Males receive the priesthood. Women do not. Males go to Young Men, and females to Young Women. Priesthood and Relief Society are sex-separate. But why?
As I noted in my "Why Mormonism Can Abide Gay Marriage" presentation last week, the existence of intersex and transgendered persons casts doubt upon the utility and validity of both our theological beliefs about sex, and our cultural practices that rely on categorizing every individual as either male or female. The session chair asked after my presentation about the broader impact of my analysis, including how my conclusion as to the inscrutability of spiritual sex applies to LDS beliefs about priesthood. I had to admit that most beliefs and practices that rely on spiritual maleness vs. femaleness are indeed suspect. Now, I'm a Mormon feminist on other grounds already. However, the tension some perceive between feminism and transgender theory butts right up against both societal (even our restrooms demonstrate a fiercely gendered world) and church beliefs and practices on its own merits. To illustrate:
Think about the Young Women values.
"Faith, Divine Nature, Individual Worth, Knowledge, Choice and Accountability, Good Works, Integrity, and Virtue."
Now, think about the Scout Law.
"A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."
Is there any reason why even one of these attributes should be sex-specific? What if we reversed the gender? Young Men values: "Faith, Divine Nature, Individual Worth, Knowledge, Choice and Accountability, Good Works, Integrity, and Virtue." Or, "A Young Woman is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent." The principles that make a person more Godlike know no sex, and are heedless of gender. If they were not, we would demand a separate set of scriptures for women, who have no template for theosis since the scriptures teach of a male God using male protagonists, male role models, and male attributes. Why, then, do we as Mormons affix so much import to these categories?
US law has almost entirely eliminated any support of traditional gender roles (e.g. women can vote and own property now). US society largely has as well (e.g. in employment and education). I for one find these shifts to be positive, since the similarities between men and women eclipse differences. Indeed, along any dimension of difference between male and female, one will find exceptional cases (picture two overlapping bell curves). Genitals: some have a partial penis/partial clitoris (or no such structure). Words spoken per day: some men use far more words than some women. Gushy emotions: some women are more stoic than some men.
It makes sense for a fertile individual with ovaries and a uterus to take a birth control pill. It doesn't make much sense for an individual with testicles and no uterus to take a birth control pill designed for a fertile person with a female-type reproductive system. Outside these kinds of distinctions, however, there are precious few gender roles that withstand scrutiny. Until we come to the point that we can discern between a male and a female either spiritually or physically, I question the rationality and utility of applying a sex-based theology (and that includes the sexist theology and practice extant in mainstream Mormonism).
Adam and Eve:
I've never bought the whole man/female disparity Eve-based justification. Sure, it might make sense for a just God to have Eve look to Adam since she was the first to transgress, and because she influenced Adam to partake. However, it is senseless to maintain that inequality in subsequent male-female partnerships, because Adam's daughter's and Eve's sons (I raised my eyebrows at phrases like "daughters of Eve." Daughters are no more the child of the mother than they are of the father) are not complicit in the acts of their parents. If my father wronged my mother before I was born, that act should have absolutely zero bearing on the equality of my relationship with my spouse.
Gender perception:
I remember conversing with a person who was physically male but had a sex change and is now physically female. I intentionally and vigorously tried to forge a perception category of "person" that had no gender element, but COULD NOT DO IT. My efforts ran up against a quarter century of perceiving boys and girls, having never once "seen" a gender-irrelevant individual. Though I'm not there yet, I hope to someday be able to "see" an individual, rather than a male or female.
Reference: The Social Roles of Men and Women
Thanks for this. Your perspective is always welcome!
ReplyDeleteAwesome!
ReplyDeleteApt observations.
ReplyDeleteBrad, I like most of what you have to say. But I'm not sure I buy your ideal of a "person" that has no gender element. It seems to me that seeing my wife *as a woman* is important to my relationship with her. Similarly, I don't think I would want a world that is "color blind". I find so much richness and so many opportunities to learn from those of other ethnicities. This is not merely the same thing as acknowledging that I can learn from other people individually. There is a communal aspect to gender and ethnicity that goes beyond any particular individual, and I would not want to lose that.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I agree that we should seek to eliminate the harmful aspects of how we deal with gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.
You said that "the existence of intersex and transgendered persons casts doubt upon the utility and validity of both our theological beliefs about sex." You comment as if our theological beliefs are determined by vote as was the Nicene creed. But as the proclamation states:
ReplyDelete"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."
"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."
