OCR Text |
Show 4 OPINION Wednesday, October 9, 2013 www.dailyutahchronicle.cor ► RORY PENMAN/The Daily Utah Chronicle Gender roles create rift `Sexism' claims unjustified LDS women should have equal rights NAFISA MASUD ze i ielr T Columnist his past weekend marked the 183rd semi-annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which hundreds of LDS women were barred entrance to the male-only Saturday night session, according to the Standard-Examiner. The women, members of the Ordain Women group, hoped to be given the unclaimed tickets to the conference but were turned away in favor of male members. This peaceful protest of sorts was an effort to bring awareness to the blatant absence of female authority in the Mormon priesthood, which has sparked numerous debates in recent years concerning gender inequality within the church. Liberal LDS groups such as Women in the Community of Christ exist that allow women to join the priesthood, but these are few and far between and looked down upon by their conservative counterparts. The last doctrinal change to guidelines of the priesthood was made in 1978, when a revelation was announced that allowed all males, regardless of race, to join the priesthood at the age of twelve. Historically, early Mormonism was relatively liberal toward women. Joseph Smith's wife Emma was a scribe in the efforts to translate the Book of Mormon and headed the Relief Society, one of the oldest women's organizations in the world. But the years following the 19th century brought a return to traditional gender roles. Emma officially left the church after Joseph's death and his instruction by God to take multiple wives. According to exmormon.org , LDS women are urged to enter into "celestial marriage" with a holder of the priesthood so they can enter heaven. With regards to the actual ceremony, men pledged their covenant to God while women made the same vows to their future husband, a symbol of their dependence and submission to him. Women were granted authority over children and younger female peers but were still guided by the priesthood, of which males were the only members. The official explanation for this exclusion is that women are more spiritual than men — thus men need the priesthood to achieve the same sense of religious devotion. They are also told priesthood is a way to bring men up to an equal status of women, given the female ability to bear children. This line of reasoning serves only to promote and perpetuate the sexist ideals that many claim to be the LDS church's greatest flaw. Our state is no stranger to this rift between gender roles and the LDS church. Women's suffrage in Utah was first granted in 1870 when Brigham Young, among others, decided allowing women to vote would boost the national image of Mormonism in its relation to the treatment of women. They were unsuccessful — a national effort to prevent polygamy overturned this vote in 1887 because many believed granting women suffrage would strengthen the power of the LDS church. The right to vote was officially restored in 1895. Today, LDS women aren't standing idle. Last December marked a turning point as thousands of Mormon women worldwide wore pants to church in an effort organized by Utah native Stephanie Lauritzen, according to The New York Times. While there is no official policy barring women from wearing pants to church, many feel social pressure to wear dresses and more traditional clothing. Countless others were reprimanded and ridiculed by church members for participating, and some received death threats. These women, along with those standing outside of the Conference Center this past weekend, have more than proven their worth. And while they didn't manage to gain entrance, their efforts weren't in vain. This year was the first the Saturday evening session was televised in an effort, ironically, to make its content more accessible. And while I certainly wonder what they could be talking about behind those doors, I can't help but think that what's going on right outside of them is a lot more interesting. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Church critics should seek understanding E Columnist very once in a while when I find myself feeling unreasonably optimistic about society, I force myself to listen to conservative talk radio to balance things out. The other day I was indulging myself in this unique form of psychotherapy by listening to conservatives call in and rail against the horrors of the Affordable Care Act when several things became quite evident. These people clearly had an ax to grind and didn't have a clue as to what they were complaining about. Despite their obvious passion they did not have an understanding of Obamacare and their criticism came across as ignorant. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come under fire for many things over the years, including their very public opposition to Proposition 8 in which criticism was warranted because it was an example of their doctrine bleeding over into the public arena. The LDS church also received justifiable criticism for failing to allow African-Americans to hold the priesthood until 1978, and to a lesser extent criticism for the practice of polygamy. However, the recent criticism directed towards the church for not allowing women to hold the priesthood is completely unwarranted and an example of people simply not understanding what they are criticizing. There was a significant amount of media coverage this past weekend during the LDS General Conference as a group called "Ordain Women" tried unsuccessfully to gain entrance to the male-only priesthood session of General Conference. The group, which is composed of LDS women who want the church to support gender equality, has been aggressively petitioning the LDS church to change their stance on the maleonly priesthood — their demands to attend the priesthood session was part of that effort. While their collective heart may be in the right place, their efforts and the subsequent media coverage is misguided for several reasons. For one thing, any attempt to attend priesthood Conference when it isn't mandated is puzzling because it's basically two hours of men being scolded for not living up to some pretty lofty standards — it's not exactly happy hour at Hooter's. For another thing, all the talks are available online and through various church magazines for any women wanting to see what's going on behind closed doors. But clearly the issue at the heart of the demonstration is the fact that the LDS church does not allow women to hold the priesthood, and the criticism of this policy does not make sense. The reason women do not hold the priesthood was explained by former president of the LDS church Gordon B. Hinckley when he said, "Women do not hold the priesthood because [God] has put it that way. It is part of His program ... Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church ... The man neither walks ahead of wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise." This essentially explains that the LDS church views men and woman as equal but with different roles within the principles of their beliefs. This is why the demands of "Ordain Women" do not make sense. If these women claim to subscribe to the LDS faith, they would believe that God is at the head of the church, so rather then protesting and petitioning church leaders it would make more sense to pray for change. Otherwise their actions seem more like a political statement and come across as divisive, because most LDS women do not see this as a issue. Their actions demean the role of women in the LDS faith by suggesting that women do not have equal importance in the church which, diminishes the importance the LDS faith places on family and raising children. There are many LDS households where it's the woman who rules the roost with an iron fist and the man is little more than a pack mule bringing in the goods. Just because modern society may view the idea of a woman running the household and raising children as antiquated doesn't make it so. The scrutiny being heaped upon the LDS church from the media and other outside observers is also not warranted because this is not the same type of issue as Proposition 8, which affected people who weren't part of the LDS faith. Rather, this is a case of disproportionate sliver of women within the LDS faith who are dissatisfied with a doctrine that dates back to ancient biblical times. This is really more of an internal issue that is being picked apart and dissected by people who seem just as clueless and uninformed as the deluge of confused conservatives that call in to radio shows to vent about a health care plan that they don't understand. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Religion must bend to legal definitions Columnist T he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' conference this time around has added another soundbite to contribute to the further gap between the LDS church and progressive sociopolitical trends. On the topic of same-sex marriage, Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated that church viewpoints do not "condone such behaviors or [find] justification in the laws that permit them." In this manner, the church finds itself walking the fine line of religious expression and social discrimination. The situation is unique in that many religious representatives express opposition to same-sex marriage yet support legal protection of samesex couples, such as hospital visitation. This viewpoint can be supported as long as legal marriage and religious marriage are held disjoint. The government cannot deny marital rights to a couple based on sexual orientation. The legal system must allow all couples their rights regardless of race, creed or socioeconomic status. Civil unions are not a viable alternative to same-sex marriages. In this way the government will never be able to distinguish couples by sexual orientation, nor should it be able to. However, if a church must condemn gay marriage, a disjoint of marriage is required. Marriage itself has long suffered from a one-size-fits-all dynamic when it is ridiculous to expect every couple to conform to the same set of rules. There are about two million marriages a year in the United States, and to hold each and every one to the standard of the others is to set most up for failure. The LDS church has a right to condemn gay marriage, but it should not be fighting for a breach on the legal rights of homosexual couples. The church needs to accept that its idea of marriage and legal marriage can never be held synonymous. Marriage is a concept. This specific concept is bogged down by centuries of tradition and has developed countless variations on its meaning, standards and execution. This variation has created a mess of the modern marriage debate as proponents attempt to argue a concept which is consistent in only a few key areas. Couples need the law to protect their rights, and they all deserve equal protection. The fact that this protection is called marriage is coincidental, yet the practice will be continued because of its tradition. Unfortunately the law is not immune to human sentiment, and .71IIN ?)LAISE PASCAL 'tke *EWE*/ THINGS NO" okyl IlItem bIFFERENT 51111E,SA S. lb/cilia bIFFERENN Lai, j. 11 INIEHAVE NO INkiVii.. `k411 TVINII THEM AlVIVElif I 'i ll II CALEIGH OLIVER/The Daily Utah Chronicle marriage will remain unchanged in its legal definition for the foreseeable future. As long as it encompasses all citizens equally, the definition is acceptable. Thus the decision rests with those of religious faith. The legal definition of marriage will never completely match a religious definition without threatening the free- dom of religious expression. Legal marriage and religious marriage are separate, and it is up to the individual to make the distinction. This degree of separation is the only way tolerance and belief can exist simultaneously. The alternative is the continued push of both sides until one of them gives in a big way. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |