Jimmy Carter on Severing Ties with the SBC

“The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.” Jimmy Carter, on why he is breaking with the SBC after 60 years.

IMO, the SBC’s stance on women is worse than how the LDS church talks about women, but it’s all on a sliding scale. Equal? No.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html

We have such different issues – lay priesthood, temple ceremonies, polygamy – on the table that it’s hard for me to compare the two.

But, yeah, the heartbreak for me is believing now that it really is, at its root, our leaders’ choice. And so far on the issues that really cut, they choose the status quo. I don’t ignore or discount the baby steps. But the distance to be covered is not what changes; it’s the size and energy of the baby growing up and taking bigger steps, the desire of the baby to move about its environment differently. Sometimes I wonder if the desire is really there. Maybe Carter concluded that it wasn’t in the SBC.

I was at a business dinner a year ago, and a couple from the deep south introduced themselves. The wife said because she’s the woman, she submits to the will of her husband, so she deferred introducing herself. The husband’s chest swelled with pride, in a way that reminded me of when my boys first learned to poop in the potty. I remember thinking, there’s no way this doesn’t end with her poisoning his tea.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that one before. Old movies are pretty sexist, although the “greats” are generally less sexist than that BBC video.

I’m not satisfied with “baby steps” any longer. The church simply need to do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

I think we need more people who feel this way to calmly and sincerely suggest – in public, even if only on the internet – that we can do better. Carter:

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world’s major faiths share.

I read statement that said something to the effect, “Anything really worth doing / important will take more than a lifetime.” I think there is some truth to this – and it depresses me.

Me too! I do think there is some truth to that, and yet, it’s undoing things that our own church, not society at large, did over a hundred years ago. Our misogynist roots run deeper, all the way into polygamy. Nobody else in the US was practicing or preaching polygamy. To some extent, we’ve made more progress than the SBC which has less foundation for misogyny. They are relying on passages written by Paul (many of which scholars agree weren’t even written by him, and all of which were typical for their day). They’ve co-opted misogyny through Biblical inerrancy. We’ve created it through a belief that polygamy was divinely mandated and an unwillingness to fully acknowledge it as hateful and harmful toward women.

You have been here much longer than I have cwald. Nevertheless, as far as I can see this site has never been about criticism of church leaders themselves. I think I regularly see respectful criticism of church policy and almost all of us have some policies and traditions we’d like to see changed. I also think the leadership has made it pretty clear that a way for those in our situation to end up in a disciplinary council is to criticize church leaders (and/or pull people away from the church, attempt to gain a following, and continue to teach things we have been asked to not teach). Sometimes that does mean we have to take a seat in the back (where I prefer to sit anyway) and keep our mouths shut – even here. The anonymity afforded here does not give us license to do or say things that are otherwise taboo – it is our mission to help people who desire to do so stay in the church. We need to be a place where people who are struggling with their doubts and questions feel safe and where they don’t feel like we’re anti-Mormon – and we certainly are NOT anti-Mormon.

Before I found this place, quite by accident I might add, the closest I came was the NOM site. No offense intended, I know you participate there (as do I), but the negativity there is not what we want here – I didn’t start going there until after my transition because of that negativity. This is a more positive place, for more positive people. I think we’re all in agreement that we’d like it to stay that way – and criticism of individual leaders tends to not be positive.

I’m not satisfied with “baby steps” any longer. The church simply need to do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

I think we need more people who feel this way to calmly and sincerely suggest – in public, even if only on the internet – that we can do better. Carter:

Yeah. The problem is, is this simply is not tolerated in our church. Hell, I’m not even sure it is tolerated on this stayLDS board.

Fwiw, I think it has to do with pronouns. This is a shift I’m trying really hard to make. I’ve alluded to it before in my stressed-out rants about polygamy: my belief that Section 132 and all the detritus that trails with it does a terrible disservice to the good men of the church today. We can do better. But it’s going to take all of us, including a guy like you who says the *awkward* (i.e., true) thing in class.

I think NOM is more for people who feel StuckLDS. Not that there aren’t thoughtful and fair comments there, because there are. But it’s more like, Hey, church, YOU do better. At StayLDS we’ve chosen to be part of the group regardless of our actual beliefs, or we at least have a desire to stay even when we’re distressed.

I can tell you it did not work out well for me. Someone like myself who just cannot stomach flowery, feel good, mixed and coded messages at the expense of real progress and discussion…it just seems hopeless really. The church simply does not tolerate criticism of the corporation or it’s leaders.

I’m really interested to see how they handle the bloggers (mormonverse.com) who are publicly stating their belief that 132 is not of God. I hope the church will let it lie, tolerate it, a huge step forward, imo. (I say all this stuff, but don’t know what I’ll do if they discipline these two.)

I think this site is kind of the same…if I say anything that is critical of the church or the church leaders like DHO…”troll.” It’s been an interesting stayLDS week for me to be honest. Kind of eye opening, about any kind of possible honest and genuine return or interaction with the church. Sure, I could go and sit on the back row and not say anything, but I’m not the person who can do that. I mean, If I can’t even find my place and welcome here on a site which is populated by liberal, middle way mormons, than what chance really is there of any kind of church activity? -sigh-. I guess for that I thank this site again. It has been valuable to me over the years, and continues to be so in maybe a different manner.

Sorry, I think I missed what you’re referring to. But if you’re saying that it stings to feel like a misfit while tromping around on the actual Isle of Misfit Toys, I think many here can identify with that, at least at certain times and on certain topics. Every group has its goals, culture and rules. Again, I don’t know the exchange, but my bottom line is always to encourage people to stay, so I hope you do, cwald.