These principles don't come as mere ideas, traditions, or hypotheses, but as revealed religion. The question comes down to this: Is there a living God that has revealed through his living prophet principles we are to follow? If the answer to this question is no, then really it doesn't matter what we do. If the answer is yes, then "the existence of intersex and transgendered persons" does not cast any "doubt upon the utility and validity of both our theological beliefs about sex" for they come from God.
Church doctrine on marriage and sex is not some iffy doctrine where general authorities disagree, as is the case with other non-essential doctrines. The church's doctrine is clear. The utility and validity of our theological beliefs are certain.
Those are just my thoughts. Perhaps what you are saying and what I am saying is not in disagreement. Any response or clarification is welcome.
Hi, Brad. It's Noah. Are you on the MTA Google Group? I've been trying to keep up a thread called "Husbands and Wives" which, frankly, totally disagrees with everything you're saying here. Stop by and we could eat nachos and fling random insults at each other.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I should probably respond to your post:
<>
Because the Priesthood and Relief Society SHOULD be complementary organizations. The Mormon Priesthood, at least the Priesthood you and I share (as Elders I presume) is not a proper Priesthood at all, but sort of a warrior Priesthood. We are guardians, sentinels. Hence, you get an abundance of war rhetoric in Mormonism. We constitute a "royal army" so-called. Mormonism is an unapologetically conservative, patriarchal religion. Jesus Christ is our general and warlord. He is always, always depicted as more masculine than the androgynous version you get in other religious. If Mormons were Hindus, the Elders Quorum would be part of the Ksatriya caste, not the Brahmin caste.
When Joseph organized the Relief Society, he didn't organize it to be the subverted casserole baking ladies' club it is today. It was supposed to be what it's name suggests: A humanitarian organization that stood side by side (and not below) the body of the Priesthood. The history of the Relief Society, as you may or may not know, is one of the most tragic bits of Mormon history there is. I write a little bit more about it here: http://failmo.blogspot.com/2011/05/gender-equality-is-issue-in-mormonism.html
<>
No, I don't see anything here that should be considered gender specific. In fact, it looks like they just pulled some random qualities out of a hat. However, some qualities are and should be gender specific. Note that I'm using the word gender, because I still recognize that someone of the male sex may more closely identify as "female" ane vice versa. And I'll state it explicitly: Of course nature might get it wrong. A spirit and a body may conceivably have mismatched sexes. God has allowed evolutionary blunders that are much, much worse to occur. Anyway, I get into gender roles on the Husbands and Wives thread on MTA. It may be what you expect if you haven't read it, and of course, the thread is a work in progress.
"The principles that make a person more Godlike know no sex, and are heedless of gender."
ReplyDeleteCouldn't disagree more. This statement is the very essense of our disagreement. I will be adding some commentary on the myths of Isis and Osiris and Inanna and Dumuzi to the Husbands and Wives thread. I hope I can change you mind. Of course, I don't want you take these myths literally or even as legitimate religious texts, but I hope to draw some convincing parallels. We live in an age of monotheistic, "one-male-god" religions, but it isn't necessarily right, and it wasn't always so.
<>
And we ought to demand a separate set of scriptures, because a lot of your fellow feminists are suffering from an identity crisis right now, trying to find solace in an invisible Goddess who is as invisible as the invisible God. There is a variant of Hinduism called shaktism that is a female-centric religion with ancient roots. I've read their sacred text, called the Devi Mahatmya. I have been inspired by it. I will attest to its truth. The divine feminine is real, but you will only find the faintest hints of her in Mormonism. It'd encourage you to expand your religious horizons if you haven't done so.
"I question the rationality and utility of applying a sex-based theology (and that includes the sexist theology and practice extant in mainstream Mormonism)."
There's sexist theology, and sex-based theology. The former is certainly wrong, and the Mormon religion certainly has no short supply of it. What kind of institution becomes more sexist and racist and anti-environment with the passage of time? It boggles the mind. However, a sex-based theology is a good thing, because it promotes equality and diversity and interdependence rather than the current conformist doctrine espoused by the corporation.
"Adam and Eve:"
I don't believe in a historical Eve, although, even as a myth, she is one of my personal heroes. And Eve may be the very thing that turns your argument on its head. Eve did what Adam couldn't do, but should have. No, the so-called "Daughters of Eve" are not guilty of Eve's transgression, but Eve was and is the quintessential female archetype, and there is a little bit of Eve in every woman. In ancient polytheistic religions, there seem to be two kinds of goddesses, the benign and the malignant, the creative and the destructive, the merciful and the vengeful. Some kinds of goddesses you offer sacrifice to keep them near; some kinds to keep them away. Men loved the predictable "cow" goddesses, but hated the chaotic "mare" goddesses. Eve, to her wonderful credit, was a perfect harmonization of both. She broke rank, but did so for the greater social good. A man, generally speaking, would not do that. A man defers to authority even when he shouldn't. God, knowing all things, but Eve there for a reason. Adam alone would have frustrated the plan. Anyway, more to say, but it's in "Husbands and Wives" already.
erm...these were the missing questions...
