Exponent II's Blog, page 109

Guest Post: Call Me Crazy, But I Hope Leadership Never Embraces Heavenly Mother

Guest post by Rachael, who grew up in the heart of Utah Valley in a large LDS family. Her greatest moments of peace were not inside the church buildings but in the American Fork Canyon and the foothills close to home. She worships the Divine Feminine and is a practicing Pagan. She has presented at the Claremont Conference of Mormon Studies, the BYU Conference on Mysticism, and at Sunstone. 

After the recent Women’s Session of General Conference in which it was again discouraged to talk about Heavenly Mother, my thoughts have inevitably turned to her again. I am a post-Mormon who hasn’t practiced or attended church for over a decade, but a big part of my heart still connects with the Mormon feminine divine who calls so many of us to a deeper search. She is hidden in official church discourse, yet grassroots channels and social media have elevated her, created poetry and art in her image, and even created events to celebrate her. Maybe church leadership just can’t see that the more they try to hide her, the more we will find her. And although it sounds strange, I hope the church leadership never embraces the doctrine of our Heavenly Mother. Here’s why.

Based on doctrine alone, we know a select few things about her: She is a resurrected and exalted being just like Heavenly Father. She is his wife. Logical extension of the doctrine concludes she is the mother of our spirits, just like Heavenly Father is the father of our spirits. However we cannot worship her even though she is a god, and we are discouraged from relating to her even though she is the mother.

Most of what we know about her is in terms of “not’s” and “don’ts.” She is a god who isn’t worshiped. She is a mother who does not mother. She is an exalted being who somehow still needs protection from humans. The church leadership, in their attempt to hide her, has made her into an obscure and shadowy doctrine that is full of paradoxes and contradictions.

But here is why I think this is so exciting. Because church leadership has refused to take ownership of the doctrine of the Heavenly Mother, they have inadvertently surrendered her into the realm of speculation and, I would argue, mysticism. Mystics from all faith traditions claim that they experience their god directly, and without the intervention of the authority or hierarchy that normally gatekeeps the spiritual experience. Mystics experience God as an intimate and personal reality, often claiming that they feel god in their bodies or all around them, as an infinite source of love that cannot be mitigated by institutions. No matter how much leaders tell us we should not worship her, they cannot control the hearts of people who are ready to connect with the Feminine Divine.

Because official doctrine and text refuse to tell us about her, we are given a kind of freedom that we wouldn’t have otherwise, to relate to her directly. We are not going to be able to get to know Heavenly Mother through the scriptures, through the Brethren’s revelation, or through any traditional sanctioned methods. We’re going to get to know her directly. Through prayer. Meditation. Personal experience. Art. Poetry. Relationships with others. Through our bodies, minds, and senses.

I recently read a book called Crux by Jean Guerrero. In the book, she quotes the philosopher Chesterton who basically says: the fuel for mysticism is never the answers, it is the questions themselves. And the thing about the questions is that they are almost always paradoxical. It is the paradoxes themselves that fuel the mystic’s search. And because the paradoxes are never resolved, the fuel is unlimited. The richness that lives inside of the paradoxes is almost infinite. And that is exactly how I feel about this search that I’m on for Heavenly Mother because she is full of questions, full of contradictions, and full of paradoxes.

The church has attempted to water down and ignore these complexities, but my premise is that the beauty of the Feminine Divine lies exactly in the unknown.  Yes, it is infuriating and problematic how our leadership rejects her, but I would rather find her on my own than have her filtered through the constricting lens of hierarchical dogma. Her mystery has given me room for a sort of creative mysticism. Her mystery has given me room to relate to her from my heart and my experience. I know it is against the leader’s commands to relate to her, but no institution can stop the reality that the Divine Feminine is reentering our collective consciousness and we want to know her. I believe she wants to be known.

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

Just a Mom Asking Her Church to Stand Up to Gun Violence

I have feelings about calling myself “just a mom,” but there are times when it is the identifier I choose.

Recently, on a long plane ride to a retreat with my husband’s company, I was seated with a couple going on the trip who I hadn’t met before. The woman next to me worked out of a different office than my husband. In introducing myself, I faced the familiar problem of what to say about myself. If I mention that I am a writer and independent scholar, that immediately brings up issues of religion and feminist politics. Not always the ice breaker I want. So I went with something along the lines of, “I’m a stay-at-home mom with four children.” After a brief, polite conversation, we occupied ourselves in companionable silence.

A few hours into the flight, the woman turned to me and asked what I was reading. It was a thick stack of loose pages I had printed from an advanced copy of the Spring 2022 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought special issue on Heavenly Mother. I was reading and marking it up in preparation for the Dialogue in Review broadcast/podcast. She was intrigued, and this led to a longer conversation about her interest and experience with Roman Catholicism, the philosophy clubs she and her husband host, and my work in Mormon Studies researching 19th and 20th century Mormon women’s history and my participation with Exponent II.

After a while, she stopped me and said, “You should have led with this stuff! You’re not just a mom.”

I understood what she meant. She thought I should lead with the work I’m clearly passionate about, even if I do not get paid for this work. But for me, it’s more complicated than paid versus unpaid work, care work versus work I can easily put on a resume. As a sixth-generation Mormon woman living in Utah, there are people in my neighborhood, community, faith tradition, and extended family who would consider my work divisive. That’s not the vibe I’m going for in casual conversations with an acquaintance, so I like to get a sense of someone’s political and religious affiliation and establish some basic mutual trust before I talk about my research and writing. I consider motherhood to be a relationship, not a role, but sometimes it’s easier to lead a conversation with being a mom.

At other times, like now, there are issues that transcend the divisions within the Mormon continuum. Bigger than any issue I see in the Church or the political party I’m most aligned with. Sometimes, there is something so significant and horrific and heartbreaking that nothing else about who I am or what I do or think matters more than my responsibility to care for and protect my children.

In the wake of the shootings in Buffalo, NY and Uvdale, TX, I am not writing as a feminist intellectual or a partisan voter. I am not writing in regards to my level of belief in truth claims or my current participation in the Church. I am just a mom. I have layers of intersecting privilege, but I am just a mom.

