This is an exchange between Jane Little and Michael Otterson in Little’s BBC piece “Sister Saints – Women and the Mormons” (starting at about 11:20; also see the accompanying article here):
JL: Just to deal with Kate Kelly, just to clarify, was she excommunicated for apostasy?
MO: The letter that went out, that they actually published on their website, briefly, at least they released it to the media, indicated that the reason why that disciplinary action was taken was for apostasy. I’m not sure it actually used the word, but apostasy is seen as repeated and deliberate advocating to doctrines contrary to the Church, especially encouraging other people to take the same position.
JL: So you would say she is an apostate, under that definition?
MO: Yeah.
JL: The dictionary definition says it’s renouncing your faith, which is somewhat different.
MO: Well, I don’t think I[‘m] particularly obligated to worry about what it says in Oxford or Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Our definition of apostasy is repeated open advocacy of doctrines contrary to the Church.
It’s not surprising that Otterson would want to use an unconventional definition of apostasy. It allows him to use a more serious-sounding word than “insufficient submissiveness in the face of leaders’ demands” in explaining why Kate Kelly had to be kicked out. I realize, of course, that he was taking his definition from the Handbook, but that just means it’s the Church leaders who wrote or commissioned the Handbook who are making up a new definition to allow them to borrow strength from an existing weighty word.
Church leaders do this with other words too. One obvious example is preside. The Proclamation on the Family says,
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
These sentences are difficult to reconcile with each other without accepting an unconventional definition of at least one of the words. It’s typically preside that gets singled out for special treatment. People have argued a lot on the Bloggernacle that in Church contexts, preside doesn’t actually mean anything about being in charge, ruling over anyone, or having the last word, but rather that it means some vague but very important function that must be done by men, but is at the same time compatible with equal partnership. The goal of the redefinition is different than it is with apostasy. Here it looks like Church leaders aren’t trying to borrow strength from a word, but rather trying to allow for two definitions to exist simultaneously in the minds of different audiences: the conventional definition for the believers in old-school/unapologetic patriarchy, and the softened definition for the believers in chicken patriarchy.
But all of this has been argued to death on the blogs before. What I want to call attention to is the redefinition of the word equal that has come up so often in the Church’s oblique responses to Ordain Women. For example, here is Elder Oaks in his talk this last Conference:
In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.
Here’s Elder Ballard in a 2013 BYU devotional talk, reprinted in the September Ensign:
Men and women are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the Church, but equal does not mean the same.
As with the usage of preside in the Family Proclamation, it is very difficult to reconcile such statements without coming up with a new definition of the word equal. Except here it’s not some other statement that it’s difficult to reconcile with. It’s just the actual practice of the Church, which is so very far from considering men and women to be equal or to treating them equally. Elder Ballard does throw in his caveat that “equal does not mean the same,” but this seems like just an excuse to justify all kinds of difference in treatment by waving his hand and pronouncing authoritatively that all those differences somehow in the end amount to “equality.” Which as far as I can tell amounts to making the word meaningless.
As an aside, if you’re reading this, you’ve probably already decided whether or not you believe the Church treats women and men equally. I really don’t want to argue that point again here. I happily concede that if you see the Church’s treatment of women and men as equal (in the conventional sense), then nothing else I’m going to say in this post will make any sense to you. On the off chance that you’re interested and haven’t made up your mind yet, here are a few posts I like on the topic: Julie makes a good argument in this post at T&S about how even if equality doesn’t mean sameness, it has to mean something. Melyngoch points out in this post that equality and sameness are actually conceptually pretty similar. Heather’s “Equality Is Not a Feeling” series at D&S documents many situations of different treatment of women and men in Church. Chelsea’s post at WAVE, where she lists situations where the Church makes her feel unequal, is also excellent.
Getting back to the redefinition of equal, the motivation for Church leaders doing it looks similar to their motivation for redefining apostasy. It allows them to borrow strength from a strong word without having to make the thing being referred to actually match up to the word. In this case, it allows them to answer the charge that the Church is some backward, woman-oppressing organization. We’re not discriminatory! We treat women as equal! Of course, it seems pretty clear that they’re more committed to using the word than to actually checking whether there is unequal treatment or rectifying it if there is. It’s more an article of faith than an empirical claim.
