Inside the Tent
The Red Tent. It’s been delighting and scandalizing (mostly scandalizing) Mormon women’s book clubs for years now. I finally read it last week.
Due to brain lag from overconsumption of fat-laden food this weekend (I just ate the last piece of pumpkin pie for breakfast), I don’t have a review to offer up. But I do have some semi-random thoughts about female spiritual leadership that I’m sure you’re dying to hear. And I’m dying to hear yours.
I’m not one for feminist utopias. I believe matriarchy has been and would be just as fraught with problems as patriarchy. Different problems, perhaps, but generally speaking women are just as susceptible to corruption from power as men. Case in point: Diamant’s majestic yet cruel Rebecca.
And yet, I pine for highly visible, spiritually powerful women leaders in the Church. I am not calling for priesthood ordination for women. I don’t think that’s necessary or desirable. But we believe that “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose,” which means (among many other things) that women have particular gifts to offer the church. And regrettably, this influence mostly takes place behind the scenes.
I don’t believe that the largely private nature of women’s influence in the Church means it’s less valuable. I believe Neal A. Maxwell’s remark that “greatness is not measured in column inches–in the newspaper or in the scriptures” (or in the General Conference report, I might add). But I’m hungry for more interaction with our female leaders. I wish there were more of them (don’t ask me how–I haven’t come up with any ideas yet). I wish there were more occasions to hear from them. And really I wish the RS broadcast didn’t have to be about Relief Society per se. RS is only one spoke in the wheel of female spirituality, and the conference is our lone annual tent meeting.
Speaking of which, I’m all for a monthly women-of-the-ward meeting where we lie around and talk for three days. And eat honeyed cakes, and all that. Are you with me, sisters?
Subscribe to RSS
December 1st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I agree with you Kathy. I would love to have more interaction with the female leaders in the church. What if there were area-authority Relief Society leaders that traveled with the brethren and spoke at stake conferences? And yes, a 3-day “red tent” would be fantastic. Bring your baklava!
December 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Back in the day, before the Church got so big, members of the RS General Board (and Primary Board, and YWMIA Board) visited every stake at least once every year. My mother could speak familiarly of Sister Parmley (LaVern Watts Parmley, Primary) as if she were a friend — “let’s make Sister Parmley’s peach pie for dinner on Sunday” — even though she met her only once or twice a year. Yeah, it made a difference in how she felt about her calling and her place in the church.
It *would* be nice if there were a way to have more interaction with women leaders. If your stake is at all like mine, you don’t even have any real contact with your STAKE Relief Society leaders, unless you’re a ward officer. The stake sisters who visit a couple of times a year are acknowledged during announcements, but that’s it.
I think the lack of female role models is in part why I keep trying to find a comfortable women’s blog. But they’re so fragmented, JUST for mommies, or JUST for flaming feminists, or JUST for liberals, or JUST for whoever it is that I’m not.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Thank you, that was interesting (and I was able to share it with a friend).
December 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Fascinating, Ardis. You’re right, I have no clue who the stake leaders are…
(And I hope Segullah is a comfy women’s blog for you. We love your comments there.)
Andrea, I’m all for it!
December 1st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Ditto, Ardis. I love your comments. And I’m in awe of your cool blog.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
I HATED that book. And by HATED I mean I threw it across the room several times and stomped around the house furious for a while after I finished it. There are lots of things not to like–the romanticization of women’s biology, the notion of separate spheres as empowering for women, wholesale disregard for responsible interpretation of scripture and history (glossing over centuries of frequently violent misogyny to make Judaism into some cozy pseudofeminist cult. Egads!) Alas, one can all-too-readily see the appeal for Mormon women. (But even in Mormondom, the notion that a retreat with the women’s leadership would be a relaxed three-day chocolate fest is historically dicey–Eliza R. Snow, Emmeline Wells, Amy Lyman, Claire Middlemiss, LaVern Parmley, Belle Spafford…those are NOT women one would necessarily enjoy hanging out with in the red tent. They were fierce and driven and bold and wouldn’t have had much patience with “soft” power.
/breathes into paper bag/
And Ardis, what’s so great about your blog and you is EXACTLY that nobody is JUST whoever you are!!
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Kristine, don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
From what I’ve heard, it’s a rare LDS woman who finds the book appealing, for the reasons you mentioned and others (mostly others). Now, Twilight, on the other hand…
And hey, a 3-day retreat with the fierce, driven, and bold? I’m there.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Gives new meaning to the phrase “pitching a tent”.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Believe it or not, that was the edited version of my comment
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I loved it.
Adored it.
Put it on my keeper shelf, is how much I loved it.
Exactly how much and what other type of power women of that day actually have? Certainly not as much as the 19th Century ladies you name.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
MoJo, I don’t think Kristine was suggesting the women of that day were Snow- or Spafford-esque. She was just pointing out that our prominent pioneer sisters were not the warm fuzzy types. In fact, I’ll bet if they showed up at the next RS conference, there’d be a lot of seat-squirming.
A tent gathering of my ward RS would be all giggles, tears, and homemade snacks. But I’d enjoy that as well. Never too old for a slumber party, although I’m guessing nobody would bring their Ouija boards…
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
They were fierce and driven and bold and wouldn’t have had much patience with “soft” power.
I sorta see Sister Beck more in that camp.
As for more contact with our female leaders, I have heard the auxiliary meetings in SLC are good. I believe they often include transcripts of these online. The ones I have read have been powerful and helpful.