I am just a mom who sat at my six-year-old’s kindergarten graduation yesterday and mentally thought through what I might do if a shooter entered the room. I am a mom who looks around the grocery store, gym, theater, arcade, and baseball game asking myself the same question. I am a mom mourning with the families for whom these questions are not hypotheticals.

I am a mom of four beautiful children. And because I believe there is no such thing as “other people’s children,” I am compelled to seek protection not only for my children but for all of the children who just want to go to school or church or the grocery store in safety and freedom from violence. I likewise want this safety and freedom for their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, neighbors, teachers, faith leaders, and community members. I want the kind of freedom and safety where we will no longer face the grim reality that it is a matter of when, not if, there will be another mass shooting.

I am just a mom asking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use its immense political and financial resources in support of sensible gun reform in the United States.

The Church gets involved in massive political efforts when it believes there is a moral imperative to do so. Most famously in the last fifty years, it has been to fight against the Equal Rights Amendment and marriage equality. They do this in the name of protecting the family. But we do not have to “protect the family” by defending our right to discriminate on the basis of gender and sexual identity. We can do better. We can protect families—all families—by working for sensible gun control legislation and other efforts to reduce gun violence.

The Church knows how to do this. They know how to activate the ward and stake networks for political activism. They know how to encourage members to write, speak out, and vote not as members of the Church, but as concerned citizens. They know how to avoid financial issues in regards to being a tax-exempt religious organization by having members donate directly to other organizations in the political fight. The Church also has lawyers and lobbyists already on the payroll, and they know how to put pressure on LDS legislatures on the issues they care about most. They’ve done this before. They can do it again if they choose to consider the lives and safety of children, families, and vulnerable populations as a moral imperative.

Gun violence impacts everyone in the United States, but it is also a racial justice issue. Gun violence disproportionately impacts communities of color and marginalized populations. In memory of the March 2021 Atlanta shootings, Nicole beautifully wrote about the role of white supremacy, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, and transphobia that undergird so much of the gun violence in the United States, and how we must reject these ideas as our common enemies. President Nelson called on “members everywhere to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice.” Following BIPOC leaders in the approach for how to seek sensible gun control legislation is one way we can put our money where our mouth is in abandoning prejudice.

As a Church, we know how to use our resources for political purposes in the United States. Let us do so now in a way that strengthens all families.

I am not a lawyer or politician. I don’t have priesthood ordination or a seat on any decision-making council of the Church. I don’t have the kind of money or influence that sways legislation or determines Church priorities. I don’t have a career that provides me with a paycheck.

I’m just a mom.

I’m just a mom who kissed my boys this morning before they walked to school and prayed that it would not be the last time that I do so.

I’m just a mom, and I am asking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to lead in meaningful action to protect families and root out racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and other common enemies by seeking sensible gun control legislation so that children can go to school and people can grocery shop in safety and freedom.

The Body is Political: Part 2

“I didn’t know it was rape. I gave him permission to be in my bed, so I thought that meant he could do whatever he wanted. But my therapist helped. She said, ‘You gave him permission to be in your bed but you didn’t give him permission to do that.'”

TW: this post contains descriptions of rape. Although I focus on the abuse of women in heterosexual marriage, intimate partner sexual violence can happen to people of all genders. Resources are listed at the end of the post. Read part 1 here.

When women are threatened, there is no such thing as consent. Two elders attempted to force Susannah. When she refused, they had her tried for fornication. “Susannah and the Elders,” Artemisia Gentileschi, 1610.

My friend, J, had been married for several years when her husband started asking for sexual acts she wasn’t exited about. It was little things at first, but she gave in for her husband’s sake. Soon, during sex he began to use her body in ways she disliked. When she told him she didn’t want sex that way, he promised to stop. But after a week or two, he would repeat the same actions, holding tightly to her hips so she couldn’t escape. When she withheld sex out of fear that he would, again, force her in ways she didn’t like, he became sullen, or defensive, or aggressive. And J, herself, wasn’t sure what was and was not allowed in marriage. She had grown up being taught that a wife’s duty was to make her husband happy, and that sex was part of that duty. No one told her that sex should be mutually fulfilling. No one explained that her body was hers alone, and that not even a spouse had the right to do anything to her, ever, without full and enthusiastic consent. Instead of being an enjoyable part of their relationship, J began to dread sex. The dread turned to disgust. After years of enduring her husband’s unwanted actions, J gathered the courage to file for divorce. When the marriage ended, J had years worth of trauma to heal. A therapist helped her name what she hadn’t been able to see before: her husband had raped her, repeatedly, throughout their marriage.

Marital rape is rarely discussed and even more difficult to prove. In Shaw v. Shaw, the Supreme Court of Connecticut refused to grant a divorce on the grounds of ‘intolerable cruelty’ to a wife whose husband had raped her while she was still healing from the birth of their child. The husband dragged her from their daughter’s bed and “insisted upon his marital rights, against the wishes and remonstrances of his wife, when, in consequence of her ill health, it was indelicate, improper, unreasonable and injurious to her health so to do…and did in fact endanger her health.” The court recognized that the husband had been “unreasonable and injurious” to the wife’s health and yet confirmed the husband’s right to use her body any way he chose. In a bizarre feat of mental gymnastics, the court reinforced the myths that allow marital rape when it said, “The court finds, that she has no reason to fear any personal violence…but she had just reason to fear, that he would compel her to occupy the same bed with him, regardless of the consequences to her health.” Yes, the rape harmed the woman physically. Yes, the man would do it again. No, she had no reason to fear violence. The court, full of white men with clear biases, condemned this woman to a life of perpetual rape. 

But this isn’t about one man and one woman. It’s about a whole system that defines women through their relationships to men. It’s a system that has ignored women’s pleasure. It’s about a system that repeatedly prioritizes the enjoyment of a man over the needs and desires of women. One US study found that 43% of women had unwanted sex with a current or former partner because they thought it was their duty. How did we get here? It’s a straight line from white patriarchal thinking.

Matthew Hale was an English barrister, judge, and jurist. He wrote treatises which defined English common law. English common law then became the foundation for law in the US, Canada, and other English colonies. What did he say that affects us today? Hales insisted that upon marriage, the woman ceases to exist apart from her husband. She is subsumed by him. He wrote, “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” He also insisted that women who deny sex to their husbands are, themselves, breaking the law and should be punished. Encyclopedia Britannica whitewashes his history, insisting that he was known for his “personal integrity and impartiality.” But can a man who sees women as subservient to men be truly impartial when making laws about women’s bodies? Is a man who sentenced two women to death for witchcraft really the person we want defining our laws today? And his theories do figure prominently today. His writings are why marital rape was not illegal in much of the US until the 1990s. It’s why many states still treat marital rape differently than any other rape, often carving out loopholes that give an intoxicated husband leniency. Other states exempt husbands if a wife is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, asleep, drunk, or unable to consent in any way. In other words, our legal system still treats marriage as automatic consent. A recently leaked Supreme Court opinion quoted Hale extensively. Hales is woven throughout our social, political, and legal thinking.

When women are left without a choice, there is no such thing as consent. “Bathsheba,” Francesco Hayez, 1827.

We’re taught that men are to rule over the family. Sometimes we throw in words like “kindness” and “longsuffering” but the structure remains exactly what it was for Hale. The husband rules, the wife nurtures. Even if our church and political leaders don’t say it in those terms, the bias is built into every aspect of our society. How many times do we hear things like “boys will be boys?” How often does a teacher pull out the crumpled $20 bill, or a chewed piece of gum, and tell girls that it’s their job to remain morally pure even if the boys they meet at church dances run their hands a little too low or a little too high. Men do sex; women receive sex. 

Like my dear friend J, many of us were taught that sex outside of marriage is bad, but we weren’t taught what sex in marriage should be like. Many of us in LDS heterosexual relationships aren’t taught that sex should feel great for everyone. We are taught that sex is about becoming one with our spouse, but we aren’t taught the how-to: how to talk about sex with our partner; how to know what feels good to us; how to recognize abuse. I remember very clearly hearing my mother’s friends talk about ways they avoided sex with their husbands, or how they learned to disassociate from their bodies during sex. Sex, for so many, was a chore but not a pleasure.

What does marital rape look like? It looks like J telling her husband she didn’t want sex in a particluar way and having her wishes ignored. It looks like a husband having sex with an unconscious or groggy wife. It looks like manipulation through words like “it’s God’s will” and “men have needs.” It looks like a husband begging his wife even after she has said “no” or “not tonight” or “I don’t feel like it.” It looks like women being taught that, as nurturers, it’s our role to fulfill the needs of those around us even if it means sacrificing ourselves and our wants.

Men aren’t the only ones who hide what rape looks like. Women obscure it for other women. In Relief Society one day, the topic turned to sex. One sister said, “If you don’t feed your husband at home, you can’t blame him for getting a donut on the way to work.” Whose responsibility is it to keep the husband on the straight and narrow, even if the wife isn’t in the mood or the husband doesn’t know how to make her feel good during sex? I saw this in action recently. A friend’s husband had an affair. Repeatedly I heard our ward sisters say, “But M is so attractive! Why would he cheat on her?” The message they sent was simple: if you’re attractive enough, satisfying enough, responsive enough, your husband won’t stray. The onus for fidelity is placed squarely on the wife and her sexual submissiveness. Rarely do we hear in church meetings that men should learn to ask first, to wait for enthusiastic consent, to respect their wives’ bodies and wants. Recently, a prominent LDS leader taught a sex education class to a group of 5th grade boys. He spoke about consent. But he said that boys should get consent so they don’t get in trouble. Get consent so you don’t get in trouble? How many loopholes does that leave? 

What does thinking like that do to all of us? What does it do to the young woman preparing for marriage who has rarely if ever heard about her capacity for pleasure? What does it teach all of the youth about the role of consent within marriage? Hale, and men like him, have built an entire legal structure on the idea that marriage=eternal consent. We’re still living with the consequences of that thinking, both inside and outside the LDS church.

I had a friend once say that sometimes in marriage we have to give in to sex to make our husbands happy.

Sisters. We do not. It is not our job to give in. If we don’t like the particular kind of sex someone else wants, or if our brakes are on for whatever reason, God does not require us to sacrifice our bodies, minds, and souls so that someone else can feel physical gratification. That isn’t the sort of love God wants for any of us.

Giving consent one time, or to one thing, does not mean consent every time, or to everything. What works for you today may not feel ok tomorrow, and that’s ok. God gave us bodies, and told us to be joyful. Sex can be a beautiful experience. It should be. And if it isn’t, it is not your job to suffer through it.

If you have questions about your experiences, please speak to a qualified therapist. Someone trained in trauma work would be particularly helpful. Although your bishop or Relief Society president may be lovely, they aren’t trained professionals, and this is something we need a professional for. Hale, and men like him, have woven through our brains certain harmful beliefs. When working with possible rape, we absolutely need to talk to someone who understands the baked-in biases that are part of our society. It’s only through a professional that we can unravel and heal marital rape. 

For more resources, visit:

https://www.rainn.org/articles/intimate-partner-sexual-violence

https://www.womenslaw.org/about-abuse/forms-abuse/sexual-abuse-and-exploitation/marital-partner-rape/basic-info-about-2

When Mary MacKillop advocated for accountability by priests who had sexually abused nuns, she was excommunicated by the Catholic church. She has since been declared the patron saint of sexual abuse survivors. If you have been a victim, you do not have to find safety or healing on your own. Therapists trained in trauma healing can help.

