church and patriarchy
When I was Mormon, I asked this question many times: "Why don't women have the priesthood?"
I heard these types of answers in church:
-It's just the way it is.
-Men already have it, so women don't need it. Only one in the partnership needs the keys.
-God wants it that way. That's the way He set it up.
-Women are more spiritual than men, so they don't need it. Men need extra responsibility to learn to be as good as the women.
And these are some answers from more of an outsider's perspective. Ones I never heard in church:
-The church was founded at a time when everyone was sexist. Just the way it was. Didn't occur to any of the founding men (and probably most of the women) to do it any differently.
-The supreme being is seen as male. Women and men alike prayer to and are directed by a male. This ingrains in believers a sense that real answers only come from male sources; that power only lies in male hands. Women start to buy into the system; they actually believe they are inferior and do not want or need power and leadership. (There's a great Dialogue article about this issue from an organizational behavior viewpoint. Vol 34 No 1-2, Spring/Summer, 2001, p. 307). There is a barely acknowledged female deity, but talking about her or praying to her is heretical.
-The church leaders reinforce 19th century social values of men being in charge, and the women obeying. The Proclamation on the Family; talks telling women to stay home and not have careers, etc. Some of this can be downplayed as the culture of the church, but the fact is, it's embedded in the temple ceremony. "I promise to obey my husband" and "I promise to hearken unto my husband"; Eve doesn't speak a word after the fall; Jehovah and Peter speak directly to Adam, not to the couple. Women are explicitly and implicitly told they are inferior to men. And since it's in the temple ceremony, women take it as Truth.
16 comments:
Very true. I heard the reasons why often.
I agree with the nineteenth century sources as well. No official mo source would ever mention that was why the policy is still in place. Many religions (during the 60s and 70s) re-evaluated these policies. I wonder when the LDS church will.
The patriarchal power structure of the LDS church was built to retain and sustain a male dominance.
In my undergrad, we read a book called "Lilith" by George McDonald. Lilith was the mythological first wife of Adam who was cast out of Eden because she was Adam's equal and not his servant. It says a lot about men in a society that fears and castigates women who take charge and like being on top (yes, I mean sexual positions here, also).
Great post, Ashes!
Good point you make about the endowment. I guess putting women in their place is around every corner in TSCC.
God, another perfect post where I can rant my dissatisfaction of the time I went to my bishop's office with my nonmember husband (he was there at the bishop's request) to have my temple recommend interview so I could attend the temple and take out my endowment for the first time....
And I was blindsided when my bishop told us that in order for me to be able to go, I'd have to have my nonmember's permission in writing to attend the temple. He refused, and I was heartbroken.
Apparently men, even nonmember non-priesthood-holding men, are more valued than women in the church.
There is no such rule for men who are married to nonmember wives.
One of the main reasons I had so many problems being Mormon, and one of the main reasons I left. I just couldn't believe the rhetoric that so many of my female (and male) LDS friends bought into - that The Church doesn't teach sexism - if it seems sexist it's just the PEOPLE and not the religion. Equal but different (and treated differently). Women on a pedestal and in the kitchen. And if you don't like it, you just don't understand it.
By the way SML, WHY wouldn't your husband give permission (PERMISSION!?!?! sicksicksick)? Because that looks suspiciously sexist of him.
Not to be the one to throw a wet blanket on the righteous fire of idignation of a sexist patriarchy, yet the church's stance on priesthood and women is totally baffling, because the very same endowment that promulgates the wife as chattel, treats women as priestesses.
Never been on the women's side at the temple, but it is my understanding that during the washing and annointings, the women lay their hands on other women's heads and essentially give them a priesthood blessing (with the priesthood they don't have? -- maybe it is a conspiracy)
My point is that railing against the sexism in the culture isn't nearly as subversive as telling the culture, that the culture itself says that their simple sexist notions are wrong.
Follow me here -- Imagine at the next family get together with your active Mo family when you announce that you are so glad that the church lets women have the priesthood, lets them be queens and priestesses on most high, and you can't wait until they finally let the rest of the world know instead of keeping it bottled up in the temple.
It makes their brains short circuit and is a blast to watch.
I couldn't stomache the fact that my husband would be my final judge and call me beyond the veil. Maybe the seahorses have it right. The female gives birth and the male nutures the young!!
aerin- I could be more forgiving of the church is they had re-evaluted. You'll never find a church that was always perfect, but I'll never join one that denies they ever did anything wrong. Move on, change polices, apologize when necessary. That goes for discrimination against blacks, homosexuals, too.
Sideon- I didn't know about Lilith! Is that why Frasier's ex-wife (from Cheers) was named Lilith?
simeon-When I first got my endowment, I hoped that my firm belief that women are equal would be reaffirmed. Not so. I thought, "The church _does_ teach that women are lesser." It was sickening.
SML- Nonmember men have to give permission for their member wives but not vice versa. Just like widowers can marry another woman for eternity, but widows can't marry another man for eternity. Or (up until recently, I think) there were different rules for un-sealing divorcees for remarriages to others. Equal? Um, no.
Rebecca- Even when men do put women on a pedestal, that's not equal, and, I think, still harmful.
wanker- You make a good point that the culture itself is contradictory. When I did the initatories, I was excited that a woman officiated. The early JS church did give women more power (dare I say priesthood power?) that was later denied.
Two examples: Some think that JS meant to make the RS a parallel organization (he said "I turn the keys to you" but this was changed by BH Roberts to "I turn the keys for you" at the inauguration of the RS).
