Good Mormon Feminists Vs. Bad Mormon Feminists: The Dividing Line By Caroline Kline

(cross posted at the Mormon feminist blog, The Exponent)

In a couple of different conversations I’ve had with her, Mormon feminist Lorie Winder Stromberg has proposed that many Mormons commonly perceive two types of feminists within the Church.

The first are the good Mormon feminists. These are feminists, often professional women, who may question gender roles and women’s lack of visibility in texts and leadership, but are on the whole seen as faithful and dedicated to the Church.

The second are the bad Mormon feminists.  These are the feminists that are regarded as dangerous, apostate, and disloyal to the Church.

According to Stromberg’s theory, the dividing line between these two groups of feminists — the thing that makes the one group good and the one group bad — is the issue of women’s ordination to the priesthood.

If a woman calls herself a feminist, but doesn’t focus on or talk about the issue of women’s ordination, then other Mormons are often willing to regard these women as benign, despite their strange feminist leanings. However, if a feminist does reveal her convictions that women should have the priesthood, she is automatically regarded as a threat to Mormon leadership and Mormonism in general.

I think this is a valid theory.

If one accepts this narrative, my  follow up questions are these: Why does women’s ordination function as this dividing line? What is it about a woman thinking that priesthood should be available to all humans that makes her such a threat, whereas a woman questioning prescribed  Mormon gender roles or a woman who wants to see an expanded space for women’s action and participation in Church is not such a threat?

I don’t know that I have a great answer to this huge question I just posed, but here’s an initial attempt. I suspect that people aren’t as threatened by women questioning gender roles or women’s lack of visibility in leadership because there appears to be wiggle room on these issues. The Proclamation on the Family, which has some of Mormonism’s heaviest prescriptions on men’s roles vs. women’s, does have that line about how individual circumstances may vary. Also, women who want expanded roles for women’s leadership have only to go back to our own Mormon past to see women who were really running their own programs, controlling their own funds, and highly visible in their callings. (How times have changed.)

However, on the topic of women getting the priesthood…. well there’s not so much precedent for that. (Though one can certainly find inspiration and hope from the way Mormon women used to talk about holding the priesthood in conjunction with their husbands, or the way people commonly perceived certain temple rituals giving women priesthood in some sense.) Women’s ordination within Mormonism is a forward thinking leap into the unknown and it questions the very structure of the Church organization. Perhaps that’s just scary to a lot of Mormons. And perhaps it also signals heresy because, unlike the questioning of gender roles, it’s a place where so few Mormon women and men are willing to go.

Categories: Mormonism

Tags: , ,

9 replies

  1. Caroline,
    As usual, we share very similiar points of connection between our two traditions (Roman Catholism and Mormonish). At least within my tradition, I feel the rejection of women from the priesthood comes down to issues of power and control. Theologically it simply does not hold up (see When Women were Priest, by Karen Jo Torjesen and most recently, The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination by Gary Macy) so the church has created their own redaction of the Jesus movement and the centrality of women to his ministry.

    This of course dove-tails on the ability of ecclesial authority to co-opt feminism to their own advantage, i.e. the good feminist Mormon. But I thought in your tradition men are not formally “ordained,” rather it is a priesthood of all belivers, no? Froom this perspective it seems you might have a stronger doctrineal ground from with to work. For Catholic women, it comes down to not having the correct sexual parts.
    I think the Catholic church will first see married priest, but only if the church in developing nations go the way of Europe and the U.S., meaning substantial loss of male vocations to the priesthood. That might take as much as 2-3 generations to occur.
    I think we should place bets on which tradition will ordain first in our life-times!!


  2. I wouldn’t say the priesthood is the line. I think the dividing line is between those who support the prophets and apostles and those who critique and challenge.


  3. I actually just posted something to my own blog about this. I think the biggest oversight in wondering why women don’t hold the Priesthood is that it’s based on a straw-man argument, to begin with: the assumption that you don’t.!/2011/11/do-women-hold-priesthood.html


  4. I find it difficult to believe that a true feminist would associate herself with any male dominated religion. I can’t understand the idea that they believe their church to be “true” but attempt to change or alter the belief system. If its “true” then leave it as is. If its not, just leave it.


  5. 2 eternal truths…men have the priesthood, woman have motherhood.


  6. I suppose what it really comes down to is…do we sustain and have faith in the general authorities and trust their direction?


Leave a Reply to Caroline Kline Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: