It seems to be an unfortunate reality that, if I am to speak of gender issues to traditional Latter-day Saints, I must, at the outset, announce that I am not a member of Ordain Women. So here it is: I am not a member of Ordain Women. But I am a practicing and faithful Latter-day Saint who is disturbed by the depiction of the group as a small cluster of angry women who intend to usurp the positions of authority in the church. I’ve come across too much of that kind of rhetoric over the past few weeks to remain silent. And so I decided, in preparation for the 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which will be held the first week in April, I’d share with you my observations about what today’s LDS feminism looks like from where I sit, which, admittedly, is the cheap seats of the organizational hierarchy. My focus will remain on female ordination even though Ordain Women, as well as LDS feminists outside that group, have an interest in other women’s issues.
What Today’s LDS Feminism is NOT: There is a certain blog post that is being recycled this year, The Mormon feminist protest: And why I won’t be there, which I’m seeing championed by a few of my friends. There is much to love about the post and the woman who writes it. She is a strong, career-minded Latter-day Saint mother who values innate, divine gender differences and swears to defend them. But she is incorrect in her assumption that today’s LDS feminism is about overpowering the authority of men and the devaluation of femininity. Today’s LDS feminism is not a reincarnation of Sonia Johnson‘s angry, accusatory feminism of the late 1970’s, and it looks nothing like the militant feminism of Gloria Steinem and NOW. I think it would be wisest for all of us to take a deep breath … and then take the time to get to know who these women are before we judge them with false assumptions or assign them nefarious motives.
Ordain Women as Faithful Members and Followers of Christ: In order to get to know these people, we first need to recognize what most of us “know” about Ordain Women comes through someone else’s lens. If you want to understand them, you should meet them. Maybe you can’t visit with these moms (and dads) on a park bench while your kids play together, but you can visit the Ordain Women website and click on any of the many profiles on the home page to learn exactly who they are. You won’t find a group of raging women who despise their femininity. You will find women who stay at home with their children, as well as women who are employed outside the home. You will read many testimonies that are as full of faith as your own. These aren’t whiners. These are competent, loving, and, for the most part, practicing Mormons–women and men–who aren’t trying to steady the ark or disavow the divine nature of women. Maybe they think differently about certain cultural practices stemming from doctrine than you do, but they are hardly rabid, hardly the sometimes disrespectful pro-ERA feminists of the late 1970’s who angrily shouted out their refusal to sustain leaders at bygone General Conferences. Today’s LDS feminists don’t “rattle cages;” they stand quietly in line for admission to a priesthood session they are freely allowed to watch on taped delay later. They aren’t nailing demands on the door of the temple; they are reverently entering through it and performing the same ordinances you are. They aren’t much different than the rest of us. Their desire is to become one with God.
Of course, they are individuals with individual motives and experiences. There is no cookie-cutter member of Ordain Women. And certainly the perpetuation of the image of Ordain Women members as trouble-makers and complainers has no universal application. Rather most, like Christ, stand at the door and knock. Please take a minute and read a most thoughtful post, The Importunate Women: Faithful Activism and Questioning in a Gospel Context, by Mahonri Stewart. Like me, Stewart is not a member of Ordain Women but his efforts to behave in a Christlike manner have driven him to seek an understanding of who they are and what they hope for. Although his title is a bit academic sounding, the article he writes is beautiful. Don’t miss it.
But again, in reading Stewart’s post, you will be hearing about LDS feminists from an outsider’s perspective. Therefore, I direct you (in addition to the Ordain Women website) to Jana Reiss’ post, I’m a Mormon feminist, not an anti-Mormon protestor, over at Religion News Service. Reiss is not a member of Ordain Women, but identifies as an LDS feminist. In her post, you will discover a voice in the middle of long-suffering, not one filled with anger. You’ll read about how it feels to have the church you love and sustain (yes, sustain) park a garbage truck between you and the entrance to your church, as if you were about to go rogue and use your girly Ninja skills to force your way in and wreak spiritual mischief. Or how it feels to have the Public Relations department (hardly the source of doctrinal discourse) publicly relegate you–a believer and practicing Latter-day Saint–to the Free Speech Zone, an area where those who despise Mormonism congregate to disrupt, dissuade, and cause disharmony. Many LDS women, inside and outside of Ordain Women, feel the sting of being broadly mischaracterized.
