{"id":31456,"date":"2014-08-24T23:35:40","date_gmt":"2014-08-25T04:35:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=31456"},"modified":"2014-08-29T09:47:10","modified_gmt":"2014-08-29T14:47:10","slug":"women-and-the-church-constructively-engaging-the-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2014\/08\/women-and-the-church-constructively-engaging-the-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"Women and the Church &#8211; Constructively Engaging the Arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><a href=\"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/beating-a-dead-horse.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-31462\" src=\"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/beating-a-dead-horse-300x281.png\" alt=\"beating-a-dead-horse\" width=\"300\" height=\"281\" srcset=\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/beating-a-dead-horse-300x281.png 300w, https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/beating-a-dead-horse.png 560w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a>In addition to talking past each other (or worse, not really trying to talk to each other at all), a lot of those passionately engaged in talking about women in the church fail to grasp and hence fail to engage the actual arguments. In this post <b>I\u2019m going to describe the dialectical geography as I see it, in order to<\/b> <b>try and<\/b> <b>help readers at T&amp;S do better at constructively engaging the arguments<\/b> (and crowd source the problem a bit in order to help both myself and my readers with their relevant blind spots) in what I consider to be an issue of absolutely fundamental importance.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Important Disclaimer: this is a dialectical and <em>not a historical<\/em> sketch. That is, I have no intention of depicting the chronology or historical development. Rather, <b>I\u2019m doing my best to lay out in a clear manner the back and forth of rational moves and the argumentative dialogue that one can\u2014from our current vantage point\u2014piece together<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">I hope that the dialectical mapping will be useful in helping all of us to reflect on whether we\u2019re constructively engaging in dialogue on these issues. <b>If you take up the most current strands of the argument, or rework a strand from earlier rounds in a way that makes it relevant to the most current arguments, then you\u2019re helping to move the dialogue forward. <\/b>If you\u2019re merely taking ignorant (or malicious) pot shots at the other side by repeating the stuff that\u2019s long since been answered, then you\u2019re not.[1][2]<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">* * * *<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"s2\">Pre-debate concerns<\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Feminist Franc(ine) (FF): I don\u2019t feel like women are being treated fairly at Church<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Anti-feminist Alex(andra) (AA): I\u2019m just so thankful that we\u2019re in a church where we know that we\u2019re all equally sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and that all of us can return to live with Him someday.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"s2\">Round 1<\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Structural Inequalities (not just feelings)<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: Women don\u2019t have the priesthood, which means, empirically, they <b>don\u2019t have equal enfranchisement<\/b> in the governance of the church. This creates many inequalities. Specifically, it limits women in these ways:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>women\u2019s <b>historical<\/b> role (substantive changes to women\u2019s role and participation has been entirely subordinate to men and many of these roles have been eliminated)<\/li>\n<li>specific <b>practices<\/b> (women are excluded from certain practices, and just which practices they are excluded from changes according to the decisions of a council of men)<\/li>\n<li><b>doctrines<\/b> concerning the feminine (women are not allowed to receive revelation for the church concerning women\u2019s pre-mortal, mortal, or post-mortal roles and goods; and to date, our prophets have not produced any revelations or development of these issues)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: women have <b>separate but equal<\/b> roles in the church.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>We have very strong <b>historical<\/b> leaders like Eliza R. Snow and modern leaders like Julie Beck<\/li>\n<li><b>Practically<\/b> speaking, we have the oldest and largest women\u2019s organization in the world, and women oversee specific areas of church function<\/li>\n<li>We have <b>doctrines<\/b> on a Heavenly Mother and equal temple blessings<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Change in the Church:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: <b>We\u2019re a church set up for change<\/b>\u2014it\u2019s built into our structure and theology. Let\u2019s recognize this and bend our collective and ecclesiastical efforts toward women\u2019s renewal and enfranchisement!