ReplyDelete"Priesthood and Relief Society are sex-separate. But why?"
and
"Is there any reason why even one of these attributes should be sex-specific?"
Thx Ana, Neil, and MoHo Hawaii.
ReplyDelete@Chris- I agree that there is a richness which derives from diversity. My ideal is not so much to be blind to the existence of differences, but instead to perceive the most salient and useful attribute of another before other attributes: namely, their very personhood. It is that status which serves as the basis for equality between me and that other, and as the basis for attributing a moral weight I would not give to to an inanimate mannequin of equivalent physical dimensions. By way of comparison, when I see a person with very dark skin, I prefer that my subconscious perception of that individual is of a person with very dark skin, rather than of a black person. The very placement of the words suggests the subtle difference that I seek: place the personhood first, and the rich diversity of attributes second.
I think we agree about wanting to eliminate the harmful aspects of how we deal with gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. However, I think there are categorizations that don't have a net utility (e.g. royal lineage). I question the net utility of in-groups based on gender and ethnicity. One consequence of such groups is their exclusive nature (they create "others"- arguably a violence itself, though most often the evil comes in the treatment of the other); a second is that individuals who don't feel they "fit the mold" experience unneeded stress (e.g. some transgendered folks). Last, it is not clear on how to categorize those on the borders (mixed ethnicity or intersex, for instance), which can result in incredible ostracizing of border cases. What positive consequences outweigh the negative ones, such that as a whole the system of categorizing is a value-adding one? Wouldn't categorizing at the level of the individual retain more of the richness with fewer deleterious sticks in the consequence bundle (see http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/the_social_roles_of_men_and_wo.html, "This does not mean that, in an ideal future, all human differences will disappear. Indeed, once the old stereotypes have been discarded, the differences between individuals within each sex are likely to increase. Furthermore, under conditions of social equality, these individuals may also happily continue to play different gender roles. There should be no need to point out that there is nothing wrong with gender differences as such. They can greatly enrich our lives, as long as we understand that, in human beings, "different" does not have to mean superior or inferior. In other words, those who demand equal rights for men and women are not asking for drab uniformity, but for a social climate in which variety can flourish without being exploited.")?
@Thomas: thanks for expressing your thoughts, as usual. I appreciate your perspective and participation on my blog, and your openness to dialogue. A few responses.
"You said that "the existence of intersex and transgendered persons casts doubt upon the utility and validity of both our theological beliefs about sex." You comment as if our theological beliefs are determined by vote as was the Nicene creed."
ReplyDelete>I simply dispute the factual accuracy of this claim. The beliefs articulated in the Proclamation did come by vote- a unanimous one by 15 men (First Presidency and the Quorum- witness their signatures on the document). Binding new doctrine would require another vote, namely by the body of the church- see e.g. OD1, "The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous..." or OD2, "The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative...." President Lee taught: "the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.” Was the process of church Correlation voted on? How about what scriptures to canonize? Though they may _also_ be revealed, for at least a significant subset of LDS theological beliefs it is very difficult to argue that they are not also determined by vote.
"These principles don't come as mere ideas, traditions, or hypotheses, but as revealed religion. The question comes down to this: Is there a living God that has revealed through his living prophet principles we are to follow? If the answer to this question is no, then really it doesn't matter what we do. If the answer is yes, then "the existence of intersex and transgendered persons" does not cast any "doubt upon the utility and validity of both our theological beliefs about sex" for they come from God."
>The validity of the beliefs can be dubious even if they come from God, and here's why: valid beliefs must be internally consistent. If God reveals that Abraham is at the same moment both non-existent and existent, or is at the same moment both embodied and unembodied, or at the same moment is physically present in both Argentina and Austria, can such a belief be valid? I would argue that such a belief cannot be valid because of internal inconsistency. I'll comment below on application of this principle to the Proclamation's treatment of gender.
