[Zina D. Huntington] when only fifteen years old was baptized by the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, August 14th, 1835, and soon after went to Kirtland with her father’s family. In this year she received the gift of tongues. On one occasion in the Kirtland Temple she heard a whole invisible choir of angels singing, till the house seemed filled with numberless voices. At Kirtland she received the gift of interpretation. She was also at the memorable Pentecost when the spirit of God filled the house like a mighty, rushing wind.
Alternative spiritual paths for Mormon women fascinate me. In light of the connection of early Mormonism and esotericism, I'm not surprised when I encounter members of the Church who are drawn to the Goddess movement, eastern forms of spirituality, healing, divination, and even folk magic. Since I seem to be drawn to people who are just a bit different that the mainstream in their approach to spirituality, I have been able to observe how some of them interact with the Church. Alternative forms of spirituality which might have been welcomed in the early Church are plainly discouraged today. Church leaders are uncomfortable with women who desire to use spiritual gifts such as healing, tongues, prophesy, and others.
I have seen a few different paths taken by women who feel a strong inclination toward alternative spirituality. Those who remain in the Church often go "underground" with their practices, muting or hiding them. Although they see their spiritualism as compatible with Mormon teaching, there is a danger in its public expression.
I'm dismayed that more and more of these women eventually leave the Church. From my associations with them, I can't believe that there was anything intrinsically wrong in their practices that would have caused this disassociation. Rather, as they become stronger and more confident with their gifts there develops an incompatibility with their fellow members and with Church leadership.
As the Church has sought legitimacy, it has moved closer to the trend of Western spirituality to be influenced by secularism. Self-oriented forms of spirituality, issues of the divine feminine and Gnostic conceptions of wisdom were all important in early Mormonism but suppressed today. This suppression tends to reinforce the patriarchal Church. Esoteric spiritual gifts manifest themselves throughout the population and promote equality. As these have been discouraged, male spirituality has expressed itself as priesthood leadership and female spirituality is recognized primarily when used in self-subjugating service and home-based connections.
Do any of you bloggers feel drawn toward alternative expressions of your spirituality? Do you feel constrained by your Church membership? Do you see this as a feminist issue?
Posts
13 comments:
While feminists may feel feminist aspects of the issue as you refer to, at its core I don't think it is at all. The early church as you mention was in many ways much more similar in practice to today's Pentecostals than today's Mormons. But why has it changed? You point to secular interpretations, and I think it's fair to say that's a part of it, but I do not think it is the real core of it. Joseph Smith himself had to spend a fair amount of time reining in people's declarations of spiritual gifts. Because while you point out that on one level it's a democratizing equalizing effect, on another level people getting carried away with it and not understanding the importance of hierarchy - yes, it is very important on this level - nearly tore the church apart in its early days. They also sometimes quite frankly claimed some pretty wacky stuff that we can see quite plainly now (and even back then often) as erroneous. There does need to be order in the Lord's church. Some might call that despotism, but that's going too far just as demanding total blind obedience is going too far. The reality is there is balance and needs to be balance. We are frequently referred to as both a very hierarchical and very egalitarian church, and that is I believe the genius of it. There does need to be a chain of command, but there also does need to be personal revelation. This is why we are all allowed to receive revelation for those things over which we have been given stewardship, but not over those things which we do not have stewardship over. If someone doesn't like that and starts claiming the right to create their own doctrine, well they're free to go off and hew their own path, but then they are doing just that. They are of their own choice deciding to create their own religion, they are making God in their own image.
All of which probably ends up sounding unduly harsh. Obviously even with the bounds of "orthodoxy" (whatever that means) there is significant room for interpretation. Is God 6'3" or 3'6"? I don't know, and if you want to have an opinion on it different from mine, we're all free. But when you do things like start praying to Heavenly Mother when we're clearly taught not to do so (heck, we don't even pray to Jesus and missionaries have to teach investigators that if they don't get it), that is in my mind someone taking one aspect of the Gospel that they like (I for one find the knowledge that we have a Heavenly Mother incredibly comforting and ennobling), creating a whole new set of assumptions which might be fine as personal opinions but which they don't have any keys/authority to declare as doctrinal fact, and then running with them. It's not that they couldn't be right, but lacking the authority to receive that knowledge from God (only those with the keys to receive revelation for the whole church could make such assertions), they have no right to build a new set of doctrines around it and still proclaim to be following the Lord's church.
As I see it, these are the inevitable if imperfect trade-offs of following God when he says that we have to make it as a group. Our individuality is so important that he'll confirm the truth to each of us individually. But we are supposed to be a community of believers acting as one as well, a fact Paul dwells on at some length, and we can't each be running off with our own Gospel hobbies in that sense, it will (as it did nearly 2000 years ago) tear the church apart if allowed to happen. There needs to be group order as well as individual enlightenment.
