Exponent II's Blog, page 108

Guest Post: Root Out Racism

By Miriam

Miriam is finishing her PhD at the University of Oregon and is en route to the University of Memphis where she’ll be an Assistant Professor of Criminology starting in August 2022. She lives with her husband and three girls.

Let’s flashback to just over two years ago. I had recently started writing my PhD dissertation which uses a Critical Race Theoretical (CRT) lens to focus on the School to Prison Pipeline (the idea that marginalized kids are more likely to be suspended or expelled unfairly which puts them at risk for adult incarceration). Back then, few people outside of academic circles knew what CRT was.

When the 2020 viral video footage of George Floyd being murdered by a police officer led to one of the largest worldwide protests, our public rhetoric changed. You remember it. We got emails from institutions like our car insurance companies, our yoga studios, our employers, and our healthcare providers denouncing racism in our communities. President Nelson, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, encouraged members to “root out” racism. Social media posts, discussions with neighbors, and dinner table conversations focused heavily on the problem of racism.

The topics I was studying suddenly became something everyone was discussing. I was hopeful. People were discussing systemic racism and ready for deep change.

However, as the months passed, pushback against the new rhetoric built. Donald Trump declared CRT anti-American and, as of today, 7 states have banned the teaching of CRT and 16 more are considering a ban. Followers of this right-wing ideology often say that racism is about a few bad people, but it isn’t systemic and teaching it to kids as systemic is morally wrong because it just makes the kids feel bad unnecessarily. I also hear people counter that right-wing ideology and say things like, “Calm down, kids aren’t being taught it anyway, so what’s the problem?”

I’m here to counter both those sides. Teaching racism as anything but systemic is morally wrong as it cannot lead to real solutions. And I want to further say that we can’t dismiss CRT as something elitist that kids aren’t being taught – we should be teaching it to our kids and we need to be teaching it to them young!

CRT scholar Charles Lawrence III suggests looking at racism as both a crime and a disease. The crime part is usually easy to detect – atrocities against a subgroup. For example, statistics show that there is racial inequality in education, healthcare, the workforce, housing, criminal justice, and religion. These are crimes that are hard to deny. However, some people look at those statistics and think it comes down to a few bad cops, a few bad teachers or a few bad doctors. This is where it is necessary to examine it as a disease – and this part is a little trickier. When we’re talking about racism as a disease, we have think about the systemic nature of the disease. We note that everyone in society is affected by this disease. Even solutions to the disease are contaminated by the disease itself. If we want to follow that prophetic call to “root” this out, we have to know where the “root” is. We have to acknowledge the disease, talk about it, teach it, and start thinking of solutions. So, let’s start by talking about the “root” of it in our society today. From my dissertation:

According to Critical Race Theory (CRT), racism exists in the U.S. not as an unfortunate occurrence that can easily be corrected by law, but rather as a foundation on which the U.S. was built (DeMaske, 2009). Many scholars argue that the very foundation on which the Constitution was written was racist due to the manner in which the U.S. was formed and developed; a process which involved, among many atrocities, the forced resettlement and massacre of Native Americans and use of slave labor of Africans (e.g., DeMaske, 2009; Hannah-Jones, 2019; Wallis, 2007). Though the Civil Rights movement made progress in combatting racism, the main goal of the Civil Rights movement was to change laws (not the foundation of the U.S.) and according to CRT theorists, merely changing laws is not sufficient to fixing the problem of racism (Greene, 1995). Often laws aim to create “neutrality” or “equality,” but they define neutrality using a White lens (Crenshaw et al., 1995). Rather than being truly neutral, individuals are forced to conform to the dominant White culture (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Graf, 2015) which disenfranchises, demeans, and erases Black culture and Black experiences (Crenshaw et al., 1995). This creates a form of “silent genocide” where, instead of creating equal opportunity for all, citizens of the country are expected to conform to the dominant culture to succeed (Peller, 1995).

The country has a very deep-seeded root of racism. Just removing a couple bad apples isn’t going to get rid of that root. Time to talk about it, time to admit it, and time to start thinking of real solutions that involve everyone in our society.

The Body is Political: Part 3

My mother needed a bank account. Her husband, my stepfather, frequently spent their income before the end of the month, leaving us with little food and no money for the mortgage. So she set aside a few dollars out of every shopping trip for lean times. In the 1990s, though, many banks wouldn’t give an account to a married woman without her husband’s signature. They certainly wouldn’t give an account to a married woman who didn’t have a job. As a workaround, I, her 19-year-old daughter, opened a new savings account and added her as an authorized user. 

I saw her embarrassment when she asked me to help. I saw her fear that her husband would find this account, too, and access the few hundred dollars she had squirreled away. My mom’s case wasn’t unusual. The bank denied Nancy a credit card or bank account without her husband’s signature on both. Things are different now. But they aren’t that different.

As a married person with a uterus, some doctors will deny me a tubal ligation without consent from my husband. If I were single, I may not be able to get one at all if the doctor thinks that someday, some man will want to have children with me. Ask my husband how easy it was for him to get a vasectomy. I doubt the doctor even knew or cared that someone might want his sperm some day. It was never part of the equation.

Sandra was denied a hysterectomy by 10 different doctors because each of them were concerned her husband might want her to give birth to children some day. When she finally moved, her new gynecologist was enraged that the doctors had risked her life for so many years. And Sandra is not unusual. Toby, in a different part of the country, has been denied a hysterectomy. Is still being denied one, in fact. 

When Jenny married, her gynecologist refused to insert a hormone-based IUD just in case her husband wanted to have children right away. Jenny was 18 and had just placed a child for adoption.

Lori asked for a sealing cancellation but was denied by the first presidency. When her ex-husband sought one, it was immediately granted.

When I was in the MTC, I had a vicious flareup of endometriosis. Having experienced several in the past, I knew taking a hormonal birth control pill without pausing for menstruation would ease the symptoms enough that I could function. It was the only thing apart from surgery that helped. The MTC doctor refused my request. When I asked why, he said that a sister missionary asking for birth control pills was suspect. To get the care I needed, I wrote a letter to my mom and asked her to call my pre-mission doctor. When I left the country, I carried in my suitcase 18 months’ worth of birth control pills, filled by my pre-mission doctor.

These are a few examples of the way society gives different rights to people based solely on their genitalia. Sure, some women don’t want to think about money. Some women don’t want to use birth control. Some women don’t need to cancel their sealing. But some women’s personal choices should not drive the choices available to the rest of us. 

One last example, and this comes with a content warning. This paragraph is about miscarriage, so if that’s a difficult topic, please skip to the next paragraph. After my marriage, I had several miscarriages. One, at 16 weeks gestation, was particularly brutal. I tried to tough it out at home, but after 12 hours, my husband called the ambulance. I arrived at the hospital hemorrhaging and devastated. Even with all the blood loss, I hadn’t passed any fetal tissue. The fetus was non-viable, but it was still inside me. The only way to get it out was through a uterine evacuation: an abortion. In fact, the treatments for miscarriage are generally the same as for abortion. The current law in Texas makes all those procedures, regardless of whether they’re for miscarriage treatment or abortion, suspicious. They give any neighbor, any community member, any ward member, the right to sue my husband, the doctor, and the attending medical personnel for providing life-saving care for me. While some doctors will take that risk, others will not, reducing the already low number of trained professionals who can provide medical care. And talk about traumatizing.  Can you imagine facing a lawsuit because you saved your wife’s life? 

I’m pro bodily autonomy. I’m pro safe and effective healthcare for everyone. And I believe in trusting people to make the right choices for their own bodies. 

When we trust each other to run our own lives, we weather the storms of life better.

Read Part 1

Read Part 2

 

Come Follow Me: 1 Samuel 8–10; 13; 15–18 “The Battle Is the Lord’s”

“Give us a king”

Sometimes we want things that aren’t good for us. Such was the case with the Israelites, when they approached the prophet Samuel and demanded that he find them a king.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons awalk not in thy ways: now make us a bking to judge us like all the nations.

6 ¶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the avoice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have brejected me, that I should not creign over them.

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet aprotest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the bking that shall creign over them.

1 Samuel 8:4-9

Why did the Israelites want a king? What is the problem with this reasoning?
Why does the Lord say they have rejected the Lord with this request?

So Samuel explained to the Israelites all the reasons getting a king would be a bad idea. He had a pretty compelling list.

10 ¶ And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to aear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be aconfectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the atenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your aking which ye shall have bchosen you; and the Lord will not chear you in that day.

1 Samuel 8:10-18

But the Israelites would not change their minds.

19 ¶ Nevertheless the people refused to aobey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

20 That we also may be like all the anations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.

22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

1 Samuel 8:19-22

Why do we sometimes desire things that aren’t good for us?
How can we convince ourselves to change course when we find ourselves pursuing a bad idea?

Israel instead demanded a king who would judge them, go before them, and fight their battles (1 Samuel 8:20). Ironically, the King they rejected was the only king to fulfill this request. God had already been their Judge (Deuteronomy 32:36), gone out before them (Exodus 13:21), and fought their battles (Exodus 14:14).

But they wanted a king “the same as all the other nations” (1 Samuel 8:5). So they rejected their true King, the God of heaven and earth…

I want to be like everyone else, too. I want to look like everyone else, to be both beautiful and adorable, and so I make my appearance king. Then I find myself overcome by my obsessive eating habits and exercise routine. Turns out that king won’t provide what I need.

