Ninety and nine problems

There are two LDS hymns that, when sung in meetings, used to always generate strong, almost electrifying spiritual sensations for me (hair standing on end, feeling something akin to the "burning in the bosom" mentioned in the scriptures, etc.). Well, more accurately, a line in each of the hymns: "find in thee my strength, my beacon" from "Lord, I Would Follow Thee," and "Wake up the world" from "Praise to the Man."

You'll notice I said "used to;" for the last two or three years, these hymns haven't had the same effect on me, coinciding with a general absence of strong spiritual experiences in my life. The Spirit certainly still influences me, but there has been a lack of what I might call "outpourings" of it when compared to other times in my life. There's likely a number of reasons for this, but I suspect that one of them is the amount of noise in my life--when I'm at home, I'm almost always in front of a TV screen or a computer monitor or both. I'm not doing bad things, but I'm leaving very little space for pondering, for introspection, for meditation.

But then last Sunday...last Sunday, in sacrament meeting, we sang both of the aforementioned hymns, and I experienced spiritual sensations similar to those I've felt in years past. I think much of this can be attributed to the fact that I blessed the sacrament for the first time in years.

From the time I turned 12, continuing through my Aaronic Priesthood years, my mission, and my various Young Single Adult wards, there weren't many weeks that I wasn't involved in either preparing, blessing, or passing the sacrament. Now I've been in a family ward for 3+ years, and the Young Men and their leaders generally are able to cover the sacramental duties. But a lot of people were gone last Sunday, and they asked me to help. I gladly agreed, because I love serving in that way. I love the feeling it gives me. And I totally get why women would want that same experience.

Yep, this is a post about the Ordain Women movement. Because you haven't read enough of them yet. I've been reading all of the same blogs and articles (sometimes even venturing into the comments section before quickly retreating), listening to all the same interviews, that you have, and thinking about it a lot (hey, I am capable of introspection! my time spent pondering this topic likely also played a part in my experience last Sunday), but even at this late stage in the news cycle these thoughts still haven't coalesced into a single, flowing post, so you just get a series of bullet points instead.

--First of all, I do not support the ordination of women at this time. I choose to align myself with the statements and decisions of church leaders and official church spokespersons, and feel that is the right thing to do.

--Anyone who views a fellow Saint's excommunication as a celebratory event needs to be much more charitable.

--Like I said, I've been reading a lot of blogs, articles, and Facebook posts, and I have a minor and a major pet peeve in relation to the common talking points used by either side. First, the minor pet peeve from those who support Ordain Women, or at least were opposed to Kate Kelly's excommunication: it irks me a little when they say things along the lines of, "I can take this blow, but what about my daughters?" Are their daughters not as resilient or as faithful as they are? You have dealt with injustices and inequities (real or perceived) for a long time and have remained active in the church; why cannot your daughters do the same? It might be difficult, but if the LDS Church is Christ's true church--I submit that it is, and the basis of your statements indicate you feel the same way--then it is worth the sacrifice.

My minor pet peeve with those who oppose female ordination: any variation of the comment "I don't want the Priesthood, I have enough to do already!" To me that is dismissive of the questions and complaints of OW supporters, and also at least a little dishonest. What if women are ordained at some point? I don't think it will happen, certainly not in the very near future, but I might be wrong. It is certainly in the realm of possibility. If that day ever comes, does your comment mean you would decline ordination? I don't think you would. I think most would serve diligently in whatever capacity they are called to do so, just as they do today. You likely do have a lot to do right now, but it's because you're the type of person who willingly takes on callings and assignments and other service opportunities, and you would still be that kind of person if female ordination ever happens.

--Now for the major pet peeves. On the OW side, I don't like the way the idea of "asking questions" is equated with having the moral high ground. Framing what they do as merely asking questions ("All we're doing is asking questions;" "Why should someone face church discipline just for asking questions;" etc.) oversimplifies and obscures the goals of and tactics used by their movement, and ignores the fact that their primary question has been definitively answered, at least for now.

On the other side...I think all statements (including Elder Oaks' recent General Conference talk) indicating that women exercise Priesthood power and authority in a way equal to men is disingenuous, or at least incomplete in addressing the concerns of OW and its supporters. Pretending that there is equality between genders in the hierarchy of the church is just silly. It's simply not true. But I'm ok with this inequity, because in the ways that matter most there is true equality. You're likely burned out on reading about this stuff by now, but there are two lengthy blog posts that I urge you to read (after finishing this post, of course). They resonate more with me--by far--than anything else I have read on these topics, and I feel they do an excellent job expounding on these major pet peeves of mine. Both were written before excommunication became part of the story, and that might be part of why they seem so refreshing. The first is a paper by Neylan McBaine on how the paradigms we should be viewing our church experience through can create true equality between genders; the second, by Jeff Giliam, outlines the way questioning can "mask rather than resolve the tensions between Mormonism and intellectualism." Again, both pieces are fairly long but well worth your time.

