Calmoriah and "the small beginnings of apostasy"

[_Mister Scratch]

[note: This piece will be double posted on Mister Scratch's Guide to FAIR as part of a new "FAIR Hall of Fame" feature]

The LDS Church has long had a fraught history with its female members. Ever since founding Prophet Joseph Smith opened up the doors to religiously-sanctioned plural marriage, Mormon women have found themselves in a curious predicament. After all, they tend to be pigeonholed by the hierarchy into very specifically defined roles, such as those sketched out in the Proclamation on the Family. Further complicating the issue is the fact that LDS women cannot hold office in the Priesthood. While some scholars and historians do indeed feel that women were intended to hold and carry the priesthood, and full, Brethren-sanctioned use of it does not seem forthcoming any time soon.

The bottomline is that Mormon women are in a tough spot. Feminism is not tolerated in the Church, and women with feminist inclinations can quickly find themselves with dossiers collected by the SCMC, or else fired from their jobs, as was the case with ex-BYU Professor Gail Houston, who was canned for her "radical" viewpoints. (Following this incident, the AAUP launched a probe into the status of academic freedom at BYU.)

So, what are LDS women to do? Are they expected to simply remain quiet, and raise children? Should they stand by silently, preparing the meals, doing the laundry, and attending to the household chores? It seems clear that they have been consigned to a second-class status. Worshipping the feminine, from the POV of LDS doctrine, is seriously bad news, or, as President Hinckley has said (referring specifically to praying to Heavenly Mother), it is one of the "small beginnings of apostasy" (cf. Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, pg. 887).

But what does this have to do with FAIR? Many will recall that the FAIR Conference of 2006 featured a "feminist" presentation from one Claudia Bushman, who is the wife of noted Mormon historian and author Richard Bushman, author of Rough Stone Rolling. It turns out that the talk given by Sis. Bushman struck a chord with many of the usual female suspects on FAIR, notably Calmoriah. Thus on August 5th, 2006, one of the most compelling threads of all time on FAIR was quickly underway.

From the outset, posters approached the talk with a fair amount of caution:

I did not find her words all that controversial just very confident and as I said above proactive rather than reactive as most controversial comments often seem to me to be, but my husband was not particularly comfortable with them. He felt that she had problems with authority the church.

(emphasis added)

Clearly, Sis. Bushman's remarks aren't exactly in-line with what the Brethren have said on this matter. At least to Cal's husband's mind, in any case. Immediately, Cal feels she has to swoop back in to help smooth over what might be read as potential apostasy on Sis. Bushman's part:

Just wanted to emphasize that I felt she wasn't complaining about what is currently present in the Church, rather making suggestions of what additional improvements might be made to cover the gaps. Don't want to give the impression that she came across, at least to me, at all like she was whining about women being downtrodden or limited in the Church (quite the contrary) or family, just that we shouldn't limit ourselves, thinking this was all that we need.

This last portion will become significant later on, as female FAIRites begin to examine this topic in more detail.

Naturally, this thread would be incomplete without commentary from juliann, who seizes upon one of the most controversial aspects of Sis. Bushman's recommendations:

Good summary, Cal. I thought the single sister ward (with men coming in to administer the sacrament) was the only slightly odd thing she said. I understand the sentiment but I don't see how this could possibly work. For starters...you would have to have a very concentrated Mormon population to get enough sisters to make a ward without driving for hours.

Well, it can't very well be a purely sister ward if men are required for the sacrament, now can it? juliann elaborates a bit further on:

My best guess...the jobs held by men that really don't require a priesthold holder will be opened up to women. Things like Ward Clerk, Sunday School President, etc. There really is no reason I can think of as to why girls couldn't pass the sacrament.

How about the Priesthood? At least we can count on Charity for a good rejoinded, and indeed she immediately springs into action:

Girls passing the sacrament? It is priesthood ordinance! And a single sister ward. Let's do to the single sisters what young singles wards have done to young singles. Let them become more ego centered, less likely to serve in a meaningful way, hobby members.

Please avoid labels when arguing a point. "Hobby members" doesn't really forward the discussion. Address the issues not the posters. - Nomos

(Mod remark and coloration ibid)

A poster named krisjhn offers up some levity as well:

It is my understanding that to have a ward you need a certain amount of Priesthood. So you could never have a single sisters "ward" purely on technicalities.