The Historical Evidence for Female Ordination: And lest you don’t make it to the end of Reiss’ article, I offer a quotation that will likely surprise most. She writes in the linked post. “Many of us [in Ordain Women] don’t support full ordination for women but seek smaller changes within the existing structure of the Church.”
For a number of the members of Ordain Women, the desire is not to preside in authority, but raise awareness of gender issues in the LDS culture and, perhaps, to instigate a return to the teachings of Joseph Smith on the subject of females and the Melchizedek priesthood. Yes, return. Most LDS don’t realize that, just as Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood, he also saw to it that women were bearers of the priesthood.
I personally know Mormons who avoid studying early church history with any depth because they fear what they will find. But at the recent Church History Symposium, President Dieter Uchtdorf stated, “Learning about the real struggles and real successes of early Church leaders and members is a very faith-promoting process for me. We always need to remember that transparency and openness keep us clear of the negative side effects of secrecy or the cliché of faith-promoting rumors.” If you are not aware of the historical basis upon which Ordain Women is built, I direct your attention to the work of the eminent LDS historian, Michael D. Quinn, or, more specifically, to his essay, Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood since 1843.
Even if you accept only the lens provided by the modern patriarchal rhetoric on the subject of female ordination, surely, after reading this, you will have a clearer understanding of why Ordain Women exists. Their motivation, as they see it, is not to change doctrine but to return more fully to a doctrine taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Early LDS women were, in fact, seen to hold some level of priesthood. They did bless the sick. The facts are, early LDS women were considered priestesses and holders of the Melchizedek priesthood on their own accord by the Prophet. After Joseph Smith’s martyrdom, the rhetoric began to shift. I suspect many practicing Latter-day Saints who see themselves as the keepers of the Victorian morals most of the western world has rejected need the occasional nudge to remember just how radical Mormonism is. In an era when no woman held any form of priesthood, Joseph Smith was, again, a revolutionary.
And so the Ordain Women members will stand patiently outside the priesthood session at the 184th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not to agitate or disrupt, but to quietly remind members–both in leadership and not–that there are historical reasons to re-evaluate how our culture may have developed rhetoric, attitudes, and practices that may not fully harmonize the divine role of the daughters of God in mortality with the bold teachings of the Prophet chosen to usher in this last, glorious Dispensation.
Agree or disagree with Ordain Women, but remember charity–or the pure love of Christ–never fails: It never disparages; it never marginalizes; it never parks a garbage truck in front of a church door. It listens and it understands. Our duty, as individuals who bear the name of Jesus Christ, is to practice this charity toward all. To understand is to love, and to love is to understand.
“Be still and know that I Am.”
30 thoughts on “Today’s LDS Feminism and Ordain Women: An Epistle to the Saints”
I like most of what you’ve written here, but I think that you need to make one correction. Jana Reiss is a Mormon feminist, but is not part of Ordain Women at this point.
Thank you, Paula. I will make that correction.
FYI, I contacted Jana Reiss and she confirmed that she has not joined OW, but indicated an affinity for its purpose. I apologize for not confirming her status before initial publication. Correction has been made.
Thank you for being so thorough Lisa. By the way, I’m a supporter of OW, but not an official spokesperson. I realize that there are a lot of Mormon feminist groups now (hurray), and it’s easy to get confused about the overlap between the two groups. I don’t think that OW has any official membership lists– but there are clearly defined spokespeople as well as people who have various volunteer jobs, and people who have submitted profiles and/or participated in actions. I love what Jana has written on many occasions, but wanted to make it clear that she wasn’t speaking for OW.
Thank you for your feedback, Paula. I’m glad you pointed out that there is no membership list, only profiles. I wasn’t aware of the difference. And it seems that profiled women and men have a variety of feminist leanings. A fault of this post, I suppose, is that I only addressed OW (because they are getting the pre-conference heat) and didn’t specify other groups by name. I suspect, though, that many LDS feminists aren’t aligned with any group. Certainly not all LDS feminists are interested in the priesthood — especially if were to mean leadership callings. They feel they have enough to do.