A: has a penis and a vagina
ReplyDeleteB: has a penis, testicles, and breasts
C: looks like a woman; genetically male (e.g. Santhi Soundarajan)
D: looks like a man; genetically female
E: XXY genetically; physically appears male
F: XXY genetically; physically appears female
G: X_; appears male
H: X_; appears female
I: XX + translocated SRY; appears male
J: appears female, has testicles where ovaries should be and doesn't menstruate
K: appears female; K claims to be male psychologically and spiritually
L: penis and a vagina; L claims to be male psychologically and spiritually
M: penis and a vagina; M claims to be female psychologically and spiritually
N: appears male; N claims to be both male and female psychologically and spiritually
O: appears female; O claims to be neither male nor female psychologically/spiritually
P: has a penis and a uterus; menstruates through the penis
If we can't even tell A through P (let's pick one- say G) whether to go to Young Women's or Young Men's, what is the utility of telling G that marrying a man will result in G's excommunication rather than G's candidacy for exaltation? What is the validity of claiming that all men must receive the priesthood to be exalted, if we can't even G whether or not G is a man?
Hi, Brad. It's Noah. Are you on the MTA Google Group? I've been trying to keep up a thread called "Husbands and Wives" which, frankly, totally disagrees with everything you're saying here.
ReplyDelete>> Noah, thanks for the comments! I haven't followed that one closely, sorry.
The history of the Relief Society, as you may or may not know, is one of the most tragic bits of Mormon history there is. I write a little bit more about it here: http://failmo.blogspot.com/2011/05/gender-equality-is-issue-in-mormonism.html
>> I've heard this idea before, but never expressed with such strong language. Btw, a few of my radical Mormon feminist posts (http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=5506) (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2010/04/reflections-of-mormon-feminist-role-of.html) (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2010/08/sunstone-symposium-reflecting-on.html).
And I'll state it explicitly: Of course nature might get it wrong. A spirit and a body may conceivably have mismatched sexes. God has allowed evolutionary blunders that are much, much worse to occur.
>> I'm sure you realize there's a camp that would sharply disagree with you, populated largely by intersex and transgendered folks who don't think there's anything wrong with them and that God makes no mistakes.
We live in an age of monotheistic, "one-male-god" religions, but it isn't necessarily right, and it wasn't always so.
>> I buy that.
I've read their sacred text, called the Devi Mahatmya. I have been inspired by it. I will attest to its truth. The divine feminine is real, but you will only find the faintest hints of her in Mormonism. It'd encourage you to expand your religious horizons if you haven't done so.
>> Good suggestion.
because it promotes equality and diversity and interdependence rather than the current conformist doctrine espoused by the corporation.
>> I like the language.
Eve did what Adam couldn't do, but should have. No, the so-called "Daughters of Eve" are not guilty of Eve's transgression, but Eve was and is the quintessential female archetype, and there is a little bit of Eve in every woman.
>> I think this might be the situs of some of our disagreement. I've read some of your other posts (e.g. Gender Equality is "the issue" in Mormonism and Just an ignorant, meddling sexist). I contend that Adam was fully capable of doing what Eve did, and that Eve was fully capable of refraining. Your presumption that there is a little bit of Eve in every woman relies on an as-yet unsupported classification system (who is female and who is not) and fails to acknowledge the individual diversity within a given gender. Elsewhere you justify men-only priesthood because men "defer to authority" and women "defer to the group." You also write: "songs by female artists seem more inward-looking, whereas songs by male artists seem more outward-looking. Hard to explain. Life's most valuable/meaningful treasures reside within womankind)."
ReplyDeleteThese are thinly-supported stereotypes; the underlying reality is of overlapping bell curves. No doubt you would admit that some women defer to authority more than some men, and that some men defer to the group more than some women. Under the reasoning you expressed, shouldn't the women who defer to authority be given the priesthood, and the men who defer to the group be denied it? You make the same reasoning in your comments here: "She broke rank, but did so for the greater social good. A man, generally speaking, would not do that. A man defers to authority even when he shouldn't." Even if your stereotype holds and male and female means are separated, doesn't fairness require the tails of the bell curve to be treated according to their own placement, rather than of the placement of the gender mean?
Also, elsewhere you're sufficiently candid in admitting that you believe men are the inferior sex. I wholly disagree, instead concluding that, to the extent gender can be established, male and female are equal (more details in my posts referenced above).
I think we agree that Mormonism is sexist, and in many ways, regrettably so.
Hi Brad,
ReplyDeleteWe haven't met but I came across your blog and writings through a common acquaintance. I've been thinking/researching a lot about the church's stance and policy regarding homosexuality and gender recently. In particular, I've been trying to distill what is specifically stated in doctrine and what is assumed by LDS society and Mormon and American culture.
Surprisingly, I feel like I've come to many of the same conclusions as you have, and I look forward to reading your other posts. I'll probably leave relevant comments and questions on them as I get to them.