<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: The very claim that we need and ought to change manifests a lack of faith. <b>Jesus Christ is the one who set up this church<\/b> and who has issued the revelations concerning priesthood hierarchy and the differing institutional roles of men and women. Zealous pronouncements on the need to change are dangerously dismissive of this fact.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Analogy to Blacks in the Priesthood<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: Lots of faithful members and even leaders thought it theologically impossible for black members to receive the priesthood, but it happened. <b>It can also happen for women<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: There\u2019s a gigantic dis-analogy: it was black <em>men<\/em>\u00a0who were ordained. Historically <b>God\u2019s never ordained women<\/b>, although we have numerous examples of God shifting which group of men can receive the priesthood.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"s2\">Round 2<\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Structural Inequalities (separate but equal)<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: Developing separate but equal:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Women get motherhood (no man can have this!), so it\u2019s <b>different but equal<\/b> for men to have the priesthood (with no women getting this!); <b>complementarity<\/b> of this type is a beautiful and meaningful way of tying men and women together.<\/li>\n<li>There are <b>strong gendered differences<\/b> between men and women; men having priesthood and fulfilling priesthood functions fits naturally into these gendered differences<\/li>\n<li>Besides, <b>men are spiritually inferior<\/b> to women and would probably be less active if they didn\u2019t have the priesthood to train them up (and maybe less likely to reach the Celestial Kingdom)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: We don\u2019t have separate but equal!<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Fatherhood is the complement of Motherhood<\/b>, not priesthood. Why is it the case that men get both fatherhood and priesthood, but women (er, some of them) get only motherhood? Note that active <b>motherhood is a temporary<\/b> activity in one\u2019s life, one that <b>doesn\u2019t fully come to all women<\/b>, while active priesthood service spans from 12-to-death for all men (and \u201cindirect\u201d or \u201cinactive\u201d parenthood is equally available to men and women)<\/li>\n<li><b>Gendered traits don\u2019t work<\/b>: they\u2019re not true for everyone, and they vary drastically from place to place and time to time; even broadly generalizing these differences appears merely cultural, not biological\/metaphysical<\/li>\n<li>The claim that <b>men=inferior is just as ridiculous and offensive<\/b> as the claim that women=inferior. But notice that you\u2019re using the men=inferior as an argument to keep women in subjection to men. This is perverse<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Change in the Church:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: We ought to see <b>Abraham as the metaphor<\/b>. He was not originally given the priesthood or its covenants, and it was accounted as righteousness that he sought after it!<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: Uzzah was trying to do good, saw a genuine need, but failed to respect the sacred (and perhaps practically expedient) divisions God had set. <b>Uzzah is the more appropriate metaphor<\/b> here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Analogy to Blacks in the Priesthood<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: The relevant analogy concerns that which appears to one group to be impossible, but in reality is God\u2019s will. Besides, it\u2019s hard to imagine what there could possibly be about gender that makes one unable to not only act by God\u2019s authority (which women already do), but also be granted the keys, rights, and privileges of acting autonomously within a certain priesthood sphere (i.e., be ordained). As to history, <b>we don\u2019t know that God <em>hasn\u2019t<\/em> ever ordained women<\/b>; and prophetesses in the OT and prominent disciples in the NT make it appear that they might well have been ordained historically.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: There\u2019s a whole lot we don\u2019t understand about gender and how it relates to our functions. <b>What we know is what we can see<\/b> from where we are (and it appears that women and men are different with different needs), <b>and what the prophets have revealed<\/b> (that gender is eternal). <b>These<\/b> <b>facts make priesthood accruing to gender appear very likely<\/b>\u2014regardless of whether that makes sense to us. And note that folks like Deborah, Mary, and Lydia didn\u2019t do anything that we today understand as belonging to the purview of the priesthood (e.g., perform saving ordinances). And concerning other women who did (e.g., Zipporah), we&#8217;ve no reason to suspect that they were doing anything beyond what women do in the temple today.