As a historical side note: One doesn’t have to buy into Michael Quinn’s analysis wholeheartedly to recognize that the cultural idea that priesthood has always been as we understand it now is highly problematic. The temple can be key here–as is the historical reality of women giving blessings–we always talk about Mary Fielding blessing her ox, don’t we? But much of it is hints and suggestions and it is left up to us to figure out for ourselves as we study the history. There is a wide spectrum of historical possibilities, but I would hesitate to claim you can pin it down as clearly as Quinn claims.
Also, probably better to link to a published source for Quinn’s article. http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171
Thanks for the new link.
And you are absolutely correct that there is a “wide spectrum of historical possibilities.” I’m not sure that Quinn is pinning anything down. I don’t sense an argument from his writings, which is why I like him. He essentially says these are the facts and some say this and some that about them. I have no clear idea what the priesthood in relation to women looked like in the Nauvoo era. Yes, I know they anointed and blessed the sick. And I’ve read, for instance, the things Quinn writes. But the picture isn’t a fleshed one, is it?
One thing seems fairly clear to me, though: While Joseph Smith spoke of women as having a priesthood, he did not, that I know (and I’m no historian), place any woman in what we commonly call the offices of the priesthood. Or, for that matter, in leadership callings outside of the women’s organization. So yes, there is much ambiguity.
What seems to bother people about the idea of female ordination–or about OW–is the notion these women want the organizational authority the men have. I’m sure some do and some don’t. I know women outside OW who think it might be nice to have some priesthood, but who don’t think taking the leadership positions from men is going to make their lives any better. And it seems many see OW as a group of power-mongers. But, in the midst of the ambiguity, it seems to me there is room for the women to have some level of priesthood without necessarily acquiring the positions currently filled only by men. Whatever Joseph Smith did or did not do regarding women and the priesthood, it safe to say he didn’t call them to be bishops, etc.
Again, I don’t fully understand what the world of Joseph Smith looked like, especially in relation to female ordination. I know a dozen men in Salt Lake who have the authority to petition God and receive answers. In time, I think it will be made more clear. In the meantime, the exercise of compassion and charity to our sisters who feel a longing should be the order of the day.
Many early priesthood leaders smoked cigars and chewed tobacco, should we go back to that too??? Is everyone forgetting whose gospel this is? Its not the first presidency’s gospel, it is the Lord’s. He’s running the show, so take your argument about the priesthood up with the big man, not his messengers. Since when did we decide that we can run the church better than the Lord? By this disruptive behavior, the rest of the members attending the meetings can’t get what they need to out of it. Its hindering their ability to be spiritually fed.
Tim, my husband has pointed out to me that Joseph Smith also instituted polygamy. He suggested that, if feminists want to point to Smith and say, “He said this about female ordination,” then don’t they have to submit to polygamy? Its a good point.
The thing is, polygamy ended via a revelation. I know that some people point out that Mormons were under a great political pressure to end polygamy, but we are a rather stubborn people and I doubt that political pressure alone would’ve moved us. I do believe revelation ended polygamy. Period. But no revelation stopped our white leaders from ordaining black men. And, if women did receive a type of priesthood during the Nauvoo era, no revelation ended it. A revelation did restore priesthood blessings to all worthy males, regardless of skin color. And it would take a revelation to clear up the concept of female ordination.
The revelation about blacks and the priesthood didn’t occur in a vacuum. There was political pressure. There was social discomfit. Those things went on for decades before the revelation came. Now, I understand people will always argue about the events surrounding and leading up to that revelation–and which happened first, the chicken or the egg–but the fact is, the church was living in turbulence for its racially discriminatory policy. The revelation didn’t just happen. Its fairly well-documented that Spencer Kimball felt moved that the revelation would occur long before he became president and long before he received the revelation as president.
I think the group of women who hope for the priesthood are looking forward to revelation. Yes, there are non-believers in OW, but those voices aren’t the majority. Some of your comments (“since when did we decide that we can run the church better than the Lord?”) suggest to me that you may have little faith in the Lord’s ability to effect change or provide inspiration in the hearts of his children. I’m not part of OW and I cannot speak for them. I am some class of feminist, I suppose, since these issues resonate with me. A woman who identifies as a feminist doesn’t check her faith at the door. She knows who’s church this is. She also knows who the messengers are. She also understands that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is as much her right as any male priesthood holder, regardless of position. More importantly, she also knows she’s been told to knock and that it will be given her. Exactly what will be given–what the answer will be–is unclear. In the meantime, from what I can see, these women are patiently waiting.
Tim, please click the link to Mahonri Stewart’s post, The Importunate Women. And try not to see this issue as a personal attack on you, your priesthood, your faith, the church, or the Lord. Practicing LDS feminists are full of faith.
What a beautiful response. There is no reason to fear the OW. I don’t think we need to get angry or upset when we hear the questions that the women have. It is appropriate for them to want to get answers from above. I have my understandings, faith, and answers, and I can be respectful to them as they search for theirs.
Great read. I kind of think they should change their name from OW, if their motivations are different than their name. Some things were different in Joseph’s day, and that is why there are break away groups from the church. Some faithful latter-day saints start believing that the church leaders have gone astray since Joseph (rather than the church members) and start new sects, leading people astray from a living prophet. To be honest, I wish OW would approach things differently. I believe they’re turning more people off to their cause, than turning people on to their cause. I kind of feel like they’re making a mockery of our church, to the world. But, i’ll admit, a part of me wonders if they’re playing a role that God wants them to play, to prepare us for changes that God wants to make, through His prophets, when we are ready. Zion will only be built upon this earth when we become a Zion people, as individuals. It’s great to focus on becoming more obedient (to God) and seeking more light and knowledge and additional gifts from God. I think it’s a great idea to look forward to the day that the fullness of the priesthood is on the earth, and the women are a part of it. I believe it will happen some day. I’d love it if OW would make their message more about looking forward to that day, and preparing for that day, rather than making people feel that the prophets are somehow biased against women and need to give women the priesthood right NOW. That’s the impression I’ve always gotten from LDS feminists, and the name OW, but my impressions could be wrong, which seems to be the purpose of your post, to clarify, since their name has given people the wrong impression. BTW, priesthood session was shown on TV LIVE last session. I gladly watched it from home. I’ll admit, I enjoyed making myself included, but I respectfully sent my husband and son to the actual meeting without me trying to get in. And, just a note, I have definitely seen unrighteous dominion among some priesthood holders, but that’s the individual’s problem, not the church’s problem. The leaders of the church have spoken against unrighteous dominion. What a blessing it is to have the priesthood on the earth today. Count your many blessings… 🙂 thanks for letting me RaMbLe.
You’re not rambling. I’ve wondered about the name myself. But in the end, the founders are about ordaining women. I have a male friend who posted a profile, but he’s never really left me thinking that he’s certain ordaining women in the same way men are ordained is necessarily the answer. He gave me the impression he added a profile out of respect for these sisters, more than out of agreement. I suspect he’s not alone. Me? I’m not putting up a profile and I don’t consider myself a supporter of ordination for women. I feel more like you seem to. Maybe it’ll happen. I think this is an interesting time to live and an interesting thing to watch, but I don’t feel inspired to do more than say, “People, be kind, be respectful and be open to whatever the Lord has.” But some of these women really feel driven by the Spirit to do this. I find them remarkably brave and definitely admire that. The last thing I’d say (and I don’t think I made this point clear enough) most LDS women who self-identify as feminists are not necessarily a part of OW and aren’t working toward ordination. Ordination may be the “crown jewel” to some, but to most LDS feminists, well, I don’t think they are all that excited about the prospect. Heaven knows, I don’t want to be anyone’s bishop! Thanks for reading and commenting.
I just went to the OW website for my first time, and I’m sorry, but they already lost me, just by their statement on their home page: “Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormons to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.”
I do NOT believe we have gender inequality. I believe at this time, women are being PROTECTED by not holding to priesthood. We are the ones in the higher, better position than the men, we get to have access to all the blessings of the priesthood without having the burden of holding it. Go to the temple, look for the symbolism. Women are protected, yet have access to all the blessings. If Satan is at war with God, and the priesthood holders can use God’s power to bless those around them, then who do you think Satan is sending a large portion of his army to go up against. Satan is real, and his army is just as organized as God’s army. I feel that if there is gender inequality, it is the men who are more unequal. God loves us women so much, and maybe He wants to bless us and protect us at the same time. Support our dear priesthood holders in any way we can! Perhaps when Satan is no longer loose on the earth, then we, women, will also hold the priesthood. Just a thought.
I would love to see a women’s group that is about seeking understanding as to why we don’t have the priesthood right now, and helping the world understand that our church does NOT have gender inequality, but holds women in the highest of esteem.