I am a transgendered individual. The gender that I feel myself to be (female) does not match up with the clear biological gender of my body (male). I am also an active and faithful latter-day saint that is trying to do what is right and understand how I fit and who I am eternally. I have not publicly transitioned and have no plans to do so - I feel like doing so would be contrary to what God currently expects of me.
Like you, I have some uneasiness with the way that gender and gender roles are dealt with in the church. But contrary to your final claim, to me, gender is an important characteristic of a person - i.e. gender is relevant. I'm not so sure that the goal of 'seeing a person with no gender element' is a step in the right direction or even possible. What makes a person a unique individual is a collection of characteristics and values. Whether someone is male, female, or something else altogether is as important as their eye color, stature, or like/dislike of playing basketball in defining who they are. Gender (both biological and perceived) is one of these defining traits that is part of what it means to be human, I think.
Similar to what Christopher expressed above, I don't think a gender-free world is the key anymore than a color-blind world is for race. Better, I think, is a world in which the many social and cultural stereotypes are cast off in which we see people as individuals (like you say) but realizing that their gender or race is an integral and important part of who they are.
Stereotypes seem to be the huge problem that I see. If you can get rid of stereotypes and making predetermined judgments based on a characteristic such as race or gender, then you can see the individual without having to look past any characteristic. (Note that I'm talking about characteristics which I feel have no moral value like race and gender... I think some caveats would need to be applied to this stance for other values to avoid moral relativism.)
Ultimately, what does it mean to be male or female? Furthermore, what does it mean to the church (or God) to be male or female? What defines gender? These are all questions I'm trying to answer. Clearly there is a biological component to defining gender, and this is what society and the church have used as the sole definition. But as you listed in one of your comments, there are other circumstances in which the biological determination is less than clear. What determines gender in those cases then? I'm no expert on the matter, but I suspect that the gender that the individual identifies with would be the determining factor.
Why, I wonder, is the gender that an individual identifies with used only as a last recourse? Particularly in the church, when we are expected to master and manage our natural appetites and passions within God's boundaries, does the physical body take precedence over the internal sense of self?
~continued below~
~continuation from above~
ReplyDeleteIt seems incongruent to me that gender is so polarized in the church yet there is little concrete information as to what the differences in roles and responsibilities are. You mentioned this in another post, I think, about what the Family Proclamation defines the roles of fathers and mothers to be. The concluding line of that paragraph essentially negates any division, though, by stating that "in these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." I fear that especially with gender, there is a large amount of belief in the church currently that comes from society and culture and very little that is substantially based in doctrine. This is probably because there is actually very little doctrine on gender and associated roles to begin with.
If anything, the line in the proclamation that states "gender is an essential characteristic" seems to disprove your quest to see it as irrelevant. I think there are other ways, such as removing non-eternal and unjustifiable stereotypes (and thus clinging to doctrine) that will better help resolve issues of gender and homosexual attraction in the church.
I guess it's also important to remember that the doctrine contained in the Proclamation, scripture, and talks from the authorities are true and valid for us now. If one believes in the church as the only true church led by God, then it follows that any of these lines I've quoted could potentially change as He reveals more in the future (e.g. blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, etc). We don't know what parts of current doctrine are parts of an eternal existence. This doesn't invalidate our current beliefs or doctrine by any means, but one can't claim that we have all the answers now, or that things will fit perfectly as they currently are. I think there is more to gender (and by extension associated concepts such as gender roles, homosexuality, etc.) in God's eternal understanding than we can see at this time. I have no idea what that might be, but it gives me a little peace of mind to think that I might be okay and that by being faithful to current doctrine things will be even better for me.
Anyways, those were just some of my thoughts. I hope they're coherent. Feel free to pick apart my arguments - I hate to have unseen errors or assumptions in my logic! And again, thanks for your insights in your posts.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful analysis, L. Dallas! I'm a bit busy right now so I'll delay responding to content, but I look forward to further comments and suggestions from you.
ReplyDeleteI don't think God makes mistakes but that doesn't mean this world (being bound by the laws of nature and nature is rife with imperfections) is an indicator of how things will be in the next.
ReplyDeleteI was born with a hearing loss. There's nothing wrong with me but I fully expect to have both ears in good working order somewhere in my future. That doesn't mean that I can't learn valuable lessons from this "opportunity" or that being a bit different can't help me to see past others' differences and work with them, love and support them as well as myself.
It's my belief that however we were born and with whatever difficulties we face the point is to be better and more accepting and see that there is no need to be the same. Maybe there are only male/female forms in the next life but here and now we can still learn to love and like you say, see the individual.
However it is I'm not worried-God will work it out.