By : This
has got to be the hardest thing I’ve ever written, but here goes. There
are four subjects on which I’m more than happy to be conversant, and in
discussions of which I feel adequate to participate: classical music,
Monty Python, gay sex, and Mormonism. Now all I need to do is find a way
to turn that into a small business.
In the meantime, I see in this recent article
a man who is still a believer in Mormonism who is trying to get it to
fit within the men’s movement tent. Not being in charge of the tent and
not wanting to be, I can’t make the final call. What I can do instead is
voice as strong an opposition as I can for what is discussed (or
rather, what is not discussed) in that article, while still
having close family that believes in Mormonism. I no longer believe. In
fact, I disbelieve in a big, big way. I normally keep how I feel about
the church to myself, in order to preserve harmony and generally stay
out of other people’s way. What I have to say has been written,
rewritten, and re-rewritten to make certain that I make myself as clear
as possible, because it is possible that I will suffer a great many
negative consequences in my personal life.
For believing Mormons, the following paragraphs are going to be an upset. All I can say in my defense are two things:
1. It’s not my intention to crap on someone else’s sacred beliefs, but it’s going to seem like it. And far, far more important:
2. I’m standing on the corpses of many gay men. In a macabre, surreal way, it gives me all the strength I need to face something quite unpleasant. I’m going in, guys. Let’s start with the first quote from the original article:
“On May 18, 1993, Elder Boyd K. Packer, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon Church),” did indeed give “a talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council.” It is also true that “he then illustrated the crux of his argument with three dangers that confronted contemporary Mormons: the gay and lesbian movement, the feminist movement, and scholars and intellectuals.”
He did it in part by saying the following: “Some things that are true are not very useful.” I’ll write that out again so that you won’t mistakenly think it was written by George Orwell: “Some things that are true are not very useful.” He wasn’t specifically referring to feminism in that part of the talk, but referring instead to teachers (re: scholars and intellectuals) who wanted to delve further into church history. Why on earth wouldn’t you want teachers of church history to teach church history? Well, because “[s]ome things that are true are not very useful.”
Alright, then. Let’s take that maxim at face value and refer to a “truth” that Packer himself believes, because it’s something he told all the young men of the church concerning masturbation, back in 1976 (although the link has 1994 for some reason). See how useful you think this is: “Young Latter-day Saint men, do not tamper with these powers, neither with yourself alone nor with one of your own kind. Never let anyone handle you or touch those very personal parts of your body which are an essential link in the ongoing of creation.”
I apologize if the truth I’m about to re-relate from an earlier article is not useful to the reader: “On March 2, 1982, Kip Eliason, age 16, distraught and filled with self-hate over his inability to stop masturbating, committed suicide.”
Although poor Kip was probably straight, I have also read numerous accounts of young men (and knew one young man personally) who killed themselves because they were both Mormon and gay. Here are a bunch of their names, where we often like to stick guys’ names, on a cyber-wall, and in memoriam.
You may ask why I’m bringing this up, since the original article was about feminist bees in the Mormon bonnet and not Mormonism’s adversarial relationship with the gay community. This is because I’ve decided, based not only on my personal experience as a gay man in the church, and not solely on the rotting flesh of other gay men on whom I stand who were not as lucky as I, that someone needs to set the record straight on the Mormon Church, lest any are led to believe that we will find many allies there, or that what they teach can or should in any way be infused with any movement of men. It is not possible to rely on someone who still believes in Mormonism to explain what Mormon feminists are complaining about, and it is also not possible to rely on such an individual to show you what someone who has left Mormonism can now see.
Boyd K. Packer embodies everything that is repugnant about that church, and how it can severely damage both men and women. Beyond this, the original article is dismissive of complaints that, as a former insider, I can also make. To disparage these complaints is to ignore a reality that is increasingly indifferent to the growth of Mormonism, as the church bleeds members every year thanks to information that has leaked out all over the Internet. As this phenomenon happens, more ex-Mormon women are going to be turning to the friendly-faced versions of feminism out there. They will do this, as I hope to demonstrate, because the church they are leaving has prepared them for little else. You can thank good-ol’ cultural misandry for that, and there’s plenty of it hiding in Mormonism, like so many other -isms out there.
At least Alahverdian was bold enough to point out that yes, the church encourages sex roles, and yes, they are encouraged because making families is also encouraged, and studies show blah, blah, blah. If you’re a gay guy, that can lead to suicide. If you’re a woman who wants to learn more about Heavenly Mother, a sacred doctrine deep within the church, it can lead to disappointment. Very little is known about Her, so if you want to connect with the feminine divine, you’re pretty much left to your imagination.
In the meantime, you are raised with the expectation that you will lose your virginity on your wedding night, and refrain from all other sexual behavior outside of legally recognized, monogamous, heterosexual marriage, including masturbation. Therefore, if you’re a female in the Mormon Church, at some point in your teen years it may become necessary to go into a private office with a middle-aged man who may very well be a stranger, and tell him whether you have a “problem” with rubbing your clitoris. I don’t care if Mormon feminists and I are in perfect agreement here. I think of it in the manner I think of the quotes from Packer above. I remember where my feet are planted, and I find the strength to say exactly what I think: It is repulsive. Even most of the men I know in the church who have held priesthood leadership callings at the local level, and had to be on the receiving end of this information, would rather not. And if you’re a chronically masturbating teenage male like Kip, it can lead to suicide.
