Appendix B: Female Ordination Debate

In opposition to female ordination:

"Brad Carmack, would you fear excommunication? I think this sounds like a good idea in general, but the retaliation would be huge. And while sometimes I don't care if the church were to excommunicate me, I'm still a little too shitless to do it." "How dare you assume that you have the right to come charging in on your white horse, after having a feminist awakening--what, 6 months ago?--and do something that will cause a backlash that will undo decades of the patient work of Mormon feminists who are smarter and more politically savvy than you are and who will suffer for your actions while you go blithely on your way believing that you are some sort of feminist martyr? Shut the hell up until you've spent some time reading and learning about the rich history of Mormon feminism and you have something productive to offer, instead of an idiotic publicity stunt that will set the cause back a few decades. I don't have a lot of patience with condescending "help" from Mormon men." "A rogue female "ordination" would cause more problems than it would solve. We have enough work to do in reclaiming the priesthood we already have before attempting to force ordination as an underground resistance movement. Above-board, grassroots reclamation is my goal." "I agree that in the current environment, the only possible outcome would be a whole pile of excommunications, with the best possible result being that those people would end up in the Community of Christ, or would form their own breakaway sect. I, in my heart, support those priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church who have begun ordaining women underground, but it really does not lead to systemic change. It's sad, but it doesn't." "The church wouldn't recognize the woman's priesthood (or yours, for that matter), so what would be the point exactly?" "Rogue ordinations are not going to convert anyone in the existing power structure." "If you believe in a Mormon conception of authority at all, then usurping it in this way completely strips it of its power. If you don't believe in a Mormon conception of authority, then there's really no reason not to simply be ordained in another church " "I simply disagree with this approach. It will alienate more conservative women, demonize feminism, provoke priesthood authorities to speak out against feminists (and intellectuals from the pulpit), cause suspicion towards feminists (like myself) in their own wards, and do nothing to further the equality of women in the church in any practical way. I am sure Brad's intentions are to make life better for women, but this will do the opposite." "It's certainly hard to see results from the kind of dissent I'm suggesting in time scales shorter than epochal. But there are results. The RS minutes, a truly revolutionary document, are now published, not because of noisy feminist protest, but because one saintly historian worked for her _entire_ professional career to make it happen, despite being consistently undervalued and underappreciated by both more revolutionary feminists and folks in power. I submit that having those documents available is the sort of thing that will matter over the long haul, far more than anything like ordaining a woman on camera. Nobody remembers the guy who ordained a couple of black men in 1971(ish?), but Lester Bush's careful, patient (kinda boring) scholarship (along with other factors) made it possible to conceptualize a face-saving way to rescind the ban." "I think there are those that need to take risks, make big-time stands, speak loudly in unsafe spaces and generally cause a scene. Those actions speak to those who are ready to listen. Then there is the need for more subtle agitation, education, patience and caution. These prepare the listeners. That said, I think Brad's approach is problematic and would ultimately alienate more people's ability to pay attention than those that would." I agree that many of the protests we make will just make people resist us, especially at a ward level where we will be largely outnumbered. "Part of the problem with Brad's proposal is that it fails to recognize the fact that priesthood "power" is only partly conferred by God. It is also constituted in a community, so of course it has to be cultivated within that community. 1

Which is precisely why a rogue ordination is so incredibly damaging and offensive--it tears at the fabric of community, thereby deligitimizing priesthood power in the very act of "conferring" it." "It seems to me, and I think a persuasive case could be made by looking at historical precedent specifically within the church, that this event would not be an effective way of changing the hearts of those who we'd expect need changing."

In support of female ordination:

"I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I have done a lot of reading about humanitarian movements, and these kinds of very public acts, accumulating over time and building on each other until they reach a crescendo, seem to be the impetus for change in the long run. Sunlight is the best disinfectant." When a handful of female ordinations occur, others may be emboldened to ordain women as well. When that tide gets large enough, it will be very difficult to stop. (regarding the fact that a male would perform the ordination) "the same arguments were made against white people (especially Jews) participating in the civil rights movement. Isn't a key component of systemic change converting those in the power structure to your cause, a few people at a time, until public opinion shifts in your favor? Where would the gay rights movement be if only gay people were supporting the cause? The uphill battle of the minority (whatever minority that may be) is always to win the hearts and minds of the bulk of the majority so that, eventually, the opposing opinion becomes the minority opinion itself." I guess I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this blog, but it seems to me that it would be helpful and intuitive for women to be ordained to Melchizedek priesthood office over and over and over until the message gets through to LDS members and leaders that governance equality is vital. It's hard to ask for martyrs, but when their cause is just and there's enough of them the oppressive regime loses all semblance of moral legitimacy (compare to the Salt March http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_march). Once a few woman are ordained, both they and other willing men could ordain other willing women. It's gutsy activism, but the potency of the symbols are impossible to ignore- and civil rights movements like this often accelerate when powerful symbolism combines with martyrdom (think MLK & Tyndale and dozens of similar other examples). It can also be an effective long-term strategy; each data point added raises consciousness and forces discussions about LDS sexism. It is an act that can be replicated, and strikes at the heart of the illegitimate exercise of authority by the current patriarchy. "So Sonia Johnson did not plant an important seed in the Mormon feminist movement? How about the September Six? Are we prepared to say that their agitations (resulting in almost across-the-board excommunications) won't be a net positive in the long run?" "Sonia Johnson most definitely hurt the Mormon feminist movement, that should be clear." Response: "Not yet, maybe, but we're only a little more than three decades removed from Sonia Johnson's actions. These agitations often plant seeds that take decades upon decades to flower. If the church does open the priesthood to women at some point, and the history of that process is written, you don't think that Sonia Johnson and her peers will be considered to have put this issue front and center? I realize there was a backlash against her, but there has never been a human rights movement that does not include periods of backlash. Those periods, and the people who inspire them, are generally considered to be useful and sometimes even necessary catalysts. Not at the time, of course, but in the end, yes." "Forget the feminist movement and just think about the fact that it might be meaningful and spiritually powerful for the people involved. How it would benefit the feminist movement? I'm guessing in small ways it would. An ordained woman could give blessings to her children or women give blessings to each other. Or blessings to her husband. I realize some women do this already without ordination. But if she feels as if she's been properly ordained, it would make a bigger difference to her." "And as far as not needing men to swoop in and help women do what they think they cannot do for themselves, that will make it impossible for women to be ordained at all. Even going through the proper channels, the prophet, a man, would decide to begin female ordination, and at least one man would be required to ordain the first 2

woman. The Mormon conception of authority actually requires us to need men to swoop in and help us do what they think we cannot do for ourselves." "It is, however, an idea that has played out in every civil rights movement of the 20th century, so Brad is certainly in good company to believe it has some merit." "There is considerable evidence in contradiction of your statement that "there are no compelling arguments in its favor, no comparable historical analogies to successful reforms within well established, centralized, authoritarian religious institutions effected in a remotely similar manner." In fact, women's ordination in the Episcopal Church began in exactly this manner. "The first women were ordained priests in the Episcopal Church on July 29, 1974, though the orders had not been endorsed by General Convention. The so-called Philadelphia 11 were ordained by Bishops Daniel Corrigan, Robert L. DeWitt, Edward R. Welles, assisted by Antonio Ramos.[97] On September 7, 1975, four more women were irregularly ordained by retired Bishop George W. Barrett.[98] The 1976, General Convention, which approved the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, voted to regularize the 15 forerunners. In 1994, the Convention affirmed that there is value in the theological position that women should not be ordained. In 1997, the Convention affirmed that "the canons regarding the ordination, licensing, and deployment of women are mandatory and that dioceses noncompliant in 1997 shall give status reports on their progress toward full implementation. In 2006, the convention elected Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop. She is the first woman to serve as primate in the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is not the only example, but I'll let you research further for yourself." "Ordination of women is not a worldwide accomplished fact within all the member churches of the Anglican Communion, either, but it has made tremendous progress, and has not destroy the Communion, as some predicted it would." You wouldnt have the authority to ordain without approval of your local leaders. I'm authorized to ordain per the scriptural canon- the church handbook is not doctrine. The introduction to Handbook 1 (2010) reads: "Church leaders seek personal revelation to help them learn and fulfill the duties of their callings. Studying the scriptures and the teachings of the latter-day prophets will help leaders understand and fulfill their duties. The Lord has admonished leaders to treasure up in their minds continually the words of God so they will be receptive to the influence of the Spirit These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply while seeking the guidance of the Spirit." Clearly, the Handbook is not revelation itself if its users are instructed to base their decisions on personal revelation and the scriptures. I have felt inspired to ordain a woman as surely as I have been inspired to do anything, and my study of the scriptures supports the move. The gerontocracy has had decades of opportunity to reverse course and do the right thing and haven't. Church members are just as much a part of the church as its leaders are, and they too have the right to act and receive revelation in relation to it. You point out that activist power grabs "fail," and that excavating power "works." What do you mean by the terms "fail" and "works?" Looking to comparable movements, women suffrage activists made a power grab and did not fail; they obtained the right to vote. Civil rights leaders engaged a power struggle that escalated into backlash, but they ultimately won the day. Joseph didn't focus on embedded power within a system and excavate it; he also took authority into his own hands. Mormon feminists have been focusing on embedded power for over a century now, and though in many ways their efforts have been fruitful, we still observe the anachronism of a governance equality gap the size of the Grand Canyon in contemporary Mormonism. Taking authority into one's own hands suggests that the authority did not reside there previously. Empowered people _discover_ their power; they don't create it. Mormon men already have the authority to ordain LDS women. Mormon women already have the authority to govern the LDS church. Once Mormon feminists (male and female) awaken to this reality, the governance equality movement will, like the civil rights and suffrage movements before it, become inevitable. The patriarchy has no more authority than we grant it. 3