The idea is...to use a strong word...absurd. I mean what good would this do. Is she suggesting, by default, single male wards also? What good can come from segregating the sexes completely? And why just single? And how about we segregate cultures and ethnicities too. If you take this logic to the extreme you can see the error in it. Silly, just plain silly.

Well put. And indeed, it seems that the talk about sister wards is circling around---rather than directly engaging with---the fundamental issue. But before getting to that, juliann offers up this tidbit:

Dr. Bushman's comment about a single woman ward was in the context of single women not being a traditional part of the ward. That changed somewhat when Sheri Dew was put in as whatever it was that was so visible. We have since had a divorced single woman as a Relief Society Prez and such. I think the older single women deal with it much better than the younger ones, however. As we age we tend to get more "assertive" and stop caring so much about what everybody thinks.

(emphasis added)

Does this mean that juliann is going to "stop caring so much about what everybody thinks" of her scholarship? Is she going to continue to lurk on messageboards such as this, in order to see what people are saying? Hmmmm.

Finally, Abulafia cuts to the chase, clarifying what everyone else seems to be thinking:

I didn't find the church a particularly comfortable place for single women. Not at all actually. Which is why I probably concentrated too hard on trying to find a mate when I was active in it, and relaxed about the whole thing when I left. My eternal salvation no longer depended on being married so there wasn't so much obsessing about the whole thing.

Looking back, the culture is pretty unhealthy in that regard, and hopefully it will become more productive in the future.

What's so astonishing about her remarks is that no one seems to disagree with her.

A bit further down, Calmoriah again addresses the hot-button issue of females passing the sacrament:

Charity, I've seen this discussed many times before and I don't think I've seen anyone demonstrate that passing the sacrament is anything more than a traditional priesthood service (as opposed to a required one), including using the CHI. I am not trying to suggest here that it should be taken from the priesthood, by the way, I think it's a great way for deacons to get involved in the community.

Just how this entails "community involvement" is unclear. Calmoriah adds her solution to this apparent inequity a bit further on:

Now if we can just come up with a comparable way for the young women.

Hmm...maybe we should make them the ushers and greeters. The ones in my ward are certainly friendly enough.

(emphasis added)

Immediately following this post from Cal, Hyrum Page swoops in to offer up a bit of GA-sanctioned wisdom:

would suppose that to some people (not including me) these "suggestions" smack of ark steadying. Said less carefully and with a different tone, you might find the same kind of sentiments expressed on a message board by a frustrated member who would like to see change in the Church. The reaction people of the latter kind get on the net is to be identified as "whiners" and "ark steadiers."

Indeed. It does seem that many of the female posters in this thread are in fact coming perilously close to what GBH called, "the small beginnings of apostasy."

But this discussion is not limited to complaints about passing the sacrament. Here juliann voices another concern:

It is the scouting thing that makes it so unequal...as USU says, the YMs program in our ward was basketball (while I was in YW anyway). But...the Scouts get to ask for money and the YW are stuck with the ward budget. That means they get all kinds of cool trips and stuff. They also get the Eagle Scout recognition.

USU78 echoes what she just said:

My experience with my daughters, who are both presently in the YW program, is that it is far superior in every meaningful way from what I experienced as a youth and what I've observed to be the case for YM ever since.

In other words, the boys get to participate in scouting, and to have fun, while the girls get to learn about chastity, and and the scriptures, and are essentiall cordoned off from any of the money for activities. Allen Wyatt adds in this nugget to the discussion, demonstrating how, on top of everything else, boys in the Church are *also* given opportunities to garner prestige that girls aren't:

As it sits, however, the Duty to God program is in most cases an afterthought, an the BSA program (at least along the Mormon corridor) is a "factory" for getting boys to their Eagle. After that is done--typically at 14 years of age--the young man is left to drift in the YM program for the next four years.

Later, Cal suggests that the Church is something of a "plaything" for men, hence the inequity in distribution of funds:

As far as the rationale that young men need more money to keep their programs attractive to them because they are harder to involved in the Church (I'm not saying people here are saying that, but I have heard this justification elsewhere), this sets up an expectation that church is there to entertain us and I would suspect in most cases, those that are kept active by such tactics won't be sustained in their testimony as they grow unless other tactics have been applied as well.

Here, Charity asks a pointed question:

Is it true that if you get the young men's activity rate up for YM/YW that the young women's activity comes up, too? But the activity among the young women doesn't affect the activity rate of young men?

If so, why?