I want to have what everyone else has, to feel important and sophisticated, and so I make my possessions king. I spend my time, money, and energy, filling my closet with pretty new dresses. But I’ll never have enough because this king demands more and more and more.

I could go on, and I’m sure you could, too.

Our individual kings demand more from us than we’d ever be willing to give. They lie and tell us that if we could have what the world has, we would have freedom.

Second Peter 2:19 warns against this: “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption, since people are enslaved to whatever defeats them.”

This is what happens when we, like Israel, fall prey to the desire of being like everyone else. Instead of gaining freedom, we become slaves of corruption.

—Missy Fuller, Israel’s Demand for a King, She Reads Truth

What are some of our modern wants that aren’t good for us?
How can we reign in our desires to pursue things we would be better off without?

“To obey is better than sacrifice”

Since the people would not relent in their pursuit of a king, Samuel complied and searched for a suitable candidate. Samuel chose Saul. Saul had qualities that were appealing to Samuel. He was the tallest man in the kingdom (1 Samuel 9:2; 10:23) and he respected Samuel’s authority as a religious leader (1 Samuel 9:5-10).

At least at first, Saul seemed to work out well. Saul prepared for his new role by communing with religious leaders as instructed by Samuel. He emerged from the experience spiritually renewed.

9 ¶ And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another aheart: and all those signs came to pass that day.

10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of aprophets met him; and the bSpirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

1 Samuel 10:9-10

How have you prepared yourself spiritually for new responsibilities?
Have you ever felt like God has given you “another heart”? What was that experience like?

Early in his reign, Saul demonstrated his competence in battle against the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11).

But Saul eventually lost favor with Samuel as a result of two separate incidents. On one occasion, Saul lost patience waiting for Samuel to arrive to do his priestly duties, so he completed the ceremonies himself, usurping Samuel’s priestly role (1 Samuel 13:8-9). Samuel confronted him and they had this conversation:

11 ¶ And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;

12 Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I aforced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.

13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.

14 But now thy akingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath bsought him a cman after his own dheart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.

1 Samuel 13:11-14

How did Saul defend his actions? What should he have said or done?
Why did Saul’s actions disqualify Saul as king?

On the second occasion, Samuel conveyed a message to Saul, presumably from the Lord, instructing Saul to kill all of the people of the city of Amalek, along with all of their farm animals and cattle. Saul disobeyed and his armies kept the best animals as spoils of war. 

We should never use stories like these, from a more barbaric time period, to justify violence as God’s will. This story demonstrates that the Israelites believed their violent actions were approved of God, not that God actually approved. From a modern standpoint, we have good reason to question whether genocide of the Amalekites was God’s will, but neither Samuel nor Saul recognized the humanitarian issues with this mission. This may have been a different kind of story—a more modern kind of story—if Saul had disobeyed this order for humanitarian reasons. But Saul did not cite humanitarian reasons for his disobedience.

In spite of the problems with the story, we can learn something about human nature from the way Saul justified his disobedience to what he believed God commanded him to do. I see parallels in this story to the way we lie to ourselves and justify our own actions when we deliberately go against our own convictions of what is right.

13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.

14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

1 Samuel 15: 13-14

Why did Saul feel the need to lie about his actions?

15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.

1 Samuel 15:15

How did Saul change his story when Samuel caught him lying?
What do you think of Saul’s rationale?

16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the Lord hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on….

19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord?

20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great adelight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the bvoice of the Lord? Behold, to cobey is better than dsacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of erams.

23 For arebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and bstubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast crejected the word of the Lord, he hath also drejected thee from being king.

1 Samuel 15: 16, 19-23

What was wrong with Saul’s justifications?
What kinds of modern “sacrifices” do we sometimes point to as evidence of our righteousness, even as we disobey God in other ways?
What can we learn from Saul’s mistakes?

Saul’s loss of the kingship is really a loss of dynasty, in which his son would become king after him, since he personally remains king until he dies.

—Dr. Jo Ann Hackett, 1 and 2 Samuel, Newsom, C. A., Ringe, S. H., & Lapsley, J. E. (2012). Women’s Bible Commentary, Third Edition

“The Lord looketh on the heart”

Since Saul has lost his right to pass on his dynasty to his sons, Samuel began to search for his replacement.

1 And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to aJesse the bBeth-lehemite: for I have provided me a cking among his sons…

6 ¶ And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on aEliab, and said, Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him.

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lordaseeth not as bman seeth; for man looketh on the outward cappearance, but the dLord looketh on the eheart.

1 Samuel 16:1, 6-7

Samuel was clearly biased toward tall people, and his first instinct was to choose another big guy like Saul to be the next king. Note that Samuel was not a bad person, and yet, he had biases, like we all do. We should not assume that biases are only found among bad people.  This belief prevents us from recognizing our own biases.

How can we recognize our own biases?
Do we still overemphasize outward appearance in our modern society? In what ways?  How can we combat this tendency?
What does it mean to look “on the heart”?
How can we learn to see the way the Lord sees?

When we look at someone right now, we can’t see all of them. We can’t see the things that make them happy or the things that make them sad. Neither can we see their intentions or their desires. But God can. And when we are judged, those are among the primary things that God will look at.

Let’s have beautiful hearts. And loving hearts. And strong hearts. And brave hearts. And tender hearts. And firm hearts. And intelligent hearts. And every other good kind of heart. Not because we hope others will sense it somehow, or even because we know that God will, but because it is nice to have a nice heart, and will help make us a more Godlike people, a more Zion people–with one heart.

—Rachel Hunt Steenblik, Relief Society Lesson 8: “Search Me, O God, and Know My Heart”, The Exponent

How can we focus more on our hearts, and less on our outward appearance?

Samuel continued interviewing Jesse’s sons, and found the right candidate in David, the youngest and smallest son (1 Samuel 16:10-13).

Take a look at this classic Mormon Ad with Samuel 16:7 inscribed below.  

How do you feel about the daisy in the center?
Would you prefer to be the daisy or one of the roses? Why?
How can we be more comfortable with ourselves and each other, regardless of how alike we may or may not be?

Mormon Ad, courtesy of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

“Let no man’s heart fail”

David by Dilleen Marsh, courtesy of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Come Follow Me for Individuals and Families: Old Testament

David proved his potential for kingship when he fought a Philistine named Goliath, who was described as a giant. Goliath challenged the Israelites to select a champion to fight against him to settle their war. David was the only Israelite who volunteered. Like Samuel, Goliath underestimated David because of his youth and small size.

42 And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.

43 And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a adog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

1 Samuel 17:42-43

The events of 1 Samuel 17 are summarized well in this video:

The Lord will Deliver Me

[image error]The David and Goliath story is often portrayed as a miraculous win over impossible odds, but in his book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, Malcom Gladwell argues that the David and Goliath story is often misinterpreted. David won because he refused to give Goliath the hand-to-hand duel Goliath wanted, and instead changed the terms of the fight to his advantage as a skilled projectile warrior. Goliath’s heavy armor was actually a disadvantage in this kind of fight, since he could not move quickly in it, and he had not even brought any distance weapons. He was a clear loser under these new rules.

We consistently get these kinds of conflicts wrong. We misread them. We misinterpret them. Giants are not what we think they are. The same qualities that appear to give them strength are often sources of great weakness. And the fact of being an underdog can change people in ways that we often fail to appreciate: it can open doors and create opportunities and educate and enlighten and make possible what might otherwise seem unthinkable.

—Malcom Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, 2013.

His book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, is a great read for anyone wanting modern examples of perceived underdogs winning battles for their causes because they rejected battle rules that weighed against them and adopted a strategy that played on their own strengths.

Which brings us to another classic Mormon Ad:

Mormon Ad, courtesy of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Well might we look carefully into our own lives and judge our courage, our faith. Is there a Goliath in your life? Is there one in mine? Does he stand squarely between you and your desired happiness? Your Goliath may not carry a sword or hurl a verbal challenge of insult that all may hear and force you to decision. He may not be ten feet tall, but he likely will appear equally as formidable, and his silent challenge may shame and embarrass.

One man’s Goliath may be the stranglehold of a cigarette or perhaps an unquenchable thirst for alcohol. To another, her Goliath may be an unruly tongue or a selfish streak which causes her to spurn the poor and the downtrodden. Envy, greed, fear, laziness, doubt, vice, pride, lust, selfishness, discouragement—all spell Goliath…

The battle for our souls is no less important that the battle fought by David. The enemy is no less formidable, the help of Almighty God no farther away. What will our action be? Like David of old, “our cause is just.” We have been placed upon earth not to fail or fall victim to temptation’s snare, but rather to succeed. Our giant, our Goliath, must be conquered.

David went to the brook and carefully selected five smooth stones with which he might meet his enemy. He was deliberate in his selection, for there could be no turning back, no second chance—this battle was to be decisive.

Just as David went to the brook, well might we go to our source of supply—the Lord. What polished stones will you select to defeat the Goliath that is robbing you of your happiness by smothering your opportunities? May I offer suggestions.

President Thomas S. Monson, Meeting Your Goliath, Ensign, Jan. 1987

President Monson suggested choosing the stones of courage, effort, humility, prayer, and love of duty.

