The Rising Risk of Diametrically Opposed Ideological Practices

In a world were the Nazi flag is being proudly and brazenly flown once again, I see an equally dangerous counter-movement coming to the front. The new opposition is rising under the guise of stamping out a culture which has already been proven to be wrong and downright evil. But in efforts to squash the widely panned Nazi agenda, the Alt-Left (if you will) have created the exact same type of organization, performing egregious acts, all in the name of preventing the world from falling into an idyllic rabbit-hole which we all know is dangerous.

The greatest problem we face in the clash of ideas and cultures is not what they are arguing about. These social problems and values exist, and will continue to grow and to worsen because of the way in which people choose to have "reasonable" discourse on the subject.

I say reasonable discourse with complete irony, especially given the recent protests and riots that began with a Neo-Nazi march and the counter protests to said events.

Nether side of these opposed groups have been reasonable in any way. With both sides so vehemently opposing each-others ideologies, what they seem to be failing to grasp is that the methods both groups are using are in fact, in and of themselves, a problem as great as the issues they claim to be at hand.

Both extreme sides of this issue have taken a route which, I can only assume they believe to be their only option, is far more damaging and dividing than any actual discourse on the matter could ever be. Why is this? Because they want to stamp each other's ideas out, crush them into oblivion, instead of being willing to cede points of interest which could make for a useful conversion.

In point of fact, both sides are socially behaving just as Hitler-led Germany did. It is a method that can be incredibly effective (to a point), and, as history shows us, equally horrible. The world does not, or should not operate on absolutes of ideology. People are far too varying in lives, situations, beliefs, and concerns, for a one-sided polar view to full take hold and work in any form.

It's almost as if one side is throwing fire and the other throwing ice, throwing until only one remains, when all we really needed was water.

Maybe we should all take a step back and realize what we're looking for and then take a look at how we're trying to get it. We might find the water we're searching for is right there if we'd stop trying to ruin it by firing off from both extremes.

Mormonism: Women and the Priesthood.

Preface

First things first: I consider myself Mormon, though anyone privy to my inward thoughts and motivations would probably call me agnostic. I appreciate and value the teachings of the LDS church on a whole as a moral guideline about how to live a happy and productive life - or better stated, perhaps, as a 'how to be a good person' guide. My parents are currently LDS mission presidents and I have several very devout siblings. I served an LDS mission (albeit a shortened one for several reasons). That said, there are issues of Mormon culture with which I would argue, but those issues aren't inherent in Mormon doctrine and are a result of ordinary people going their own way and doing their best to live their lives as they see fit, interpreting information and doctrine they're given in differing ways. I'm one of those individuals doing their best and attempting to be their best with the knowledge they're given.

I've considered starting this blog as a general rebuttal to the editorials, blogs, and comments and information I've had to eye roll at over the last year or so, most of which have little to nothing to do with religion (generally I'm thinking of politics, sports, and general groan-worthy ideology). I'd like to call it a cry to reason, though I'm not arrogant enough to pretend it's not a call to my reason. This, like every other piece I intend to post, is my opinion. I want to think it's well thought out and reasonable, though I imagine there will always be people who disagree, regardless. That said... moving on to the heart of the topic.

Mormonism: Sexism and General Discrimination

Public Airing of Personal Grievances

There have been a few individuals and organizations lately who've publicly aired grievances against the LDS church, hoping to further agendas which they believe to be right and/or true and worthy of consideration. Let's be straight: these people and organizations have a right to their opinions, and a right to send their messages and thoughts out into the world. That said, there ought to be expected ramifications of these actions, much like there are for any actions in our lives.

The issue which I intend to discuss is Women and the Priesthood.

The LDS - or Mormon - church is a private organization, which one enters into of their own free will. As such, the church is fully and completely justified in operating as it sees fit. In this case (as in the case of most religions) this leadership claims its authority through some form of divine inspiration or guidance.

Straight off the bat, anyone who chooses to argue with the leadership of such an organization is inherently arguing against, as it would be, God (this is of course assuming you buy into the base ideology of the organization. If you do not, why bother arguing at all?). Now, that's not to say any church, religion, or organization is perfect. People are people, imperfect and capable of mistakes. As a result, it's perfectly logical and understandable to question the ideology or teaching with which you disagree, or which doesn't make sense to you, given what you know and believe.

The issue I've consistently run into with the current discussion is that the answer to the grievances (women and the priesthood) have been answered, both directly and indirectly, time and time again. From what I've been able to gather, the discussion ought to be over. I say this independently of religious affiliation. I've sat back, read numerous op-ed pieces, as well as editorials and essays on the subject, and not to say the least, the information the LDS church has released in relation to this topic. The only consistent element I've run into is that the church - meaning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - has in one form or another (in this case several forms) addressed the issues of the individuals and groups involved. There is no further need for open discussion. The LDS church is in no way obligated to directly go out and address the concern of anyone who has an opinion on their doctrine. There are a lot of people in the world, and a lot of LDS church members. The idea of addressing individual's grievances at at an upper managerial level is as laughable as it would be for Steve Jobs to have directly addressed every entry level tech support personnel at Apple. According to all available information, these ideas and concepts have been addressed by church leadership (as appropriate by church structure), and the information and practices currently stand. The LDS leadership has an inherent right to approach and deal with these people and groups as they see fit. After all, this is a private institution, joined voluntary, subject to the base of spiritual belief. And, if for whatever reason, the church's approaches, beliefs, and teachings change on this subject, it will become publicly available.

Regardless of the validity and handling of the situation at hand, there still seems to be an uproar, a moral upheaval against the powers that be at some perceived slight. This takes me into my second, more personal thought on the matter.

The Power of the Priesthood Versus the Power and Obligation of Motherhood

Let's hop back for a moment. Forget our religious beliefs (or disbelief) and metaphoricafy (yes, I know that's not a word)this.

Pretend for a moment the Priesthood is... I dunno, let's say Jedi powers. Someone gifted with this could move things about, defy natural laws as we understand them, and generally wield incredible and unimaginable power.

And then we have motherhood. A concept with which everyone is so familiar with that it seems utterly unremarkable, downright ordinary.

I think it's safe to say that these to concepts, these ideas, are distinctly different. On the surface they may even seem unfair and unbalanced in equity of power. But let's look again. Motherhood, whether you're religious or not, is a singular power and characteristic. No man can ever be a mother. He can't hold a baby in his body, he cannot experience all the things intrinsically inherent to being a mother. A man can be a father. He can care, he can love, and he can try to be a good father. But he will never be a mother. That bond, the direct connectedness plain and simply is not available to him.

Okay. So he's not a mom and not capable of becoming one. But, what if, he could be a Jedi! All of a sudden he can do all kinds of extraordinary things: lift things with his mind, have inhuman and unimaginable powers which would, in some senses, elevate him above the general populous around him. And let's pretend only he, meaning only men, could have this power. Is there a disparity? Is there a moral differential between this power, which only a man could experience, and being a mother, which only a woman could experience? Obviously there are differences. There's no way around this and there never will be. But do the differences in power directly correlate to inequality? My opinion says no.

And here's where I repeatedly get hung up on the argument of inequality in the LDS church. The idea is entirely and solely predicated on the devaluation of woman and their position as mothers and their natural and inherent abilities and connections. Argue as much as you'd like, but there's simply no way to get to the idea of social disparity in the church between genders without automatically disqualifying the direct and real responsibilities and power over human life that women wield.

And so it comes back to this simple idea which I've heard over and over again and with which I simply cannot find a valid argument against: Separate but equal, or different but equal.

Here's the problem inherent in any argument of disparity in which there cannot be a quantifiable measurement of results... there cannot be a quantifiable measurement of results! The only way to empirically stand back and say one is worth more than the other is to assign an intrinsic value to each. Which of us imperfect people can really stand back and say Motherhood or Priesthood is more valuable? Let's go Dr. Seuss on this and say, I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. I leave these decisions up to a more perfect being. I'd like to think we'd all, given the evidence, do the same.