Jesus Made a Feminist Out of Me

[image error]Pexels.com","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"woman wearing red beret and gray long sleeve dress with wild feminist print","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="pexels-photo-3518091" data-image-description="" data-image-caption="

Photo by Maryia Plashchynskaya on Pexels.com

" data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/www.the-exponent.co..." data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/www.the-exponent.co..." width="867" height="1300" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.the-exponent.co..." alt="woman wearing red beret and gray long sleeve dress with wild feminist print" class="wp-image-52929" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/www.the-exponent.co... 867w, https://i0.wp.com/www.the-exponent.co... 200w, https://i0.wp.com/www.the-exponent.co... 683w, https://i0.wp.com/www.the-exponent.co... 768w" sizes="(max-width: 867px) 100vw, 867px" data-recalc-dims="1" />Photo by Maryia Plashchynskaya on Pexels.com

Growing up, I never heard the f-word in my house. No, not that one, although I didn’t hear that one either; I didn’t hear the other f-word: (whispers) feminist. I did encounter the word early in adulthood. This word challenged me; I was simultaneously drawn to it and afraid because of what I had been taught. Was identifying with this word the slippery slope to hell?

In my 20s while in graduate school, working my first professional job, and birthing my first baby, I spent a significant amount of time trying to understand the gender teachings, the gendered system of the church, and my role as a female. What I was taught did not align with what I felt. Was this really that way God intended things to be? 

Fast forward a number of years and Jesus Feminist by Sarah Bessey kept showing up in my life. I put it on my ‘to-read’ list for a long while before I actually read it because Jesus and the f-word in the title?! Woah. 

“Patriarchy is not God’s dream for humanity.” 

Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist

Those words stunned me when I read them. Finally an answer! Things finally made sense – patriarchy is not the system God intended for their children or their church. Patriarchy is a system where power and decision making is held by men. Some men hold power over other men, women, and children. It is a system of dominance, of power over. It is the opposite of a system of power with. This system of patriarchy, of power over, dictates what individuals can do and who they are based on gender. Individuals are valued for the role the system requires them to fill and not for their individual skills, desires, identity, needs, life situation, or interests. 

Those who have lived under the dominance of patriarchy – whether benevolent or oppressive – are well aware of its harms and limits. I am tired thinking about how my own life has been shaped by patriarchy – the mixed messages about my body, the policing of what I wear, the messages that there is only one acceptable life path for me, the fine line of speaking in a way that is not shrill, not bossy, not too loud, not too emotional. The effort that it takes to be taken seriously. It’s all so exhausting.

“For the sake of the gospel, a woman must be free to walk in her God-breathed self…in whatever vocation and season and place of her life.”

Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist

If we truly believe that we are on Earth to learn and grow, then all people of all genders need to be able to be allowed to make their own choices regarding education, marriage, career, family, and other life pursuits. If we really believe that all are unlike unto God, that we are all children of God, then we all deserve the dignity of being treated as such.

“At the core, feminism simply consists of the radical notion that women are people too.”

Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist

It is past time to move forward.

“I’m through wasting my time with debates about women-should-do-this and women-should-not-do-that. I’m out. What an adventure in missing the point. These are the small, small arguments about a small, small God.” 

Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist

We are invited to follow Jesus. Come, follow me, is an invitation to heal and radically change how we show up in the world; it’s not a curriculum of pre-packaged questions to check-off every week. Jesus showed us how to treat people on the margins and patriarchy certainly relegates many people to it’s margins. Jesus talked directly to women, healed people, taught women and a time when society said they weren’t allowed an education, acknowledged women as disciples, and appeared to women as the first witnesses of the resurrection at a time when women were deemed too unreliable to witness in court. Not to mention people who are LGBTQ+, people of color, people who are poor and others who today are at the margins of church leadership.

“Misguided hierarchies and inequalities have no place in God’s shalom. Patriarchy isn’t the dream of the kingdom of God, and so we can loosen our grip on this old culturally conditioned way of thinking, unfurl our fingers, and simply let it sink to the bottom at last.” 

Sarah Bessey, Jesus Feminist

Jesus made a feminist out of me. I now know that I don’t need to be afraid. Feminism is not the f-word I thought it was. I do have compassion for my younger self; the one who was afraid to question what she was taught. I have compassion for the females who were adults when I was born during a raging debate about the ERA. That’s been close to half a century ago though. It’s time to dump the baggage that is collectively holding us back from growth and connection with each other. Like racism, patriarchy needs to die so something new and better can be born. Some of us are veteran feminists who have been working for decades to bring about change for all genders, some of us are well on our way to being those who have been working for decades, and some of us are budding feminists just awakening to the injustice and inequality in the structures that govern the church. There are even some of us who are still afraid of the word ‘feminist.’ To those people I echo Bessey’s words:

“We can choose to move with God further into justice and wholeness, or we can choose to prop up the world’s systems, baptizing injustice and power in sacred language.”

I Am Sorry.

Mike and our Navajo guide, Sylvia. In Canyon de Chelly.

My husband and I recently planned a road trip to Virginia to see family, and to attend the Washington D.C. Temple Open House.

We planned our route so that we could stop at Canyon de Chelly, among a few other places as we made our way there.

We learned that the only way we are allowed to explore in the Canyon is with a Navajo guide. Otherwise, we could drive around the rim, and look at it from the viewpoints.

Mike arranged for an all day jeep tour with a guide service.

We camped the night before at a site near the entrance, shaded by cottonwoods. The lodge nearby was run by the Navajo Nations Park service. We had a delicious breakfast of blue corn pancakes at the cafeteria there. While I ate I looked at a display that illustrated the clan structure of the Navajo. I loved learning that it is matriarchal.

We met our guide after breakfast. Sylvia is a Navajo woman who is close to my age, and who handles a 4 x 4 Jeep over rough canyon terrain like a pro.

Within minutes I knew we could not have a better person to lead us in exploring and experiencing this Canyon. It is a place that has been continuously occupied by indigenous peoples longer than any other. Thousands of years.

Sylvia and many generations of her ancestors were born here. She showed us the hogan where she was born, and spoke of how, at a young age, she learned to climb the ancient foot hole trails carved into the steep walls. She told us how the children were taught to run, and climb and hide not only for play and to know the Canyon as their ancestors had, but also for survival.