Alahverdian points out a letter that was sent to Packer, and then reveals a remarkable ability to remove himself from empathy: “She wants to get into the highest degree of heaven without the hard work of committing to marriage to the best of her ability.” I don’t know how this is gleaned from what looks to me like a desperate cry for help. I’ll copy and past it here so that we can all read it again, and this time we can pretend it’s a man saying it: “I’m upset that I was always advised to go back and try harder only to get abused more. I need some comfort, I need solace, need hope, need to know Heavenly Father sees all that I have endured. What hope do I have for a chance to live with Heavenly Father? If temple marriage is the key to the celestial [kingdom], where am I? Outside gnashing my teeth for eternity? Help me.”
The word “abuse” is in there, and what’s missing is any discernible certainty in her own mind of who she is. To make any sort of judgment about this woman or her situation, based solely on what’s written here, is a serious mistake. It’s even more disappointing that Packer chose to use this as an example of what people apparently shouldn’t do, or shouldn’t complain about, or shouldn’t worry about. If the “abuse” is not just in quotes but actual, Packer’s reference and the citation in the original article are, to me, perfect examples of what’s wrong with religion, and what is harmful about Mormonism. If it has to be explained, then let the below quote from the original article do just a little bit of it for me:
“Let me emphasize how important marriage and family is in the Mormon faith. To put it simply: it is everything.”
This is correct. This is perhaps the most correct sentence in the article. This should be taken as the Alahverdian’s operating premise, what others call “belief.” This is why so many gay guys have killed themselves. This is why women who want to know more about the church’s polygamous past are bound to be disappointed, unless they do their own research on their own time, and keep their mouths shut in church.
Concerning polygamy, there was a fantastic program on HBO a few years ago called Big Love. If you’re a practicing Mormon, you know about the church’s past with this practice, and you also know that it is doctrinal that polygamy will be practiced in heaven, although the mainstream church does not currently practice or condone it. You may also wish to skip the video linked in the next sentence, as it shows an endowment session. If, however, you’re just one of billions of curious bystanders, you should know that this is the scene that got me watching the show. Producers who can produce such a magnificent simulacrum of what the Mormon temple experience is actually like deserve to have all five seasons eagerly watched within a few weeks. That program is brilliant. It doesn’t miss a thing. You want to see what extreme, fundamentalist religious ideas do to people, both male and female? You want to see how men and women act and react to threats or challenges to their power? You want to see a fascinating battle of the sexes carried out on multiple levels? You want to turn into a Chloë Sevigny fan?
The series shows any number of troubling things that can happen in the mind of an individual, whether male or female, when they are told on a repetitive basis that their best is far from perfect and their worst needs to be shamed out of them. The phenomenon of American polygamy grew out of Utah and its Mormon pioneers. Mormonism is an offshoot of what remains of old-fashioned American Christian morality. Feminism is a by-product of progressivism, which also grew out of old-fashioned American Christian morality. Mormonism wishes to regulate both male and female sexuality. Feminism seeks to empower female sexuality at the expense of the disposable, utilitarian male. A feminist cry of “Exploitation!” concerning pornography will not fall on deaf male Mormon ears. Calls to treat their women with greater kindness and respect will not sound unfamiliar to Mormon men. A shotgun wedding is not uncommon in the modern Mormon Church, and nobody ever points a gun at the bride.
The original article, being written by someone who obviously believes that Joseph Smith wasn’t making it up as he went along, completely misses where feminism benefits from Mormonism; and conversely, where individual feminists who speak out against the church have legitimate issues. Unfortunately, defending Mormonism is not going to help the men’s movement, because it is defending something that is indefensible, giving legitimacy to feminist concerns; and has led directly to more than a few guys killing themselves. That’s right, and I’ll be standing there for the remainder of this article; and any time in the distant future, if I ever have anything further to say about Mormonism. (It’s amazing how something so sickeningly awful can be so useful to one’s argument; like some truths, eh?)
Alahverdian claims: “Mormonism and Feminism – Worse than Oil and Water.” To the contrary; I would say that they go together like milk and cookies. It’s ironic, is it not, that Mormon women who call themselves feminists cannot see that the church is a willing ally in regulating men, a catalyst for ripening women’s grievances into a feminist narrative? Alahverdian himself reveals it: “A kid is entitled to grow up with a loving mother, a supportive father, and have those two individuals be faithful to one another. But to feminists (and yes, even Mormon feminists), that’s abusive and oppressive.”
Of course it seems that way to Mormon feminists, because to a woman who maybe only likes kids sometimes and would be a better favorite aunt or babysitter, who would much rather be an individual and actually prefer a career, or who maybe only wants to make time for making one child; is being told by a patriarchal figure that the patriarchal god who governs the church and refuses any further communication directly with Heavenly Mother, has told him that the seeker’s wishes are not His. Go to sacrament meeting on Sunday, partake of Christ’s flesh and blood, and brood over how you need to change your innermost desires to comply with an outside demand from the opposite sex. Does this sound familiar to any man kicked in the balls in family court?
