A question popped in my mind this morning: Will a Mormon woman ever run for president? Think about it. The first Mormon to run for president was Joseph Smith in 1844. Since Smith others have come along: Parley P. Christiansen, Ezra Taft Benson, George W. Romney (Mitt Romney's Father), Morris K. Udall, Orrin G. Hatch, to just name a few (click here for a list and description of the Mormon presidential nominees since Smith). Notice, no women on the list.
Maybe that's not too surprising. Women did not start putting their names in the hat for president until the late 19th century. We are now into the 21st century and we still haven't had a woman voted into the white house, despite numerous nominations. It has taken a long hard road for women to gain some semblance of equality in our society and it seems that it will always be a fight for women to be taken as serious candidates for leadership by the general public.
But there is something different about the issue of gender within LDS theology and culture. The emphasis on the role of males as leaders is practically audible when read in the The Family: A Proclamation to the World: "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. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners" (Emphasis added). I can certainly appreciate the stress that the LDS people place on those final words, "equal partners." At the same time, I can't help but wonder if the deification of gender roles has somehow hindered LDS women to seriously pursue leadership positions in general society. It certainly has within the LDS church, since any pursuit by a woman to hold a priesthood office would be doomed from the start. So, if an LDS woman pursued a major political office, like the presidency, would she be doomed from the start because it does not conform to her divinely designed, primary and sacred responsibility of nurturing children?
Are there Mormon women in politics? Of course. Angela Buchanan , for example, was the Treasurer for the United States in the early 80's, and there are many other LDS women that have and continue to serve their nation. They must not feel any dissonance between their career and adherence to the teachings of the LDS church. I just can't help but think that while women in general struggle to convince America that their gender will not hinder their ability to lead a nation, women in the LDS church have an even steeper hill to climb when it comes to the presidency. An LDS woman running for presidency will not only have to convince the general public that she can lead, she will have to convince the members of her church that God's okay with it.
To answer my original question, I believe that one day a Mormon woman will run for president. It will most likely come after other women have forged the trail to the oval office and, no doubt, she will have to battle the same bigotry and misconceptions that our contemporary LDS candidates face. My new question: Will that bigotry come from within?
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
You are right, Travis. The absence of Mormon women public figures is conspicuous in a faith that is otherwise represented disproportionately. But I think that that lack is not doctrinal but cultural. The Mormon church was one of the first institutional supporters of women's suffrage and the right of women to hold public office. Utah was the second territory to grant women the right to vote, with Brigham Young and antipolygamists forming an unlikely alliance to empower women politically. And Mormon women, such as Eliza R. Snow, wife of Young and General Relief Society President, have been historically politically active.
ReplyDeleteBut Mormonism rightly gives motherhood the respect and honor it deserves. Unfortunately, Mormon culture presses for homogeneity. The mindset is that if motherhood is the highest calling, then it is the only calling to which all women should aspire. And if a woman is not at home with her seven children, she is not living up to her divine potential.
I think that Sheri Dew, former counselor in the general Relief Society presidency, CEO of Deseret Books, childless and single and churchwide celebrity, has done a lot to show the members of the church that there are other righteous paths for women outside the family.
But when will a Mormon woman run for president? My guess is that it will be a while. Perhaps so long that the very idea of a Mormon Woman president will be so uncontroversial that she will not have to battle significant bigotry from within or without the church.
Ben, I hope that your final prediction is correct. I as well hope that bigotry for the Mormon faith and women is absent by the time an LDS woman runs for office. I appreciate your observations of the commitments church leaders in the past have made in being a positive force in moving women's rights and equality, as well as political involvement.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm splitting hairs on this next comment but I'll put it out there anyway. Sheri Dew is awesome. When I listened to her speak in conference I remember she used a tone of voice that was not typical of most women that speak in conference - high pitched and condescending, as if they are talking to a bunch of nursery children. Dew spoke with maturity and confidence. While she is a great example of a woman leader in the church, I can't help but think that being a CEO for Deseret Book is a sweet gig hard to compare to the presidency. You've got a monopoly on products that 14 million consumers can only get at your store. I am sure she makes tough decisions, but CEO of an exclusively Mormon store and president of the United States are very different. I also kinda wish there were more women like Sheri Dew that we could hold up but she seems to be rather unique, at least at the popular level in Mormon culture.
