One reason I’m having such a hard time talking about Kate Kelly’s Ordain Women movement is that she’s apparently forgotten who the Mormons are.
Isn’t this the same church that ranks women lower in authority than their own sons?
Isn’t this the church that regularly asks women to give the ‘It’s-okay-that-my-husband-is-the-boss’ speech? The speaker starts out by confessing that she once objected to her husband’s authority over her, but now after a long personal struggle, she’s fine with it. I’ve seen this done several times in two different wards.
Isn’t this the church in which the bishopric of a ward can bar its women from speaking or praying in public?
Isn’t this the church where men can ask the bishop to make their wives stop using birth control?
Isn’t this the church where Relief Society lessons warn women that anger and depression are personal failings that will be passed on to their daughters?
Kelly’s petition to church leadership implies that the church’s meaning and essence would continue if women were ordained, but it seems to me the subservience of women in the church is its meaning and essence. Her petition also assumes that people who benefit from such a system would consent to change it. This is a type of denial about the nature of the system.
But I suppose denial is inevitable if you believe this system is the result of revelation from God. Unfortunately, Mormonism’s social structure is based on the ideas of Plato. Maybe Kelly can get the general authorities to channel Plato, but I think he’s caused enough trouble already.