How would these tools help you win your personal battles?
How would you obtain these tools?
What other tools do you think you would want to seek?
Does anyone have an experience they would like to share in which the Lord helped you resolve a Goliath-sized problem?

Come Follow Me: Ruth; 1 Samuel 1-3

Intro question: There are two books in the Bible named after women. Today we’ll be looking at one of them. What are they?

Our focus today is the book of Ruth. This is a beautiful intimate story of family relationships and love that go beyond duty and obligation. My goal is that we read this story and discuss what we can learn from these characters and how we can take this story and apply it to our lives today.

Background: This book is set in the time of the judges. Not sure when this book was written. It could be quite old, but some scholars think it was written in the post-exhilic period, the time when Ezra and Nehemiah books were being produced. Interestingly, the Ezra book condemns marriage to foreign women and the prophet there advises Israelites who have married foreign women to divorce these women. The book of Ruth might have been produced, some scholars think, as a counterpoint to that kind of thinking, since it highlights Ruth the foreigner as an honorable person who engages is two marriages with Israelite men and who becomes the great-grandmother of the beloved King David. So in this way, the book forms the basis for a more universal understanding of the covenant and for Yahweh’s concern for all people of the earth.

Qualities of Ruth and Naomi

Ruth I: 1-5. We learn very early on that Ruth is not an Israelite.  She is from Moab. Does anyone remember anything about Moabites?  Biblical tradition prohibited intermarriage with Moabites (Deut. 23). They were hated for their ill treatment of the Israelites en route to Canaan. Also supposed to have come from incestuous union of Lot and his daughter.  Yet, this story begins with a matter of fact report of a Bethlehemite family going to Moab and intermarrying. This would have been surprising – perhaps shocking — to a Judean audience.Crafting of this story: very carefully put together, names are all important. Chilion means death. Machlon means sickness. Naomi means pleasant. Elimelech means God is my king. Orpah means “back of the neck.” Ruth means “friend” or “companion.”This story begins with famine and loss. It’s a low point for Naomi, who emerges as a central character. Now she is left with no financial support. No sons. She is in a very precarious position with no close male relatives alive.Naomi decides to return to her homeland and tells her two daughters-in-law to return to their homes. As we read, think of the characteristics of Ruth and Naomi that are emerging.  Read vs 8-11. What do we learn about Naomi? (survival instinct, openness to people of different cultures and races, gratitude, selflessness) Poignant exchange. Relationships of affection and love.1:8 – she mentions the Hebrew word “hesed.”   Which is loyalty and faithfulness arising from commitment. Says may God show you “hesed,” as you have shown me and my family “hesed.” So uses these foreign women as models for what God ought to do.  1:9 she shows us the content of hesed for women in a man’s world – finding a place to rest in the home of her husband.Look for qualities of Ruth emerging here. Read 14-17. “clave” is same word in Genesis where God says that man will leave his home and cleave unto his wife. Strong language. All of this has been set up for this moment. Climactic, beautiful statement of love and friendship.What qualities of Ruth are emerging so far? (Ruth: tenacious loyalty, bravery, strength, unafraid of commitment.) One scholar wrote that Ruth stands in tension with her culture. She has married outside her people, disavowed solidarity with them, renounced her religion. This scholar points out that only Abraham comes close to this level of radicalness, and she didn’t have a call from God like he did. Ruth stands pretty much alone—the text gives us no sense that God or angels are interacting with her. And she commits herself to a woman in a world where survival depends on being linked to men.Naomi stops telling her to go home, and they travel to Bethlehem. The women of the town come out and say, are you Naomi?1:20-21. Naomi blames God for her affliction. These verses are important because they highlight how devastated she is. The story begins with her feeling that God has taken everything away from her. Over the course of the story, we will see how her sense of God changes, and how she goes from being receiver of affliction to agent of change. How do you feel about her blaming God for her sons’ and husband’s deaths? Do you attribute it to God when horrible things happen to you? Why or why not?) Chieko Okazaki says this about adversity and illness, “. Illness and adversity are not punishments …; they are natural accompaniments of life.” Another one from Chieko: “Adversity is frequently a call to do something great with our lives.” Another one from Chieko: “I don’t believe that faith means God will remove all tragedies from our path or solve all of our problems for us. I believe it means that he will be with us, suffering with us and grieving with us and working with us as we deal with our own tragedies and work our way through those problems.” (p.119 in Aloha.)What lessons are we to take from this first chapter?  What insights can we find here to apply to our lives? (openness to foreign people, loving across lines of race and ethnicity, willingness to dive in, commitment in the face of major obstacles.)This story reminds me of the beginning of the book of Exodus when women of different nationalities work together to save the life of Moses. Love this theme of reaching out across cultural divides and in this case, even developing an intensely loving and devoted relationship across these cultural divides.)Hesed is a theme here. Which means steadfast faithfulness and loyalty; so there is an emphasis on fostering relationships that go beyond duty. Relationships of choice. Relationships of “hesed.” Ruth’s legal obligation is over. But through sheer force of will and conviction she links herself to the people of her mother-in-law for life. She chooses to stay and to enter a foreign land with no husband, no way of making money, in order to stay with Naomi.

Going Beyond the Minimum

They go to Bethlehem at the time of the barley harvest. 2:1 introduces us to Boaz, a mighty man of wealth. Ruth says in 2:2 that she’s going to become a gleaner. A gleaner is someone who follows after the harvesters and picks up the remnants of grain that are left. Israelite law mandated that people let the poor and the resident aliens glean after the harvesters – it was a way to provide the poor. Turns out that she is a gleaner in Boaz’s field, a kinsman of Naomi. Boaz means “in him is strength.”What strikes you in his response to Ruth? What characteristics do we see emerging in him? 2: 5-12.  (gracious, extends water privileges to her – goes beyond legal requirement, protects her from young men, acknowledges her for her brave decision). Note that in 2:11, his language echoes the call of Abraham. He goes on to invite her to eat with him and then says that she can glean even among the sheaves and leaves some extra for her – basically, he’s letting her be a harvester, and she ends up with a lot of barley.  Theme: once again – someone going beyond the minimum of legal obligation.Question: I want to think about this theme of going beyond the minimum, which I think is often part of developing relationships of “hesed” that are relationships of loyalty that go beyond legal obligation.Have any of you experienced relationships of “hesed”? Where you have by choice formed a relationship of loyalty and kindness with someone you’re not related to? Is this common in our culture today? Or is this just one of those things we see in the Bible? Like taking someone into your family, on an extreme level. Or being that person that the elderly neighbor turns to when he or she needs something. Could be lots of relationships, but it’s where you go above and beyond the minimum required by law or society.  Please share.While you are thinking about that, I’ll tell you my experience with hesed. I think of my mom as a Ruth figure. My father died when I was a toddler, and she would have liked to move back to her home town and be near her parents and sister. But instead, she stayed in her house, one mile away from my father’s parents for the next 20 years until they died. My brother and I were these grandparents’ only grandchildren, and mom could not bring herself to take us away from them. So she stayed with them and took care of them in their old age. So Ruth’s devotion to her mother in law has a personal resonance for me.What traditions, organizations, practices, scriptures, role models in your life inspire you to go beyond the minimum, to reach out and show kindness to people you may not otherwise have gotten to know? Are there particular practices or ideas that have helped you reach out? (I know for me, I’ m not proactive about developing friendships. Don’t want to intrude or put people in awkward positions, so I don’t reach out too much to new people. But that’s one reason why I really like visiting teaching/ministering. It gives me a reason to reach out, and ask to come into people’s homes, and go beyond what I would normally do. That’s a program that helps me get out of myself.)Note that Naomi’s relationship with God seems to be changing a bit. 2:20. Invokes the blessing of God on Boaz for being so kind to Ruth. Her relationship with God is changing.

  Proactivity

Naomi comes up with a plan. And what a plan it is. What do you think of this plan? Shady? Ruth 3: 1-5. Naomi has Ruth dress up, go to the sleeping Boaz and uncover his feet. What do you make of this?  Is this shady/manipulative? Why didn’t ruth just go and propose marriage to him in the field one day? Why this dangerous, compromising plan?  Note: uncovering feet – scholars mixed on what this means, but certainly this appears to be a way to propose marriage. I think Naomi’s clever – she’s poor, impoverished, and she knows that for them to have any type of security, Ruth has got to marry a man of substance. She knows the system, knows the right moment to strike.She does this. Read 3: 8-13. “spread thy skirt”. That word that is translated skirt is actually same word as wing in last chapter. “spread thy wing”. He had said before, may Yahweh spread his wing over you. She says, you spread your wing over me. Calling him to direct action, proposing marriage – parallels his statement about god spreading his wings over Ruth. See more of characters emerging: Ruth and Naomi: fearless initiative and proactivity.  Boaz: gracious, measured reaction.3:11 “thou art a virtuous woman.” When you hear the term virtuous, what comes to mind? Usually it’s chastity, that’s what virtuous has come to mean over the last several decades. But, the Hebrew word is chayil. Means woman of valor, woman of power, woman of worth – just as Boaz was described as a chayil man in 2:1 – “mighty”Interesting how proactive the women are here. I’m struck by how these women are doers. They don’t sit back and let life happen. They are women of action and strategy. I was interested, as I thought about this story, in the theme of proactivity that we see here. These are women “making a way out of no way” (as womanist theologians like Delores Williams say). I think as Mormons we tend to admire proactivity. Mormons are doers. But is it possible to be too proactive? Is this Naomi being too proactive? Are there times when it is best to sit back and trust that God is going to take care of this situation?  In your life, what has been the ideal balance between proactivity and sitting back and seeing what God has in store for you? Boaz talks to kinsman, he says, that’s ok I’ll pass. So Boaz is free to marry Ruth.4: 13-17. This is the result. Naomi, who is devastated and feeling betrayed by God is in the end lifted up, along with Ruth. She even has a new son according to the women, who will be a restorer of her life and a nourisher of her old age. So the story ends on the triumphant theme of restoration.4:15-17 – Ruth– foreigner, female — is better than 7 sons, which was considered the ideal number of sons. Ruth leaves the story totally exalted, and we find out that Ruth is great-grandmother of the beloved king David.