As we entered and made our way through, she showed us the ruins and rock art of the Anasazi, Hopi and Navajo that lined the towering walls around us. Some were from recent centuries, some were thousands of years old. She skirted the areas where many of her family and friends have their homes and gardens. The guides show great respect for the land, because this is their land and they live here.

This was an experience like no other. She shared knowledge of rocks, plants, structures, water, creatures, artwork in such an intimate way. She spoke of what had happened to her ancestors in specific places. She showed where her great grandmother was born, shortly after those who survived the Long Walk had returned to their homes. She showed where some had managed to escape and evade the army, and how they saved seeds and starts of their peach trees to replant after Kit Carson had destroyed all of them.

Every moment, every place we went in the Canyon revealed more connection to land and time and story. She taught us more about the tribal significance of pictograph and petroglyph images than anything else we had studied.

We learned of a number of assaults on the people of the Canyon. Sylvia shared many details about several that had devastated her family, which she had learned from them. The Spanish explorers had massacred many. Kit Carson had laid siege to their homes, their water, and destroyed their plants and animals. He killed many of her people, then forced those he could capture to walk hundreds of miles, and live in captivity for years. Many more died on that journey before the few survivors returned.

It was amazing to learn of this from her as she showed us the ruins where she played as a child, the place where she waters her cattle, the almost vertical trails where she has guided climbers, and taught her grandchildren about their ancestors who escaped capture on those trails. When we came upon her cattle in a shady area, she stopped and spoke to them in Navajo. They responded and there seemed a mystical connection between them.

She shared some information about ceremonies, and spiritual life, often mentioning prayer and praying as though this was as usual as breathing. It became clear how she felt about those who shared details about their sacred ceremonies and customs. She mentioned a cousin who had written about these details in a book, and how it would bring evil on him. It was one of the few times where I sensed real fury in her. It reminded me of the importance of honoring what is sacred to others.

This day was full of extraordinary experiences, but one really surprised me.

There is a place where Navajo artists have depicted the massacres that have occurred here over the centuries. There are long panels of pictographs in different sections of a large rock wall. Sylvia pointed out the Spaniards riding horses into the Canyon in the early 1800s, using their weapons to slaughter the people. Then she pointed out the various depictions of the atrocities wrought by Kit Carson in the 1860s. Then she described how the U.S. government came in the 1940s, claiming her people were letting their cattle overgraze. The government killed the cattle. She showed the images of her ancestors mourning, because they loved their animals. She spoke of the Elders who died of grief at this loss.

I stood there looking at the panels for a long time. I began to hear the sounds of screams, and guns, and horse hooves as I thought of Sylvia’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and on and on – running from their home where they had been born, where they had birthed life, where they had tended plants, where they had their ceremonies. I no longer wondered at the continuing need to teach their children to run and hide. I thought of my own home, and others where I had lived throughout my life. They were all on land where tribal peoples had lived.

Sylvia had started to walk back to the Jeep. I turned and called out to her.

“Sylvia, I’m sorry! I am so sorry for my ancestors. I am sorry.”

And I was suddenly weeping, standing there where so many had wept.

Sylvia turned back, and seemed a little surprised for a moment. Then she came and hugged me, letting me cry on her shoulder.

“It’s all right, Jody. It’s all right.”

I don’t know what it will take to make this a world where we will honor connection, and belonging. Where people do not have to train their children to run, or to hold up their hands, or to be ready to hide because they are not even safe at church, or school.

I don’t know how to make up for the past.

At the very, very least – we need to listen to the stories, we need to witness the loss. We need to acknowledge our connection to it.

At the very, very least – we need to say we are sorry.

That is only a beginning.

Sacred Music Sunday: Upon the Cross of Calvary

wooden cross, Jesus, symbol

I used to collect hymnals, but I lost my collection in an apartment flood in 2016 and I’ve never gotten around to replacing it. It’s interesting to me to see the similarities and differences across time and across denominations. I also tried my hand at editing my own hymnal based on the current LDS hymnal.

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that singing is a form of prayer, and I wanted my prayers to reflect my own thoughts and feelings. I went through the entire book making minor stylistic edits, such as making language gender-inclusive. I had grand plans of printing and binding a handful of copies and using them in family home evening someday, but I ended up as a family of one, so the file sits on my laptop instead.

I’ll still sing my version from time to time at church if it’s a hymn where the edits are minor instead of having to do a rewrite of a whole line. If anybody notices (and I’m sure they do; I’m a classically trained operatic soprano, so I don’t exactly blend in when the congregation sings), they haven’t said anything. It’s basic stuff like “peace on earth, goodwill to all” instead of “goodwill to men”.

I like the hymn Upon the Cross of Calvary, but it’s one that gets the neutral treatment. In the second verse, I sing “for humankind to see”[1], and in the third verse, I sing “to all the souls of earth”[2].

[1] The text of the hymn says “all mankind”.
[2] The text of the hymn says “to all the sons of earth”. The atonement is for all creation of every species, not just male humans, so my version is more theologically correct on multiple fronts.

Do Our Callings Define Us?

“Our callings don’t define us.” This quote from a sincere LDS Stake President keeps running through my brain. I have no doubt that he believes this claim and that he genuinely appreciates the people in the Stake. I don’t think he sees himself as above others. But his position literally places him at the front of every congregation he visits and everyone defers to his authority. His calling does define him; even if it’s not supposed to define him.

For the changing of male leaders to happen in the ward recently, for example, the entire Stake Presidency attended, along with a High Councilman, filling up the leadership row in the chapel. Their status was on full display. When they released the current leadership, they purposefully emphasized how a man once a Bishop would always be honored with the title of Bishop.

But their callings don’t define them.

They then called the new Bishop and his status in the ward immediately and noticeably changed. He is now a Bishop and will have authority and esteem where ever he goes for the remainder of his life. In fact, he was invited to a woman’s activity soon after, where a room filled with females stopped their activity to listen to the Bishop offer the final, definitive words about motherhood. No female leaders were invited to speak.

But his calling doesn’t define him.

