“You are forgetting one thing,” I pause and stare directly into the eyes of the man sitting across from me, “I do not need your approval or validation.”

This sentence is a feature of many of my daydreams. I have never actually said it out loud but it is my secret fantasy (or not so secret anymore) to be able to say this phrase and mean it. In my daydream I am strong and competent, self-assured and bold. I do not worry about what people think about me. I trust myself more than those around me. I do scary things. I do not care about being liked as much as I care about being right. In my daydreams the only approval and validation I need is from me. “So….” you might ask, “why are these daydreams and not reality?”

Over the course of the last decade I have made a conscious effort to distinguish between the thoughts and behaviors I actually desire and those I have acquired via enculturation in the Mormon culture. There are silly things like discovering that I do not actually like to wear dresses and skirts even though they have made up my “nice” wardrobe for the past thirty years. Likewise, I have discovered that I do not mind disagreeing with those around me. I’m comfortable with pluralism. I have learned that we don’t all have to think alike despite thirty-plus years of Sunday School enculturation instructing me otherwise. I have also made more serious discoveries. I have learned that I have a deep rooted instinct to acquiesce to male authority figures. I think this stems from our all-male church hierarchy where men will always have more power and authority over me. I did not realize I had internalized these thoughts until I witnessed my non-Mormon colleagues talking back to an academic leader and my first thought was “You can’t do that.” Since then I have paid closer attention to how I interact with males in power. I’ve discovered that my behavior completely changes in front of church leaders. I am quiet and deferential. I hold in my thoughts and opinions. Because I have no social capital or source of collegiality without their endorsement, I am reliant on their approval and validation for my sense of worth.

I am convinced that LDS culture produces women who are constantly seeking the approval and validation of others to justify and legitimize their own thoughts, beliefs, appearance and worth.

by Donna Kelly

In New Testament times it was shameful for women to speak in church (I Cor 14:34-35).

Today women speak in all church general meetings, from sacrament meetings to General Conference at the invitation of the Prophet.

In a few weeks women will say prayers in General Conference for the very first time in history. Some think this is a very minor change, but I do not agree with that assessment. A woman will be voicing a prayer on behalf of the Church and its members, both male and female alike. This is a huge step forward.

I am moved by this change, especially because of an event in my personal history in Oregon in the early 1980s. As I was walking in to a sacrament meeting, a counselor in the bishopric approached me and asked me to say the prayer. I stood in stunned silence. “Yes, it’s a change. The first of many more to come, I hope. We wanted you to be the first!” he hugged me as he spoke. I wept as I prayed that day and felt the privilege of being the first woman to say a prayer in my ward sacrament meeting. Since that day I have often wondered what precipitated that change. Was it a change made after the request of a righteous woman who asked to pray in her ward? I like to think so. But regardless of its precipitation, it was a step toward a brighter day.

I feel blessed to be living at a time when positive changes such as these confirming the intrinsic equality of women and men are being made in deed and not just in theory, not just in word, and not just with a “separate but equal” kind of equality.

I’ve been thinking about revelation a lot lately, largely because we recently had two Sunday School lessons in a row on this topic – one of which I actually got my act together and read the assigned scriptures for because I was preparing to participate in  a Gospel Doctrine podcast.  And I’m realizing that in addition to needing feminism (see Part I), I also need the concept of revelation to help me be a Mormon.  (As an aside, you should check out the wonderful work Jared Anderson is doing to create Gospel Doctrine podcasts as resources for teachers and learners!)

Why do I need revelation?  A friend’s Catholic mother once said, “Who is the Pope to tell me what it means to be Catholic?”  Meaning, the church’s body of doctrine and tradition is bigger than one person, and she felt free to claim Catholicism on her own terms.  And I say, “What is patriarchy to tell me what it means to be Mormon?”  In some sense if I leave the Church just because it is patriarchal, I’m allowing sexist tradition to separate me from a religion that I would otherwise choose to affiliate myself with.  Patriarchy already puts enough constraints on the spiritual lives of women; I don’t want to let it determine my religious affiliation, too.  Patriarchy doesn’t own my church.  And ultimately, the concept of personal revelation requires me to embrace truth wherever I find it, so I feel free to claim Mormonism on my own terms.

But revelation is about more than just my personal search for truth.  The concept of continuing prophetic revelation also means current doctrine and practices can and do change.  With continuing revelation we will some day have prophecies given by women, blessings given by women, authoritative scriptural exegesis by women, and miracles worked through women.  No spiritual gift (see D&C 46:17-26) will be withheld.*  These are more than pie-in-the-sky hopes.  They are possible given the limitless nature of continuing revelation.  I see Mormonism’s open canon and belief in prophecy as having both the mechanism and the potential energy needed for change through revelation.

I realize it’s ironic to wait for this kind of revelation to come through channels of male-only priesthood bearers.  But the fact that Mormons expect prophetic revelation gives me hope, particularly when faithful people, following the example of Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah, continue to ask questions that provoke a prophetic response.  These women were Zelophehad’s daughters – his only progeny since he had no sons.  It was against Jewish law for them to inherit land after Zelophehad’s death, but they appealed to Moses for new revelation on the matter.  Moses brought their case before the Lord, and not only were the daughters able to inherit, but a detailed revelation on inheritance practices also resulted from the question.  I believe this kind of change through revelation is still possible.

What things do you hope for that continuing revelation could bring to pass?