But there’s a painful unintended consequence of GAs using equal in this way. When they define the status quo in the Church as “equality” for men and women, and then at the same time claim that men and women are also “equal” in God’s eyes, they strongly suggest that God is a discriminatory respecter of persons just like the Church is. If God’s plan is to treat women and men “equally” in the afterlife in the same way that the Church currently treats them “equally,” this paints a pretty bleak picture of eternity for women who notice–and are harmed by–the very real inequalities in the Church. Women will eternally be auxiliary and advisory (at best) to men? Will they also have to put up with a God who is forever reminding them how wonderfully they’re being treated because it constitutes “equality”? Will they get pep talks on how they’re “incredible” and a “moral force” at the same time that they’re denied access to any kind of power?
Complaining about unconventional definitions of words might seem pedantic. In this case, though, I think their unconventional definition has the potential to cause people real pain, and I wish GAs would stop doing it.
Amen. Except that I think the problem is not that this redefinition causes people pain, but that it is *terrible* theology, explicitly counter to scripture. It sets up an idol we are supposed to worship–a god who discriminates cannot be the god who repeatedly insists, both in his incarnation as Jesus, and through his prophets, that he is no respecter of persons.
I like this post. Just don’t ask me what definition I’m using for “like.”
Words rarely have a single meaning. To say that the dictionary definition of a certain word is X is a fallacy. Instead, it can be said that words have ranges of meaning that change and develop over time. In my opinion, the Church’s use of words such as preside or equal is certainly consistent and falls within the range of acceptable meanings for those words..
Merriam-Webster’s definition of “apostasy” includes “abandonment of a previous loyalty”. Kate Kelly probably still claims that she has been a loyal Mormon all along. But someone who is loyal to the Church does not trespass on Church property or hold a demonstration protesting Church doctrine during General Conference. And someone who is loyal to the Church does not disregard the counsel of and otherwise show disrespect toward her priesthood leaders (“patriarchy bingo”, “come stare down the patriarchy”, stoking public opposition to the Church through the left-wing media and to her local priesthood leaders by publicizing their private information on her Facebook account, encouraging members to “raise hell”, etc., etc.). The definition of apostasy cited by Mr. Otterson is consistent with the Merriam-Webster definition in that a person who repeatedly and deliberately advocates doctrines contrary to the Church is clearly someone who has abandoned his/her loyalty to the Church.
Progressives/liberals have misused the word “equal” for years in connection with “affirmative action”/racial preferences. The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution has been twisted to mean that treating people unequally (i.e., racial discrimination) is fine as long as you are discriminating against a “privileged” group such as whites or Asians and as long as it is done with the goal of promoting “diversity” or correcting past wrongs.
The Church has never claimed that men and women are equal in the sense of having the same responsibilities. Rather, they are equal in that they have the same inherent worth or value in the eyes of God.
Kristine,
God discriminates all the time. He gave the priesthood to the Levites, leaving the other tribes out. He called 12 apostles in the Old World–all Jewish men–no Romans, no Samaritans, no women. He called 12 apostles in the new world–all Nephite men. He has called over 100 apostles in this dispensation–all men. He restricted the preaching of the gospel to the Jews alone and only later allowed it to be preached to the Gentiles. He is no respecter of persons in the sense that he loves everyone equally, that everyone has equal worth in the sight of God, and that everyone will have a fair and equal chance to accept the gospel and become like God.
That’s it. Make him an offender for a word. There’s a scripture about that somewhere.
Good post, Ziff. You point about perpetuating the status quo into eternity is especially sobering.
Whenever I hear somebody fulminate about liberals and progressives and decry the liberal media, all in the context of a conversation about church, for some reason it reminds me of a loud koo-koo clock.
kramer, Mike Otterson’s behavior is offensive in ways far worse than his use of the word *apostasy*. For starters, consider his overt lie that cameras have never been permitted on temple square during conference. Of course, the Utah Professional Journalist’s Association called him on his falsehood, but what do they know? They’re just the left-wing media, after all.
“If God’s plan is to treat women and men “equally” in the afterlife in the same way that the Church currently treats them “equally,” this paints a pretty bleak picture…”
Exactly. You totally get it, Ziff.