I can’t help but contrast this with the release of Relief Society or Primary Presidencies. While I sometimes hear Elder’s Quorum presidents honored with “President” long after release, the same respect is not given to female leaders. More telling, we don’t have special titles, long thank-yous, or huge tributes when Sunday School, Young Women, or Primary teachers are released.

But their callings don’t define them.

I once listened to two former elders laugh at a former female missionary who dared to use the phrase “We baptized” in reference to the individuals she converted. How preposterous that she viewed her work as a missionary as baptizing!

But their callings and titles don’t define them.

Pictures like this one circulate all time. Oddly, there’s never one of these for the minimal leadership positions available to women.

The “Teachings of the Livings Prophets” class I took at BYU in the early 2000s literally required students to remember where apostles met their wives and held their first jobs for tests; as if they were celebrities. Everyone acted like this was perfectly normal for a college course.

People line up just to catch a glimpse of a prophet and speak of General Authorities reverentially. Their stories become canonized, perfected, and exaggerated.

But the prophet and apostles aren’t defined by their callings.

Perhaps when you gain specific, recognized authority as a male at 12 years old, when a congregation literally cannot function without your (priesthood) presence, it may make it easier to ignore the status, social currency, and assumed authority that comes with a title. The benefits – both spiritual and temporal – of callings may be more difficult to differentiate when so many are open to you simply due to your sex and when they change the way people look at you for the rest of your life. You know, the way they always deferentially refer to “President So-and-so” when referring to a woman’s time serving as Young Women’s President 20 years ago?

Many men will joke that priesthood is mostly meetings and setting up/taking down chairs to minimize these benefits, but how would many men feel about being regularly referred to as “The Bishop’s husband” or the “The Temple President’s husband?” What if their usefulness and status was mainly due to their association with a woman’s authority? How about if a Stake President asked the husband’s of stake female leaders to stand, so they could be applauded for all of the unseen (calling and title-free) work they do behind the scenes to make their wife’s important work possible?

In addition, how often has a woman spoken as the primary/main/last speaker at a meeting they attended? Why is this the case? Is there some status associated with having the last, most important word?

So much of patriarchy is this performance of humility and insignificance in a system that screams the opposite. Latter-day Saints may claim that all callings are equal and no member’s contribution is more important than another’s, but our actions say something entirely different.

If our callings shouldn’t define us, then how do we make this a reality? Perhaps it starts with men in the church recognizing the ways in which they benefit from both the status inherent in their callings and the demonstration of humility that comes with minimizing that status?

When Confronted By Blackness

If my words offend you, then I have struck a nerve

When an individual encounters a dangerous situation, they tend to take the flight or fight approach to conflict.

The fight approach signals that the person is prepared to wage “rain and hellfire” against their opponent as they seek to defend their rights. They refuse to back down, even if the odds are stacked against them. Instead, their turn to brute force in an attempt to triumph over their opponent. Like the captain of the Titanic, they are prepared to go down with the ship even at the risk of their own lives.

Another approach is that they take the flight approach which signals that they should immediately find an “out” in hopes that their need to escape will hopefully prevent them from meeting a grim or violent end. They proudly accept the title of “chicken”, clucking loudly as they make sound decisions based on their own need for self-preservation.  

Then, there are those who choose neither, they instead freeze, praying that the moment will pass. Fear consumes them with no other emotion making sense in that present moment.

For many members of the church, we exist between the parallels of flight and freeze. We support interests that are tied to our faith. We hold tight to what feels familiar and safe, refusing to enter into the real world where the dark shadows of morality exist.  

This weekend, another mass shooting occurred in Buffalo, New York. In another senseless, heinous crime, ten black lives were lost due to the cowardice of a white supremacist. Countless lives were woven together by their newfound trauma and the survivor’s guilt that will plague them for the rest of their lives.

As I watched the shooter being escorted towards the police vehicle, my teeth gnashed together in sheer disgust as I waited for the media stations to spin the story into victimhood for the perpetrator.

I stopped expecting people to care. Why would they care if nothing affected them personally?

It was no surprise when it came. Like pouring rain, the cries of sympathy descended as new anchors blamed the problems on a disturbed child.

It didn’t matter that he had been under surveillance for a year. It didn’t matter that he had killed an animal. It didn’t matter that he believed in The Great Replacement Theory. It didn’t matter that he was on online forums talking to other white supremacists about his sordid, racist views.

None of it mattered. He was white and he was right. And according to some, he deserved our sympathy.

I thought of what would happen if the shoe had been placed on the other foot.

WHAT WOULD WE BE THEN? Would a person of color be granted the same luxury to hide behind their skin? Would they receive sympathy for their misguided actions?

NO!

We would be the target of the world’s disdain. We would be the killers, the gangbangers or even the terrorists with the sickest motives ever known to man. We would be the gangsters, the whores and the scuffed up, worthless shoes discarded by humanity once they had worn our soles into the ground.

There would be no sympathy for us. We would be tossed to the wolves, waiting on them to descend to tear into our skin until nothing remained but dusty bones left to disintegrate.

As the scales tip further away from true equality for people of color, society deems that unless proven “acceptable”, that one must remember their place. So, we exist, through the eyes of whiteness, warped beyond recognition as the world shivers when confronted by blackness.

When confronted by blackness, most choose to resort to their biases and misconceptions. There is no Resting Bitch Face allowed for a black woman. Without a warm smile and professional attire, a young black man is more likely to be shot than a white counterpart. To smile is to be seen as warm, loving friendly or even trustworthy. Failing to do so highlights the discomfort of those who wish to associate their racist biases with their own need for comfort.

When confronted by blackness, we become the brunt of microaggressions, and racially insensitive language is automatically assumed to be humorous. We will be the brunt of the joke, expected to take the insults disguised as funny for the sake of being agreeable. We are torn apart by words intended to sting and cause maximum damage. Then, we are left bare, our bones bleached by the sun as vultures of racist amusement circle again, looking for more pain and uncomfortable discomfort to inflict.