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"s2\">Round 3<\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Structural Inequalities: consistent inequality<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: Actually, e<\/span>ven a superficial reading of our history shows<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>a consistent and <b>increasing displacement of women over time<\/b> (which is what sociologists since Weber say is the common trend in new religious movements)<\/li>\n<li>and <b>an almost total absence of women<\/b> from our official materials &#8211; women like Eliza are few and far between and no one has ever accused Sister Beck of being a prophetess (more\u2019s the pity)<\/li>\n<li>the <b>RS has no autonomy<\/b> &#8211; at every level from local to general it is presided over by men<\/li>\n<li>the history of the Relief Society is a prime example of marginalization and increased control over time<\/li>\n<li>this is complemented by <b>\u201cpriesthood creep\u201d<\/b>: the trend of making \u201cmen only\u201d not only those callings specified in the D&amp;C as belonging to men (e.g., Bishop), but lots of other callings as well (e.g., SS presidencies, executive secretaries and clerks, Bishop\u2019s counselors, ward mission leader, etc., etc., etc.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Heavenly Mother and temple ritual are both ambiguous.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Heavenly Mother is:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cherished and consistently present throughout our history<\/li>\n<li>But popularly has for decades been a <b>massive taboo<\/b>, one we\u2019re willing to excommunicate women over<\/li>\n<li>And there&#8217;s a giant disconnect between the role we teach women (primarily nurturing) and the role of our Heavenly Mother (unknown\/absentee mother)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">The temple is<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Very hopeful with great potential<\/li>\n<li>But at every single stage shows <b>a consistent logic of female submission<\/b> to male authority<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">In general, separate but equal is no more likely to be equal in the Church than it was for civil rights &#8211; it\u2019s a very suspicious nail to try and hang your equality hat on. <b>Historically, \u201ccomplementary\u201d systems are set up and enforced in order to justify and secure power and privileges for one demographic <\/b>while denying the same to another. (Note, even when this wasn\u2019t the original purpose, it\u2019s empirically how complementarily has played out in every single historical example.) <b>Besides, what in the world\u2019s wrong with normal old equality? <\/b>It\u2019s working great in lots of the other institutions we all take part in or observe in the world today (and where it\u2019s absent in other institutions we can all see the big problems!). <b>In order to justify a distinction, you need a reason <\/b>for the distinction, and no one\u2019s <em>ever\u00a0<\/em>been able to articulate a satisfactory justification (e.g., see the abysmal failure of gendered traits in Round 2).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: Yes, there are issues with our history and how things have been practiced. But merely offering a litany of problems ignores the genuinely empowering nature of our theology and practice. Perhaps more importantly for us now, it ignores the incredibly rich room for creative expansion that the Restoration imparts to women. <b>Tunnel vision on past problems is itself a problem<\/b>. It distracts us from such things as:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The ways in which <b>we can emphasize and build upon our strong female leadership<\/b> of the past<\/li>\n<li>The <b>current<\/b> <b>decentralization and decoupling of authority from men <\/b>at the ward level (e.g., the shift to an emphasis on ward councils which consist of women and men), as well as similar\u2014if slower\u2014movement at the top<\/li>\n<li>Numerous opportunities for either <b>reinterpretation, re-emphasis, and even new recognition of empowering themes for women<\/b> in our doctrine generally and the temple in particular<\/li>\n<li>Harsh criticism is unfair in part because it denies a plain truth of revelation: not only do we not get everything at once, but likewise, <b>it sometimes takes us time to work out what\u2019s originally revealed<\/b>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">As to complementarity, just because complementary systems have often been oppressive among the gentiles, this doesn\u2019t mean that it\u2019s got to be that way in Zion. There\u2019s still a beautiful sense in which priesthood and motherhood tie men and women together in ways that bring us closer to God. Even if this isn\u2019t an eternal reality, it\u2019s a practical one here on earth, and <b>the practical success<\/b> (and potential for continued success) <b>is itself a reason to justify the distinction<\/b>. Likewise, just because equality works among the gentiles, doesn\u2019t mean that it will work for the Church better than a complementary system will.