Alahverdian attempts another defense: “Read: men and women are equal in the eyes of the Godhead, but different genders have different responsibilities. No hatred there. Still with me?” No, I no longer am with you, regardless of whether it’s hatred or simply ignorance. And we’re not opposed merely theologically, but societally and individually as well. I don’t see any place in the men’s movement for telling men going their own way what they should or should not do; not even the ones who masturbated inside of women and made little people. I do not see a movement of men trying to tell women what their responsibilities are. I see a movement of men who are committed to the idea that it’s nobody else’s business telling them what type of men they ought to be. The call by feminists in the church for more lively debate and participation in priesthood ordinances is a call by tithe-paying members for something that uplifts them. To kick out a feminist who insists on talking about Heavenly Mother — no Slut Walk, no false rape accusation, no man-bashing — is to give Mormon feminists a serious leg up. It also makes it that much harder for the men who have left the church to say one word in defense of Mormon men’s issues. I’ll try anyway, later on down. The constant reminders of Mormon male suicides don’t count.
Alahverdian seems to think that adherence to church principles should somehow not only satisfy righteous women but help them to understand and appreciate righteous men: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” Yet based on what I’ve read from numerous women who have recently left the church, it appears to have done very little or nothing at all to help them understand everything that statement implies. Therefore, how can the church claim to have helped Mormon women understand men any better? After all, the father has numerous responsibilities: preside, love, be righteous, provide, protect. The mother: nurture.
In reality, both men and women do work for the church. A lot of it is free work, including scrubbing the chapels clean, which is a more recent development in church practice. Both men and women who leave the church can see the emotional toll that is placed on people, up to and including male suicide over masturbating. Mormon feminists see the following oppressive elements, each of which I am willing to help them back up with experience, observation, and research:
Part of the “Priesthood Envy” discussed in the original article that has Mormon feminists so upset has to do with “unrighteous privilege and unequal gender dominance.” Alahverdian correctly points out that the church has The Relief Society for women, as well as a Young Women’s program. However, it is necessary for at least one priesthood holder to be in attendance at all female auxiliary meetings, and all major decisions at the local as well as global level are made by priesthood holders, meaning men. Furthermore, the priesthood offices that are assigned to the young men starting at the age of 12 have nothing comparable in any way, shape or form for females. The Mormon Church embraced the Boy Scout organization decades ago, and advancement in both scouting and the priesthood is considered an honorable way for a young man to grow up.
As a caveat, I’ve never known women or girls to really need any such formal process for growing from girlhood into womanhood. Rites of passage the world over seem to frequently involve men and boys. However, for an individual woman who might benefit from such an organization, and who may have a few wise words to say while giving someone a priesthood blessing, I can imagine it’s tough to sit there like a good little girl and take your “gender assignment.”
Beyond that, and something that few people ever seem to think about much less dare bring up, is that by assigning the majority of leadership positions to men due to the restriction on the priesthood, this virtually guarantees that the small number of child sex abusers out there can do a great deal more damage by virtue of their callings. Since the church is led by the priesthood, and the priesthood is only given to men, and most of the church’s leadership positions as well as all of the vital (and frequent) personal interviews for worthiness must be conducted by priesthood holders, this means that sexual abuse of children, however infrequent in the Mormon faith, is far more likely to be tied specifically to men. Whose side does this help more?
Alahverdian brought up Packer and Dallin H. Oaks, quite obviously out of a believing member’s love for God’s chosen leaders: “Elder Oaks is certainly not anti-woman.” Perhaps not, but like Packer above, he suffers from not seeing the irony of acting out the bad guy parts of 1984 and expecting to be taken seriously. In an interview, Oaks said: “One must never criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true.” Please keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of church leaders are priesthood holders. You know the rest. Occasionally, a gay priesthood holder kills himself, yada, yada, yada.
There are few actual patriarchies out there. It’s a mistake to insist that a patriarchal religion is not patriarchal when in fact it is. For example, the below quote is, at best, misleading:
“Instead of recognizing that the Priesthood and church leaders (called General Authorities) are there to lead, care, love, and guide, these theologically inept would-be revisionists maintain that it’s all about control and women are wholly ostracized from leadership.
“This could not be further from the truth.”
Actually, that last statement is further from the truth than the former. The church is run almost entirely on priesthood power, coming only from males. Women and men are subservient to that power because they all believe that it comes originally from God, but it is men who are able to exercise that power when called upon, not women.
Still: “The feminist lie of inequality and the demand for female ordination has fused to create a brand of Mormon feminism that is unlike any previously seen strand of feminism. This incredibly bizarre schismatic fad has ordination to the Priesthood as its primary demand.” I don’t care what your religion is. If you see something as simple as asking for women to be ordained as a “bizarre schismatic” in a world where other feminists are calling for men to be castrated or eugenicized; then I honestly don’t know what to say in reply. Except this: On so many levels, I actually agree with Mormon feminists.
Here’s part of the reason why: “Then, the men and women are divided into their respective quorums and groups – where men learn how to be better fathers and sons and women learn how to be better mothers and daughters.” So it is once again confirmed that the church assigns sex roles. This is what we call sexism, and it’s a double-edged sword.
Now, I’ve got no problem with sex roles or stereotypes, as long as they’re voluntary. It is also obvious that sex roles evolved along with humanity. What interests me is that with all our liberation from nature via our amazing technological advancements, we still go back to what nature intended. But the roles the church teaches are far less than voluntary, if you actually believe what Joseph Smith claimed. This is at the heart of the Mormon feminist argument. This is why their arguments sound so valid to female ears who are not content with learning about being wives and mothers. If you don’t want the sex role that has been tied to you, then you’re fit to be tied, unfortunately.