Conclusion:

Grateful for this story that encourages us to go beyond minimal obligations and create relationships of hesed, of loyalty and faithfulness. Makes me pause and wonder what people are near me that if I reached out and went beyond myself a little, might turn out to be people that impact my life in important ways.I love the inclusive, loving theme of this story, which reminds me that those that are commonly considered outsiders and marginal, those we often perhaps dismiss and ignore, might actually be central to God’s plan. This story is pushback against the tendency to prefer people like ourselves. This book says people we think of as outcasts can be important in God’s plan and in our individual lives. I’m inspired in reading this story to think about how I can develop relationships with those considered outsiders and be sensitive to their importance.Finally, I appreciate the theme of restoration. Life isn’t great all the time – we suffer devastating losses. But I see in this story that we can often find restoration through the creation of relationships of love and loyalty. And it is through these relationships that we become the people that our Heavenly Parents want us to be.

“If the church won’t provide a venue, then we’re just going to go find one, and that’s what we did!”: Let’s Talk About Heavenly Mother Art Show and Fireside

Last week I had the honor to sit down with Danielle Calder over Zoom to talk about the upcoming Let’s Talks About Heavenly Mother Art Show and Fireside to be held at the Provo City Library Ballroom on Saturday, June 25. Danielle is a therapist based out of Southern California and is the host of the popular Instagram account, @ourmotherinheaven. I enjoyed our conversation and I hope you do too.

Katie: You have been hosting public discussions about Heavenly Mother on your Instagram account @ourmotherinheaven since 2017. If I’m not mistaken, yours was the first account dedicated to the LDS doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. What led you to start this account?

Danielle: I was in between my bachelor’s and master’s degrees and had a lot of extra time because I wasn’t a student. I always knew I wanted to be a therapist, so it wasn’t a surprise for me that I was heading in this direction, but I was in a state of transition. A huge emphasis of mine in life has always been feminism. I didn’t have the language until I was in my twenties and took a women’s studies class at BYU, but I always had a sensitivity, interest, and passion around feminism. So it was a time of reflection, and my friend shared a website that had a blog post and podcast about Heavenly Mother. At the time I was very curious to listen, but I didn’t know if it was safe. I didn’t know if it was LDS approved. I didn’t want to hear anything that wasn’t above board because I was scared. I grew up in an era of being extremely concerned over anti-Mormon literature and about reading something that wasn’t approved. I didn’t end up listening to the podcast, but it sparked an interest in me.

In 2017 I went online—as a millennial does—to see if there was an Instagram account or Facebook page dedicated to Heavenly Mother, and there wasn’t anything. So I decided I was going to do it. I named it “ourmotherinheaven” because I wanted it to be a collection of stories and experiences—it was “our” Mother in Heaven, not “my” Mother in Heaven. And I wanted it to be a place where a traditional or conservative member could feel like it was above board because that’s what I wasn’t finding.

Katie: How has your account changed over the last five years?

Danielle: At first I didn’t share my name and I didn’t say “I”—it could have been anybody. Eventually, I got a little bit braver and posted a picture of myself, but I still talked about myself in the third person. I put myself in quotes and said, “Danielle Calder,” like these are her words, but this isn’t her account. And I remember my sister started following before I had posted a picture of myself because it was just a generic account, and my sister was like, “What the heck, this is you? Why didn’t you tell me?” That’s how secretive it was at the time. I wasn’t even telling my own sister, but people were starting to follow. Slowly over time, I got more comfortable being like, this is my account. I also eventually decided to do a grid system on my profile where there are text posts and guest submissions. So the text posts are often sharing or discussing a quote, and who said it, and then the picture posts are geared more towards how people feel about the doctrine. To me this really embodies what we do at church—we’re taught doctrine, scripture, or a teaching, and then we hear what people feel about it.

Over time as I evolved in my own understanding in my master’s degree in social work about systems of power and privilege and oppression, it became even more important to me to have a special emphasis on intersectionality. For example, we’ve had discussions about how when people have assumptions that Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father are white—why do they assume they are white? Is this because of white supremacy? Is this because they themselves are white and they see God in their image? How can we make sure we are not assuming that God is white? Or what does this look like for someone who is LGBTQ? How might they access Heavenly Mother? So it became important to have a place that felt safe for active members while also making sure we are exploring it in an intersectional way.

Katie: You hear from many people along the Mormon continuum about their questions, thoughts, and fears regarding Heavenly Mother. What do you think people are looking for when they come to your account?

Danielle: I think they’re looking for two things: resources about Heavenly Mother according to LDS teachings, and they’re looking to feel seen and feel heard and to see and hear others.

Katie: What was the impetus for the Let’s Talk About Heavenly Mother Art Show and Fireside to be held in Provo this June?

Danielle: I was 6 days postpartum, out and about with my girls alone while my husband was working, and I felt energized. I wasn’t expecting to feel energized that soon after giving birth, and I felt this immense sense of freedom. For some people, maternity leave might feel like it’s so difficult, and that’s kind of where I am right now, but at the time, I felt like, I’m not working, I’m not pregnant anymore—I have time to create. I felt a very clear impression: do a fireside in Utah about Heavenly Mother. Initially, I thought we would hold it in March. I went to my followers and asked who would be interested in helping, and I got a tremendous amount of support. Thinking we might do this with a stake, my offer was we will do a PowerPoint with 100% from the Church’s website, we will do musical numbers that can be approved in advance, we will do a Q&A where all of the questions and all of the answers can be pre-approved. That felt like the best chance of getting the fireside approved by a stake, but it just wasn’t happening.

The time was nearing closer, and I was like, if the church won’t provide a venue, then we’re just going to go find one, and that’s what we did. What I really like about the fireside is that this is not in reaction to the regional trainings or general conference, but this was an idea on like January 19, 10:30 AM, when I was in a drive-thru with my two girls. I’ve learned enough about myself to know that when I am reactive, it’s not pretty. Working out of that space of anger is not pleasant. Because we weren’t doing the fireside at a church building, it opened up the doors of what is possible, and also made it much more complicated. We moved the event to June to have time to plan.

Katie: What should people expect from the art show?

Danielle: We’ve been intentional about being inclusive and seeking artists with marginalized identities. We have BIPOC and LGBTQ artists and I really love that because it was extremely important to me that the art show includes a variety of depictions of Heavenly Mother. I didn’t want it to be all white, slim-bodied women with long hair. We have so many images of white Jesus, and that is really upsetting to me. We’ve intentionally invited artists who hold marginalized identities to be involved, and the art selected is being decided by a panel of people who hold marginalized identities, including BIPOC and LGBTQ identities. There are artists from every single level of experience—there is a 7-year-old artist, as well as professional artists who do this full-time. It will be a blend of different artists who are still united in this shared interest and passion. And there are different mediums—there’s one that’s a video, one that is a rock that is a textural piece, as well as more traditional paintings. We’re also allowing artists to sell their art because I want to make that art accessible to the followers.

Katie: What is the plan for the fireside?

Danielle: We’re still nailing down the exact details, but it will last around ninety minutes and include speakers and musical numbers. We’re going to be live-streaming it and recording it. Similar to the initial intention behind my account, the fireside is intended to create safety for traditional members who are new in their journey while also exploring this topic in an intersectional way. We considered having the talks be mostly personal reflections and having people share their journeys, but we decided to include church teachings because that is so often how people begin this journey by hearing a quote from a church leader. So just like we do in church and just like we do on our account, it will be a pattern of here’s this teaching, this is what I think about it. This is what the church has said, here’s my experience. I hope that will allow us to hear from people in marginalized communities and also learn the doctrine and official teachings—I hope it will be a really good blend of both.

Katie: What do you want attendees to take away from the event?

Danielle: I hope that they will first feel Heavenly Mother’s love, that they will feel community, and that they will feel like they are not the only one that believes in Heavenly Mother, that’s searching for her, that’s desperate to find friends and family that share their own version of God and their unique interests. A lot of time this yearning is done privately, in whispers. But I hope this not only helps people feel seen and heard but also shows people what is possible. There’s this huge myth that we don’t know much about Heavenly Mother, but I don’t think that’s true. My question is what do we know about Heavenly Father that we don’t also know about Heavenly Mother? It is very, very few things. I would like to show that there are a plethora of quotes, a plethora of people willing to speak, and who are interested in hearing. I hope that this shows members what they can maybe do on the local level. I’ve heard of firesides about Heavenly Mother, but I haven’t seen any of these efforts streamed and recorded before, and I hope this can serve as a template for future firesides.

