remember struggling back then with my decision to work. I had a part-time (30-hour per week) job. My kids loved their babysitter and I knew they were well taken care of. I didn't have to work in order for us to live, but by working, we did have a better standard of living than we would have had otherwise. I was also a lot happier having a career than I would have been as a stay-at-home mom. And I believe my happiness made it possible for me to be more patient and loving with my kids. Now, there were never any punishments imposed upon mothers who worked outside the home. We weren't technically "breaking any commandments." We did feel judged by stay-at-home mothers, though. It was hard.

Things have changed so much since then. The ideal is probably still that mothers stay home with their children, but the ideal is accepted as being an ideal, and not as being a hard and fast rule that should be applied to all women. One woman, Chieko Okazaki (a convert to the Church from Buddhism) was a member of the Primary General Board, the Young Women General Board, and was a counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency. As a working mother, she had a career as an educator for many years, and was also a principal in the public school system. In her capacity as Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency, she was often asked to speak in the Church's semi-annual General Conference which is broadcast via satellite to millions (men and women alike). He talks were masterpieces! Chieko Okazaki is just one of a number of notable LDS women who have combined careers with mothering and who have found acceptance at the highest levels of the organizational Church.

In 1995, the Church announced its "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" (that's a link). In part, it says, "By divine design, 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. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed." In practically ever priesthood session of our General Conferences, the men of the Church are reminded that they are to treat their wives with love and respect, and that they should never attempt to "pull rank" on their wives by virtue of the fact that they hold the priesthood.

Hopefully, this information will help and you will see it as an entirely honest and forthright response on my part.

Yes, that's a very detailed answer. Thank you.

Please note that what I'm going to say is just my opinion and is not meant to start a debate; I'm just offering my perspective.

The teachings you laid out in your post strike me as very patriarchal in nature, especially the belief that Jesus only chose men as his apostles. Given the Church's anti-homosexual stance, it seems to me that the teachings are very heteronormative and leaning toward the typical nuclear family model where the father is the family's breadwinner. They also remind me of the justification of treating women and men differently by a lot of Islamic scholars: "Men are responsible for providing for the family and treating women well, so God doesn't look down on women. It is just that men have more authority and responsibility than women." Basically, the argument boils down to, "Ostensibly putting women on a pedestal is okay to justify giving men privileges in a lot of areas."

Another question just came to mind: What do you think of the feminist movement? Do you consider yourself a part of it or a supporter of it or not?

 

[Katzpur]

Please note that what I'm going to say is just my opinion and is not meant to start a debate; I'm just offering my perspective.

That's perfectly alright. I would be disappointed if you didn't offer your perspective.

The teachings you laid out in your post strike me as very patriarchal in nature, especially the belief that Jesus only chose men as his apostles. Given the Church's anti-homosexual stance, it seems to me that the teachings are very heteronormative and leaning toward the typical nuclear family model where the father is the family's breadwinner. They also remind me of the justification of treating women and men differently by a lot of Islamic scholars: "Men are responsible for providing for the family and treating women well, so God doesn't look down on women. It is just that men have more authority and responsibility than women." Basically, the argument boils down to, "Ostensibly putting women on a pedestal is okay to justify giving men privileges in a lot of areas."

Yes, they are patriarchal. There's no getting around that. And I can understand your perspective. Personally, I have never felt this system to be oppressive, and I have always felt that the men I know have valued my opinion on issues to the same extent that they would value my husband's.

Another question just came to mind: What do you think of the feminist movement? Do you consider yourself a part of it or a supporter of it or not?

I'm all for it, at least when it comes to the way our society should function. I wouldn't think of myself so much as a "part of it" as I would a "supporter of it." I believe that men and women should have exactly the same opportunities in the workplace, they should be paid equally and be given the same prospects in terms of advancement. I would love to see a woman become the President of the United States -- as long as it's not Hillary. It's just that I haven't been discriminated against in this way to the extent that some women have been that makes me be a little less outspoken than some are. I have also been married for the past 45 years to the least sexist man on the face of the earth, and believe me, that helps!

Back when I was in my early 20s, and in college, I was working as a bank teller. I was making $2.00 an hour. The job I had before that paid me $1.15 an hour, so I thought I was really doing well. I worked adjacent to a single young man about my age. We hit it off really well and enjoyed chatting between customers. One day when it came time to balance our cash boxes, he came up $1000 short. That pretty much set a new record. Nobody I could think of had ever had a shortage of more than about $100. Everybody knew that this guy was honest and that he hadn't taken the money. He racked his brain as to how this could have happened, and finally came up with an explanation that made perfect sense. I believed him (as I do to this day) and so did everybody else. I probably had one of the best over/short records of any teller at the bank. Nine times out of ten, I'd balance to the penny. Once in a great while, I'd come up a dime short or something like that. I knew the bank management was very, very pleased with my work.

Well, just a couple of days after my friend's $1000 shortage took place, we were all given our annual raises. One by one, the bank manager called us over to his desk for an interview and to tell us how much of a raise we were getting. When it was my turn, the manager told me what an outstanding employee I was and that I was to be given a 5-cent per hour raise. I just sat there speechless. Five cents an hour? Seriously? After taxes, I probably wouldn't see more than about a 25-cent difference in my paycheck. And I was supposed to be happy and grateful for this? I went back to my spot with the other tellers. The guy next to me (the one who'd just days before lost $1000 for the bank) was called over to talk to the manager next. When he came back after his interview, I asked him point blank how much of a raise he'd gotten. He told me he'd gotten ten cents an hour. I was royally pissed off! I marched right back to the bank manager's desk and nicely, but firmly, asked why the discrepancy. His answer, "Well, he's a man." It was said so matter-of-factly that I didn't even know what to say. It was like it should have been so obvious to me; why would I have even had to ask the question? I didn't say anything more. I was very young and I just remember thinking, "So that's how it works, huh? That's stupid." That was my first experience with gender inequality in the workplace.

Eventually, I went into computer programming (specifically application design and coding). I did that for over 30 years. I did experience some discrimination in getting my job in the first place. I'd been working for the company as an independent contractor for about four years when a permanent, full-time position came available. The department head at that time was a very sexist man who didn't believe that women were incapable of doing as well as programmers as men. He was determined not to hire me to fill the position. Of course he never gave me any indication that this was the case, but he was outspoken about it to other men in the department. One of them told me what his position was and I went into see the president of the company and to tell him what was going on. Like a fool, I expected him to see things from my point of view, because I'd done some really good work for the company over the past four years. When I realized that he was 100% on my department head's side, I looked him in the eyes and said, "I have never been discriminated against in the workplace before, and I'm not about to start now." He looked shocked, and was clearly taken off guard. Immediately, he went on the defensive. "If you're trying to threaten me, Kathryn," he said, "it won't work." "I'm not threatening you," I answered. "I'm merely stating the facts." A couple of days later, I was offered the job.

When I retired from that company in 2010, I was making exactly the same as the men in my department who were doing the same work as I was. I felt like, since I'd been able to break the glass ceiling, it ought to be possible for any woman to do so. The department head over IT was a woman. She'd succeeded at the job where her two male predecessors had failed. One of my best friends was an extremely successful journalist. So my own personal experience probably made me a little less sympathetic to the plight of other women who are discriminated against in the workplace and by society in general. I feel bad about that, because I do understand that I was part of a small minority of women who really didn't experience a lot of discrimination in the workplace.