The Problem is the Patriarchy

[_Kishkumen]

Progressive Mormonism doesn't need a new schism so much as it needs progressive Mormons to wake up and support the "schism" that's already much closer to the change they want to see.

It is probably true that what many, many progressive Mormons are looking for is already here in the CoC. It is a really cool organization. And, for those who do not think like I do (appreciating heretical theology and esoteric rituals), and who want priesthood for women, then the Community of Christ is an excellent choice.

I realize progressive Mormons get tired of conservative Mormons telling them things like, "If you don't like it, then leave!" But . . . the conservative Mormons are kind of right.

Indeed! If progressive Mormons really believe they are right, they should go practice Mormonism as they believe it should be practiced. No need for them to wait for conservative Mormons to be convinced. Yes, there are pretty hefty consequences, and I don't blame them for not being willing to suffer them, but there simply is another way. Too many people don't see that.

[_Maksutov]

I realize progressive Mormons get tired of conservative Mormons telling them things like, "If you don't like it, then leave!" But . . . the conservative Mormons are kind of right.

This was the conclusion I came to from knowing the first generation of Sunstone people. They wanted to bring liberal Protestant concepts from the Graduate Theological Seminary in Berkeley or somewhere into Mormonism. I couldn't see any large portion of the Mormon people going along with that.

[_Fence Sitter]

It is sort of ironic that in a church led by a patriarchy, they have more problems retaining male members than female.

I think, like all other social issues, that the church will simply be 20 to 50 years behind in female participation. If there comes a time when women are seen as men's equal in all aspects of society, and where it is uncommon to find other churches that do not allow women at all levels, the LDS church will follow suit.

I also think that the increase number of female returned missionaries is going to have an unanticipated affect of producing faithful women who are more assertive in local ward leadership councils, women who have been out in the mission field and are used to solving for themselves the same sort of problems the are now encountering in their home wards. They don't need a bishop to pat them on their heads and tell them what to do.

A huge factor that is new to this and is only going to increase the pressure to change, is social media and the ability of anonymous faithful LDS women to speak out en masse about what they want. The church is paying more attention to what is going on out in the ether net. As online petitions, forums, social media groups and so on grow in number and power, this will let those women out in Parawon, who wish they could stand in the circle when they babies are blessed, that they are not alone, that they can voice their displeasure anonymously online without sister Christensen the RS president knowing about it. The church can no longer control the message of all LDS groups.

The other problem that may lead to more women participating in church leadership will be one of numbers. As more and more men leave, women will take on a more prominent role.

This will be a slow process dictated by both internal and external changes.

[Guest]

This was the conclusion I came to from knowing the first generation of Sunstone people. They wanted to bring liberal Protestant concepts from the Graduate Theological Seminary in Berkeley or somewhere into Mormonism. I couldn't see any large portion of the Mormon people going along with that.

I don't think that such an approach is really a good idea at all. Jack is right about the Community of Christ already going down that road. And, cool, they did it and they are there with open arms waiting for the Mormons who want to join them there. The CoC is a really cool organization. They should be attracting more progressive LDS people.

Speaking for myself, I have a very strong resistance to Trinitarianism. I get why the ancient Church went that way, but in today's world the same factors don't really pertain. It is no longer the case that politics and religion are tied together the way they were in the Roman Empire. There is absolutely no need to insist on one unifying theology, especially when the New Testament writers themselves did not share one unifying theology. The Creeds are essentially philosophical compromise statements that belong in the world they were crafted. I respect that others believe and feel differently. I have read the words of those who find the doctrine of the Trinity spiritually satisfying and I say God speed.

[_Symmachus]

I applaud Kish's post here and I must say that I find MSJacks' comments show there already is a path for progressivist Mormons of the Utah persuasion to trod. MSJack gets right to the truth of the matter: the conservatives are kind of right (in every sense).

They won't take it, however, because progressivist Mormonism—the term "progressive Mormonism" is an oxymoronic misnomer—is more Mormon than progressive, and in every way. There is an assumption they share, for example, about the confluence of identity and history that I've only ever seen with very, very conservative Utah Mormons. Historical memory is deeply important to them.