Good points.
Balance is good, but has the pendulum swung too far? Have we completely forsaken the mystical elements of the Church which were so apparent in Joseph's time?
Culturally I think perhaps yes we may have swung too far, especially in the US, European, and worldwide middle to upper class core of the church. That said, I always love meeting members who come from spiritual backgrounds that have made them more open to the gifts of the spirit, especially things like dreams and visions. Got befuddled a few times on my mission when some of those members and investigators asked me to interpret their dreams for them :)
I think it's fair to say we should be more open to those gifts so long as we keep the proper perspective on them. Many of us have I think shut ourselves off too much from them and could benefit from being more open to and seeking out of the miraculous that the Lord is willing to give us within our spheres of stewardship. I've seen healings, the gift of tongues (though in a very moving practical application as I believe Paul refers to, not in a Pentecostal type manifestation, seen that too and was mightily unimpressed), prophecies which were fulfilled, visions in dreams, etc. I do think we should seek after those gifts more as well and not be afraid that somehow they're illogical mumbo jumbo. They're not, and if we believe that a nice warm feeling in our heart can be God talking to us, why can't he speak to us more directly from time to time and why isn't that just as logical as the subtler fruits of the Spirit?
Since my crisis of faith two years ago, I have really struggled with reconciling my world and my faith. It has been a long hard wrestle and I find it is still ongoing. This is deeper than my previous wonderings as a teenager if the church was true.
Being a woman, part of this has been reconciling myself and the priesthood and the hierarchy. Sometimes the lack of diversity among the male leadership drives me nuts. Sometimes I wish the women would give stronger talks, more like Sheri Dew or Chieko Okasaki and with firmer voices and less tears.
But I keep coming back to Jesus saying, "He that is greatest among you shall be least," and vice versa. I think there is something important to be learned in being the "lesser" sex. I do not think that the way things are now are the way they will be eternally. I think of Heavenly Mother. If scripture say that husband and wife are to be one as God and Jesus are one, then doesn't that make Heavenly Mother part of the Godhead? I am so excited to learn about her and about her role in the hereafter, but I try to bide my time. My thoughts are wholly speculative and I've learned that typically God's reality is so much more than I could ever speculate.
So, I feel like I wait on this. I wait for further revelation and try to live what I have been given. Whenever I am chomping for more revelation or more knowledge, I think of how little I am doing with the vast amounts already given and I feel humbled and convicted. And right now, I have felt in my prayers that part of my job is to learn to be and to love being in this "lesser" role. To make my voice heard but "...by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness and by love unfeigned."
I have to agree with you on this one for sure. I've stayed on the fringe of the LDS church for 5 years now for this reasons despite having a strong testimony of Joseph Smith and our Heavenly Parents.
Joseph Smith's father, Joe Sr. was a Universalist and I believe that influences the original teachings a lot. Mormonism was so compatible with other faiths, with magick - you name it. But the LDS church really does suppress this in attempt to be mainstream.
I like this quote:
Paul Tuscano
Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium
Mormonism, the DaVinci Code and the Divine Feminine, 2005
“When I was first contacted [regarding Mormonism] …one of the first things I heard [was] that God has a body, that God has a wife, reproduction…I was obsessed with the idea that life on earth would be irrelevant if there weren’t a continuation of embodiment in the hereafter because what’s the point to all of this if we’re going to become nothing or just transcendent. It makes no sense to me, there has to be something.
So, I was captivated by these ideas and my first experience with real theology came at BYU with Hyrum Andrus who was a wonderful teacher of theology…he was very adamant about the balance of the physical and the spiritual and how all these things are in Mormonism- that Jesus was married that there was a lineage that came down to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that they were all descendants of Jesus Christ and so were the early apostles…
This was very vital to me and when I was excommunicated [it happened] at the same time the church was trying to throw off these things. What attracted me to Mormonism are the very things that the leaders now are embarrassed about and what the Protestants were unable to get us to conform to by force during the 19th century, they’ve managed to get us to conform to by shame in the 20th century.
They have basically shamed us out of our religion so that the only thing they’re proud of in 19th century Mormonism is that is the fact that the pioneers dragged their Asses’ across the plains and didn’t quite make it to San Francisco. Our heritage is being vitiated by people who are ashamed of both their brains and their genitals…
We can’t talk about these things, we’re not allowed to explore these things, and if we do we sense ourselves being marginalized not only by the leaders [of the LDS church] but also by extremely conservative members who are in complicity with them.