"But isn't that the very nature of civil disobedience, ___? To publicly break an unjust law in a nonviolent way in order to call attention to the discrimination inherent in that law? It's a form of public protest designed to make a dramatic emotional appeal, not so much to the government itself as to the governed, in an attempt to turn public opinion." "I don't know for sure that this is the way to make that shift happen. However, it is _a_ way to contribute to that shift, and for many reasons I'm convinced that it is a productive one. This act can be replicated and scaled- and if enough people did it, this type of a movement could not be stopped. Once individuals _see_ another group of people doing something, that behavior can become viral- think of the widespread sit-ins of the 60's. That being said, I acknowledge that the endeavor could also be a bust, isolated, and not really go anywhere besides providing a notable data point." "If the goal is institutional reform, I think the martyrs who will be the most helpful are the ones who find a way to stay in the organization and inspire/change hearts from within, sacrificing as a martyr done their ideals maybe." Response: "Working from within is very effective, and a number of my role models take that approach. However, I think the cause of reform will need many approaches- of which radical activism is one. There is no reason why several productive approaches can't be taken simultaneously. I consider all of those working for reform from within, without, and sideways to be allies." "I don't believe this would accomplish much. Because to be honest I don't think the majority of the woman in the church want the priesthood if it was offered to them. I think they want to be treated as equals and have their voices heard, more than to be called Elder." Response: "The majority of women in the church do not seek Melchizedek priesthood office. I'll admit that I'm a little perplexed that more women are not interested in becoming equal participants in the governance authority recognized in our community. In a single stroke, it recognizes gender equality, empowers women, and destroys the unfortunate sexist taint currently attached to priesthood. However, I think I might differ somewhat in that I think being ordained an Elder is a vital step toward being treated as an equal and having voices heard. Our community's governance structure recognizes the authority of governance boards such as the First Presidency, Quorum of the 12, high councils, stake presidencies, and bishoprics. The American community's governance structure recognized the authority of governance boards such as Congress, appellate courts, the President and his cabinet, etc. Ultimately women had to become members of congress, and participants on the president's cabinet, and judges in appellate courts, and candidates for President. Integration is an intuitive and effective solution to governance inequality that has succeeded in dozens of comparable communities. " "I don't think the martyrdom of this sacrificial lamb would scratch the collective mind of the GAs." Response: "You may be right, but that is not the audience targeted by this act. We've got to stop picturing the GA's as being the power brokers and wake up to the reality that the community is where the power rests. I think the current GA's are a lost cause. It is the current and future members of the church that I am speaking to, because they are the ones that have the power. I want to persuade them to include women at all levels of church governance. Church members understand that leaders have no more power than they're given, no more authority than their constituencies choose to recognize. Already, many members are uncomfortable ratifying a governance regime that infantilizes and excludes women. If we can help grow and embolden that portion of the LDS community, either reform will follow, or the authority of Melchizedek priesthood office will simply diminish (as it does each time a member "votes with their feet" by leaving the church, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the patriarchy in their own lives). LDS members are so much more powerful than they realize." "I believe in priesthood, but not in the magical way that I perceive most LDS members do. Members of the LDS community acknowledge and recognize Melchizedek priesthood office as the _authority to govern_. Power (specifically, governance authority) derives from the consent of the governed, and from no other place- this is a piece of classical political theory and legal positivism with, I think, a rich and well-supported history. As members of a state, we don't recognize the authority of the state highway patrolman because there is a Great Policeman who decided to share his power with Officer Johnson. We have simply made a communal agreement to subject ourselves to the authority of the courts and law enforcement, and it is that consent that creates the authority. We recognize as valid the extant process for deputizing Officer Johnson, and that enables him to perform his duties with authority. 4