*Section 46 of the Doctrine & Covenants lists prophecy, healing, miracles, wisdom, and other spiritual gifts.  The section does not link any of these gifts with priesthood, but in the modern Church most of them are thought of and practiced as priesthood privileges.  It wasn’t always so.  Our gospel foremothers had many of these gifts.  I think ordaining women would erase the gendered limitations on these gifts, and I hope to see it in my lifetime.

(As the editor of the Exponent II magazine‘s Sisters Speak column, I would love to hear your opinion on the following questions.  Note: I might email some of you commenters asking if I might quote you in the magazine.) 

I have three very young children, and I’m already nervous about the bishop interviewing them when they are teens. Specifically, I worry about the chastity question. I don’t feel terribly comfortable with the idea of a man they don’t know well asking them personal questions about things of a sexual nature. I particularly don’t want my kids feeling dirty and sinful if they have engaged in a certain amount of self-exploration, which I consider to be a normal part of development.

So how to handle the interview? One thought I had was that I could make it clear that no interview takes place without me or their dad in the room. This would probably head off any extended or probing questions of a sexual nature. Another thought was that I would tell my kids beforehand that they are never to talk with any adult about things of a sexual nature, and that if the bishop asks about it, they should say, “My parents have instructed me that I’m not allowed to discuss that sort of thing with adults I’m not related to.”  My last thought was that I could tell them that the bishop is going to ask them if they are obeying the law of chastity, and that if they are not engaging in sexual acts with other people, then they can tell the bishop that they are keeping the law of chastity.

What advice do you have for young people going through these interviews, or for their parents who want to help them get through them in healthy ways? How did/do you yourself navigate these interviews and the chastity question? 

Since this is my first Relief Society lesson at The Exponent, I thought I’d start by quickly describing my philosophy for teaching in the LDS church.  Since this is a church with a lay ministry, in LDS classrooms everyone is a teacher and everyone is a learner.  I believe when I’m teaching a lesson, even though I’ve prepared thoughts on the topic of the day, I don’t necessarily have the best insight into any of the points in the lesson.  The class members are often my teachers, and I’m a learner in the lesson as much as they are.  Which means I see myself as not so much a teacher but as a facilitator.  My most important job is to ask good questions, give people time to think about them, and, as much as possible, ask good follow-up questions.  I also generally avoid commenting on other people’s comments.  Some teachers do well at asking questions that provoke insightful comments, but seem to feel obligated to follow up with their own commentary on them, which rarely adds much to the original comment.  So I usually just say “thank you” when people are finished speaking.

So thank you for letting me soap box for a paragraph.  Now, here are my thoughts on this lesson. (Note I’ve put quotes from the manual in italics, rather than explaining each time that they’re from Lorenzo Snow.)

First, it’s interesting to find this statement at the end of the lesson:

The publicity around the wear pants to church day hit its zenith yesterday: it got covered by the New York Times.  I don’t think anyone anticipated the media interest in this, but then I think the vitriolic response to it on Facebook was equally surprising.  At least I was surprised.

The NYT article is brief, lightly touching on both the reasons for the pants day and the negative responses to it.  It’s not unfairly negative toward the LDS Church, but I don’t think Church members will find it flattering, either.  The fact that women wearing pants to church in 2012 is an issue that provokes venom is enough of a rebuke on the overall membership, even without editorial commentary by the Times.

The Church cares about its public image.  A lot.  But no amount of “I’m a Mormon” ads on busses or the internet, no YouTube video, no Church-sponsored website, can get rid of the impact of articles in major newspapers that spotlight the darker sides of Mormonism.  I think the only way for the Church to avoid looking like a throwback is for its leadership to start rebuking the intolerance behind those nasty comments on Facebook.

And I don’t mean in a general, non-specific way.  Obviously the Church already teaches about charity and kindness.  I mean in way that puts tolerance, self-restraint, and kindness in the context of the diverse, modern world and Church we inhabit.  I do believe that the majority of the membership would never say the bilious things that got said about pants day, but the fact that lots of them did is a problem.  Just the fact that so many people felt threatened by pants is a problem.

We need cultural change.

And of course this is about more than a tiff on Facebook.  I’ve been bemused by the “I’m a Mormon” ads since they came out because while they do show a cross-section of members, they seem slanted toward those members that are actually rather rare in real life: the mixed-race family, the career woman, the man of color who makes his living as a musician.  Perhaps I misunderstand the intended audience, and the “I’m a Mormon” ads are as directed at the members as the general public.  If that’s the case then I’m happy the Church is doing something to engender tolerance.  But given the general MO of the Church – which is to put its best resources toward outreach – I think the “I’m a Mormon” campaign is made to make the world think Mormons aren’t weird.

But we are.  And one thing the pants day did is to bring some of that weirdness, the ickiest, usually hidden even from ourselves weirdness, to the fore.

Mormon feminism is not going away.  I don’t know what the next move for All Enlisted will be.  I don’t know if it will be them or another group that plans the next move that might get media attention, but when it happens, if the response to it is as weird and ugly as it was to pants day, the Church is going to continue to have a PR problem.

So this raises the important question of how much power to effect cultural change the leadership has?  Nate Oman’s post at Times & Seasons recently sparked a wide discussion on the bloggernacle about this very issue.  The discussion is too long and nuanced for me to summarize here (there are responses to Nate here, here, and here, and his own responses to those can be found here and here), but what it all boils down to is who is wagging whom?  I think the leadership does have the power to influence the things the membership thinks about, and how they think about them.  And if they want real influence in how the world thinks about Mormonism, they’ve got to try.  People can tell the difference between advertising and actual content, as Neylan McBain has pointed out.  And I hope when they do try, it will be because it’s the right thing to do, and not just because they’ve been embarrassed.