Women also regularly gave healing blessings to women and children until after the turn of the century. When women started writing the brethren about the "appropriate method" and whether or not they were exercising priesthood the brethren reigned them in and limited the practice until it disappeared (in any official, sanctioned capacity, at least).
There is an ongoing debate about whether or not women do have priesthood. Either way, they only hold it in association to their husbands, as a priestesses _unto_ them, not in their own rights.
You are right. At the beginning of the Church, women did give priesthood blessings, [tried to] set up their own organization with financial and 'decisional' responsibility and in general, had quite a bit more power than today. Whether they took that power for themselves or had it 'bestowed' is not clear. In any case, the whole idea that power came from 'laying on of hands' sort of evolved anyway.
Ask a sister: is your prayer for your sick child just as effective and healing as your husband's priesthood blessing (supposing he is absent)? [Nevermind that "healings" are very rare today . . .]
God bless the women damaged by Mormonism!
Of course putting women on pedestals is just as bad - that was my point. In Mormonism - and a lot of other sexist organizations - women are both treated as superior and inferior. On the pedestal they are always patient, calm, kind, and morally superior - they must be perfect or they are not true women. On the flip side of the SAME COIN they are kept subordinate to men. It's all part of the same monster.
Thanks Bel,
You kind of made my point. You immediately reverted to the classic double think, which is the only way to deal with the inconsistencies -- it is a derivative power, not a real power, etc. And what about the fact that they get to be priestesses someday? Isn't this the dispensation of the fullness of times?
If women officiate at the initatories because it's inappropriate for men to do so, but they've changed the ceremony to eliminate anything but touching of the head, will men creep back into taking over? Just a thought.
Bel-You've described well one side of the debate. Others would argue otherwise, including, I'd venture to guess, some temple presidents with more feminist leanings than yours.
No, I'm not trying to debate the point. What I'm saying is that women are deprived of power even in this inner sanctum of sorts. I know that people have tried to point to the temple ceremonies as a place where women have a sort of priesthood authority. I'm not trying to argue anything. I used to cling to all sorts of things like women officiating in temple ordinances or women giving blessings in the early church. That is the "double-think" that enabled me to keep going in Mormonism, to find some place where I could feel some sort of worth and a modicum of autonomy/authority of my own as a female. However, I now feel that the sad fact of the matter is that women have NO authority in the church--even in these intimate venues. Everything they do, every act they perform is done only by the good graces and "condescension" if you will of men with "priesthood" authority. And that authority will never be ceded to or shared with women one. iota. While I don't believe, FTA, that men will ever do the initiatories for women it could certainly happen that men could decide to revoke that "authority" at any time for any reason--or none at all. And women would just bow their heads and say yes. There is no inherent authority that they have, no right to stand on in the church, to say no to such a thing. Just like they couldn't say no when the "right" to give blessings was revoked. In my view, it doesn't really matter about the "leanings" of this one or that one. It's totally structural to the church itself. There is no "priestesshood," no true female authority in those places. None. If I could see any, I'd still try to be there.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing this from any sort of a TBM perspective, I hope you understand. It has been very difficult for me to fully accept that reality. I wanted it to be different, but in fact, I couldn't stand the 'double-think' or the 'double-speak' anymore. It was making me crazy. Yes, you have authority, yes, you are valuable and important and have important things to do. But not really. Only if we let you.
Ah, belaja, I didn't recognize that as you. I honestly couldn't tell which side of the fence you were speaking from.
I think your strongest point is that women have no power to say no when men decide to change things. Such as when you said, "men could decide to revoke that 'authority' at any time for any reason--or none at all. And women would just bow their heads and say yes. There is no inherent authority that they have, no right to stand on in the church, to say no to such a thing."
Women talk about the priesthood ambiguity in the temple (the whole "do we have it or not; will we have it or not? debate), but they still aren't "allowed" to do anything with it.
Any interesting point (to me at least) is that it was not until women started asking the "proper authorities" if healing blessings were, in fact, priesthood that they were restricted. It was only then that the Brethren started to reign in the power and explicity state that it was NOT priesthood. In effect, women, in their asking men, granted the men the ability to exercise their power over the women and restrict them. Before that, it was self-regulated by the women. (I'm basing this on only one article I read. I could we widely wrong.)
bel's comment from above was deleted. Here it is again:
No, sorry, women in the temple do NOT have a priesthood power and it cannot be construed as such in any way. And if you push someone with knowledge of this (say a temple president) they will deny, deny, deny that women have priesthood in the temple.
If you are familiar with the wording of the initiatory experience it says simply "having authority, I wash you," or "anoint you," or whatever. There is NO priesthood invoked. It is simply a statement of authority. I can't let that one go. It was made specifically clear to me that that authority was a derivative authority from the priesthood that is given when you're set apart as an ordinance worker, but it was not priesthood in any sense. Women were officiating because it wouldn't be appropriate for men to officiate and therefore women were given a sort of "delegation" by men (the real priesthood) to perform that part of the ordinances. Ordinance workers are also told that they do NOT represent Christ at the veil (although that's the wording of the endowment). "We don't know who you represent--someone very special, I'm sure, but you don't represent the Lord." That was the temple president telling us that.
Furthermore, women giving blessings in the early church were always cautioned not to invoke priesthood authority--they were reminded that they did not have it. I think in the most orthodox minds and certainly in the minds of the upper hierarchy women do NOT have priesthood. They'll get to be "priestesses" someday, but only to their godlike husbands. Not EVER in their own right.
Post a Comment