It is misleading to simply summarize: “Women have their own meetings, callings and responsibilities. Adding to those callings by ordaining women to the Priesthood would be futile, overburdening, and against what God has told the Prophet.” If this is true, then it would also be futile and overburdening to dispense these callings to men. Yet this is what routinely happens in the church. A Mormon feminist female may sit there envying her husband, brother-in-law, or father performing a sacred priesthood ordinance on behalf of a beloved family member. What she doesn’t see is the disproportionate amount of free time that local leaders are expected to devote to church work: all the labor of a local pastor without the pay. Some women would flock to it and are forbidden, for silly, Broadway-history-making reasons. Most women would not. There you are with nature’s sex roles. No outside help needed. Cross-overs (and cross-dressers) welcome.
Another odd way in which the Mormon Church and feminism are alike is revealed in this sentence: “Because feminism fallaciously teaches women that they are unequal, irrelevant, and unimportant.” Yet those who leave the church say the exact same thing about the church. Mormonism teaches you that, compared to someone scriptural who is truly great, or compared to Jesus or God Himself, a great many of your problems are unequal, irrelevant, and unimportant.
You don’t believe me? Alahverdian betrays this belief himself. In discussing the hurt of that frightened woman from before who was probably trained starting at an early age to look to these men for oh-so-many answers, he says the following: “The woman pleading for help needs to see the eternal nature of things and to know that her trials — however hard to bear — in the eternal scheme of things may be compared to a very, very bad experience in the second semester of the first grade.” What if her trial is that she married a sociopath? They are everywhere. I’ve met them. They are abhorrent. They come in both sexes.
So yeah, if your soul goes on and on and on and on and on, then dealing with a psycho in your house for a couple of measly decades; or drowning in ice-cold salt water for a few scary minutes; or the loss of a child; or getting inexplicable cancer; or being shamed in a church disciplinary council because you are in love with a member of the same sex and played a little doctor; can all most certainly seem like first grade troubles, to be resolved at some later date in a world yet to come. You got it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s Mormonism’s answers to your concerns. I’m really not happy with the fact that I have so much to agree on with Mormon feminists, but there it is.
We should always remember that A Voice for Men’s original and current mission has been, and I’m assuming always will be, compassion for men and boys. I want you to make a serious effort at keeping that in mind, and then read this: “And as we slowly return to the words of the venerable Elder Packer, we see that to some, he is a hero.” Then I want you to go back to the beginning of this article and re-read that quote I provided on the simple boyhood activity of rubbing one out. I want you to think about what this man has told younger men about their own bodies and what that has done to their minds. I want you to think about that dead kid from the 1980s in Salt Lake City. His name was Kip. I want you to not stop thinking about it. I’ll bet his father has never stopped. Then I want you to look at words like “venerable” smacked up against the façade put on by this aged political operative named Packer. Do you see what I see now?
“He has defended men.” No, no he has not. “He has done a favor for men everywhere – especially in a day and age when men need all the favors they can get to remain equal and masculine in this feminized world.” Pray tell, what is masculine, then? Daddy goes off to work and mommy stays home? Can I walk around with a limp wrist? Should I laugh at some effeminate guys’ painted nails, as some other masculine entities did in an Elder’s Quorum meeting years ago? (No, they weren’t my nails.)
“Share this with a Mormon friend or a non-Mormon friend. Not for the purposes of proselytization…” Only a reader naïve to Mormonism wouldn’t see this for what it is: its opposite. You share that article with anyone, and they’ll be able to spout off what any believing Mormon would tell you; and 50,000-plus young men out there paying their own way to proselytize should help the reader understand that to a Mormon, virtually everything about the church can end up as a proselytization tool. Even Broadway.
Unfortunately, to continue in the age of the Internet to believe in a religion that has aided, through its warped ideology, to kill so many men upon whom I stand here, is to not do a single man or boy a single favor. Defending Packer, Oaks and the religion they are desperate to maintain, in the face of a 21-year-old with a parasite, a dead masturbator, or a woman who wants to wear a pants suit to church but is made to feel guilty, may be worthwhile to some. However, since so many people already see the belief system as being not a little ridiculous, then defending the backward, nineteenth-century practice of not ordaining women is pale.
There are guys out there killing themselves, for so many reasons. Let’s focus a little more on them by first conceding that Mormon women may just not be happy with being told what to do all the time. Call it a broken clock, but by my watch, that’s exactly what time it is. My unending thanks to my gay brothers who no longer exist. I literally could not have written this without you. None of you should have done what you did on your last day. That church isn’t worth it.