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Change in the Church<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: Unique in the Judeo-Christian tradition is our lauding of Eve. As our scripture, temple, and prophetic revelations make clear, Eve acted in righteousness in taking a thoughtful, faithful action in the absence of further light and knowledge. As has been admitted, we lack further light and knowledge; there is no scripture or revelation that bans women from the priesthood. <b>We ought to follow Mother Eve\u2019s righteous example and act<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: After being driven from Eden, Adam built an altar and offered sacrifice on that altar because that was the pattern of action that had previously been revealed to him. He didn\u2019t know why. He lacked further light and knowledge. But he held fast to what he &lt;i&gt;did&lt;\/i&gt; have, and after many days an angel appeared and gave him further light, knowledge, ordinances, and blessings because he had held faithful to the pattern given to him previously. <b>Like Adam, we need to hold faithfully to what we\u2019ve been given until more comes<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Analogy to Blacks in the Priesthood<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: The only reason that pairing gender with priesthood appears likely from where you stand is the cultural biases you inhabit. As you yourself admit, we don\u2019t know of any particular reason or revelation that either links the two or gives reasons why the two might be linked. In the absence of such revelation, and given the pervasive role that prejudice has played in the past, <b>the safer assumption is that culture and not metaphysics is at work<\/b>. Besides, we do lots of stuff related to the priesthood and ordinances that Jesus never did. One of the key things that distinguishes us from Protestantism is that <b>we limit ourselves to doing what God approves of, and not merely what God has done in the past<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: I may be in danger of assuming that my cultural prejudices come from God. But it\u2019s at least as likely that <b>you\u2019re reifying <em>your own<\/em> cultural assumptions that men and women are interchangeable, as well as assuming that the human mistakes that play large in earthly societies are also at play in the Kingdom of God<\/b> on the earth (i.e., the Church). There\u2019s a real danger with taking your assumption as the default every time your own opinion conflicts with Church practice (beyond the fact that it\u2019s disenchanting and keeps one from seeing the hand of God in operation in the Church); namely, <b>this assumption leads to<\/b> (if it\u2019s not already an example of) <b>seeking to counsel God<\/b> rather than take counsel from God\u2019s hand.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"s2\">Round 4<\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Structural Inequalities:\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: I agree with what you say about the need to be careful to receive rather than give counsel. But of course, the scriptures also make clear that <b>faithful saints are anxiously engaged<\/b>, righteously petition their leaders concerning their needs, and in general lend their efforts\u2014including their intellects\u2014to the building up of the kingdom. Whether we want it or not, given the greater context in which the Church resides, the education of the saints, and the egregious nature of the sexism conspicuously on display in the history of this dispensation, <b>we\u2019re facing a crisis<\/b>. Really, there seem to be only <b>two options<\/b>:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Ordain women<\/li>\n<li>Fully enfranchise women<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">Culturally speaking, we\u2019re too eccentric now; we must either figure out someway of more fully incorporating women and their talents or else we risk relegating the Restoration to insignificance. More positively, enfranchising women is clearly righteous; we ought to be fully invested in seeking God&#8217;s will on how best to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: Maybe. But <b>the first option will take a 1978-style revelation<\/b>, and demanding or trying to get the press to lobby with you won\u2019t bring such a revelation. On the other hand, to anyone paying attention, the <b>second option is already happening<\/b> &#8211; gradually. But <b>gradualism is a far more steady ship<\/b> for an institution to sail for at least two reasons. First, gradualism is perhaps a <b>logistical<\/b> <b>necessity for this large of an institution<\/b>. But second, in addition to being concerned for those who leave our ranks, we <b>must also be conscious of retaining those who are currently faithful<\/b>. As you note, there\u2019s a balance between adjusting in order to make things culturally easier in an effort to retain folks, and needing to be true to who we are. Our current gradualism gives us good reason to be cheerful and optimistic about how things are going.