Katie: How can people participate in the event?

Danielle: People can participate by inviting others to join and by attending in person or virtually. We want this to be very accessible and inclusive. We have been including BIPOC and LGBTQ people in the planning and participation from the onset. We’ve been intentional about including people with marginalized identities both behind the scenes and in the event itself. This is a sensitive topic that can bring up a variety of emotions, and that is valid. We hope that people will take away from the event that which is for them. We’re not here to tell people what to believe or what to think—we’re here to share people’s stories. We’re sharing stories through art, music, and word. For the people who are interested, they can join us.

“Let’s Talk About Heavenly Mother” Art Show and Fireside

Saturday, June 25, 2022, in the Provo City Library Ballroom

550 N University Ave, Provo, UT 84601

Art Show – 5 PM

Fireside – 7 PM

Concert by Dune Moss – 8:30 PM

There is no dress code and no tickets are needed.

There will be a live stream of the event on the “Our Mother in Heaven” YouTube Channel. Link will be updated when available.

***

This post is part of a series, Contemplating Heavenly Mother. Find more from this series here.

The Woman’s Exponent Celebrates 150 Years

By Lori LeVar Piece, president of Exponent II

On June 1, 1872, the first edition of The Woman’s Exponent was printed. For 42 years, this semi-monthly publication shared the voices of Women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its mission to “discuss every subject interesting and valuable to women.” Today, we mark 150 years since its commencement. With the lack of female voices in our historical records (including scriptures), it is really remarkable to have this treasure trove of women’s voices sharing their opinions, their stories, and their poetry. It was the discovery of the archives of this newspaper that was the inspiration for creating the Exponent II organization, with an accompanying newspaper, in 1974.

The Woman’s Exponent began with Louisa Lula Greene Richards serving as editor.  Louisa was a grand-niece to Brigham Young and sought his advice before beginning. According to a history published in the May, 1912 edition, Brigham gathered leading women, including Eliza R. Snow, to conference about the prospective newspaper and Brigham gave Louisa the assignment of publishing the newspaper as a mission. When Greene married in 1874, she took on an assistant editor, Emmaline B. Wells, who was then the editor-in-chief from 1877 to 1914.

The Woman’s Exponent covered topics such as local and general news, educational matters, health and dress, household topics, and correspondence and editorials on leading topics of interest such as suffrage for women and polygamy. The Woman’s Exponent celebrated the work of other women. Exponent II tried to follow that same pattern as we celebrate women’s accomplishments in our monthly newsletter.

The first edition of The Woman’s Exponent covered news of the day. For example: women being admitted to 50 colleges; that it was the first time since the first order of succession that both houses of the U.S. Congress had their full list of members; that in France, trailing dresses for streetwear were going out of fashion; and that Susan B. Anthony spoke to the Cincinnati Convention on the topic of women’s suffrage. There was a call for women to continue to seek and acquire knowledge, as well as a history of the Relief Society and a report of current RS activities. Household hints, such as how to make buckwheat cakes, how to remove offensive breath, cure asthma, or clean hair were provided along with advice for how to avoid being a careless wife.

Most print editions were 8 pages in length and a subscription cost $2 a year. When it began, The Woman’s Exponent was only the second women’s paper published west of the Mississippi. In 1912, it was the second oldest women’s paper in the entire United States. There were a number of different locations for the headquarters of The Woman’s Exponent, but it was always housed at the Relief Society headquarters and was considered the work of the Relief Society. In October of 2020, the LDS Church News did a feature article on The Woman’s Exponent, noting its importance in elevating the voices of women.

When I became the President of the Exponent II organization earlier this year, I wanted to take some time to learn more about The Woman’s Exponent. After listening to a recent panel discussion held at the University of Utah, I took time to read through many editions of The Woman’s Exponent and am really impressed that this publication, an official arm of the Relief Society organization, printed some very forthright commentary on the necessity of equality for women in things like voting rights, education, and opportunities for employment. It is true that one of the primary purposes of this paper was to present LDS women engaged in polygamy as normal and not oppressed to the outside world, yet the latitude given them to print their editorials and opinion pieces about female equality was a little surprising to me. I don’t think we would see the same kind of freedom today to even speak up this way in our congregations, much less publish an opinion piece on women’s rights for worldwide distribution endorsed by the church.

I admit to a bit of surprise at finding articles in the first edition as varied as “Women’s Rights and Wrong” and “Hints to Careless Wives.” I’m not sure how many publications in today’s world would include in a single issue commentary, such as:

“How utterly is the peace of mind and comfort of many husbands ruined by the carelessness and untidiness of their wives! Let the wife reflect that upon her conduct and disposition depend the happiness of a man’s home-life.”  “The agitation of the women’s rights question aims at obtaining a broader recognition for the rights of women, now deprived of many privileges it is contended they should enjoy, and refused rights which it is claimed they should possess equally with men… She should have access to every avenue of employment for which she has physical and mental capacity….She should not be held more responsible than man – if as much – for sexual crime…The elective franchise is enjoyed by many foreign born citizens…millions of intelligent native-born women are deprived of it, simply because nature qualified them to become mothers and not fathers of men.”

While it is true that the voices of many women were left out, particularly marginalized women, it is still remarkable that we have 42 years of these women’s voices in print.To honor the contributions of these female writers, we invite guest posts on articles from The Woman’s Exponent.  Every edition has been digitized and is available to read online at the University of Utah online library, The BYU online library, and the Church History online collection. Pick an edition or two (or three or ten) and see if a particular article strikes a chord with you. Perhaps it did or did not age well. Perhaps there are opinions on women’s equality that need to be heard again. Perhaps taking an article and adding historical content would make it a more interesting read. Whatever motivates you, we want to provide an avenue to elevate the voices of these women who lived in Utah between 1872 and 1914.  Submit your guest post here.

Why Are So Many LDS Utahns Still “Whistling Dixie”?

In June of 2020, President Nelson shared an anti-racism message via his social media accounts and the church newsroom. This is one statement from the very worthy posts:

 

“The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!”

 

 

I loved this message! As someone who married outside of my ethnicity, and with African and Asian family members, President Nelson’s words meant the world to me. I loved it even more when in the October 2020 General Conference, he repeated this sentiment in this speech:

 

“I grieve that our Black brothers and sisters the world over are enduring the pains of racism and prejudice. Today I call upon our members everywhere to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice. I plead with you to promote respect for all of God’s children.”

 

President Oaks echoed this with strength, also in his speech at the October 2020 General Conference. He said:

 

“As citizens and as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we must do better to help root out racism.”

 

I could not agree more, and though I endeavour to do my best to listen and act in inclusive and meaningful ways, I wondered what I might be able to do better. I also began to watch– watch like it was Christmas. The past few Christmases, the church announced and rolled out the #Lighttheworld program. I love this program, and I love seeing church member friends and family share their experiences as they invested at Giving Machines, reported entire school lunch debts being paid off on the day designated to help feed the poor, and shared heartfelt messages of Christ, friendship and love.

 

Thus, as soon as I saw the news reports that the Dixie name was being removed from the University in St. George, Utah, I saw the prophets words in action. To be honest, I do not know if Representative Bradley Last (Utah House District 71) or Representative Kelly Miles (Utah House District 11) are members of the church or not. But as soon as I saw the proposed name-change legislation, and the fact that it came but a month after Nelson’s words, I believed that they are. I believed that they were following the prophet. And if they are not members of the church, I believed that they were inspired be the sense of urgency proclaimed by the prophets to “root out racism.”

 

Just as Juliet proclaimed that her dear Romeo was yet wonderful, even if he were a Montague, a prettier term for sewage would also be foul:

That which we call a rose

By any other word would smell as sweet

 

The term Dixie is racist. No matter how much one might sentimentally white wash it’s history, it is the opposite of a rose. It is repugnant and retains the stench of bigotry. The term has a long history of Confederate symbolism, black face minstrel shows and mock slave auctions. (Summarily outlined here in this easy to read, well-written piece of about a million resources on the topic).

 

And lest you try to escape or railroad me into thinking otherwise, the historical term in position to Utah is also racist. President Brigham Young made no issue in his support of slavery; some records even sickeningly reflect that he encouraged settlers to enslave the Native Americans in the area. He said:

“I am a firm believer in Slavery… I know slavery is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their masters, because [persons of color] are not capable of ruling themselves.” – President Brigham Young, address to the Utah Territory Legislature, 23 January 1852

 

How could Young vacation in his winter home and not stain the history of the land with the sweat and blood of slaves? After all, the St. George area was originally called the “Cotton Mission” by Brigham Young as it was his goal to raise the cash-crop cotton in the area. In regard to this, it is important to recognise that cotton was considered a financially lucrative investment in part because of the free labor of slaves. With this in mind, it should not be a surprise that while there are records of some of the first black settler / slaves in northern Utah, record keepers in southern Utah did not even record the names of our African American brothers and sisters pioneers because they were brought into the area as slaves. (As sickening as it is, one of the reasons we are aware of the Northern Utah Slaves is because we have records that their labor was “donated” and accepted in place of cash tithes.)