I am worried that our emphasis today on the role of Mothers as doctrine does not support the women who have an urge to do something else with their life. There seems to be repeated council in conference that if a woman has to work than it's okay, but otherwise they should remain in the home. What if a woman doesn't want to do that? Men feel a sense of guilt when they can't provide for their family. I can only imagine it is the same for an LDS woman that doesn't want a family. Even writing it seems far fetched - LDS Woman not want a family!?! Does that type of woman feel support from the church when she's got the Family Proclamation glaring back at her? I hope she does but it probably comes from another source.
Finally, I can't help but think it a bit funny that two dudes are talking about this issue. When ever an LDS woman runs for the presidency she can be sure she won't have us as naysayers.
I think you misunderstood my point about Sheri Dew. I don't necessarily think that she should run for president. I think she is a conspicuous example of a woman that is both at the top of the professional ladder and a church-wide respected leader. She's subverting the cultural homogeneity while sustaining LDS leadership and doctrine. Her celebrity makes a female, LDS president just a little more likely.
ReplyDeleteAside, though, while CEO of Des. Books may be a plum job, there are few gigs more cushy than an incumbent senator or congressman in a solid partisan state or district. Yet we've elected several of these to the presidency.
Is your concern to criticize Mormon culture/doctrine for not allowing women to take leadership roles... or, is it to criticize the fact that the priesthood is not available to women? I am afraid you are not going to be able to point the finger at the Mormons this time. Why do we not ask why the Savior did not choose a woman as one of the Apostles? There were 12 and surely enough room. Why is every major prophet in every dispensation a male? It appears as if the scriptures themselves are guilty of the "deification of gender roles"... Not the Mormons this time.
ReplyDeleteMormon women have and will continue to serve in leadership roles within the Church. Anyone involved ward decisions can testify to the impact women have. However, leadership roles in the community do not suddenly take a front seat to the responsibilities that both males and females have to the family, as eloquently taught in the "Family Proclamation". Mormon women are some of the most educated, intellectually gifted and talented women in the world and this country would be well served with them in leadership positions. This is not an attempt to make an "enlightened" statement, but merely to point out that if Mormons were so bent on male domination, the last thing we want would be smarter, more talented women running around. The bigger question is whether they would even want such positions. Not mine to decide.
RHA
Or maybe she'll just have to wait until after her child/ren are grown (while having minor policital offices) and then put everything into her political ascension from the age of 40 (or so) (assuming she began having children right aftr college).
ReplyDeleteHaha, very funny spartacus :)
ReplyDeleteRHA,
I am so concerned about you sometimes. I hope my blog isn't messing with your blood pressure too badly. It just seems like you are always on the defensive, and I really mean it. I'm genuinely concerned.
The final question is a genuine one. I am not trying to undermine anything, just asking a question. So, what do you think? Will an LDS woman run for president and do you think she will receive the okay from the general LDS community, controlling for party affiliation and other factors? I thought it was a fun question to ask given the LDS culture and doctrine. I said nothing of male domination, and I said nothing about LDS women being uneducated. I am simply asking a question that seems to have two possible effects: 1) stimulate thought and discussion about the topic; 2) make people defensive. The latter is unnecessary.
Travis,
ReplyDeleteI truly appreciate the concern for my health and assure you that my responses are not designed to be defensive, but maybe a little offensive to those that feel more comfortable criticizing Mormonism as opposed to considering preconceived notions of their own. But really, Travis... what do you expect to have as a response? How can one honestly take you seriously when you say, "I am not trying to undermine anything, just asking a question", when you describe things like:
"The bait and switch of contemporary mormonism"
"I can't help but wonder if the deification of gender roles has somehow hindered LDS women to seriously pursue leadership positions in general society. It certainly has within the LDS church, since any pursuit by a woman to hold a priesthood office would be doomed from the start."