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Change in the Church &amp; Blacks and the Priesthood:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: Yes, it\u2019s always important to ensure that one is not inappropriately trying to \u201ccounsel\u201d our authorities. But <b>righteous change and improvement in the Church is not simply a matter of prophets initiating change <\/b>anymore than apostasy is simply a matter of prophets turning away from the Lord. The poignancy of the current situation, and the fact that it impacts every member of the church, is again analogous to pre-1978. Consequently, it <b>calls for members faithfully preparing for change and petitioning the Lord<\/b>, and perhaps also the bulldog style leadership of a President Kimball who is willing to weary the Lord (and his fellow authorities) concerning the need for change.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">AA: Maybe so. Let\u2019s note, however, that <b>it was President Kimball<\/b> and his loving interactions with faithful saints that brought this change about over the course of several years, <b>and not political-style activism<\/b>. There existed a clear pre-1978 line with regard to public lobbying, and that line appears to be consistently maintained today. Consequently, as you note, perhaps the best thing we can do is to pray for and be open to the revelations that will come, whatever those are.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"s2\">Bonus Round<\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">(Note: this isn\u2019t really a round, and it\u2019s certainly not the latest round. Rather, it\u2019s a line of loosely related criticisms that have been around since the beginning and are commonly raised, but don\u2019t get a lot of attention. It strikes as important for two reasons: one, because the criticisms being lodged here are powerful; and two, because argumentative allies of AA need to be aware that they\u2019ve got a lot of work to do in this round.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Structural Inequality: a more esoteric approach<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">FF: The criticism of how women are positioned in the church is not merely about the ethics of subordination. The whole body of social psychology and related research highlights the empirical problems associated with social divisions that systematically exclude a given demographic from authority, decision making, and visual prominence in leadership. For example:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Our perspectives (literal and cultural) are irreducibly finite and filled with blind spots. There is broad consensus everywhere from business to psychology to theology that one of the chief means to overcome our perspectival finitude is through structurally incorporated diversity. As far as leadership in the church is concerned, we\u2019re shooting ourselves in the foot by maintaining a primarily old, white, and male hierarchy.<\/li>\n<li>Similarly, Mormonism has historically taken the distinction between male &amp; female really seriously\u2014even on a theological level. If we\u2019re serious, than why would it be ok to leave the female perspective\/voice completely out of our governance? It seems that once again we\u2019re failing practically to meet the standard we set forth doctrinally.<\/li>\n<li>There is a massive literature on the real psychological harm done to women (and men) collectively in sexist institutions. This research relates to the significant permeability between individual and collective values, and the way that values implicit in a given structure become absorbed and then expressed (both implicitly and explicitly) by the individuals committed to these institutions. In Mormonism this shows up not only in the young girls who are everywhere asking their parents, \u201cSo girls aren\u2019t as important as boys, are they?\u201d but also in the attitudes of boys who unreflectively assume that their own insights and needs are more important than those of their female peers (or parents or leaders).<\/li>\n<li>Additionally, there is a massive literature on the nature of power structures and how they operate to blind those in power to their own privilege, even when others point it out to them. There are also corresponding burdens placed by these structures on those denied the same privileges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">As best I can tell, Anti-feminist Al(ison) does not have a direct argumentative response to these criticisms.[3] There are, however, a few rhetorical strategies that get employed, including:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Silence<\/li>\n<li>Mere denial (i.e., denial without a supporting argument), sometimes accompanied by alternative visions of how things could be (e.g., \u201cThis sounds like a clever and convoluted means of sowing dissatisfaction amongst women when there need not be any. Women in general are happier when structurally subordinate to men\u2014unless people like FF come along and convince them to be unhappy;\u201d or alternatively, simply linking to General Conference talks about how wonderful and happy women in the church are).<\/li>\n<li>Grudging acceptance, followed by various forms of dismissal (e.g., \u201cYeah, some of this is true\u2026but\u2026It\u2019s still the Lord\u2019s church;\u201d or \u201cEven so, I don\u2019t think this justifies the virulent criticism being lodged against the church;\u201d or \u201cHere\u2019s where we have to have faith in revelation and that God\u2014as opposed to structural diversity\u2014will help our leaders with these \u2018natural man\u2019 obstacles,\u201d etc.).