Priesthood, Motherhood... Singlehood.

One of my friends shared this article and tagged me to read it. I'm not certain of her motivations. Maybe she just thought I'd find it interesting because it's about Mormonism being feminist. Maybe she wanted my thoughts. Maybe she wanted to throw me a "You're not one of those Priesthood-wanting feminists, are you?" I don't think it's that last one: I've been generally quite cautious about saying "Hey, I think women should have ordination, too" and only hinting at it obliquely.  I'd be a little surprised if anyone had solidly picked up on it up to this point, though my response may have added evidence.

Anyway, I have to say... I'm glad the author considers herself a feminist, I really do think that an eternal balance of male-female is needed (somehow, in some way shape or form, not necessarily tied to biological sex in this life) to activate the fullness of Priesthood power, and I really like the idea of balancing o

ut the purposes for there even to be males and females and balancing events in a way that truly is complementary. But.

But.

I cannot ignore that a worthy single man of 30 can participate in his Priesthood duties, while the very act of participating in biological mothering duties would render a single woman of 30 utterly unworthy, outcast, and likely excommunicated. Likewise, no worthy married man is denied the utilization of any Priesthood he possesses, when a married woman may be physically unable to bear children. Potential equality, symbolic equality, is not the same as actual equality.

My response to her:

Very interesting, well-written article. I really like the symbolic parallels that she draws. I love that she points out that culture often contradicts doctrine. The only (big) issue I have with the Motherhood=Priesthood line of thinking every time I run into it is that it leaves no room anywhere for unmarried-and-childless worthy women. Promises that it will be made up to us in the life to come sound lovely, but for this life it does nothing for us. No such promise is made to unmarried-and-childless worthy men, because it's not needed even though they too are not part of an eternal pairing. They can already otherwise administer and participate in their duties. Single women are the remainder left over when all the power or influence is divided up. Therefore I cannot agree that women and men are implicitly treated as equals, because I, myself, am that remainder and it hurts to go through life that way.
Other than that giant thorn in my side, very nice article and I otherwise really like the symmetry she presents, and I totally agree that Mormonism is the most eternally feminist Christian sect of which I'm aware. :) 

It does hurt.  "People" (the vaporous, vague, vast swath of faceless humanity who think these ways) expect us to get over it, to get married, or just deal.  There is no Prospective Wives class, no Prospective Mothers class available like there is for Prospective Elders.  There is no interview that concludes with "You've done well and faithfully.  You are worthy of and ready for marriage.  We'll seal you to a good man next Sunday after Sacrament meeting."  (Thankfully!)  A boy from the age of 12 begins to exercise authority and perform duties.  A girl from age 12 is being prepared for a marriage and family that may or may not come and taught not to bare her midriff, shoulders, or thighs.  (Also, I like kids, but I do not want to spend eternity in a bioliteral process of producing spirit babies.  Aren't intelligences supposed to be without beginning or end, anyway?)

I could get on board with Motherhood and Priesthood being the true complements if women had the same opportunity based on their biology to fulfill that role as men have the opportunity based on their life choices.  However, I still hold to the belief that women have their own divine Priestesshood that is the complement to male Priesthood and that it is the combination of these powers that results in the eternal power and authority of Godhood.  Or, at the very least, there is a Feminine/Priestess complement to the Masculine/Priest.  Whether that is truly reliant on biologically expressed sex or spiritually expressed gender, or any other configuration of the two, I do not know. And where does that leave intersex individuals?  They do exist, you know, and they are also children of God.  There must be a place and a way for them as well, to my way of thinking.

All these things--and more--come together and lead me to believe that the Ninth Article of Faith is an underappreciated doctrine.  How open are we to new information?  I know I've wondered that before.  After nearly 18 months since launching the Mother Fast, I still wonder.  It's kinda hard to believe it has been that long.  It seems like I just started.  Time does move on, and so far, little has changed beside the age at which women can serve a mission.  The good thing is... that was received with general rapture and enthusiasm.  There is hope for change, still.

Still, other than that... being a single Mormon woman sucks.

Radical love and the spirit of Christmas

Good morning, sisters and brothers.  I hope you’ll forgive the way I sound; I contracted a cold the other day in a last ditch effort to make my Father speak for half an hour by himself, but to no avail.  In all seriousness, though, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I pray that the Spirit will open all of our hearts.