Bertrand, your explanations require a direct correspondence between what the writers of scripture *say* God does and what God actually does that I find untenable. But I think your point that our temporal perspective limits our perception of God’s intent is correct–for instance, contemporary Latter-day Saints have no idea what to make of Huldah, or Deborah, or Junia, because our historical situation makes us think God never calls female prophets or apostles. It would be as wrong for me to read contemporary Western political definitions of “equality” into the scriptures as it is for you to read contemporary Mormon definitions of “apostle” into the New Testament and Book of Mormon.
Thank goodness for the possibility of continuing revelation and the requirement to submit ALL of our cherished notions to faithful examination.
The reality is that words have meanings in different contexts. In the USA, National Public Radio has been doing a recurring series on the language of different professions, and how common words may have a different usage in one profession compared to another.
For example, “robust” means different things to a statistician and pediatrician.
And a lot of statisticians AND pediatricians would share the view that they don’t have to feel obligated to use the word only the way the dictionary defines.
So it seems understandable that (like any other field) the church might use words in a way different than other places.
I don’t find the church to be making up an “uunconventional definition” as much as they are simply using a second or third definition that is already out there. Because I went to graduate school when “servant leadership” was in vogue, I don’t see a contradiction with a dad leading by serving. Leading does not mean only “on top giving orders,” there are other models that are out there. There have been numerous articles in the management literature on servant leadership going back to the 1970s, so the church is not coming up with something new. You can choose to ridicule it as “chicken patriarchy” but then who is making up new terminology?
And it is not like the church made up their use of the word “apostasy” just for the Kelly case. Their use throughout her proceedings is entirely consistent with everything that I have read and taught from church manuals. Otterson mentions her encouraging others to believe likewise, and that is a concept right out of Alma 30: people can believe whatever they want, but Korihor began to be a problem when he encouraged others to believe what he did.
If we are going to talk about people twisting words around, how about Sister Kelley declaring that she was not teaching doctrine, that she was excommunicated for “stating a fact.” I admire her certitude that her opinion must be a fact, as I wouldn’t claim that about my own opinions.
I am not sure that the GAs are any more guilty than anyone speaking at a conference of any professional organization, assuming their audience knows the meaning in context. And they are trying to deal with words that will translate well across how many different languages.
“But there’s a painful unintended consequence of GAs using equal in this way. When they define the status quo in the Church as “equality” for men and women, and then at the same time claim that men and women are also “equal” in God’s eyes, they strongly suggest that God is a discriminatory respecter of persons just like the Church is. If God’s plan is to treat women and men “equally” in the afterlife in the same way that the Church currently treats them “equally,” this paints a pretty bleak picture of eternity for women who notice–and are harmed by–the very real inequalities in the Church.”
Exactly. You have captured in this paragraph the central locus of pain in the very darkest days of my faith crisis. My thoughts circled this black hole of projecting the current status quo onto the eternities and onto God for months and months. I think I am finally learning to let it go. I decided I would rather believe in the kind of God I can actually bring myself to pray to than believe that the way things are now is the way they will be forever. The alternative is to despair. I wish I could really explain to people how the ideas you articulated above made me feel and the effect they had on my relationship with God. Thank you for understanding.
Daniel Ortner, Bertrand, kramer, and Naismith, please go to hell (as in definition: 7. Informal. Excitement, mischievousness, or high spirits: We did it for the sheer hell of it. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition).
Naismith,
You state, “The reality is that words have meanings in different contexts. In the USA, National Public Radio has been doing a recurring series on the language of different professions, and how common words may have a different usage in one profession compared to another. ” You go to give the example of “robust” in statistics and medicine. This is completely correct, but it is relatively easy for me to look up the definition of “robust” in statistics or medicine. The Church’s definition of “apostasy” was stuck in a handbook that was only available to men, except for nine women in SLC.
The other examples in the post do not have that same problem, but there is an issue with the vagueness. What does “equal” mean when used at in an LDS meeting? It sounds good, but can you give a definition? Likewise with “preside.” What does it mean? Men are to “preside” over their “equals.” Can anyone explain that sentence?
I do not see how “repeatedly and deliberately advocating doctrines contrary to the Church teachings” is not equivalent to “renouncing faith”; in both cases one is saying, “I no longer believe (have faith) in the doctrines of this particular Church.
Sister Kelly goes even farther than saying she does not believe the doctrine. Her position is, essentially, “The leaders of the Church are acting contrary to God’s will, ignoring, or even actively opposing and thwarting God’s will for His saints, by not extending Priesthood Ordination to women generally.”