"I don't believe God would send these people the Spirit to confirm what they are doing is right to only tell them it is invalid in the next life. The Spirit is to lead us to truth, so it seems that if the Spirit was active in the Apostasy, then it would be telling people to wait until the authority is restored."
"God is unjust to require an ordinance of all humanity without providing a way for that individual to accomplish it in their life" And we get it... Only an unjust God would require a specifically designed baptism; God is not unjust, therefore ordinances like baptism, much less baptism for the dead, are not necessary...
"Unexamined assumptions...I appreciate this remark because assumptions go unrecognized until someone outside of ourselves brings us evidence that challenges us to our core. It's like you know you have unchallenged assumptions but you don't know what they are." Your position that Mormons are a mindless group wandering through the scriptures and merely believing what they are told is loud and clear!
"It seems probable that there is a lot more theological diversity amongst the LDS people than is voiced in our Sunday meetings. I know of LDS people that are actually afraid of voicing their opinions openly out of fear of church discipline and what that would do to their family." Really?... I have a bad habit of saying exactly what I mean in Church and my membership has never been questioned.
"But I do not see this command for baptism to be universal and it seems this is the premise on which both our arguments ride"
"... I want to point out that even with the priesthood restored there are children even today that are baptized by unworthy holders of the priesthood. There are men posing as worthy but lying through their teeth."
"I would simply make the point, before having the chance to read the articles, that although a religious ritual for the dead may have been practiced in the past, that does not automatically necessitate its practice now."
I fully understand that any one of these statements and others, taken individually, do not warrant an aggressive response. However, on the whole there is an unmistaken theme that can hardly be taken so lightly. Are we really "just asking questions" or are we trying to make statements? I have had and will continue to have religious conversations with Mormons and Non-Mormons alike in which mere questions are thrown out in a real effort to elicit responses. This does not look like one of them. Differences in terms of doctrine I enjoy and do not take those differences seriously. However, I do take "honesty" very seriously.
RHA
RHA,
ReplyDeleteWhen I say I am not trying to undermine anything, it is simply saying that I understand there are relilgious beliefs that people believe in and trust and no matter what I say, that won't change. I'm not trying to undermine that reality, nor do I think this blog will overturn the teachings of the LDS church.
I am aware of the wonderful things the LDS church does in the world and I appreciate the blessing it has been in my own life. At the same time, I am personally wrestling with a lot of doctrinal issues and I don't feel like just presenting a question will do justice as a description of why I wrestle with some of these questions or expressing the turmoil I feel inside. Instead, I present a position which has at its core a question that should be clear just by reading.
Yes, I am presenting my position on particular issues. I am making them in statements, not just presenting a question. I want to present MY position and receive thoughtful responses from my peers. This really shouldn't be a novel concept in our world of academic studies.
It's like I can't win. First I am accused by family for being dishonest by keeping these personal questions personal. Then I present them online to the entire world and I am once again accused of dishonesty. What am I doing wrong? Am I to just present a neutral question and let my friends hash it out for me? Can't I present my side of the story?
I take honesty seriously too. I'm not trying to deceive anyone. The very fact that I am posting these things online should be evidence of that. And your warm responses should be evidence enough of why some people don't voice their doubts in church. No, Mormons are not a mindless group wandering through the scriptures. I didn't say that, and this is exactly why I kept these things personal before. I didn't want people misunderstanding my questions and accusing me of something awful and erroneous. Mormons are not wandering or mindless. Mormons are thoughtful truth seeking people. We gather in Sunday School so that our assumptions of truth can be shaped and even changed by the truthfulness of the gospel. It's a breathe taking experience and I don't see why that statement was so offensive. If Mormons were mindless and wandering than standing up and leaving would be easy.
I am struggling in my faith, RHA. I am not trying to hurt feelings or declare the church false. I am presenting questions in the form of my positions. I am speaking with my church leaders, receiving their blessings, praying like mad, searching the scriptures, and even going online to open myself up to you and anyone else that wants to explain these things to me. I'll even let you know what I think about the topic upfront and as wholly as I can so that you know where I am on the issue and how to address me. What more can I do to be honest?