(Disobedient, that is.)<\/p>\n
As you may have noticed, the recent discussions about Ordain Women and related projects such as Wear Pants to Church Day have generated a complicated set of responses, many of them very critical. We saw critics labeling these women apostates or “dumb feminist bitches.”<\/a> A few outliers even threatened violence against organizers. <\/p>\n These harsh reactions start from a baseline that women who want to wear pants to church, or attend General Priesthood Meeting, or even (gasp) be ordained to the Priesthood, are obviously disobeying a core gospel principle, by disagreeing with existing church policy and culture. They are sometimes cast as protesters taking a stand through civil disobedience, in a way that violates Mormon norms. <\/p>\n But is disagreement really wrong? Is this really disobedience? <\/p>\n There is of course a great tradition of Civil Disobedience in Civil Rights activism, and it has generally involved public rulebreaking. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks clearly broke laws. And these were invidious and evil laws, absolutely; but it was also clear that sitting at that Woolworth’s counter or that bus seat meant breaking a law. Hence the name, civil disobedience. <\/p>\n But the women of PANTS were not actually breaking any rules. It was not Rob-a-Bank Day, or even Drink a Latte Day. It was Wear Pants Day, and pants are allowed! How crazy is it that these women endured a massive outpouring of public abuse for doing something that doesn’t break any rules?? Similarly, the women who requested admission to the Priesthood session did not violate any commandment or rule. They weren’t bringing margaritas to Temple Square, they were asking to attend a church meeting. <\/p>\n That’s not disobedience because it’s not a violation of any commandment. <\/p>\n