Source
Responce to:The Menacing Feminist Schism in the Mormon Church
In the meantime, I see in this recent article
a man who is still a believer in Mormonism who is trying to get it to
fit within the men’s movement tent. Not being in charge of the tent and
not wanting to be, I can’t make the final call. What I can do instead is
voice as strong an opposition as I can for what is discussed (or
rather, what is not discussed) in that article, while still
having close family that believes in Mormonism. I no longer believe. In
fact, I disbelieve in a big, big way. I normally keep how I feel about
the church to myself, in order to preserve harmony and generally stay
out of other people’s way. What I have to say has been written,
rewritten, and re-rewritten to make certain that I make myself as clear
as possible, because it is possible that I will suffer a great many
negative consequences in my personal life.For believing Mormons, the following paragraphs are going to be an upset. All I can say in my defense are two things:
1. It’s not my intention to crap on someone else’s sacred beliefs, but it’s going to seem like it. And far, far more important:
2. I’m standing on the corpses of many gay men. In a macabre, surreal way, it gives me all the strength I need to face something quite unpleasant. I’m going in, guys. Let’s start with the first quote from the original article:
“On May 18, 1993, Elder Boyd K. Packer, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon Church),” did indeed give “a talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council.” It is also true that “he then illustrated the crux of his argument with three dangers that confronted contemporary Mormons: the gay and lesbian movement, the feminist movement, and scholars and intellectuals.”
He did it in part by saying the following: “Some things that are true are not very useful.” I’ll write that out again so that you won’t mistakenly think it was written by George Orwell: “Some things that are true are not very useful.” He wasn’t specifically referring to feminism in that part of the talk, but referring instead to teachers (re: scholars and intellectuals) who wanted to delve further into church history. Why on earth wouldn’t you want teachers of church history to teach church history? Well, because “[s]ome things that are true are not very useful.”
Alright, then. Let’s take that maxim at face value and refer to a “truth” that Packer himself believes, because it’s something he told all the young men of the church concerning masturbation, back in 1976 (although the link has 1994 for some reason). See how useful you think this is: “Young Latter-day Saint men, do not tamper with these powers, neither with yourself alone nor with one of your own kind. Never let anyone handle you or touch those very personal parts of your body which are an essential link in the ongoing of creation.”
I apologize if the truth I’m about to re-relate from an earlier article is not useful to the reader: “On March 2, 1982, Kip Eliason, age 16, distraught and filled with self-hate over his inability to stop masturbating, committed suicide.”
Although poor Kip was probably straight, I have also read numerous accounts of young men (and knew one young man personally) who killed themselves because they were both Mormon and gay. Here are a bunch of their names, where we often like to stick guys’ names, on a cyber-wall, and in memoriam.
You may ask why I’m bringing this up, since the original article was about feminist bees in the Mormon bonnet and not Mormonism’s adversarial relationship with the gay community. This is because I’ve decided, based not only on my personal experience as a gay man in the church, and not solely on the rotting flesh of other gay men on whom I stand who were not as lucky as I, that someone needs to set the record straight on the Mormon Church, lest any are led to believe that we will find many allies there, or that what they teach can or should in any way be infused with any movement of men. It is not possible to rely on someone who still believes in Mormonism to explain what Mormon feminists are complaining about, and it is also not possible to rely on such an individual to show you what someone who has left Mormonism can now see.
Boyd K. Packer embodies everything that is repugnant about that church, and how it can severely damage both men and women. Beyond this, the original article is dismissive of complaints that, as a former insider, I can also make. To disparage these complaints is to ignore a reality that is increasingly indifferent to the growth of Mormonism, as the church bleeds members every year thanks to information that has leaked out all over the Internet. As this phenomenon happens, more ex-Mormon women are going to be turning to the friendly-faced versions of feminism out there. They will do this, as I hope to demonstrate, because the church they are leaving has prepared them for little else. You can thank good-ol’ cultural misandry for that, and there’s plenty of it hiding in Mormonism, like so many other -isms out there.
At least Alahverdian was bold enough to point out that yes, the church encourages sex roles, and yes, they are encouraged because making families is also encouraged, and studies show blah, blah, blah. If you’re a gay guy, that can lead to suicide. If you’re a woman who wants to learn more about Heavenly Mother, a sacred doctrine deep within the church, it can lead to disappointment. Very little is known about Her, so if you want to connect with the feminine divine, you’re pretty much left to your imagination.
In the meantime, you are raised with the expectation that you will lose your virginity on your wedding night, and refrain from all other sexual behavior outside of legally recognized, monogamous, heterosexual marriage, including masturbation. Therefore, if you’re a female in the Mormon Church, at some point in your teen years it may become necessary to go into a private office with a middle-aged man who may very well be a stranger, and tell him whether you have a “problem” with rubbing your clitoris. I don’t care if Mormon feminists and I are in perfect agreement here. I think of it in the manner I think of the quotes from Packer above. I remember where my feet are planted, and I find the strength to say exactly what I think: It is repulsive. Even most of the men I know in the church who have held priesthood leadership callings at the local level, and had to be on the receiving end of this information, would rather not. And if you’re a chronically masturbating teenage male like Kip, it can lead to suicide.
Alahverdian points out a letter that was sent to Packer, and then reveals a remarkable ability to remove himself from empathy: “She wants to get into the highest degree of heaven without the hard work of committing to marriage to the best of her ability.” I don’t know how this is gleaned from what looks to me like a desperate cry for help. I’ll copy and past it here so that we can all read it again, and this time we can pretend it’s a man saying it: “I’m upset that I was always advised to go back and try harder only to get abused more. I need some comfort, I need solace, need hope, need to know Heavenly Father sees all that I have endured. What hope do I have for a chance to live with Heavenly Father? If temple marriage is the key to the celestial [kingdom], where am I? Outside gnashing my teeth for eternity? Help me.”