 

It is further imperative to own the fact that upon first settlement, Young called slave-owner Robert Dockery Covington as the first president of the Washington Branch of the church in that area (Covington was recorded as a slave owner in the 1840 census, about twenty years before he was called to farm cotton in the St. George area). Covington was the leader of the second company of saints to arrive in the Virgin River Valley, and along with the Adair (first) company, these men and the majority of the members in these companies originated from slave states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Thus it is no surprise that Covington’s first counsellor was Alexander Washington Collins, a man who arrogantly and publically shared stories of how he had beaten, whipped and raped his slaves.

 

 

It is easy to see that as a result of these men, who sympathised, idolised, and lived as if still in US slave-holding states, the St. George area began to be called Dixie. This is not a sentimental, cultural nickname. This is historical, generational racism.

 

Quoting from this article in (one of about a million resources on the topic):

February 1868: Our Dixie Times published a letter to the editor in which a local wrote, “Serfs have masters, and Negros should have. Intelligent beings are governed only by intelligence.”

 

Lest you think that was long ago, and should be forgotten, the 20th century retained this abhorrent attitude. According to Intermountain histories, in the time period that gave life to the American civil rights movement, the embracing racist symbols remained and even increased in St. George:

In 1952, (the then) Dixie College changed its mascot from “the Flyers” to “Rodney the Rebel.” In 1959, the community embraced the Confederate battle flag as a secondary school symbol. Then, in 1966, the yearbook’s name changed from The Dixie to The Confederate.

 

Rodney the Rebel, The Confederate and Dixie are not a long-lost sentimental names from a bygone era. They are symbols of modern, dare I say, contemporary history. Racist history. And it is ugly. The name Dixie was borne of slavery, and the furthing timing of “Rodney the (Confederate) Rebel” and the Confederate flag as introduced during the civil rights movement, are clear symbols of southern pride and race-based oppression. I actually remember visiting extended (white) family in St. George in the 1980’s and being gobsmacked at these symbols in the community. As a young tween outsider, I said nothing. I was afraid. But I felt the discrimination, and I was confused to find such symbolism in Utah- the Mecca of Mormon faith.

 

By 1993, there was a movement in St. George, fittingly called an abolitionist movement, to abolish the the confederate soldier and the confederate flag as symbols of (then) Dixie College. At that time, the younger students were empathetic to the change, recognising the racist connotation and ties, but the alumni were hesitant, thinking that the soldier and flag were “fun.” (When is war and racial oppression fun?). The flag was rescinded then, but it wasn’t until 2005 that “Rodney the Rebel” was retired as the long-standing confederate soldier mascot.

 

You read that right. 2005.

 

In April 1995, President James E. Faust bore testimony in General Conference that “In my experience, no race or class seems superior to any other in spirituality and faithfulness.” He taught that we are all heirs to the kingdom of God, regardless of our ethnic, worldly backgrounds. I loved his words, then and now, and was grateful that he spoke to my heart.

 

Many terms have an ugly history, but thankfully, we, as children of Christ, being free from mandatory political party obligations, are moving away from these disparaging terms. Because words mean something, for good or for ill. As for St. George, the only official term that yet remains as a pride-filled symbol of this racist history is the term “Dixie.” In this, St. George is not alone! Over the past twenty years, many people and organizations began to recognise the racist connotations of the term. Thankfully, this recognition moved to action and the term began to be removed.

 

Happily, , ! This swatch of Southern Utah land, stained with the history of racism was finally proactive in, as President Nelson said, “abandoning attitudes of prejudice.” To be clear, name-calling is an attitude because the name being used is offensive. “Dixie” is a name associated with historical racism, just as the name of a female dog when unwelcomingly cast upon a woman is an insult.

 

In seeing this historic, Christlike correction happen, I thought of 4 Nephi 1 in the Book of Mormon. And I remembered the words of President James E. Faust in teaching the Christlike truth of “There were no manner of -Ites.” This same truth is echoed by President Nelson at almost every turn. It is sacred, and gives me hope to an end of the historically racist Dixie-ites, especially since 68% of the population of St. George has membership in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

The area itself is yet soaked in the red blood of “Dixie” language, so much that only a mere 0.8% of the population is African American. but there was hope. Hope for much-needed diversity. Hope for a Christ-like love of all people, regardless of ethnicity. I hoped that the church and her members in Southern Utah would embrace the future as one being free from the shackles of racist terminology and labels. I was ever further inspired with President Nelson’s lyrical speech in the May 2022 Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults. He again spoke against all forms of hate, including labels such as the term Dixie connotates:

 

“Labels can lead to judging and animosity. Any abuse or prejudice towards another because of nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender, educational degrees, culture or other significant identifiers is offensive to our maker. Such mistreatment causes us to live beneath our stature as His covenant sons and daughters.”

 

I was further inspired and hopeful when earlier this month, just following the aforementioned devotional, President Oaks added via his social media accounts that:

On the subject of race, we must start by recognizing the very real challenges of racism, by condemning on-going racial prejudice, and by strengthening those who continue to face unfair biases.

 

And yet. When it comes to Washington County, Utah, there is a movement to retain the racist language. It is a loud movement, bickering over the retention of the racist name of the area, even enlisting, naming and shaming politicians in an effort to un-do the inspired and righteous removal of the racist term. This movement aims to NOT strengthen people or Christlike lover by using respectful language, it intends to divide people by retaining the hate-soaked name of Dixie. This movement completely ignores the pleas of the prophet to “root out racism.”

 

And sadly, from where I am standing, these people in the Pro-Dixie red shirts are church members. Weekly-attending, recommend-holding, tithe-paying church members.

 

Why?

 

Are they afraid to follow the prophet? I cannot understand any other reason but for fear– fear of being cast out from your friends who still hold strong to racist culture. Here’s a tip: These people are not your friends. Should you need courage, I remind you of Sister Nelson’s words:

 

I believe if you could see yourself living with your Heavenly Parents and with Jesus Christ; if you could observe what you did premortally and see yourself making commitments–even covenants–with others, including your mentors and teachers; if you could see yourself courageously responding to attacks on truth and valiantly standing up for Jesus Christ, I believe that every one of you would have the increased power, increased commitment, and eternal perspective to help you overcome any and all of your confusion, doubts, struggles, and problems. All of them!

 

 

In other words, be of good courage (Joshua 1:9)!! Follow the prophet. Stand out against racism in every from, including words and names!

 

Thus. Stop whistling Dixie. Just stop.

 

Guest Post: Religious Freedom Should be Free for All

Guest Post by A.T.

A.T is a paraeducator, avid slow jogger, and mother of 2 who currently resides in California.

Photo credit: pikisuperstar via Freepik.

On nights when I just can’t fall asleep, sometimes I do a little waltz in my head. I imagine the steps as I breathe in time, steadied by the beat. Back, side, close. Forward, side, close. One, two, three. One and. Two and. Three. Even as I lay still, the perception of motion is soothing, like a baby being rocked to sleep. That kind of curative movement is harnessed in the spiritual notion of the dance of life. It’s a perspective that resonates with me so much more than the violent imagery of a battle between forces of good and evil. I prefer its joyful approach to navigating through opposition, to flow with the push and pull. To rise and fall with the tides and accept seasons of decay and rebirth. Precepts collected from a spectrum of wisdom traditions have braced my weary faith in a way that has allowed me to remain in the church for now, however tenuously. As I find insight in diverse perspectives, continually startled by how little I know, my curiosity within the church grows in tandem.

So I approached the last Sunday morning session of general conference with renewed openness and was rewarded with some elevating talks about resilience, forgiveness, and healing. Then came the dismay: a message about “religious freedom.” The phrase alone is charged with political baggage in the current social climate of American members and one that’s been co-opted to suggest a kind of freedom that’s just for Christians. Christian privilege, as my spouse calls it. And I can’t help but wonder, where was this latent indignation in defense of liberty at times of Muslim bans or violent attacks on synagogues and other places of worship? Where was this concern when hordes of members voted for someone who promised “Christian power” and courted neo-Nazis? Are we only engaged when it’s perceived to affect the church directly?

There was barely mention of non-Christian religions, especially those most targeted. It seemed to be a thinly veiled demand that our voices be heard over others. We can only guess what the speaker was referring to when he invoked a supposed silencing. Did he mean a silencing of the movement against preventing women from access to unbiased prenatal care in making what is likely the most excruciating medical decision of their lives? Was is about not having to bake cakes for, take photographs of, approve marriage licenses, or have to accept a therapy patient because of sexual orientation? Or maybe he meant the scores of folks desperate to preserve a false history of manifest destiny, no matter the costs? Maybe not. I’m left to wonder exactly what he meant and can only presume the connotation it’s taken on in the public discourse recently.

These last few years have shown how church leadership and even scripture can be subjectively interpreted in a multiplicity of ways, leaving bias to interfere with consensus. I’ve wrestled painfully to reconcile my understanding of these issues with that of the LDS majority, but constantly fumble. I’m convinced that the best approach in all things is Christ’s approach: not to coerce, legislate, or throw stones, but to simply love no matter what. To allow individuals to make choices without casting judgment. I think of a Christ who renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. A Christ who would rebuke stone-throwers, offer healing, and gently invite to do better. Not one that would discriminate against vast swathes of people based on their lifestyle or identity.