I come to speak to you about Christmas and the spirit of Christmas.  First, I wish to talk about the Nativity story itself.  There is a long-standing tradition among many of Christ’s followers that Mary and Joseph were turned away from every public inn or “hotel” in the little town of Bethlehem, even though she was about to give birth.  Only a very brief knowledge of Middle Eastern culture is needed to see that this is unlikely.

Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David, returning to the City of David; they were royalty without crowns.  They also likely would have had many relatives still in the region.  Even if they could not find place with extended family, customs of hospitality to guests and strangers would have made it easy for them to find a private home to welcome them, rather than begging at the door of the public house and being turned away to a barn or a cave.  No one, especially not a couple born of royal blood who were about to have a child, would not have been turned away to find their own shelter; to do so would have shamed the entire village.  Rather, a deep spirit of generosity would have been extended to them and doors opened.

The Greek words topos and kataluma are used in Luke 2:7.  They are translated in the King James Version as “room” and “inn” respectively, as in “She wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”.  A better translation would be “space” and “guest room”.  In fact, kataluma is used later in Luke when Jesus asks to use a guest room to celebrate Passover.  It wasn’t that the local hotels had the No Vacancy sign up, it was that the spare room in a two room home was already full.  Another guest family, or perhaps even the host family, may have occupied the more private second room when Mary and Joseph came into the house.  

In those days, animals were commonly brought in at night and kept in a portion of the house that was slightly lower than the family’s living quarters.  For this purpose there would have been a manger within the walls of the house itself, and with some clean straw, it would have made a safe resting place for a newborn among tight quarters, free from drafts and bustling feet.  And after a birth attended by the women of the house and possibly a midwife or other experienced women from the neighborhood, the announcement of a first born son would have resulted in jubilation and congratulations with music and dancing by the men while mother and child got settled in.  The shepherds would have had little trouble finding the source of the ruckus; the sign of being laid in a manger was intended merely to confirm that this one child was the promised Messiah.  By this understanding of life in First Century Judea, we see that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were never turned away. They were accepted and taken in and sheltered as honored guests, their hosts possibly even giving up their own space in the house for them, and the birth celebrated by a loving community of family and friends.  Is this not the spirit of Christmas?

Do we likewise recognize not only Christ, but our brothers and sisters on the Earth as being members of a royal lineage and make space for them within the home of our hearts?  Do we honor them by making room and being generous and kind with our substance, rather than pushing them out into the cold?  Do we show love to the weary travelers around us?

Jesus taught and exhibited a radical philosophy of love in his mortal ministry.  (You know?  “Radical dude!”  No?  Sorry.  I mean “radical” in the sense of being very different from the usual or traditional.)  While hospitality was the standard for guests in one’s home, Israel was still culturally ruled by “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” and to forgive a person only to their seventh insult.  Jesus taught that instead we should turn the other cheek, and forgive to seventy times seven.  In the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew chapter 5, Christ tells us that whoever sues for our coat, we should give them our cloak as well.  Whoever compels us to go a mile with them, go with them two.  Love our enemies and pray for them and do good to them.  Why?  Why would we do that?

I think, in part, it is this: When we give more to someone who has taken from us, when we do what we can to fill whatever need they have, we remove from them the spiritual wound of being a thief or a beggar or a suer.  When someone asks us to go with them on part of their journey--when they say to us, “I need someone to walk with me for a little while, for company or as a guardian or a guide” and we go that distance and further still, we follow through.  We tell them, ‘I will travel this difficult road with you, and I will still be a friend when you no longer “need” me, because I have come to love you and I will make certain that you get where you’re going as safely as possible.’  When we pray for an enemy, when we serve them and love them, we often gain a friend and an ally.  Differences may remain, but they matter far less when people love each other.  This was a radical idea in Jesus’ day, and sadly, it remains so today.

Loving each other is the ultimate message of Jesus’ teachings.  Loving each other is the spirit of Christmas.  This is not a lop-sided, parasitic love that drains the life from one to feed the other, but a dynamic relationship of mutual understanding, tolerance, and admiration.  If nothing else, it is a recognition of the divinity in every soul.  “As I have loved you, love one another.  By this shall [all] know you are my disciples.”  Jesus put no exceptions on His new commandment.  The quality of love that we give to others is the hallmark of how well we follow Him.  The love of God, the love of  Christ is radical, unconditional, and boundless.  Christ’s love is service and humility and grace.  Our Heavenly Father and Mother love us so radically, that They sent Jesus to suffer and die for us in order to make us at-one with Them.  Christ loves and serves the unloveable and lowly--the lepers, the harlots, the tax collectors, the outcasts--as well as those who are easy to love and mighty.  To me, this is the spirit of Christmas.  Can we strive to do the same, and not limit it to the month of December?