The word “abuse” is in there, and what’s missing is any discernible certainty in her own mind of who she is. To make any sort of judgment about this woman or her situation, based solely on what’s written here, is a serious mistake. It’s even more disappointing that Packer chose to use this as an example of what people apparently shouldn’t do, or shouldn’t complain about, or shouldn’t worry about. If the “abuse” is not just in quotes but actual, Packer’s reference and the citation in the original article are, to me, perfect examples of what’s wrong with religion, and what is harmful about Mormonism. If it has to be explained, then let the below quote from the original article do just a little bit of it for me:
“Let me emphasize how important marriage and family is in the Mormon faith. To put it simply: it is everything.”
This is correct. This is perhaps the most correct sentence in the article. This should be taken as the Alahverdian’s operating premise, what others call “belief.” This is why so many gay guys have killed themselves. This is why women who want to know more about the church’s polygamous past are bound to be disappointed, unless they do their own research on their own time, and keep their mouths shut in church.
Concerning polygamy, there was a fantastic program on HBO a few years ago called Big Love. If you’re a practicing Mormon, you know about the church’s past with this practice, and you also know that it is doctrinal that polygamy will be practiced in heaven, although the mainstream church does not currently practice or condone it. You may also wish to skip the video linked in the next sentence, as it shows an endowment session. If, however, you’re just one of billions of curious bystanders, you should know that this is the scene that got me watching the show. Producers who can produce such a magnificent simulacrum of what the Mormon temple experience is actually like deserve to have all five seasons eagerly watched within a few weeks. That program is brilliant. It doesn’t miss a thing. You want to see what extreme, fundamentalist religious ideas do to people, both male and female? You want to see how men and women act and react to threats or challenges to their power? You want to see a fascinating battle of the sexes carried out on multiple levels? You want to turn into a Chloë Sevigny fan?
The series shows any number of troubling things that can happen in the mind of an individual, whether male or female, when they are told on a repetitive basis that their best is far from perfect and their worst needs to be shamed out of them. The phenomenon of American polygamy grew out of Utah and its Mormon pioneers. Mormonism is an offshoot of what remains of old-fashioned American Christian morality. Feminism is a by-product of progressivism, which also grew out of old-fashioned American Christian morality. Mormonism wishes to regulate both male and female sexuality. Feminism seeks to empower female sexuality at the expense of the disposable, utilitarian male. A feminist cry of “Exploitation!” concerning pornography will not fall on deaf male Mormon ears. Calls to treat their women with greater kindness and respect will not sound unfamiliar to Mormon men. A shotgun wedding is not uncommon in the modern Mormon Church, and nobody ever points a gun at the bride.
The original article, being written by someone who obviously believes that Joseph Smith wasn’t making it up as he went along, completely misses where feminism benefits from Mormonism; and conversely, where individual feminists who speak out against the church have legitimate issues. Unfortunately, defending Mormonism is not going to help the men’s movement, because it is defending something that is indefensible, giving legitimacy to feminist concerns; and has led directly to more than a few guys killing themselves. That’s right, and I’ll be standing there for the remainder of this article; and any time in the distant future, if I ever have anything further to say about Mormonism. (It’s amazing how something so sickeningly awful can be so useful to one’s argument; like some truths, eh?)
Alahverdian claims: “Mormonism and Feminism – Worse than Oil and Water.” To the contrary; I would say that they go together like milk and cookies. It’s ironic, is it not, that Mormon women who call themselves feminists cannot see that the church is a willing ally in regulating men, a catalyst for ripening women’s grievances into a feminist narrative? Alahverdian himself reveals it: “A kid is entitled to grow up with a loving mother, a supportive father, and have those two individuals be faithful to one another. But to feminists (and yes, even Mormon feminists), that’s abusive and oppressive.”
Of course it seems that way to Mormon feminists, because to a woman who maybe only likes kids sometimes and would be a better favorite aunt or babysitter, who would much rather be an individual and actually prefer a career, or who maybe only wants to make time for making one child; is being told by a patriarchal figure that the patriarchal god who governs the church and refuses any further communication directly with Heavenly Mother, has told him that the seeker’s wishes are not His. Go to sacrament meeting on Sunday, partake of Christ’s flesh and blood, and brood over how you need to change your innermost desires to comply with an outside demand from the opposite sex. Does this sound familiar to any man kicked in the balls in family court?
Alahverdian attempts another defense: “Read: men and women are equal in the eyes of the Godhead, but different genders have different responsibilities. No hatred there. Still with me?” No, I no longer am with you, regardless of whether it’s hatred or simply ignorance. And we’re not opposed merely theologically, but societally and individually as well. I don’t see any place in the men’s movement for telling men going their own way what they should or should not do; not even the ones who masturbated inside of women and made little people. I do not see a movement of men trying to tell women what their responsibilities are. I see a movement of men who are committed to the idea that it’s nobody else’s business telling them what type of men they ought to be. The call by feminists in the church for more lively debate and participation in priesthood ordinances is a call by tithe-paying members for something that uplifts them. To kick out a feminist who insists on talking about Heavenly Mother — no Slut Walk, no false rape accusation, no man-bashing — is to give Mormon feminists a serious leg up. It also makes it that much harder for the men who have left the church to say one word in defense of Mormon men’s issues. I’ll try anyway, later on down. The constant reminders of Mormon male suicides don’t count.