Clearly the church takes a defensive approach, despite institutional exemptions such as the ones regarding solemnization of same-sex marriages. And I can’t help but cringe when leaders and members play the persecuted. We may be seen as weird or lame for some of our habits, but in the U.S we’re a generally prosperous bunch. I live in one of the most liberal places in America, if not the world, and in no way do I feel like my religious freedom is vulnerable. In fact, it’s expanded to celebrate and protect expressions of other faiths, like the practice of Ramadan and the high holidays of Judaism. That kind of accommodation is true religious freedom. It’s not on defense, not seeking preservation of the status quo. It’s about allowing spirituality in all forms to flourish as opposed to denying the agency of others or deeming their choices a personal affront to one’s beliefs. And I’m a believer that exploring the truths of other faiths ultimately enhances our own.

Lately, I hear a refrain in the church warning members not to succumb to “secularism,” which seems to refer to this broadening of religiosity. It’s vague, but to my untrained ears I hear a reprimand of those who don’t use their belief in God as a shield for exclusion and blame. While I’m just as wary of the gospel of Glennon Doyle and her cult-of-self, there is an opposing secularism that’s steeped in the cultural fabric of the church. It’s a clearly traceable ideological legacy despite the church’s claims of political neutrality.

According to PEW research, about seventy percent of Americans identify as Christian–by far the majority. Approximately eighty-nine percent profess some belief in God. Hardly a secular minority. Where is the threat? This trend seems to reflect a people who feel they’ve been failed by religious institutions, alarmed by sex abuse scandals, decades of conversion therapy, and deeply racist histories. Instead of shaming dissenters for their assumed lack of faith or just insisting that they give up their doubts, what if religious institutions took some responsibility for losing the trust of their flocks? Any acknowledgement of past mistakes and some course correction of cultural biases could go a long way. Then again, it’s likely the notion that church leaders are infallible and will never lead us astray has painted them into a corner (kind of like that old MormonAd from the ‘80s).

When I mentally survey the growing list of family and friends who’ve left the church, they didn’t just laze away until all belief faded. They were daily scripture readers and pray-ers and stake leaders. They trod the covenant path with holy boots on the ground and carried burdens of doubt for years until finally their shelves, laden with unsettled questions, cratered beneath the load of cognitive dissonance. Most didn’t abandon all faith and give up on God. They simply realized that what was spoken over the pulpit and attitudes in the church didn’t align with the gospel they knew or the truths they held close.

And I can only speak for myself, but I sense that many of us are seeking a more expansive and restorative spirituality that embraces all the Good that surrounds us. One that is more concerned with caring for one another, than dictating the moral lives of others. We seek a deeper connection with divinity rather than a rigid, dogmatic, and even corporate rendering of the Christ’s gospel. Something more like Gregory Boyle’s radically loving, extravagantly tender, undefended heart spirituality; the kind that doesn’t mistake moral outrage for a moral compass (a detailed in his book, The Whole Language).

“If religion is not there to help with shaping character and mediating hard times, who will be? Who will teach honesty, gratitude, forgiveness, and patience? Who will exhibit charity, compassion, and kindness for the forgotten and the downtrodden?,” the general conference speaker concludes. Yes, religion is generally a benevolent force and I still find deep mines of good in the church. I love its core message of peace. But there are crusaders for truth and charity among us, regardless of religious affiliation.

So maybe there isn’t a mass crisis of faith after all. Maybe us black sheep haven’t completely lost our way, we’re just finally finding our rhythm.

Guest Post: Caught in the Middle. Again.

Guest Post by anonymous, who is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is trying to figure out ways to navigate her faith and her grief. She is the mother of 4 children, 3 living. She is married to a great partner who embraces her and her outlandish ideas. She works full-time for the judicial system to strengthen collaborations with community partners and develop special projects related to domestic and sexual violence issues. She has a B.S. from Brigham Young University in Women’s Studies and Psychology.

Caught in the middle. Again.

When I was eight years old My parents got divorced. Technically, I might’ve been nine. One of the last pictures I remember of me and my nuclear family was at my baptism. Regardless. I was born and raised by good pioneer Mormon stock and my parents’ divorce seemed to send a ripple through the extended family. My mother is one of nine children and she was the first to get divorced.

It probably seems strange to a lot of people that the divorce would garner any attention, but in my community, my church, my school, and in our family, divorce was totally foreign. When the divorce was finalized my mom, sister and I moved to North Carolina. Keep in mind, I had grown up in Provo my whole life and North Carolina was as foreign to me as divorce. I had a tough time fitting in. I remember one of my first nights there my new grandma made biscuits and lima beans for dinner. I’m sure we had other things but those were the only two things I got in trouble for so that’s what I recall. I asked for jam to go on my biscuit (which I mistakenly called “a roll”) and I was told, “Jam is for breakfast! We don’t serve jam at dinner in the South.” I was also told I had to finish my lima beans. These new, foreign, salty alien eyes staring back at me from my plate. I was lost. I needed direction, light and knowledge from an earthly father that never came. My stepdad was very young when he and my mom got married. He definitely was not prepared to parent the two children she brought with her. 

When my mom moved us across the country to start her new family my biological dad stayed in UT and from then on we only spent summers with him. Back then, full custody didn’t go to dads, unless it was on TV. Plus, I’m not sure he’d have been equipped to parent us anyway. He suffered from undiagnosed depression and anxiety, family history that never showed up in my genealogy research. Family history he would never acknowledge. So he too decided to find himself a young wife and they adopted two boys and they started their own life as well. Summers were spent feeling like I was an addendum to my dad‘s family. Caught in the middle of two worlds. The rest of the year at my mom’s I often felt like a visitor in my own home. My relationship with my father figures was complicated. 

Several years back I had a moment when I realized that perhaps I didn’t understand how to interact with my Heavenly Father very well because I’d had no proper examples of fatherly relationships with my earthly dads. Maybe it was why my prayers to a Heavenly Father were always so difficult. Prayer seemed more about seeking grants to wishes rather than having a conversation or developing a relationship with a Father figure. 

I believe in the concept of prayer. I taught my children to pray. My prayers were mildly rote, but there was comfort in routine. Lacking an understanding of fatherly interactions, I turned to my Heavenly Father and navigated it the best I could. I developed a relationship with my Heavenly Father that was intimate to me, but at an arm’s length for sure.

Until my son died.

I remember standing in the mirror at the hospital laying it all out on the table with my Heavenly Father. I put all my faith on the line. I begged and I pleaded and I stared into my soul and I said, “God I know you can do this, Father, you can save this child of mine. This child of yours can have life. You have moved mountains. You have saved children before. You have created worlds. You have created life. You can sustain One tiny cell a meager time longer. You can do this, I. Have. Faith. In. You. Father.”

My son died the next day.

I’ve always been a bit of a newbie when it comes to Heavenly Mother. When I was a teenager,  it was one of the doctrines that helped me hang on to my faith, even when my faith was challenged. I remember being in a job interview once and the interviewer asked how I reconciled my faith and my feminism. I had a great explanation. I talked about Relief Society and the ways our church was focused on meeting the needs of the Sisters. I talked about Heavenly Mother and our view of Eve and it was all very clear to me. I’m not sure they were sold, but I did get the job.

I don’t think Heavenly Mother became part of my regular vernacular until I had a daughter of my own. Three sons and She was on the periphery, but suddenly having a daughter She was central to my worship.

And actually, even as I write that, I know it’s a lie. I wanted her to be central to my worship but I didn’t know how to make that happen. “Yes, seek Her,” some say. “No, don’t ask or wonder or search or pray,” say others. Looking for answers about Her almost felt like looking up a dirty word on the Internet, like I was going to get caught in my search history and unforgiven. Then occasionally I would read an article, hear a story, read about Her and I would latch on for dear life. But I wasn’t really sure what I was latching on to. Yes. Yes, we believe in Her, but she is “so sacred we don’t talk about her.” Insert all the other confusions we are taught about Her. I sought wisdom about Her and realized I usually heard more about what I should not seek than what actual doctrine was available for me to consume. I read prophets and apostles who mentioned Her and I thought, “Maybe it is OK to seek the feminine divine.”

I want access to God and to the comfort that He can give me, but I don’t know if I’m in a place where I can worship just Him anymore. My fathers left me to flounder. I needed my mother as a child, and I need my Mother now. I feel like He’s broken my trust a little and as I navigate my way back, I need another guide. I need my Mother to help me reconstruct my relationship with my Father.. How am I even saying this out loud right now? Blasphemy for sure. I feel like I’m waiting for lightning to strike me or something as I type these words.

As I was writing these words down, I got up to get a tissue to dry my tears and I heard my sweet gentle husband talking to our daughter. He was calming her fears about something mundane. He’s kind and sweet. Loving and tender. I am more calculated, more analytical. He is the yin to my yang and he helps me understand a foreign concept: an affectionate, doting, loving father. An idea that eluded me until I was married. In that moment I am reminded of the importance of balance. I realize that in my spiritual life my worship has been too imbalanced. No feminine to my masculine divine.

In my current relationship with my Heavenly Parents and my worship, I again feel lost, my spiritual homeostasis can’t set itself right. Here I am, feeling caught between to parents. Again.

