“Some Mormon feminists seem to reject outright the authority and inspiration of prophets and unequivocally declare them mistaken.”

Tom, I realize we’ve covered this ground previously, but from my perspective as a “mormon feminist,” I am not declaring prophets mistaken as much as I am recognizing (or perhaps hoping) that not all words spoken by prophets are prophetic. That may sound heretical, but it’s the only way that I can figure out how to reconcile what seems right and moral and true with words that prophets have spoken previously that seem – not so right, not so moral, and not so true. A process of reconciliation, of trying to sort through it. Recognizing that things that seemed previously unjust HAVE changed in the social fabric of the church, and hoping that other troublesome things will continue to change. I’m probably not expressing that well at all. I’m just rambling, so I will stop.

I might not have made myself clear on the other thread but I tried to explain that there are questions that can confidently be answered and there are others that by their nature require that we acknowledge uncertainty in our conclusions. If that sounds like I’m saying we should never confidently assert anything, then I have not communicated well.

I’m annoying myself with this conversation about a conversation so I’ll stop.

uh oh, we’ve reached agreement! This intimates either the brilliant morning of the truth that we will see eye to eye when they bring again Zion, or mass delusion.

Could be, Eve. Could be. Or maybe it is just proof that small minds think alike, (wink, wink).

unequivacally declaring them mistaken

in general.

I was simply a little taken aback by with the confidence with which you asserted your position, given your radical critique of such confidence in earlier discussions. That’s all.

Some Mormon feminists seem to reject outright the authority and inspiration of prophets and unequivocally declare them mistaken.

Tom, as you note, this is the question. But it’s worth noting that this is a problem hardly confined to feminism; it’s a problem inherent in the concept of a divine but inevitably culture-bound and fallible human authority.

As I understand it, your statement itself seems to stack the deck by confidently asserting “the authority and inspiration of the prophets” when that authority and inspiration are, on whatever the controversial question is, precisely what’s up for debate. (Was Paul inspired when he told women to cover their heads and maintain silence in church?) Just as you complain that others are “unequivocally declar[ing] them mistaken,” so you are unequivocally declaring them unmistaken. A modicum of the modesty about the strength of our own conclusions for which you called on the other thread might be in order here.

I think this is important. Some Mormon feminists seem to reject outright the authority and inspiration of prophets and unequivocally declare them mistaken. It seems that there should be a line beyond which you’ve just got to drop the “Mormon” from your “feminist.” I’m not going to decide for anyone else where that line is but the line has got to exist.

(Regretfully) necessary disclaimer: I’m not saying we should never question prophetic authority or that we should accept their direction blindly, just that if we have little regard for and little trust in that direction, to me it stops making sense to be a part of the Church that they head.