Two members of the Church are being called to a disciplinary council. These councils are the formal mechanism by which members may be disfellowshipped or excommunicated from the church.
I get that the Church has the right to do this. I understand why they are doing it. But in the larger context of the past few weeks, it makes me very uncomfortable. For me, this is what I see coming from the Church right now:
- We're meeting with Mormon Women Stand because this is how we feel proper women of the Church should behave.
- We don't meet with extreme groups. If you have questions about the role of women (or other teachings of the Church), meet with your local priesthood leaders.
- By the way, we're likely excommunicating a few of people who have been critical of Church teachings.
So yeah, I feel real comfortable talking to my bishop now.
The thing that I find most frustrating is that it feels like the Church hasn't even attempted any real dialog on the issue. The closest thing we've seen is Elder Oaks' talk in the most recent General Conference. I read his talk again this morning to see if there was anything I missed. Let me share with you all of the new things I learned from his talk-----okay I'm done. Because he didn't teach anything new.
Maybe I'm exceptional (I doubt that), but I already knew everything he talked about. Reminders are great. I won't begrudge anyone a reminder of the Church's position. But reiterating your position is not the same as having a dialog on the topic.
For clarity's sake, let me mock up the conversation as it appears to have been had from my perspective:
Ordain Women: We believe true equality requires that women be ordained to the priesthood.
LDS Church: We disagree with your conclusion.
Ordain Women: Perhaps we should talk about this. Here's are the assumptions and logical processes that led to our conclusion.
LDS Church: We still disagree with your conclusion.
Ordain Women: Could you elaborate on your assumptions, or tell us where you disagree with our assumptions?
LDS Church: We continue to disagree with your conclusion. We will now restate our conclusion.Yes, there's a lot of nuance missing there. There's a lot more going into the disciplinary councils than just pressure for dialog. But this is the core of what bothers me about the whole affair. I am extremely uncomfortable with the Church leadership stating its conclusion without explaining how it got to the conclusion. Would it really be so hard to say something as simple as "We disagree with your assertion that Joseph Smith ordained Emma Smith to the priesthood--it is our understanding that the language surrounding priesthood ordinations and settings apart was not as specific as it is today. We believe that, in modern language, Emma Smith was set apart to a position of authority."
I want to understand. I don't even have to agree with all of the logic in order to accept the result. I just want to see if the logic that led to the result is internally consistent. With the information that is coming out of the Church (and by information, I mean deafening silence), I can't do that.
I keep hearing people say, "Well how do you know that they haven't prayed about and gotten an answer." I don't. I also don't know that they have prayed about it. I don't know anything. I haven't been given the chance to understand. Everything I've heard is just a reiteration of what the current position is. And that's precisely what bothers me.
Today, I feel a little less safe in the Church. I feel that people like me, who want more depth and understanding--about not just what, but why and how--are less welcome. I feel I've lost a part of the refuge that church has been for me the past six months. Church feels less like home today, and that makes me sad.