And I think BYU Women’s Conference is an opportunity to hear from our female leaders more as well. I realize that many women can’t or don’t come to that, but it’s easy to enjoy their talks online, and so doing has helped me feel more connected to them, and feel more of their power and influence (which I think is real and very important) in my life. That’s a gathering that the men don’t have, and I tend to think it’s a resource that is underutilized by those who don’t go in person.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Then I did indeed mis-read and I apologize.
There’s a lot of seat-squirming when I start talking in RS. Gospel Doctrine, too, now that I think of it. Maybe that’s why they never call on me.
I have to admit that would not be on my top 1,000 list of things to enjoy, either.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
m&m, Women’s Conference isn’t a church meeting. It’s true there are some good resources out there. But I think more direct outreach is necessary, an outreach undertaken in the church proper, on both the local and general levels.
In addition to women leaders speaking to women more often, I wish women would have more opportunities to speak to the Church at large as well–and not only about women and children’s business.
I hope Elder Ballard’s admonitions about making ward councils actual councils instead of correlation meetings have brought about positive change at the ward level, and that PH leaders truly welcome the input of the female auxiliary leaders on all matters, not just those pertaining to their “spheres.” I hope the similar change comes to pass in stake administration, as well as at Church HQ.
I believe there’s a lot of room for women to be more visible, prominent, and directly influential in the Church without messing with PH authority or even hierarchy. The very qualities which make women so successful in auxiliary endeavors would be just as useful in other areas of action. I believe the tributaries afforded women should flow more freely into the big river. There will always be a gender gap in the Church, and that’s as it should be. But I think the current gap is much wider than it needs to be.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
If I might offer some ideas on female spiritual leadership:
I’m not sure I can put this gently, but leadership at the ward level is the area where real spiritual service is rendered. Stake and General leadership is largely managerial and bureaucratic, at least until you get to the Q12. Aside from the priesthood oversight inherent in the First Presidency and Q12, why must female spiritual leaders be subject to oversight at all levels? If a general structure works for men, it will certainly work for women.
Remove the oversight of local priesthood from the Relief Society – The RS president becomes equal with the Stake president, called from the general level, and the ward RS pres is called from the stake level, equivalent to the EQ president. Remove the sledgehammer that some priesthood leaders can wield over the RS, requiring all to work together rather than pull rank.
Free up the Relief Society to _really_ take charge and make an impact, from the RS general meeting on down, but especially at the local level. Do away with PEC, and replace it with a Ward Executive Committee.
One of the most frustrating aspects of leadership was witnessing the PEC meeting, the _hours and hours_ of that meeting every month, and knowing that the RS president should be there and completely involved, not simply briefed afterward.
And, one final thought: Do not limit the RS ministering to the sisters. Broaden it so that the priesthood and relief society minister to the ward in an overlapping and complementary fashion. Leadership influence from the sisters should extend more prominently to the men and boys, too.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 am
I wish women would have more opportunities to speak to the Church at large as well–and not only about women and children’s business.
I understand this desire, and I know you aren’t alone in feeling that way — this is something I have heard many times in blog conversations.
As I thought about it, though, is it really that *women* don’t have this opportunity, or that *auxiliaries* don’t have this same opportunity? I think it’s a double-whammy because women are *only* in auxiliaries, but if you think of the general YM general presidency or the Sunday School presidency, their outreach, speaking opportunities, etc. seem to me to be as limited as the general women’s leaders’ are.
I also think it’s important to remember that none of the leaders who do speak are told what to speak on…they all speak on what they feel inspired to speak on. So it’s not the male leaders’ fault if the females choose to speak more particularly about their stewardships. (Off the top of my head, recent talks that I remember by members of the general SS presidency were about teaching — related to their stewardships as well. Not so unusual, perhaps.)
I would also argue at the local level, women might even, net-net, often end up having more influence and involvement than the men, when we are talking about auxiliaries. The RS president often works more closely with the bishop than any other ward leader, no? I think she is also more involved in the lives of ward members and families than probably any other person except perhaps the bishop.
I hope I’m not coming across as trying to undermine or pick apart the desires or concerns expressed in the post or comments. I just wonder if it’s easy to blame gender issues in a vacuum for these differences, when some of it may really be more about the structure of the church and the function of auxiliaries in general. Comparing auxilaries against each other from the ward level on up, I think the gender gap is pretty small. Reporting structures are similar (e.g., no male auxiliary leader has autonomy — he must also report to his priesthood leader), exposure and opportunities are similar, functions are similar. It seems to me that men and women in these roles are given very similar opportunities for exposure and outreach.
Thoughts?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am
m&m, the problem is EXACTLY that RS has been turned into an auxiliary (an unscriptural designation and a gross distortion of the founding vision of the organzation). This is an unfortunate side effect of the correlation movement, rather than a deliberate, misogynist attempt to lessen women’s power in the Church, but it does, nonetheless, leave Relief Society a diminished ghost of its former self.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
What I’d like is more spiritually powerful women who do not seem robot-ish in their spirituality. I’d like to hear from real women, like we have on the blog. My new visiting teacher is a spiritual giant, but I cannot feel close to her. I’m myself with her, but I feel like she’s smiling with gritted teeth, determined to change me. I don’t feel she “gets” it. Whatever it is.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Fanned & faved. I believe your assessment is spot on!Guild Wars 2 Gold