And at the very [same] moment [that Latter-day Saints] are trying to abandoned these things Dan Brown writes a book and surprise, surprise we find that the American public [is] ready to except the things, the very things we’re trying to discard and it’s like some kind of Kafkaesque nightmare!”
Maraiya, you really captured a lot of how I feel when I don't fully get something, thanks.
Ayla, regarding the Tuscano quote, I think that actually does a good job of capturing the "line" one needs to be cautious with. If I had more than 5 minutes I'd go dig up the C.S. Lewis quote I think from the preface to the Screwtape Letters where he talks about how he has certain beliefs about angels that he does really think are true based on what he knows now, but that he recognizes that if he's wrong it's not something vital and that he's prepared to discard it if shown otherwise. I think Tuscano's comment there shows an inability to draw that distinction Lewis talks about. There's a lot of beliefs we can hypothesize upon based on the little snippets of core truths, but if we allow those unproven hypotheses to take over to the point of overpowering the core truths, then we're on shaky ground. That's where the Jacob 5 allegory of the branches overpowering the roots such that the fruit goes bad (am I remembering the analogy right here?) comes into play. I've got some beliefs about deification and exaltation I consider amazing and incredibly important to my current worldview. But at the end of the day if I am shown I am wrong, then so be it, those currently cherished beliefs I will toss aside and stick to the core issues of faith in God, Christ, the Atonement, etc.
"Do any of you bloggers feel drawn toward alternative expressions of your spirituality? Do you feel constrained by your Church membership? Do you see this as a feminist issue?"
In response to your first question, I most definitely feel drawn to alternative expressions of my spirituality. In fact, today I was researching the relationship between spirituality and the 12-step program and came upon a most enlightening website. I feel truly blessed.
I do not feel constrained by Church membership since I have not been a member of record since 1980.
I do not necessarily see this as a feminist issue. Different avenues of spirituality are open to all. Though it could be viewed as a feminist issue when one is searching to become one with the feminine divine.
I just took a class on Medieval women writers who often wrote on religious material. Several of these women had alternative spiritual experiences. The theory is that since women were devalued by both the Medieval (Catholic) Church and society, that they had to take alternative paths to access or experience a higher power.
The LDS Church is also patriarchal. I wonder if women are also forced to find other ways of experiencing God then the traditional ways, which are, coincidentally, only available to men. And of course, the patriarchy wants to repress those alternative ways of seeking God.
It is taught that men and women have different roles in the church. Men should be fathers, providers, and priesthood holders. Women should be mothers and nurturers. Notice that women lack a spiritual role; a way to access God. If men and women are truly equal in their roles, then women should have their own spiritual role. Perhaps women are creating this role for themselves - and I think Church leaders should respect, and maybe even encourage that role.
Personally I believe that women will receive a sanctioned spiritual role within the Church equal to but not the same as the priesthood. It's only a question of time. Perhaps the women of the church need to embrace their alternative spiritual practices and this will cause the change to occur more quickly.
Who says motherhood isn't a spiritual calling? My goodness...it's the most spiritual of callings, if you ask me.
Dear anonymous, the problem with motherhood as a calling is that one isn't called. Motherhood is somewhat endemic in the world. There's only one multi-cellular creature without motherhood, rotifers. So, motherhood as a calling groups us with tapeworms, rats, gingko trees, slime molds, etc. I'm only aware of a single species that gets the priesthood. Which one I leave as an exercise for the reader.
I've been thinking about this alot and who says women don't hold the priesthood? Well, obviously not the authority of the priesthood, which would include leadership and logistics. But what about the power of the priesthood? Could that be separate and more applicable to this topic? I can think of several examples where women use the power of the melchezidek priesthood even by the laying on of hands...everytime i think about this i realize i need to make a determination on this question...what do you think BIV?
I'm new here. I searched "divine feminine" and got this blog and Ayla's blog. This is very serendipitious/synchronistic to me because I have a strong Mormon pioneer-crossing-to-Zion background (Nortons and Callahans) and feel a kinship with Mormon women. I have all the usual things to say about those fine women; their intelligence, and their strength. I now work in women's spirituality and the "raising" of Mary Magdalene as "Bride and Beloved"...to use the words of Margaret Starbird.
I think the comment about needing structure in religious life as well as revelation is a good one, and I believe it's reconciled in the idea that we all share the energies of both genders within ourselves. Don't we feel a kind of "inner priestshood" as well as our own feminine intuitive, feelingful connection to the presence of God? If the priesthood weren't afraid of their own right brain-visionary-intuitive-heart centered selves, they wouldn't be afraid of Mormon women's spiritual gifts of the spirit.
Thanks for listening,
Joan Norton
www.MaryMagdaleneWithin.com
http://blog.marymagdalenewithin.com
Post a Comment