When confronted by blackness, many scratch their heads as they try to understand how marginalized people claim to be educated. It will always puzzle some that some black people do in fact have valid opinions and are able to contribute to the dialogue.

When confronted by blackness, we become the style to be emulated without recognizing the beauty and pain behind our history. We become trends, and blueprints but never the contributors, muses, or inspiration. We are torn apart for our natural features which are praised on other races. Our beauty is rated on the scale of Eurocentricity and praised for how well we conform. No one sees the burns of the hot combs soothed by Vaseline or the chemical burns from perms and relaxers. All they see is the outer reflection of conformity staring back at them behind pained eyes as we form complexes around our Afrocentric features.

WHEN CONFRONTED BY BLACKNESS, we become the “niggers”, the “boy”, the “ghetto” and the “ratchet”. Chains of slavery still rattle around our necks and ankles as we are reminded that in years past that we were considered inferior. Nobody cares to understand or comprehend the struggle of blackness and instead, we sink further down the echelons of society, shoved to the bottom as society reminds us of our place.

I have a dream that we won’t go backwards.

On the other hand, when we are confronted with whiteness, we are expected to coddle, support and protect even from the most heinous of acts. We are expected to bear the brunt of the failures of parents and the child’s own accountability.

No one cries for the black child, but we should be expected to carry poor Timmy’s cross. No one cries for Brandon who holds a gun, but tears stream down haggard faces for poor Aiden and his mental issues. Nobody says a prayer for Dequan whose life was cut short, but a hotline of prayer requests comes in droves for poor Kyle who just had to be dealing with something dark in his life.

As time goes on, we rewind our efforts. Still, we hold hope for a day that never comes, confronting our blackness with the hope that tomorrow will be better than today.

Even as blood mingles with our tears for those we have lost.

Guest Post: The View From No Longer Sure, After the Tide Goes Out

Guest Post by Ash Rowan (they/them, he/him) is an autistic artist-poet, and a culturally Mormon Unitarian Universalist. Birds To Bones” (mentioned in the essay) is coming soon—hopefully in 2023.

Photo by Roger Bradshaw on Unsplash

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? 

Yes? or No?

This question on a survey I’m taking takes me aback. Not even a qualifier? Where’s “sometimes,” “maybe,”  “I don’t know”? 

Or, for my case, a “well, yeah, kinda. But… it hasn’t been the same ever since the moon stopped talking to me.”

 I know how that sounds. It was a whole thing—actually, a lot of smaller things at first, but so many synchronicities piling up had me in a frenzy, convinced that some divine universal force actually had my number. In fact, I could detect and manipulate the coding inside the matrix. Did you know: antidepressants can trigger mania in bipolar brains? It was either that or Heavenly Mother—in the form of goddess Selune—really did want to unlock my latent moon magic. 

For the record, I do still think there’s something special about the moon, and I do still know there is magic in this world. I’m not willing to throw out every mystic experience I had, while under the influence of my own psyche meeting with psychiatrics. But now that I’ve sobered out and readjusted, it’s clearer to me that some otherwise-subtle thoughts and inherent beliefs just got extremely exacerbated.

Did you know that faith lives in the brain, too? Did you know that psychosis is a brain injury?

Once my fervor had faded, the moon went back to being a faceless glowing orb in the sky. (Which, again, is still pretty cool.) And that also meant my Goddess’s voice was no longer thunderous. The last thing I heard Her promise was that She would give me words, if I would promise to share them. So under the light of a full moon, on a holy Hallow’s Eve, with my witch-powers at their peak, we covenanted; and then parted ways. She got distant, and I got writing. Her spellbound prophet in wilderness.

(By the way, although I do have a manuscript on its way to publication—thanks, in part, to a lunatic’s goddess—I cannot in good conscience recommend manic psychosis as part of a healthy authorial process. I’m also not sure where the line is between that, and revelation. Or if there is one. Are there any hard lines anywhere, or is it all kinda spectral?)

I had another, smaller spiral, this time from the realization that I no longer believed in an afterlife. Actually, for a few solid hours—which felt like years—in that hospital crisis unit (because apparently you get a ride to the hospital if you start speaking in tongues), I had taken it for granted that I’d already died. While painfully conscious, but unable to move or speak or recall anything about my existence, I watched angels and fractals coalesce in infinite hellish spirals. Eventually eternity ended, and they resolved permanently into a long-suffering nurse, a gleaming hallway, and an unlit room lined with supply cabinets. The comedown, while a relief, also came with terrifying letdown. Somehow, feeling like I’d seen “behind the curtain” and come back from it had broken my immersion.

So, God had withdrawn from me, and made my mortality all too stark on Her way out. Where did that leave me, but to pick up whatever pieces I could, and forge ahead anyway?

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? 

Okay. Let’s make this a fill-in-the-blank. Here’s what I think now; I could be wrong. 

If this planet is an organism, we humans are each a microorganism, and our animal and mineral and plant friends too. Everything in this macroorganic universe is spirit or matter and it all weaves together, breathes together. Something bigger than us, that we depend on, that we are made of and came from and are heading back to. For me, that’s Holy Spirit. That’s what Paul calls a body of Christ, if we extend the metaphor. (Is Christ God? Did we ever figure that one out?)

Heavenly Parents…? Sure. We were all birthed materially. We all carry ancestral memory, encoded into the very fibers and fabric of us. Who’s to say that generations of a pattern repeated don’t start to form into figures, like shadows we cast on a cave (or nursery) wall, and then reach for in the night?

And when I die for real, I know what happens next. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. So my body gets buried (and recycled and reused, I hope), and all the love I poured into this whole cosmic soup goes on echoing forever and ever and ever, a ripple in the bowl always making tides on some shore somewhere. My spirit rejoins the family tree, and I get a turn at being someone’s ancestor, someone’s prompting whisper, someone’s heavenly parent. Sounds pretty damn holy to me.

It’s definitely not what I used to believe. It may not even be what I believe tomorrow. But for now…?

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?

Let the record show, I checked “yes.”