--On to church disciplinary councils. While serving as a ward clerk a few years ago, I attended two disciplinary councils, and...they suck. And I had it comparatively easy--in both cases, a member had been disfellowshipped, and this was a follow-up council after their probationary period in which full privileges were restored. But the previous councils and the events that led to them were reviewed, follow-up questions asked, and plans made to avoid relapses. They were uncomfortable experiences, hopeful but melancholy. I imagine it's even worse when more severe penalties are involved. Yes, they are "courts of love," but also quite intimidating. If you're reading this, there's good chance you've seen the late-80s church video How Rare A Possession, which includes the story of Vincenzo Di Francesca, the Italian pastor who found a coverless copy of the Book of Mormon, read it, and was converted. As a result, he was brought before a disciplinary council and ordered to burn the book or face excommunication (you can watch the scene here, it's about seven minutes long).

While this is not a perfect comparison (the video is a dramatic reenactment, Kelly's council would've had fewer people involved, all Latter-day Saints would agree Di Francesca made the right decision, etc.), there are enough similarities between the situations of Vincenzo and Kate that the video can help us better understand what she was feeling when she learned of the impending discipline. Appearing before a panel of your hierarchical superiors, people who you've worked with and admire, people who you believe love you and the Lord, but they're asking you to destroy something very precious to you or face severe consequences. Add in the fact that it's an all-male panel--potentially frightening to a woman anyway, particularly so in this case due to the charges that prompted the council to begin with--and it's easy to understand why Kelly has reacted so negatively both to the idea of church discipline generally and to her case specifically.

That being said...the way things have been playing out, some type of disciplinary action was inevitable, and I have a hard time believing that Kelly or any of her supporters were surprised by this outcome. Their sadness makes sense; their shock does not. Personally, I do not think excommunication was necessary--yet; Kelly was on some sort of informal probation before, I think it would've made more sense to impose a formal probation, set guidelines for her to follow to avoid excommunication, and schedule another council for six months or so later. If this plan was followed, and she indicated at the time that she could not or would not comply with the guidelines set out, there would still be no need to act hastily. Give her a chance to change her mind, to repent, to align herself with church leaders and doctrine. It seems probable that excommunication would still be the ultimate result, but I would have liked to see her receive one more chance.

--A few thoughts on John Dehlin, while I'm addressing church discipline. I haven't read nearly as much by or about him as I have about Kate Kelly, but I have read this. Based off of that information and the other things I've read, I would say that: 1) Dehlin essentially stating that he values his church membership, but does not want to be a member of a church congregation, earned a big eye roll from me; 2) he has many beliefs and opinions that run contrary to church doctrine, and while he espouses those views he should never hold a calling in the church that would allow him to disseminate them in an official capacity; 3) with those restrictions, there are still plenty of ways he could serve in the church, if he chose (and had a less mutually antagonistic relationship with his ward and quorum leaders)--assistant clerk, quorum secretary, home teaching coordinator, building security, etc.; and, 4) though the majority of his beliefs are contrarian and unorthodox, he does not seem to be advocating them to others, certainly not in any organized way comparable to what Ordain Women does. He's basically an inactive member who has lost his testimony. There are, sadly, millions of other Mormons in that same situation. It's regrettable and concerning, certainly, but not grounds for excommunication in my view.

It made me sad when, in the first day or two after the news broke that Kelly and Dehlin may be facing church discipline, I saw a number of Twitter and Facebook posts where people indicated one or both of these newsmakers were their only connection to the church. I hope that they at least have a connection to the gospel through their faith in Christ, however small; that is also a connection to the church. But those who are struggling should (and likely do) have more mortal connections to the church than they realize.

In that same first day or two after this hit the news, I was (as usual) watching a syndicated rerun of The Simpsons. In this particular episode, Bart is sent to military school as punishment for his bad behavior. Lisa voluntarily enrolls with him, seeking a challenge she just wasn't getting in public school. But being the only girl in school proves to be a bigger challenge than she anticipated, and the situation is exacerbated when even her brother shuns her in an attempt to fit in with the other guys. Later, he apologizes (you can see the scene here, beginning at the 15:08 mark, though when The Simpsons are involved I always recommend watching the full episode :-)):

Bart: Sorry I froze you out, Lis. I just didn't want the guys to think I'd gone soft on the girl issue.
Lisa: [sighs] I'm tired of being an issue, Bart. Maybe everyone would be better off if I just quit.
Bart: But if you quit, it would be like an expert knot tier quitting a knot-tying contest right in the middle of tying a knot.
Lisa: Why'd you say that?
Bart: I dunno, I was just looking at my shoelaces. But the point is, you're going to make it Lis, and I'm going to stick by you.
Lisa: Don't do that. Why should we both be outcasts?
Bart: Then I'll just stick by you in secret. Like a sock maker secretly working on a top secret sock that...
Lisa: (interrupts) Will you stop looking at your feet?

A few lessons we can take from this:

--Guys often struggle to relate to what women are going through, or to say the right thing even when they do relate.
--In the church, there are women's issues, but the women themselves are not "issues." They are real people with real feelings and real concerns. And they are our sisters. We ought to stick by them. Most of us do, at least a little bit. Most of us could also do better in this regard.
--If you're feeling like Lisa Simpson right now, please don't quit. If you keep at it, you're going to make it. You may never receive the thing you currently desire, but you can receive the thing we all should desire most--the eternal equivalent of a "satisfactory completion" medal (seriously, watch the full episode).

It is possible to, like Bart, get inspiration while looking at our feet. But we will receive much more if we look to the heavens. I hope we will all do more of that as we seek to know God's will for us, our place in the church, and the best way to interact with our brothers and sisters along the way.