Alahverdian seems to think that adherence to church principles should somehow not only satisfy righteous women but help them to understand and appreciate righteous men: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” Yet based on what I’ve read from numerous women who have recently left the church, it appears to have done very little or nothing at all to help them understand everything that statement implies. Therefore, how can the church claim to have helped Mormon women understand men any better? After all, the father has numerous responsibilities: preside, love, be righteous, provide, protect. The mother: nurture.
In reality, both men and women do work for the church. A lot of it is free work, including scrubbing the chapels clean, which is a more recent development in church practice. Both men and women who leave the church can see the emotional toll that is placed on people, up to and including male suicide over masturbating. Mormon feminists see the following oppressive elements, each of which I am willing to help them back up with experience, observation, and research:
- Denied the opportunity to ordain, bless, baptize, and marry others, since you are denied the priesthood due to your sex.
- Wait for Prince Charming by keeping your vagina to yourself and never touching it except to clean it. Believe he’s Prince Charming, even if he’s not, because a frog can turn into a prince.
- You are never doing enough for your salvation.
- Your highest calling in life is as a mother.
- You have a Heavenly Mother. We don’t know any more. No, stop asking.
- Commanded from boyhood to save your money and prepare yourself spiritually to serve for two years wherever the church wants you to. This results in a great many otherwise ordinary and healthy young men returning from Third World shitholes with permanent disability due to parasites, so that you can give a bunch of poor non-English speakers the chance to learn about a religion that is currently being laughed at on Broadway (and with good reason).
- Be Prince Charming. If you fail at being Prince Charming, you will be made to feel guilty, and it will be increasingly difficult for you to find the imprisoned Princess because she is being counseled to wait for a Returned Missionary (see the first tenet). You fail to be Prince Charming once you touch yourself. Samson did the honorable thing.
- You are never doing enough for your salvation.
- Your highest calling in life is whatever God tells you it is. It will include fatherhood, but will also require hours on end every week doing work for the church for free, meeting with teenage girls and married women to talk about their sexual sins, their emotional problems, and their crumbling marriages, all with little to no professional training and no pay. Oh, and try not to feel bad if the teenage boy you’re counseling on his masturbation “problem” kills himself.
- You have a Heavenly Mother. We don’t know any more. No, stop asking.
Part of the “Priesthood Envy” discussed in the original article that has Mormon feminists so upset has to do with “unrighteous privilege and unequal gender dominance.” Alahverdian correctly points out that the church has The Relief Society for women, as well as a Young Women’s program. However, it is necessary for at least one priesthood holder to be in attendance at all female auxiliary meetings, and all major decisions at the local as well as global level are made by priesthood holders, meaning men. Furthermore, the priesthood offices that are assigned to the young men starting at the age of 12 have nothing comparable in any way, shape or form for females. The Mormon Church embraced the Boy Scout organization decades ago, and advancement in both scouting and the priesthood is considered an honorable way for a young man to grow up.
As a caveat, I’ve never known women or girls to really need any such formal process for growing from girlhood into womanhood. Rites of passage the world over seem to frequently involve men and boys. However, for an individual woman who might benefit from such an organization, and who may have a few wise words to say while giving someone a priesthood blessing, I can imagine it’s tough to sit there like a good little girl and take your “gender assignment.”
Beyond that, and something that few people ever seem to think about much less dare bring up, is that by assigning the majority of leadership positions to men due to the restriction on the priesthood, this virtually guarantees that the small number of child sex abusers out there can do a great deal more damage by virtue of their callings. Since the church is led by the priesthood, and the priesthood is only given to men, and most of the church’s leadership positions as well as all of the vital (and frequent) personal interviews for worthiness must be conducted by priesthood holders, this means that sexual abuse of children, however infrequent in the Mormon faith, is far more likely to be tied specifically to men. Whose side does this help more?
Alahverdian brought up Packer and Dallin H. Oaks, quite obviously out of a believing member’s love for God’s chosen leaders: “Elder Oaks is certainly not anti-woman.” Perhaps not, but like Packer above, he suffers from not seeing the irony of acting out the bad guy parts of 1984 and expecting to be taken seriously. In an interview, Oaks said: “One must never criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true.” Please keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of church leaders are priesthood holders. You know the rest. Occasionally, a gay priesthood holder kills himself, yada, yada, yada.
There are few actual patriarchies out there. It’s a mistake to insist that a patriarchal religion is not patriarchal when in fact it is. For example, the below quote is, at best, misleading:
“Instead of recognizing that the Priesthood and church leaders (called General Authorities) are there to lead, care, love, and guide, these theologically inept would-be revisionists maintain that it’s all about control and women are wholly ostracized from leadership.
“This could not be further from the truth.”
Actually, that last statement is further from the truth than the former. The church is run almost entirely on priesthood power, coming only from males. Women and men are subservient to that power because they all believe that it comes originally from God, but it is men who are able to exercise that power when called upon, not women.
Still: “The feminist lie of inequality and the demand for female ordination has fused to create a brand of Mormon feminism that is unlike any previously seen strand of feminism. This incredibly bizarre schismatic fad has ordination to the Priesthood as its primary demand.” I don’t care what your religion is. If you see something as simple as asking for women to be ordained as a “bizarre schismatic” in a world where other feminists are calling for men to be castrated or eugenicized; then I honestly don’t know what to say in reply. Except this: On so many levels, I actually agree with Mormon feminists.