Why indeed. Perhaps because the Church appears geared almost entirely towards satisfying the male end of things?

Next, we find juliann airing one of her favorite complaints:

I would just be happy with the reduced meeting block!

(she has complained about the length of the endowment ceremony, too.)

After a bit of this business, we circle back to the primary element of the thread. Here is Calmoriah, responding to a criticism leveled by a poster named "sibling":

Passing the sacrament was designated as a service to be provided by young men who have just received the Aaronic Priesthood, as a way for them to learn to be of service and to serve in an organized capacity with a clearly-defined duty. To me, that seems like a really good reason.

And yet young women do not have the same opportunity, do they? Is there a designated service for them to provide in an organized capacity with a clearly-defined duty?

I am wondering why you would (maybe you don't) think that young ladies don't have this same type of need to form an identity within the community and to learn purposeful service. This is something I would have appreciated growing up, holding this type of role where I knew that I was contributing to the community as a youth. As it was, most of the time I felt totally unnecessary.

Perhaps it's just me, but I found this last bit unbelievably sad. To think that a person felt this left out of things, and so completely bereft of the sort of communal feeling that church is supposed to instill, is deeply depressing. Calmoriah continues on this tack further along:

I have seen too many young women feel they were not necessary in the ward, that they had no part to play. They feel they are just filling in time until they are mothers. This usually changes when they shift to the singles wards at colleges for a variety of reason (leaving home and seeing themselves as adult and more proactive is probably the biggest reason, in my opinion). And there is a problem that calling created at the ward level are just seen as busy work, not really meaningful.

Now if an adult says this, then in my opinion it's up to them to go out and create a need and a meaning for themselves to fill, but the youth haven't generally developed that ability yet.

Ritual and tradition is important in forming a communal identity. Women don't have much of that in the Church until getting married. I think in this day and age where our natural instinct toward sisterhood is distracted by so much that it could be very helpful to have a more formalized role for young women to play within the Church. Simply having a role in a local ward isn't enough if one is talking about one's identity with the global church. Young priesthood holders are serving identically to boys their same age no matter where they live on the earth. They know at least one identity they possess in regards to every other member of the Church. Young women don't have the same in my experience. Perhaps this has changed, but if so, it's not as visual yet. Someone will have to tell me what to look for.

One of the reasons this is important to me is that my daughter suffers from social anxiety. It is very difficult to get her to go to anything but Sacrament meeting. Her presence isn't necessary in her view. Any job that we would arrange for her is just that, an arranged job which means to her that it isn't necessary. If she had grown up knowing that during her teen years she would be expected to fulfill a calling, something we could have discussed and prepared her for, I think it would have made a world of difference as she would know what to expect and would feel not only comfortable in the role, but part of the extended community...something totally lacking now even with the best leaders and sweetest girls I've seen in a long time. I'm not suggesting that the Church change for just one person, but I've seen enough that I think this formalized role could be a benefit for more than just those like my daughter.

Simply put, this was one of the most plangent and moving posts I have ever read on FAIR. The basic, fundamentally human issues Cal touches upon in this post---the need to belong, the desire to feel wanted and useful---are the stuff of real life. And yet it's hard to believe this post even exits. Despite all the criticism, and all the lambasting from male posters such as sibling and DaddyMO, despite the accusations of "ark steadying," Cal had the nerve to post these true, and quite moving remarks.

Her sentiments certainly aren't helped by insensitive barbs such as this:

I find the nastiness with which preteen and teenaged girls in the many wards I've lived treat one another to be a far more pressing problem for their psyches than whether the boys are identified with G-d because they prepare, bless, or pass the Sacrament.

Calmoriah's calm begins to erode a bit, and she voices her issues:

I'm getting quite frustrated that these are the kind of responses I'm getting when I am talking about the need for ritual, a visual and concrete identity and a sense of communal bonds in a society for all individuals of a society.

This is being taken to a completely different level than I've intended it to be. I suspect it's a different level than Sister Bushman would intend it to be as well.

add-on: I'm not angry, just frustrated that somehow I'm not communicating what I want to communicate no matter how carefully I'm phrasing my words.

Thus, she demonstrates how deep this goes. Not only are women denied the priesthood, a program equivalent to scouting, funds for fun YW activities, or the prestige of priesthood office/Eagle Scouts, etc., they are, in Cal's view, deprived of the very words to express opinions on this matter. There's no way out. When one lacks even language to engage the problem, then the battle has already been lost.

