DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opini ... ormon.html

Mormon feminists got upset this winter when they found that young women in some temples had not been allowed to do proxy baptisms while they were menstruating.

Is this mentioned as part of a ladies Temple Recommend interview?

''Yes you are worthy to go to the Temple but only if you are not menstruating''.

In Brigham Young's time women couldn't go if they were menstruating. I believe there were also restrictions if you'd recently had sex. It was a throwback to Old Testament rules on cleanliness.

Drifting wrote:Is this mentioned as part of a ladies Temple Recommend interview?

''Yes you are worthy to go to the Temple but only if you are not menstruating''.

People were reporting via their experiences with it. Basically, the young women would be taken aside and asked by a YW leader or temple worker whether any of them were on their periods. If they answered "yes," then they were told that they could not do baptisms for the dead. The leaders or temple workers would always insist that such was the policy of the church.

Some examples of this:

Shark Week Spirit Tears - An ex-Mormon account
Unclean! Unclean! Unclean! - By one of the LDS bloggers at By Common Consent

A group of bloggers (spearheaded by Feminist Mormon Housewives) launched a fact-finding mission to contact every English-speaking temple that was open, plus any foreign-language temples where they could get someone who spoke that language to help them out, and find out how many temples had such policies. They found that approximately 1/3 of the temples they contacted claimed that it was policy to not allow or strongly discourage menstruating women from participating in proxy baptisms. The remaining 2/3 either allowed it or would allow it so long as the woman in question used a tampon.

Surprisingly, the bloggers actually got an unambiguous response from the church on the matter:

Scott Trotter, Church Spokesman wrote:Trouble is, such a ban is bogus. If temple workers are excluding young women from doing baptismal work while having their periods, church spokesman Scott Trotter said, they are not following LDS policy.

“Performing baptisms in church temples is a sacred ordinance open to all members who are at least 12 years of age and who meet the standards of the church,” Trotter said in a statement. “The decision of whether or not to participate in baptisms during a menstrual cycle is personal and left up to the individual.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaith ... n.html.csp

It's one of the rare cases where I've seen Bloggernacle members engage in a form of activism that actually brought about results.

by the way, Dowd's inclusion of that tidbit struck me as disjointed, like she tossed it into her discussion of baptism for the dead as an afterthought to make Mormons (and by association, Mitt Romney) sound as weird and close-minded as possible. And since she didn't include the fact that the church actually addressed this and attempted to put a stop to it, I'd call it misleading. But that's pretty much par for the course with Dowd.

And since she didn't include the fact that the church actually addressed this and attempted to put a stop to it, I'd call it misleading.

How has the church "attempted to put a stop to it"? By Trotter's statement? If 1/3 of the temples have the policy, what has the church done to get them to reverse course? The temples are under the direction and control of church leaders. Presumably, any "attempt" by church leaders to change the policies in place at 1/3 of their temples would be successful, would it not? Unless there are rogue temple presidents out there defying church leaders. Have the Naclers done any follow up to see if the temples that previously had the policy in place have actually changed it?

Equality wrote:Unless there are rogue temple presidents out there defying church leaders.

In essence, this was the case. YW leaders and temple workers (or their temple presidents) were promoting their own beliefs on the matter as "church policy."

Have the Naclers done any follow up to see if the temples that previously had the policy in place have actually changed it?

I do not know. However, any young woman or YW leader who is concerned about this now can simply print out the article with Trotter's statement and show it to any temple worker who tries to stop them. Such an easy solution does not exist with problems like the "policy" of women being barred from praying first in Sacrament meeting in some wards.

MsJack wrote:I do not know. However, any young woman or YW leader who is concerned about this now can simply print out the article with Trotter's statement and show it to any temple worker who tries to stop them. Such an easy solution does not exist with problems like the "policy" of women being barred from praying first in Sacrament meeting in some wards.

Good point. Thanks.