If the profiles on OW have different motivations than OW’s home page, I’d suggest removing themselves from OW, and making their voices heard elsewhere, where their motivations are better understood.
Thanks for letting me RaMbLe again.
I understand. I’m comfortable with the first sentence in that mission statement, but not the second. And I was probably a little slow on the uptake on the first sentence in the mission statement. I didn’t really see gender inequality, but gender differences. I have, over the course of raising a daughter to adulthood, sensed gender inequalities. Here’s my caveat: The equalities are, in my eyes, functions of a weakness in our culture. For instance, why is it that, traditionally, women speak first in Sacrament meeting and a priesthood holder gives the longer, final address? There’s just no reason for this. Its not doctrinal. Its a cultural thing and should be an easy thing to address.
A lot of us LDS women don’t like the whole “women don’t have the priesthood because they are soooo much more spiritual than men and, therefore, don’t need it” line. I find it offensive not so much because, as some say, it objectifies a woman, but because it demeans men. In fact, my primary interest in championing gender rights in the church has been to champion the rights of men, who, I think, are often demeaned in the same rhetoric that is aimed at exalting women. This is why I don’t quickly identify with the label of “feminist.” I’m as much a “masculinist” as a “femininist.” I see problems in the way our culture addresses gender. So what am I? I need a label!
On your last point–about how people who aren’t for full ordination of women should leave OW. People join organizations all the time even though they don’t love everything about that organization. If you are political at all, you’ve probably seen your political party put together a platform that included something that made you uncomfortable. Or nominated a candidate you didn’t feel represented your views as well as another would have. But people stay in these political parties, and in other organizations, because they feel it is the best option they have to have the majority of their views addressed. That’s understandable.
I think there are a fair number of LDS feminist groups, many I haven’t heard of. Maybe some are more like what you hope them to be. Just don’t let the bad apples spoil the whole bunch, girl. 🙂
LOL, last time I gave a talk in church I figured I and my male friend split the time down the middle, which we did. 🙂 Wouldn’t have ever thought it was unequal for him to go last. I guess if you’re really looking then you can find whatever it is you’re looking for. I’m also raising a daughter, and haven’t seen anything unequal/degrading yet. I don’t think we women are more spiritual, that was definitely putting words in my mouth. I guess I didn’t mean we have the “higher” position, I mean that our position of not holding the priesthood is actually a better position to be in, and not degrading. I just believe that for some reason God is protecting us by keeping it from us, for now, putting the men in the front lines of the war, so to speak, not because we’re more spiritual or that he loves us MORE, maybe it was the men who volunteered before we can to earth, maybe we arm wrestled the men for it, lol. I don’t know why we women are being protected, just that we are. I know it, and because of that understanding I don’t feel degraded. I agree that we should not demean men, and I also find the “women don’t have the priesthood because they are soooo much more spiritual than men” line degrading to men. I don’t like that line of thinking at all.
I guess I can understand how women would join a group even if it doesn’t fit them perfectly, but it seems that the point of your blog post was to help people learn that the real mission of OW was not what we thought it was, but when I went to their web page, it seemed pretty apparent that it was exactly what it was, and I believe that the women who show up for the priesthood conference are supporting what is on the home page, even if they’re meaning to support something else.
I know it’s important to understand that many of these women feel like they are doing what they are supposed to do, and we believe in worshiping and living according to our own conscious, so we should all treat each other with the utmost respect. Definitely no need for contention in the conversations, and I have seen some of that going on. However, I have also seen how sneaky Satan is, and I’ve seen him convince some of my friends that what he is saying is true, and lead them astray, so I can’t really trust that these women have really been inspired by the Holy Ghost to show up to the General Priesthood Meeting. Things are tricky these days and I’ve found that it’s more important than ever to learn how the Holy Ghost communicates with us. I’m still learning, and constantly paying attention to the still small voice. Two years ago, I studied church history, and it made me doubt everything I’d ever believed, and had to depend 100% on the Holy Ghost for answers. It made me realize that my personal communication with God is my iron rod. Definitely a must for these latter-days.