I don’t know what this means for me. I know I want to stay and figure this out with my LDS lens in my LDS space because it is what I know. I am not ready to walk away, but I am also not ready to just accept things as they are. I want to be an “obedient” disciple. But to whom am I obedient? That is what I’m still trying to figure out.

This post is part of a series, Contemplating Heavenly Mother. Find more from this series here.

History of Abortion in Utah: Part 2

Content warning: Descriptions of miscarriage and abortion

How could apostles explicitly denounce abortion, but also be offering at home abortion products? The answer is actually quite simple, and is germane to the current controversy over the proposed repeal of Roe v. Wade.  Justice Alito in the draft decision cites jurists like William Blackstone who said that “an abortion of a ‘quick’ child was ‘by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter’ (citing Bracton), and at least ‘a very heinous misdemeanor’ (Citing Coke).” 

The crucial word to consider is “quick,” which is not a word we use in this way very often anymore. Members of the Church are most likely to encounter it in the context of 2 Timothy 4:1, which refers to “the quick and the dead” – quick meaning alive in this context. Historically the term “quickening” referred to the point at which a woman felt a baby move within her for the first time, signaling definitively that there was life.  The exact point at which this happened could vary considerably.  Many women in their first pregnancies do not recognize the feeling for what it is.  Women who desperately do not want to be pregnant can dismiss the first flutters for a long time through denial.  It isn’t an exact date, though around twenty weeks is a reasonable average.  Crucially, only the pregnant woman could say whether she felt movement or not – it was not about externally observable symptoms, but what the woman herself reported. The general consensus was that after one felt movement, taking steps to try to end the pregnancy was reprehensible and potentially criminal depending on the time and place.  “Abortion” referred to measures after these flutters of life were first detected, and it was this late-term intervention that jurists were explicitly decrying.

It is worth noting here that Justice Alito dismisses accurately defining quickening as an irrelevant consideration. In footnote 24 he brushes aside the Friend of the Court Briefs from the American Historical Association and the Organization for American Historians which clearly state the definition of quickening I provided here.  However, if Justice Alito is going to cite pre-modern jurists in justifying the repeal of Roe v. Wade it is absolutely relevant to consider what they meant by abortion when they denounced it.

To understand why, historically, people did not see termination of pregnancy before twenty weeks as abortion, it is necessary to mentally travel back in time to days where knowledge of embryology was rudimentary at best.  The first confirmed observation of the human ovum was in 1827.  Without knowing that humans have eggs one cannot begin to understand the actual process of human reproduction. Dissection was largely taboo and doctors relied on using criminal corpses, bodies from indigent hospitals, or sometimes illicitly dug up corpses to do anatomical dissections.  Understandably this did not reliably provide dead women at each stage of pregnancy for analysis. Only when the first ultrasounds came into use in the 1950s did scientists gain a fuller understanding of human embryology.  Before that period, externally observable symptoms were the only available means of understanding pregnancy. 

While there are symptoms that show up quickly and have long been associated with pregnancy, they don’t automatically signal that there is life within.  Miscarriages early on look like clots of tissue, not a little person.  A woman cannot feel anything moving, and often does not look very different in terms of girth, especially in her first pregnancy.  Medical wisdom dating back centuries held that those first months the body was preparing itself for life – the womb was setting itself up, building a cozy little nest, but there was not actually a living inhabitant.  Life began at quickening.  Thus there was no particular stigma attached to the decision to stop furnishing a uterus for an occupant who had not yet moved in.  It wasn’t abortion, because there was no life in there to abort.  Leaders who condemned abortion were referring primarily to surgical intervention, particularly later on in pregnancy.  Their fulminations did not include  emmenagogues – medicines to bring on menses.  Thus it was no contradiction at all to have Apostles simultaneously thundering against abortion, and selling what today we would call abortifacients and advertising that in newspapers.  The issue of ending a pregnancy was fundamentally separate from the issue of bringing about menstruation.

The separation of amenorrhea (not menstruating) and being pregnant in the popular imagination also explains why devout women who would have publicly condemned the wickedness of Madame Restell would have no objection to buying pennyroyal tea at the druggist’s.  In a time when women were valued primarily for reproductive potential, regular menstruation was absolutely key to women’s health.  They knew that menstruation stopped because of pregnancy.  But menstruation could also stop due to malnutrition, cysts, tumors and any number of other maladies.  They had no real way of knowing what was happening within, nor realistically any cure for uterine problems in the modern sense.  But they did have emmenagogues, and women certainly used them freely.  Thus a woman who was not menstruating could paradoxically either be pregnant (hooray, fulfilling the measure of her creation!) or unable to become pregnant (oh no! Make her fertile! At once!).  The ambiguity left a lot of room for maneuver.

A gynecologial text written by Hannah Sorenson, a Latter-Day Saint midwife, speaks to this contradiction at work within LDS society. 

Abortion is delivery of the foetus before it is viable, i.e. about seven months.  Between this time and full term, discharge of the ovum is called premature birth.  Anything that will cause death of the foetus or provoke uterine contraction will cause abortion.  Mechanical violence as blows, falls, violent exertion, or emotional violence as excessive joy, fear, grief, anxiety, anger, also administration of drastic emmenagogue, medicines, and from intentional disturbance of the ovum with instruments are among the many causes.

What Women Should Know by Hannah Sorenson p. 78

Many believe it is no sin to produce abortion before there is life, but there is always life from the moment of conception.  When a woman is subject to an abortion it should be looked upon as one of the heaviest trials of her life. Accidents may happen to which we are all liable, but the carelessness and indifference manifested in this important subject is perfectly alarming.  By some it is considered honorable to miscarry, and ho, how many abortions are brought about through practices and applications which are called innocent! But still they bring about the fatal result.  All this crime going on and still people feel as though everything is all right.   Oh, how pitiful and sad! We have little hope of a better condition as long as it is looked upon as being unnecessary and almost shameful for either man or woman to understand the laws of their own organization.

What Women Should Know by Hannah Sorenson p. 80

These extracts are interesting for a number of reasons.  First, although she was explicitly condemning abortion, in so doing she also listed methods she deemed effective for procuring one.  We cannot know if any of her readers deliberately used the text for the opposite of its intended purpose, but it is certainly possible.  Second, her tirade against the folly of people believing emmenagogues were morally different from abortion tells us something about the attitudes she encountered.  The prevalence of ads, in conjunction with this revealing diatribe show that many of the people she treated, mostly members of the Church, felt that “everything is all right” and showed “carelessness or indifference” and “believe it is no sin” to take actions to end a pregnancy. Granted, many if not most of them did not see themselves as ending life, but certainly in our modern understanding of pregnancy they were attempting to perform abortions by current definitions of the term.

 While I would love to find first-person accounts of early Saints who used emmenagogues or abortifacients, it seems unlikely that such exist, or if they do they are few and far between.  Diarists of the nineteenth century did not often wax explicit about reproductive details, and descendants would feel an incentive to conceal or destroy any evidence they found.  Reading backward from polemics such as Hannah Sorenson’s gives us one of the best glimpses we have about popular attitudes towards what today we would call abortion.

I find this topic fascinating, though perhaps a bit too obscure for the common conversation about abortion.  Simplistic slogans and loathing the opposition seem to be the order of the day. But perhaps you find yourself stuck in the middle of a debate about abortion where your interlocutor insists on a rigid and extreme view of what Church leaders, members of the church, jurists or doctors thought about abortion in the past. If so, now is a time to gently introduce some nuance into the conversation.  

If you are interested in doing further reading of your own:

Search historical newspapers (newspapers.com is a great resource) using keywords that will bring up ads for emmenagogues – some to try would be pennyroyal, rue, cotton root, tansy, female irregularities, menstruation. You’ll quickly see that I was not cherrypicking ads that appeared only once in one location. If you search for abortion or abortionist you’ll find criminal cases, including that of Evelyn Bonnett, as well as opinions, generally from powerful white men, strongly condemning it.I did not include every possible quote from the Journal of Discourses on the subject. You could search for terms like abortion or abortionist, infanticide, contraception, population control, limitation of family etc. Amanda Hendrix-Komoto, “The Other Crime: Abortion and Contraception in Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century Utah” Dialogue. I covered some of the same ground in my posts as Hendrix-Komoto did in her article, but it is well worth reading and will further ground you in the history of abortion in Utah. It has the added virtue of being concise, for those who find longer historiography daunting.Leslie Reagan, When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973 (University of California Press). This is one of the definitive texts about the history of abortion in the United States and is well worth reading regardless of your political position. Understanding our past can best inform future policy. James Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800-1900 (Oxford University Press, 1979). This is an oldie, but I have to plug it since Dr. Mohr was in my department and it was a seminal work in the field.Rachel Fuchs, Poor and Pregnant in Paris: Strategies for Survival in the Nineteenth Century (Rutgers UP, 1992). Obviously this one is not about U.S. history but I find it absolutely fascinating and there is significant overlap in the lived experience of desperate women with limited options. Another one of hers that is a great read is Abandoned Children: Foundlings and Child Welfare in Nineteenth-Century France. I find her writing to be very compelling and the anecdotes she brings in from her sources really put a human face on the suffering of women in the nineteenth century.

None of these books will cheer you up. But in the United States abortion is a really important issue to understand fully right now. I don’t think that you can responsibly advocate for policies without first understanding where we came from and how we got here.