To continue this analogy, most LDS members would not recognize the ordination as valid. Certainly, we wouldn't expect the ordained woman to be called to a bishopric the following week. However, some people would recognize the validity of the ordination. I would submit myself to her authority if she passed the sacrament, or confirmed a baptized convert, or took charge of a meeting, or some other performance associated with the office of elder. I would not be the only one, either- and even if only two members of the community chose to recognize her governance authority, to the extent of two, the ordination "stuck." Joseph's claimed governance authority began quite small, and grew only to that degree that converts recognized it. Legal philosophers refer to this idea as the "rule of recognition." "Why would I want to be ordained to an office by a person that doesn't believe in the sacred authority in which it was given? If the priesthood is god given having any priesthood holder give it to anyone is not proper use of said priesthood and is a mockery. If you can't find a woman to do this, then why not a dog or a couch? It just seems arbitrary." Response: Several people liked your comment, suggesting that you're not alone in feeling this way. However, I resist the accusation that I don't believe in the sacred authority of the priesthood. I believe in the practical, pragmatic meaning of Melchizedek priesthood office- which in our communities, again, means authority to govern. I believe in the priesthood as much as I believe in the authority of Officer Johnson. It's real, and it matters. I would consider ordaining a woman to a Melchizedek priesthood office to be the most reverent, sacred, and proper priesthood exercise of my life. I have felt moved to do this, and I feel it is my priesthood duty: "38 The duty of the elders... to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons" (D&C 20:39). A woman is not a dog or a couch. Melchizedek priesthood office, as the recognized governance authority of the LDS community, oppresses, delegitimizes, and excludes women in effect and practice. I view this as a taint to the moral legitimacy of that authority. Refusing to recognize the length of one's sex chromosome or genital tubercle as relevant to exercising governance authority, to me, sanctifies rather than mocks. Integrating produced an uptick in Major League baseball's moral legitimacy. If Elohim approve of the status quo system, including its profoundly negative effects on both women and men, then I'm not very interested in worshiping Elohim. I think that God expects and indeed encourages us as a community and an institution to mature (dare I say evolve) in our moral understanding. "I am 100% in favor of integration. Im convinced that women MUST take their place at the governance table- and in Mormondom that means Bishoprics, it means First Presidency, and everything in between. If theres a governing body of the Church, it should be open to women. The mature adults in a community form the candidate governance pool- not the mature adult men. To do otherwise in my view infantilizes women by treating them as equivalent to children, for which there is good reason for exclusion at the governance table. Because the LDS community associates Melchizedek Priesthood office with governance, I feel women should be ordained to all those offices, including elder, high priest, apostle and, awkward as it sounds, patriarch. In countless comparable institutions, we observe the same pattern- e.g. school desegregation, integration of major and Negro leagues for baseball, marriage, our Restoration movement sibling the Community of Christ, and legislative office. Though separate but equal facilities can be useful (e.g. there is some utility in having civil unions for gay couples, but it is better to include them at the marriage table), they are usually stopping points along the road to full equality. How awkward would it be today if we had miscegenation unions instead of marriage, or parallel Negro Leagues in baseball? Equalizing the structure makes HUGE strides because of its symbolic teaching power. When we see a woman CEO or a female congressperson, even if, say, only 15% of Congress is female, the progress of the feminist cause is much more than just 15%. This particular piece of precedent is particularly pregnant with philosophical potency, as it challenges in a stroke (1) LDS sexist governance, (2) the source of governance authority (common consent v. elsewhere), and (3) the ability of the gerontocracy to retain a patriarchal grip over its members in an age where the rising generations zeitgeist is one of information access, empowerment, and a milieu of secular equality. Like the Salt March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_march), this act strikes at the moral legitimacy of an authoritarian regime- in this case, for excluding women from high-level decision making. Women don't need to get power from a man. However, this particular act is needed because ordination is the process recognized in our community for transferring governance power. Eventually there needs to be a Brooklyn Dodgers who debuts Jackie Robinson- after that pioneer breaches the gender line, like destroying white-only 5

