Structural Faith

So there's this thing going on in Mormondom.

So our lesson in Relief Society yesterday was this.

So something occurred to me when I glanced at the words, "Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function."

Many other key phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs reiterate the basic belief that although our leadership is organized into a rather complex hierarchy, leadership is not superiority. And as we discussed it, I realized that few or none of the other women understood the academic teachings our lesson flatly refuted. They talked rather about where to seek answers, than how to approach the source of a question. But the magnitude of this incredible doctrine is lost without a clear comparison between what we say, and what they say. 

What my sisters didn't need to understand to grasp the doctrine was Structural Sexism. If you look at the hierarchy of the church, it is a clear example of exactly that. If you think the church is run by the men who are "in charge" (and sometimes it is), then it's inescapably sexist.

When I was an undergraduate, the University of Utah was under some ridiculous kerfuffle because a student strenuously protested that his instructor claimed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as an example of institutional racism. The definition of institutional -ism is simple: what percentage of that minority is represented in the ruling body, and does it reflect external ratios?

The facts are clear and mathematical. But it's only the visible part of the structure of the religion. In the eyes of the world, the LDS church is an example of both institutional racism, and institutional sexism, and probably every other negative-ism out there, because the numbers are not the whole picture: because man can only measure what he can see.

Now, those of you who are looking at the institution from the outside will see ridiculous posturing in the defence of an outdated system. You'll see laughable circular arguments. My position is indefensible without the faith that I already have. It is not for a moment intended to be convincing. I merely want to be explicit about how it is possible that I, who understand the irrefutable math, can possibly oppose OW without actively seeking my own subjugation. Unfortunately, I feel that I shouldn't. So I won't.

Without any malice to those women and men who express honest feeling (and who may be right where I am wrong - I do not claim omniscience) I am, and always have been, one of the 95% of LDS women who oppose female ordination. I understand my sisters in the 5%, and I respect them as concerned, thinking people who work to find a place and to feel that they have a voice. Perhaps I am only speaking from some as-yet-unidentified privilege.

But what I see is this: the world teaches about institutional injustice. The church has an established pattern to protect and respect every individual. The culture doesn't listen very well.