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">* * * *<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">One of the more irritating aspects of anti-Mormonism is its bull-dogged persistence in repeating unfair criticisms that have been utterly debunked for more than a century (e.g., \u2018Alma\u2019 is a girl\u2019s name, not a semitic one!). On the other hand, it\u2019s just as irritating when faithful Mormons try to enter into apologetics by sneering at long-since debunked theories as though these were still relevant. It\u2019s not that there aren\u2019t still folks trotting out the long dead horses, and I\u2019ll admit that sometimes it\u2019s simply fun to kick them. But we must recognize that having anything to do with these dead horses is a genuine failure to engage the real issue; at best we\u2019ll be left with a foul stench.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">This, of course, is common to all debates, especially those we\u2019re passionate about (i.e., those that are worthwhile). With a lot riding on the outcome of our passionate debates, we\u2019re far more comfortable lobbing check-mate style attacks against straw men, even if there\u2019s really no merit. Additionally, long-standing, high-stakes debates are in the continual process of adding new acolytes\u2014and it\u2019s simply a logistical fact that it takes these acolytes time (and lots of bad arguments) to get up to speed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">But none of us want to be mere sycophants incapable of anything other than kicking dead horses. And even if we\u2019re acolytes, we can be aware of the dialogic lay of the land. As far as I can tell, what I\u2019ve presented above is where we\u2019re at. And <b>the question we each need to ask ourselves is, \u201cAm I <em>really<\/em> engaging the issue as it stands now, or merely kicking dead horses from the earlier rounds?\u201d<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">* * * *\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">[1] I also have weak hopes that some of the folks who aren\u2019t anywhere near the real issues will read this and realize, \u201cWow, I do a lot of jumping up and down about women in the church, but my goodness, I\u2019m not even in the ballpark.\u201d The sensible side of me, however, realizes that there\u2019s nothing a blog post is going to do to help those who feel a massive need to pontificate but absolutely no need to actually be educated on the topic. To everyone else\u2019s dismay such individuals are doomed to continue their public therapy.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">[2] Other necessary disclaimers: First, this is a blog post and nothing more. This means my portrayal is necessarily a mere sketch\u2014perhaps even a caricature in places. Likewise, there are other moves, other lines of reasoning and argument that are not depicted\u2014logistically, depicting everything would be impossible. I\u2019ve already waxed far longer than savvy blogging allows. But I think I\u2019ve captured most of the main lines of reasoning, and done my best to outline those particular ideas that get repeated ad nauseam. Second, I\u2019m ignoring the broad spectrum of positions involved and merely lumping everything together into the general categories of \u201cfeminist\u201d and \u201canti-feminist.\u201d My apologies, but once again, I couldn\u2019t figure out how to do better in a post meant to articulate, quick and dirty, the basic ins and outs. Maybe this medium is doomed to failure. But since so much time and effort is squandered in this medium, I thought I\u2019d at least try.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">[3] Here\u2019s where I acknowledge my own finitude. Perhaps there are solid responses to what I\u2019m calling the \u201cesoteric\u201d front\u2014perhaps some of you readers can point me to them. Nevertheless, I\u2019m an active observer and participant in these debates, and given the poignancy of these issues in my own life, I\u2019ve not been remiss in trying to find responses. The fact that I can\u2019t come up with any is surely due in part to my own position in the debate. But if there <em>are<\/em> answers, the proponents are doing a lousy job advertising them.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I\u2019m going to describe the dialectical geography as I see it, in order to try and help readers at T&#038;S do better at constructively engaging the arguments in what I consider to be an issue of absolutely fundamental importance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":122,"featured_media":31462,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-corn"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/beating-a-dead-horse.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/122"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31456"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31456\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31464,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31456\/revisions\/31464"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31462"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}