No arguments. I love belonging to a church that emphasizes our need for revelation. I have just learned to be very patient about making assumptions about what other people’s revelations are or aren’t. One of my points in this article is the LDS feminists may not be what people think. Most LDS feminists aren’t part of OW. I don’t know statistically what the numbers of women who self-identify as LDS feminists are in comparison to membership in OW. But I’m confident most LDS feminists aren’t associated with OW. I think I’ve said that.
My other point is that, as far as I can see, OW, as an entity, is not the raging group of dissidents that many assume they are. I’ve read some angry voices (on FB posts) about my little blog here and they all come from people who are certain women will not receive the priesthood and that the way it is now is the way it always has been and will be. In one, a person suggested all these OW get out of the church since they hate it. What? That’s a horrible thing to say to someone who is seeking answers. Its a horrible thing to say to people who aren’t seeking answers. And in those angry comments, I see the people who make them get riled about the angry feminists. What?
Look, I’ve been annoyed by angry feminists myself–the ones who focus on petty stuff or who see the boogie man when he isn’t there, so I understand the bleed-over some of us feel from those other situations into this particular event that will occur at the priesthood session. (I get annoyed at angry, accusatory and petty voices in general, unless its politics. Then sometimes I sin pretty damn good. 🙂 )
As far as the talk thing, it isn’t a time issue so much as a “who’s more important” issue. When does your assigned High Priest deliver his message? Always last. Its just a subtle gender division that, on its own, is no big deal, but a lot of little things can add up to hurtful things to some women. Especially young women. I know these things weren’t lost on my daughter as a teen. She often pointed them out to me.
i think it’s a great discussion to be having.
Ummm, last two times I spoke in church I took 25 minutes and left my husband with 5. This is not an issue in where I live. 😉
Ha! One time my husband, who was listed on the program after me, stood up first and basically said he better go first or no one will still be listening by the time his turn comes.
Loved your article! Can you update the links? A few of them don’t seem to be working. The articles you cite are excellent, but I had to google them with the information you provided. I’d love to share your post with my friends but want the links to work so they can look deeper into topics that may interest them.
Thank you! And know there are many, many women in the church that feel the same as you- we aren’t necessarily ready to jump full in to the Ordain Women movement, but we definitely see a great need for change and even revelation about what it really means to be a daughter of God in the Latter-Days.
Thanks, Cam. I gave the links another going over. Hopefully it’ll work better for you. Sorry for the trouble. Don’t miss the Importunate Women!
Pingback: No More Strangers
Outstanding post that gives voice to what I’m feeling. Also, thank you for the additional links. Well done!
I’m so glad you followed those links! Particularly The Importunate Women. Its a great post. Very Christlike.
Great piece. The comments? Well, too predictable. I can cite all kinds of anecdotal examples where I had the same amount of time as a man, or whatever. That doesn’t show that the institution treats women with the same respect as they treat men. And anytime someone tells me I’m actually higher, better, have a nicer position than men, my ire goes up because I’m being pacified by being told mine is the superior position. I don’t want a superior position, I don’t want to be a man or like a man, or my duties be the same as a man: I want the same opportunities to serve and be a decision-maker.
Same priesthood blessings? Try being sealing to two men at the same time. Study the history of the temple sealing and see how equal the blessings and ordinances of the temple were and are, in the case of a man sealed to 2 women.
Another indispensable read is Chieko Okazaki’s 2005 interview in Dialogue. As faithful as she was, she never wore blinders where Church culture and administration were concerned.
Click to access Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf
Equality is not a feeling. http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/category/columns/knit-together/
Thanks for the links. The “women are better than men” rhetoric has always troubled me. I admit I didn’t initially (years ago) think about the potential harm it could do by putting women on a pedestal. I really reacted to how demeaning it was of men. Of my husband, who is different that I am, but certainly not less of anything. So I understand people thinking the line is a show of humility for the men and honor for the women because (sort of) bought into it. But it is very much past the time for us to reconsider this line of talk. For the benefit of our young men as much as our young women.
Thanks for chiming in! I’ll read these links tonight.
Pingback: HEADLINE: Ordain Women Shoots Self in Foot | Life Outside The Book of Mormon Belt
Thank you, thank you for your thoughtful post, and especially the conversation in the comments. What a breath of fresh air to hear someone talk with such respect and sincerity.
Pingback: Male Mormons exclude women | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Excellent post! We are linking to this great content on our site.
Keep up the great writing.