I have talked with and listened to many of our faith who have reduced or left off activity in the Church, even those who have left the Church entirely.  While no reason is universal, overwhelmingly,the primary reason given for staying away is a lack of Christ-like love from those who are meant to be their brothers and sisters, a lack of acceptance or support.  To characterize this as their “choosing to be offended” misses a point of which I think our Savior would have been keenly aware.  I am not here to call you to repentance, because I don’t know the dynamics of your ward.  However, I wish to encourage everyone here to be sensitive, to be kind, to stand up for the downtrodden, and to open the homes of their hearts to those who are different.  Love those who may seem to you to be unfaithful or weak or rebellious or weird.  Love them without agenda, for they have their story and their reasons just like you do.  Mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort, for the sake of nothing more than being a better disciple of Jesus yourself and making the world a better place.  We are followers of a carpenter-rabbi-god who began his life in an overcrowded two room house in ancient Palestine, and thirty years later left everything behind to preach love to his people and the world.  It doesn’t get much more different or more humble than that.  May we make room inside ourselves for Him and all our brothers and sisters, year-round, in the spirit of Christmas.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ.  Amen.

* For more information on how the Nativity more likely happened, please go tohttp://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1126

And yes, I was wearing pants.

Pants plus Mother Fast

A dear friend of mine reminded me that tomorrow is also the monthly Fast for revelation about Heavenly Mother.  (I'm such a slacker!)  A day when a couple thousand women will dare to have an inseam in the chapel will coincide with a day for a... couple dozen? people to fast for the Goddess.

In light of recent tragedies, we need Mother more than ever.  We need women who are willing to make a difference in the world, even with the small things, more than ever.  I hope you'll join us find and be Our Lady.

#Pantsgate vs. The World

1. Pants are the stupidest thing to be arguing over in 2012.  Those against them need to chill out (at least one death threat was received by the organizers of Wear Pants to Church!  Death threats!  Yeah, Mormons totally respect women until they do something crazy like want to wear pants to church! < /blanketstatement> ) and those for them need to chill out.
2. Then again, it's not about pants.  Not really.  It's about... things that are really big and really complex and that others have talked about more eloquently than I.  Things that are super important to a lot of people and of no import at all to others.  However...
3. In light of today's events, who cares about pants?

May all blessings of solace be upon the victims and families in Connecticut.
May they be granted peace, somehow, in this season and in the year and years to come.

Pants: Still a scandal in 2012.

1 Samantha 16:7
7 But the Lady said unto Samantha, Look not on her appearance, or on the manner of her attire ... for the Lady seeth not as mortals seeth; for mortals looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lady looketh on the heart.

You know, I've seen women wear pants to church numerous times over the years.  It hasn't been often, but it has happened.  When I was young, it always surprised me but I never commented.  The women always looked appropriate and put together.  Granted, I live in a very liberal area of the US that has a reputation for bucking tradition and the ward I grew up in was very loving and open, but the prevailing winds within the Mormon community have still leaned heavily to skirts and dresses.  However, pants were not looked down upon, to the best of my knowledge, beyond a few surprised expressions before everyone got on with their day.  Investigators and new members have generally been given a pass to wear whatever they want or have.

That being said, you wouldn't think this event would cause much of a ruckus, but the Event page on Facebook has been slammed by many orthodox members of the Church (and some random non-member trolls) for being disrespectful, sinful, daring to suggest that women are treated unequally, etc etc etc.  Because once you're in and experienced (and Heaven help you if you're a lifer and you should "know better") your free pass goes away?  God suddenly starts caring so much more about what you're wearing... even though we know that God very specifically does not look at the outside.

It calls to mind the many modesty lessons I've been given over the years in which some variation of this question was posed: Would you be ashamed by your clothes if the Lord came back and you had to bow before him?

No.  No I would not.  Not in a turtleneck.  Not in a V-neck.  Not in a skirt.  Not in pants.  Not naked as the day I was born.  Never unless my heart was out of place, and not even then because I know that is why I have a Savior who loves me enough never to shame me.  Instead, he suffered and died for me, to cover me with His grace and make Him and I at-one.  Where there is God-like love, there is no shame; Where there is shame, there is no God-like love.

Therefore, I'm going to wear pants to church on Sunday and speak as my father's High Council companion about the spirit of Christmas and radical love.