Here’s part of the reason why: “Then, the men and women are divided into their respective quorums and groups – where men learn how to be better fathers and sons and women learn how to be better mothers and daughters.” So it is once again confirmed that the church assigns sex roles. This is what we call sexism, and it’s a double-edged sword.
Now, I’ve got no problem with sex roles or stereotypes, as long as they’re voluntary. It is also obvious that sex roles evolved along with humanity. What interests me is that with all our liberation from nature via our amazing technological advancements, we still go back to what nature intended. But the roles the church teaches are far less than voluntary, if you actually believe what Joseph Smith claimed. This is at the heart of the Mormon feminist argument. This is why their arguments sound so valid to female ears who are not content with learning about being wives and mothers. If you don’t want the sex role that has been tied to you, then you’re fit to be tied, unfortunately.
It is misleading to simply summarize: “Women have their own meetings, callings and responsibilities. Adding to those callings by ordaining women to the Priesthood would be futile, overburdening, and against what God has told the Prophet.” If this is true, then it would also be futile and overburdening to dispense these callings to men. Yet this is what routinely happens in the church. A Mormon feminist female may sit there envying her husband, brother-in-law, or father performing a sacred priesthood ordinance on behalf of a beloved family member. What she doesn’t see is the disproportionate amount of free time that local leaders are expected to devote to church work: all the labor of a local pastor without the pay. Some women would flock to it and are forbidden, for silly, Broadway-history-making reasons. Most women would not. There you are with nature’s sex roles. No outside help needed. Cross-overs (and cross-dressers) welcome.
Another odd way in which the Mormon Church and feminism are alike is revealed in this sentence: “Because feminism fallaciously teaches women that they are unequal, irrelevant, and unimportant.” Yet those who leave the church say the exact same thing about the church. Mormonism teaches you that, compared to someone scriptural who is truly great, or compared to Jesus or God Himself, a great many of your problems are unequal, irrelevant, and unimportant.
You don’t believe me? Alahverdian betrays this belief himself. In discussing the hurt of that frightened woman from before who was probably trained starting at an early age to look to these men for oh-so-many answers, he says the following: “The woman pleading for help needs to see the eternal nature of things and to know that her trials — however hard to bear — in the eternal scheme of things may be compared to a very, very bad experience in the second semester of the first grade.” What if her trial is that she married a sociopath? They are everywhere. I’ve met them. They are abhorrent. They come in both sexes.
So yeah, if your soul goes on and on and on and on and on, then dealing with a psycho in your house for a couple of measly decades; or drowning in ice-cold salt water for a few scary minutes; or the loss of a child; or getting inexplicable cancer; or being shamed in a church disciplinary council because you are in love with a member of the same sex and played a little doctor; can all most certainly seem like first grade troubles, to be resolved at some later date in a world yet to come. You got it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s Mormonism’s answers to your concerns. I’m really not happy with the fact that I have so much to agree on with Mormon feminists, but there it is.
We should always remember that A Voice for Men’s original and current mission has been, and I’m assuming always will be, compassion for men and boys. I want you to make a serious effort at keeping that in mind, and then read this: “And as we slowly return to the words of the venerable Elder Packer, we see that to some, he is a hero.” Then I want you to go back to the beginning of this article and re-read that quote I provided on the simple boyhood activity of rubbing one out. I want you to think about what this man has told younger men about their own bodies and what that has done to their minds. I want you to think about that dead kid from the 1980s in Salt Lake City. His name was Kip. I want you to not stop thinking about it. I’ll bet his father has never stopped. Then I want you to look at words like “venerable” smacked up against the façade put on by this aged political operative named Packer. Do you see what I see now?
“He has defended men.” No, no he has not. “He has done a favor for men everywhere – especially in a day and age when men need all the favors they can get to remain equal and masculine in this feminized world.” Pray tell, what is masculine, then? Daddy goes off to work and mommy stays home? Can I walk around with a limp wrist? Should I laugh at some effeminate guys’ painted nails, as some other masculine entities did in an Elder’s Quorum meeting years ago? (No, they weren’t my nails.)
“Share this with a Mormon friend or a non-Mormon friend. Not for the purposes of proselytization…” Only a reader naïve to Mormonism wouldn’t see this for what it is: its opposite. You share that article with anyone, and they’ll be able to spout off what any believing Mormon would tell you; and 50,000-plus young men out there paying their own way to proselytize should help the reader understand that to a Mormon, virtually everything about the church can end up as a proselytization tool. Even Broadway.
Unfortunately, to continue in the age of the Internet to believe in a religion that has aided, through its warped ideology, to kill so many men upon whom I stand here, is to not do a single man or boy a single favor. Defending Packer, Oaks and the religion they are desperate to maintain, in the face of a 21-year-old with a parasite, a dead masturbator, or a woman who wants to wear a pants suit to church but is made to feel guilty, may be worthwhile to some. However, since so many people already see the belief system as being not a little ridiculous, then defending the backward, nineteenth-century practice of not ordaining women is pale.
There are guys out there killing themselves, for so many reasons. Let’s focus a little more on them by first conceding that Mormon women may just not be happy with being told what to do all the time. Call it a broken clock, but by my watch, that’s exactly what time it is. My unending thanks to my gay brothers who no longer exist. I literally could not have written this without you. None of you should have done what you did on your last day. That church isn’t worth it.
Source
Responce to:The Menacing Feminist Schism in the Mormon Church
No comments:
Post a Comment