Example of specific doctrine that KK disagrees with: Jesus Christ is the Head of this Church, and reveals His will through His prophets.
Once and for all, I wish they would stop using ‘equal,’ when they really mean ‘cherished.’ There is a difference.
I agree, Andrea R-M. I think the usage of equal by church leaders usually implies “equally valued” within the church organization. Yet, I am not sure this is even accurate within the LDS context. At least I didn’t feel that way when we had a big Stake meeting in which the Stake President explained how all the wards in the Stake were reorganized. We all got a handout that explained the number of Priesthood holders (and active home teachers) in each ward and how the wards would be redistributed to even out the number of Priesthood holders across the units. Nothing on that handout included any of the work or the service that sisters did within the ward units.
While words indeed have different meanings in varying contexts, (2nd, 3rd, 4th etc definitions as pointed out by naismith) I am yet to come across a dictionary that in any context defines equality as value, i.e.: gender equality and gender value do not mean the same thing.
I have also often come across the argument in LDS circles that for men and women to be equal according to my definition, then men would have to have the “blessing” of childbirth. In response to that, I have also never come across a definition of gender equality that assumes biological sameness.
The problem is that the phraseology “repeatedly and deliberately advocating doctrines contrary to the Church teachings” is subject to the definitional (as well as factual) looseness as are the core words in the posting and discussion. When you can’t hone in better on the premises you don’t establish your equivalencies, do you?
Another example where we use a new definition that borrows strength from an existing word is “bishop.” I don’t think this one is damaging, just potentially confusing.
I also think the church redefines words in a way that can create an exaggerated sense of continuity, like “temple” and “priest.”
Recycled comment per Commenting Olympics:
Handbook 2, 1.3.1, speaks to husbands and wives being united and one. No mention of presiding. It is only when we get to 1.3.2 “Parents and children” that presiding is addressed. Note: Proclamation was issued to the world, about 98% of which are non-members. Saying fathers preside, therefore, has nothing to do with the priesthood, especially since comment is that in absence of father, mother presides. I think the church’s use of preside is in terms of conducting. Many state laws are along similar vein, saying father is head of household. No children? Then no presiding. Leaders use loose language sometimes, but handbook language and arrangement of paragraphs into “husbands and wives” as opposed to “parents and children” not by accident. Preside, not being expressly defined, leaves open individual family adaptation. Am not aware of any household where there is a true partnership in all things and in all decisions. Spouses usually fall into roles, decisions are made by force of personality and persuasion, debate and concession.
“If God’s plan is to treat women and men “equally” in the afterlife in the same way that the Church currently treats them “equally,” this paints a pretty bleak picture of eternity for women who notice–and are harmed by–the very real inequalities in the Church.”
It was this, the doctrine that seemed to be clearly taught by past and current LDS leaders, which was the final straw that broke my faith. I decided I could not believe in such a god, nor in such a heaven. If this was what I had to face in eternity, I would rather take my chances on hell.
“If God’s plan is to treat women and men “equally” in the afterlife in the same way that the Church currently treats them “equally,” this paints a pretty bleak picture of eternity for women who notice–and are harmed by–the very real inequalities in the Church.”
Yup. Now, how to get our leaders to understand this…
It’s obvious that men and women are not the same. But having equal opportunity to have a voice that has the same authority, to even have authority, to have sacred, godly power to bless the lives of others, to participate at the same levels of governance and decision-making for Christ’s church, to learn to become a priestess—-all these are part of what it means to be equal even though men and women will never be the same. We don’t think alike, act alike, look alike or live alike. Would a church governed by women only be as balanced or would it be decried as feminized as the teaching profession is now decried? And as teaching is so described, it is done with a very negative tone that balance is sorely needed.
In a church that feels families need both a male and a female parent for the wholeness of a child, why do we believe the family of God is to be run by men only, but then feel that family—the church—is whole? Why in the name of holiness and revelation would any apostle be hesitant to ask, seek, and knock on the Savior’s and our Father’s door to seek their thoughts today on the blessings to the church, missionary work, families, marriages, home teaching, visiting teaching, temple work, and especially–hastening the work of God by ordaining the daughters of God? Why not plead for such blessings? There’s nothing of worth to lose and so very much to be gained.