baseball, the office of elder begins to lose its male-only stigma, and ultimately the gender of the ordainer will matter no more than the gender of the ordainee. Though wed be punished and marginalized, it would jumpstart the dialogue, producing questions like, well, why not? Whats so wrong about a woman holding governance authority? it would set a precedent for what will eventually prove normal (the reason its radical rather than routine is not the act itself, but merely the fact that its 2012, not 2212). It allows both participants a voice and a forum- make no mistake, journalists will interview the participants, and their answers will be heard by many people. This act would shine a lot of light on the plight of Mormon feminism in 2012. Romney+ Book of Mormon Musical + Prop 8 + Social Media = the Mormon Moment, which with an uptick in activism like this could evolve into the Mormon Spring. It also holds symbolic value by signaling to future LDS leaders (not so much the current ones- I think theyre a lost cause) that LDS members, especially my Millenial generation, are not satisfied to watch and clap while the institution takes baby steps. We are willing to pay a high price for the reforms we demand (sexism and heterosexism for starters), and will not wait around endlessly to observe them. The gerontocracy rules by the consent of the governed; when a critical mass of that LDS governed ignore the illegitimate exercises of power (compare to the sit-in demonstrations of the 60s) by refusing to follow the proscription against female governance, either reform will follow or the regime will simply diminish. Every big social justice movement requires martyrs- sadly, they are part of the price of change. Little convo between my friend and I re: ordaining women. Friend: Hi, Brad. Said this in somewhat of a family feud, but I thought of you and your efforts later on. I think it's a somewhat more nuanced, workable approach than "women should have the Priesthood because men do." "Even in the temple endowment we hear "...he shall rule over thee in righteousness." and "...she will obey your law in the Lord", and "I now covenant to obey your law as you obey our Father." This puts the woman in the position of "judge". Of course, this makes her immensely powerful; she can nearly ruin him with her judgment (and some women do). This, obviously, does not add up to Patriarchy, put something of a shared dominion. Unfortunately, this check on authority does not exist in the government of the Church (even if it thankfully exists in our marriages). This is why, perhaps, the Church today is authoritarian, rigid, and even warlike (i.e., the run the Church as if in a state of "spiritual" warfare). Some happen to disagree with me, but we don't need women in the q15. However, we DO NEED an autonomous, albeit complementary, Relief Society. That's how we're taught our marriages ought to be, and that's how the Church ought to be governed." When I was ordained to the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood respectively, I don't believe I received any new power or authority. I understand this is an unorthodox view, but what I mean is that I was merely REMINDED of power and authority I already had. In other words, what I received was a duty to exercise that power and authority; I was being reminded of my (future) role and responsibility as husband and father and leader within the Church. I don't think you can transplant "Priesthood" onto women, because it is too deeply intertwined with notions of being a husband and father. However, I do, like you, believe in "Priestesshood". I believe it is a power and authority that women already hold (but is very misunderstood)--but that it needs to be formally recognized within the Church. I think "Priesthood" reflects the "organizing" principle and "Priesthesshood" reflects the "generative" principle. Priestesshood is already recognized intuitively and practiced to a degree, but it is poorly understood and in many ways subverted and suppressed. Formal recognition could, in time, bring deeper aspects of this power and authority to light. That, women need to be reminded of the "Priestesshood" they already hold and have a right to exercise. I think the judicial component is an innate part of Priestesshood, and we simply need acknowledge and uphold it. The judicial component has been suppressed because we exist within a patriarchal structure. Of course that needs to change. Patriarchy is an evil that needs to be overcome. Brad Carmack: I don't advocate beefing up the Negro League. I advocate integration instead.

Though we agree that patriarchy is an evil that needs to be overcome, I don't think relegating the Latinos to judicial functions and the African-Americans to executive ones can suffice. Race-based discriminations turn on one component of an individual's appearance: color. Sex-based discriminations turn on a different component of an individual's appearance: shape. Now, some discriminations on these bases are apropos- for instance, a low-melaninconcentration person should probably use a bit more sunscreen. Neither superficial difference, however, has any relevance to governance allocation. Your proposed scheme necessarily relies on gender essentialism, which we have no ability to discern. Biology breathes bell curves, not binaries. The day you can give me a binary test for sex is the day I'll start asking why your criteria are relevant to disparate governance roles. What is it about a long genital tubercle that equips someone for executive decision making, whereas a short one qualifies someone for judicial? Is there a qualitative difference between that assumption and the age-old "blacks' proper role is servants of servants?"

I reject complementarity as inapplicable, because it relies on a gender binary that we have no evidence exists. Replacing one set of assumptions with another may be more workable, but it's no more warranted. The reason women should be ordained to Melchizedek priesthood office is, instead, _exactly_ as you articulatebecause we ordain men.