Few things in Mormoniana irritate me more when I tune into the John Dehlin Show than hearing some upper-middle class whiner preface their virtuous pretension with their ancestry: "I'm a sixth-generation Mormon..." and similar crap. Jesus Christ, your ancestry is much more deeply Roman Catholic than anything else, so get over yourselves. I don't hear evangelicals touting the fact that their family has been, say, Methodist since the mid nineteenth century. Michael Quinn can refer to himself as a "DNA Mormon," which is a very telling metaphor about the way that progressivists think of Mormonism as a community defined by an inheritable past, not a community of meek believers eager to inherit the earth (certainly not a Community of Chris), much like the conservatives who run the hierarchy do. And even more telling is how quickly that phrase has become a meme among progressivists. Think of how important blood-lines are to traditional Utah Mormonite theology and you can see how thoroughly Mormon this kind of discourse is, even if the progressivists mean something slightly (and only slightly) different by it. Progressivist Mormons speak with all the injured dignity of Jacobite aristocrats: it is they who are the true heirs of the Mormon heritage—after all, they know in their bones that Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel and that Brigham Young was opposed to eastern bankers!—and staying in the Church is the only way that the present hierarchy will surrender to the progressivists eager to get on with the work of the Restoration.

And like the Jacobites, martyrdom for the cause has a great value among the progressivist Mormons. This is also something that is typically Utah Mormon, given its incessant rehearsal of a historical memory scarred by imagined martyrdom in the past and a constant pretense of being under siege by the unbaptized and the unworthy in the present. The potential for martyrdom—the state of constant readiness for self-sacrifice—is something that tickles the faith-spine of every true believer who knows that one day real estate values in Missouri are going to reach values of Biblical proportions. But hopes for a Missouri home-coming have been dampened ever since the Hinckley era; self-sacrifice for the cause is an ideal that can rarely find its reality. So while conservative Mormons have to pick fights to increase the possibility of faithful suffering (fights with, say, gay rights activists), progressivist Mormons can spill their digital blood in the name of a bicurious, gender-ambiguous Jesus just by having a podcast. Martyrdom is a promissory note you can get in progressivist Mormonism that you'll never be able to cash in over at the Community of Christ.

Dehlinites and Snufferites are cut from the same cloth.

[_Kishkumen]

The comparison with Jacobites is apt. Stunning. I have reflected on this before. You are right that this is an issue of identity and pride. But being one who felt very Mormon as an identity, I wouldn’t so readily paint it in such unflattering strokes. Being a descendant of pioneers was a big deal in my life. It has emotional significance to me. The CoC does lack that narrative. So, yeah, guilty as charged. I don’t think being of pioneer stock makes me better, but it is something that has real meaning to me.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I realize progressive Mormons get tired of conservative Mormons telling them things like, "If you don't like it, then leave!" But . . . the conservative Mormons are kind of right.

I know! Excellent point

[_Meadowchik]

I am an apostate but I bring my son to church. He is slowly getting more and more tolerant about our differing beliefs.

Perhaps this is one vector of change within the church: connections between people who are in and out, where the apostates insist on more justice and live in such a way that the believers insist on the actuality of it in the religion. Am I too optimistic to think that the mixed-faith relationships that do persist will more likely be based on healthier attitudes?

[_Meadowchik]

There's a church down the street from me that I kind of like. Good preaching, nice assortment of classes, decent children's ministry. They are literally a five-minute drive down the road, and I'm moving into their town next month, so I'm about to be even closer to them than I am now. They are a growing church and are about to open a new location in another township. What they do, they seem to be doing well.

And I'd rather keep driving 30-40 minutes to the Evangelical Covenant Church or to Willow Creek Community Church, because I need to attend a church that is at least attempting to respect women.

The LDS church isn't going to make any changes in this area unless women start voting with their feet. Until then, they will just point to the women still attending and say, "They're still here, so it can't be all that bad." Stop giving your time, tithes, and talents to organizations that don't treat you as full human beings (and yes, I think the non-ordination of women stems from a thousands-year-old tradition of not treating women as fully human, even if that's not what modern-day practitioners of it mean by it anymore).

Then again, I guess I don't really "get" liberal Mormons anymore. You wish that the Mormon church ordained women, was more loving and accepting of LGBT people, and would de-emphasize some of Mormonism's stranger doctrines like polygamy?

Well, damn, if only there were a branch of Mormonism that already did that.

Progressive Mormonism doesn't need a new schism so much as it needs progressive Mormons to wake up and support the "schism" that's already much closer to the change they want to see.

I realize progressive Mormons get tired of conservative Mormons telling them things like, "If you don't like it, then leave!" But . . . the conservative Mormons are kind of right.

Except that Mormonism is inconsistent. Sure, if you weight things one, way, fair-minded people might not belong, but if you prioritize the more meta stuff like "God is love" and "I am a child of God," then change is imperative if the religion is going to have any integrity. I wonder if it really is to late for that, though. Isn't the prevailing Mormonspeak too far afield of intellectual integrity? Talks like "Wrong Roads" and "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater..." demonstrate a bit of it...I mean it hasn't jumped the shark, it's jumped the Kolobian space shark.

[Guest]

and why would we want women to be leaders of a corporate church? We need more women as scientists and engineers, not as Bishops. Mormon progressives are stupid.