Nevertheless, it seems clear, when we recall the words of GBH, that Calmoriah, intentionally or not, has begun to drift towards apostasy. At some point, perhaps due to the criticism of the male posters, she seemed to realize this, and what follows is an astonishing backslide and relinquishment of her previous position:

I am not jealous of the Priesthood. Don't want it now, never have wanted it. Don't want it for my daughter, my mother, my sisters, the girls next door. Don't expect to be given it in this life at all and am perfectly satisfied with that situation and always have been. Have debated extensively over the years in favour of this position--I think men and the Priesthood are a perfect match for mortality; God knew what he was doing. My record stands at ZLMB if anyone doubts me. I've had full access to the Priesthood in every way that I've required it over the years, why in the world would I need it personally? It would just be redundant and my possessing it wouldn't fill the purpose for which it was created, in my opinion.

I can't think of one young, old or middle-aged woman who thinks walking up and down an aisle with a bread and water tray is an appealing pasttime, though they are grateful for the service that is provided and grateful that they don't have to do it. Females aren't the ones that like to dress up in uniform and march around in parade formation, after all.

No, females don't like pageantry at all. What a complete and utter turn-around. What a complete let-down. Why couldn't Calmoriah stick to her guns? She winds up her post thusly:

This is all speculative thinking, a "what if". I am not trying to "steady the ark" or demand that the Church do this. It was an idea that suddenly occurred to me in this discussion for the first time in my life and I started thinking about the social and religious implications of it. However, I have no problem if someone from SL doesn't wake up in the morning suddenly inspired to put my idea into action.

(emphasis added)

To me, this is unbelievable, heart breaking, and totally disenchanting all at once. What we have seen, apparently, is a realization on Calmoriah's part that the Church does not treat men and women equally. We have been given an insider's view into TBM thought processes, and the repercussions thereof. It seems that all of these thoughts came rushing at Cal, but some still, small voice helped her to beat them back down. We may very nearly have seen Calmoriah, one of Internet Mormonism's most prolific TBM posters, indulging in "the small beginnings of apostasy." But she pulled back just in time.

Regardless, there can be little doubt that she takes great comfort in the words of Gordon B. Hinckley, delivered at General Conference in October of 1996, regarding the Church: "I know of no other organization which affords women so many opportunities." There really is nothing else to say.

[_ajax18]

Why indeed. Perhaps because the Church appears geared almost entirely towards satisfying the male end of things?


Scouting, fun? Is there something I'm missing?

I see the point of this article, but it's funny to me, cause I don't think the Church treats men that well in male female relationships sometimes either. If it's so one sided, why is it so hard to get men to even come to Church? Are the Mormon Church fathers right, "The sisters are just more holy and spiritual." I don't think so.

[_Gazelam]

This entire question arises from a modern skewed view of the roles of men and women. The crown of womanhood is in the giving of life, the crown of man is in the giving of a name. In placeing his name on both the wife and child, the man declares himself the caretaker and provider of both. Note in the scriptures that it was Adam who gave Eve her name (Moses 6:9), declareing himself the caretaker of her, her provider and companion for all eternity, promiseing and covenanting to love and protect. In Marriage they became one flesh, setting the example for us all. In the nurtureing and giving of Life, the wife is exalted, In the careing for and protecting of his namesake, the man is exalted. Both are eternal principles that have eternal implications.

Gaz

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

That is what I noticed on FAIR no one would ever answer any pointed questions directly they would ignore the real questions

I see the same thing on this board as well....

Only some of us are answering the questions and only some of us are asking the right questions???

I enjoy being here I enjoy coming together as one

We will bring the Mormons down?

That is not my intention

I want my family back...

But that will never be ................................................the GAP to wide to bridge now....................................SORRY

[_Mister Scratch]

This entire question arises from a modern skewed view of the roles of men and women. The crown of womanhood is in the giving of life, the crown of man is in the giving of a name. In placeing his name on both the wife and child, the man declares himself the caretaker and provider of both. Note in the scriptures that it was Adam who gave Eve her name (Moses 6:9), declareing himself the caretaker of her, her provider and companion for all eternity, promiseing and covenanting to love and protect. In Marriage they became one flesh, setting the example for us all. In the nurtureing and giving of Life, the wife is exalted, In the careing for and protecting of his namesake, the man is exalted. Both are eternal principles that have eternal implications.

Gaz

Hi, Gaz.

Just in the interest of clarification: what was it that you saw as ridiculous? Calmoriah's pleas on behalf of women?

[_Gazelam]

Yes, pleas on behalf of those that don't want or need them. Her entire line of reasoning stems from an inability on her part to grasp the gospel. The gospel of Jesus Christ is elevating and enlightening. It exalts and uplifts. I know of no family that lives the gospel where the wife feels she is held down and looked over because she doesent hold the priesthood. The Priesthood exists to serve others, I think a Mother and wife does quite enough service in that arena without the added requirements of a priesthood holder.

Gaz

[_moksha]

So Claudia Bushman woke up the FAIR Conference going women and the men at FAIR tried to put them back to sleep? Did they finally succeed?

[_Jason Bourne]

Lots of interesting issues.

Let me clarify one.

This is for our stake and ward. Other stakes and wards may differ.

1: Girls do YW camp just like boys do Scout camp. Girls camp is stake wide. Our stake and the other stakes in our area just bought a property and built a camp for the girls and spent millions on it. It is a fine facility. Nice then any BSA camp I have seen and the camp weeks are as good as and BS camp.

2: Girls in our stake and ward, just like the boys, do an annual high adventure camp in addition to girls camp. One year the stake puts it on, the next year the ward does.

3: Girls do all the same sports programs as the boys do.

4: Girls can do special fund raisers for camps just like the boys do for scouts. In our ward the initial budgets, which are quite generous are equal for the boys and the girls. What they raise beyond that can differ but often the girls have more money then the boys cause they do better fund raising.

5: Boys do scouting and Duty to God and girls do Personal Progress. But girls do other activities in their youth program as well.

6: Annually the YW gets and entire sacrament meeting to do a presentation.

7: We have youth speakers in sacrament every week and make sure girls speak.


All in all the youth program is pretty equal in it activity and the girls are not slighted at all. I think we take great steps to make sure of that.

Now of course there is the priesthood issue. Some women seem more interested in that then others. My wife had no interest. But the other day I was chatting with a female member. She wryly commented when discussing the rule that women with young children should not be called as temple workers, but men with young children's could be called. I commented that I thought the limit was on man as well. She said, "Men can do anything in this Church." She may not have been far off.

Jason

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Why in the World should Women Care about holding the Stupid Priesthood......

Why in the world would I want to control anyone like Priesthooders do?????

Of course Mormon women will say they have no interest.....THEY MUST........SHUT UP and SING....

We want shared power.....which many times in many Mormon families there is no such thing as shared power

And you Jason know that and do not and I mean do not give that me crap that women are powerful because they can bring babies into the world......That Is a Bunch of CRAP and you know it....

It takes two or three or more to bring children in the WORLD and love and protect them from the POWER that will ultimately destroy them

[_truth dancer]

Hi Gaz...

Yes, pleas on behalf of those that don't want or need them. Her entire line of reasoning stems from an inability on her part to grasp the gospel. The gospel of Jesus Christ is elevating and enlightening. It exalts and uplifts. I know of no family that lives the gospel where the wife feels she is held down and looked over because she doesent hold the priesthood. The Priesthood exists to serve others, I think a Mother and wife does quite enough service in that arena without the added requirements of a priesthood holder.

With all due respect, how many women have borne their souls to you about their struggles? How many women have felt free to share the challenges and sorrows with you, knowing they would be free from judgment.

Your comment alone shows me that a woman would not feel comfortable sharing her private sorrows with you.

Having said that, I KNOW many, many women, strong, believing members who have a depth of sorrow unknown to you. I have personally heard their cries. I have personally heard young women share the pain they feel. Further I have reason to believe the church is aware of this, at least to some degree.

To deny the fact that there is a problem will not make the problem disappear. To suggest that it is the women's fault if they struggle with the system, without looking at the pure and righteous souls of women does a disservice to the church. As a man, pretending life is wonderful while women suffer in silence is inappropriate and does nothing to heal the suffering.

Whether one agrees with Cal or Juliann, or Claudia, at least they are opening the door to discussion. It will take the women within the church to help and support the young women. It will take their courage and voice to make a difference and to fulfill the needs of the next generation.

I'm disheartened when I hear men thwart the efforts and stifle the voice of women who are trying to help; judging them as unrighteous because they see a need and want to help.

Perhaps you could step out of your comfortable shoes and walk for a day or two in those of another whose shoes may be hurting.

~dancer~