Feminists and General Priesthood Meeting: “There is No Happiness in Causing Contention”


Mormon women emerging from the Conference Center in Salt Lake City following last night’s semi-annual Women’s Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


I’ve been criticized for saying that I’m content if the Lord doesn’t authorize the ordaining of women and that I’ll be content if, someday, he does authorize it.  My chief concern is to be in a church governed by the will of the Lord communicated through ongoing revelation.


More recently, I’ve been criticized because, despite my openness on the issue (which, it seems to me, is simple Mormon orthodoxy), I’ve let slip the whiff of a hint that I’m not particularly happy with the intention that some seem to harbor of turning this upcoming Saturday’s priesthood session of general conference into political theater.  (I also dislike it intensely when demonstrators disrupt a Catholic mass, chain themselves to the gates of a temple, chant outside a synagogue, pass out leaflets at a religious pageant, interfere with wedding photographs outside the Salt Lake Temple, protest outside Friday prayers at a mosque, and the like.)


Moreover, as I quietly suggested yesterday (by posting this), I’m not altogether happy with the (probably inevitable) tendency of the media to focus on a relatively small percentage of the discontented and, thereby, to distort the views and situation of Mormon women.


In that spirit, here’s another statement from a Latter-day Saint woman that I think should also be widely heard:





We're doomed.
"Is this the worst academic journal ever?"
Where to find what you need
"Beware of the Gaystapo"
  • urroner

    Many of those who protest by interrupting and interfering with the activities of other, in my opinion, do not respect the activities of others, yet they demand respect of other for similar activities they do.

    It, more often than not, is a matter of fear, fear that they just might be wrong and they are, in no way, going to let anybody show them that. And the louder they protest, the greater their fear.

    We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them. – Christian Nestell Bovee

  • brotheroflogan

    My views on feminism changed significantly when I saw some of the blogs by Karen Straughan who is an avowed “anti-feminist.” She is an atheist, believes in equal rights, but points out that feminist theory on the patriarchy is very wrong. I particularly like her video on the “disposable male” and I encourage you to watch it. (warning, she sometimes uses bad language).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA (feminism and the disposable male).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE (on female hypoagency in feminist theory).

    I think that feminism and patriarchy theory was created by the adversary specifically to provide a false doctrine to harm the church.

  • Craig A Mills

    Bro. Peterson,

    I believe Sis. Cassler has articulated the question of gender roles quite well and that a review of her comments at this time is warranted and on topic.


  • palerobber

    Dan, i’m curious to know if you felt it was “political theater” when black Mormon men belonging to Genesis attended the priesthood session of general conference (and talked to the press about it) in 1976.

    • DanielPeterson

      I don’t know the details of that incident — don’t, frankly, remember it at all — and, so, can’t really comment meaningfully on it.

    • SamSmith2233

      Are you sure you are not conflating the attendance, by invitation, of 3 Black Mormon men at General Priesthood Meeting in 1971 with the Wallace A. Douglas protest at a General Session of Conference in 1976?

      • palerobber

        no, i’m referring to Ruford Bridgeforth and 7 other members of Genesis attending priesthood session in spring 1976. contemporary news reports suggest they had not been formally invited.

        • kiwi57

          Probably most of the attendees hadn’t been formally invited. I’m not sure why that would be significant.

    • kiwi57

      I can’t see why it would be, since black men were always permitted to attend regular Ward Priesthood meetings at least throughout the 1970′s, if not earlier.

  • kiwi57

    You seemed to think it was significant enough to explicitly mention.

  • kiwi57

    And I was commenting on a publicly visible post.

    And I’m sure Dan, who doesn’t regard himself as obligated to respond to every comment, is capable of seeing the difference between the two events.