***

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

Come Follow Me: Judges 2–4; 6–8; 13–16 “The Lord Raised Up a Deliverer”

Deborah, the Prophet

Deborah is the second woman identified as a prophet in the Old Testament. The first was Miriam, whom we discussed in Come Follow Me: Exodus 14–17 “Stand Still, and See the Salvation of the Lord.”

Image courtesy of pcstratman flickr collection of Bible drawings by Otto Semier and others based on engravings by Carolsfeld in the public domain.

4 ¶ And Deborah, a aprophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

5 And she adwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Judges 4:4-5

Deborah may have a more exciting moniker than “wife of somebody.” Her name may have been a commentary on her personality: a fiery or spirited woman.

Judges 4:4 identifies Deborah as an ‘esheth lappidoth, a phrase usually rendered “wife of Lappidoth” but which may be translated “fiery woman” (cf. the NEB footnote, “spirited woman”), a description that fits her admirably. If Lappidoth was her husband, it is interesting to note that the narrative has nothing else to say about him. 

—Dr. J. Cheryl Exum, Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Letty M. Russel

Whom do you think of when you think of spirited or fiery women from history or your own life?
How have these women impacted you?

Note that the King James translation identifies Deborah as a “prophetess” in keeping with Old English grammar, which assigned a feminine suffix to words when the person so identified happened to be female.  Other translations use modern English grammar and identify Deborah simply as a “prophet,” or as a “woman prophet.”  Prophet and prophetess are the same word and have the same definition. (See Bible Study Tools Exodus 4:4 and CBE International, Who are the woman prophets in the Bible?

When I was a teenager, I was told that God must have resorted to choosing a woman as prophet because their must not have been any available male priesthood holders. However, Judges 2:18 states that  “the Lord raised them up judges.” In other words, the judges, including Deborah, were foreordained by the Lord to their callings, not picked by process of elimination or desperation.

One of the perennial arguments from people who have a problem with Deborah being the judge, or leader, of Israel is that God probably only allowed her to lead because there were no men who were available, willing, or suitable to take the job. Is this a valid argument?

…Being unavailable, unwilling, or even feeling inadequate and ill-equipped, are not impediments to God’s calling. Moses, Gideon, Saul, and other Bible characters were, like Jonah, initially reluctant to do what God was asking of them. But God developed them to be leaders.

Rather than there being a lack of suitably gifted, willing men, it seems the reason God used Deborah was that she was the best person for the task of leading Israel at that time, and so she was raised up to save Israel from its enemies.

The fact that Deborah was a woman is clearly mentioned—the Hebrew word ishshah (“woman”) occurs twice in Judges 4:4—but there is no hint in the text that her gender was in any way a problem. The Israelites recognised her authority as judge. They went to her when they wanted justice and guidance. They went to her seat, the Palm of Deborah, just north of the crossroads of busy trading routes in the centre of Israel (Judg. 4:5).

Unlike many of the other judges, Deborah did a good job as leader and prophet. She was an effective spokesperson for God, and her prophetic leadership extended to commanding Barak, the general of the army (Judg. 4:4-6). Barak respected her, relied on her, and followed her orders (Judg. 4:6, 8). Deborah, herself, did not shy away from entering the war zone (Judg. 4:9-10). And, as a result of her leadership, which may have continued for a generation, Israel had “rest” for 40 years (Judg. 5:31; cf. Judg. 2:18-19).

—Marg Mowczko, Deborah and the “no available men” argument

Read the following passage about Deborah’s leadership in directing Barak, an Israelite military commander, during war with the Canaanites. 

6 And she sent and called aBarak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

10 ¶ And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.

11 Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.

12 And they shewed Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor.

13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.

14 And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the Lord hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the Lord gone out abefore thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.

Judges 4:6-14

How did Deborah motivate those she was called to lead? 
What words or actions of Deborah show you that she had faith in the Lord?
What do you feel Deborah meant by her question in verse 14: “Is not the Lord gone out before thee?”
How does the Lord go out before us?

Barak’s army did well in battle, and as predicted by Deborah, the Canaanite general, Sisera, was killed by a woman, Jael (Judges 4:15-24).

in Judges 5, Deborah and Barak sing a victory song, known as the Song of Deborah. Let’s read some excerpts from the Song of Deborah:

2 Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.

3 Hear, O ye kings; give ear, O ye princes; I, even I, will sing unto the Lord; I will sing praise to the Lord God of Israel.

Judges 5:2-3

Why is it important to acknowledge God after a successful undertaking?

7 The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a amother in Israel.

Judges 5:7

Here Deborah takes credit for her own role in the conquest and calls herself a mother in Israel. 

What does it mean to call Deborah, of whom we do not know that she had children, a “mother in Israel”? …Her accomplishments described in judges 4-5 include counsel, inspiration, and leadership. A mother in Israel is one who brings liberation from oppression, provides protection, and ensures the wellbeing and security of her people.

—Dr. J. Cheryl Exum, Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Letty M. Russel

What does the phrase “mother in Israel” mean to you?

31 So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years.

Judges 5:31

How can we be “like the sun”? What might this metaphor mean?

Gideon, the Minimalist

The next judge we will discuss is Gideon, who led the Israelites to battle against the Midianites.  Prior to battle, the Lord told Gideon that the Israelite army was too big.

2 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.

Judges 7:2

According to the Lord’s words, what was the problem with having such a large army?

The Lord gave Gideon a series of instructions to help him drastically reduce the size of his army.

3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is afearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from bmount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.

4 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people are yet too amany; bring them down unto the water, and I will btry them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.

5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the Lord said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.

7 And the Lord said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

Judges 7:3-7

Why do you think the Lord chose these three hundred men to stay in the army?  How might they have differed from their peers who were cut?
Why do you think God reduced the size of Gideon’s army?
When is a smaller force advantageous? 
When is it true that less is more in your own life?

The battle strategy was unusual. The 300 men remaining in the Israelite army played trumpets and the Midianites panicked, attacked each other, then fled.

22 And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the Lord set every man’s sword against his afellow, even throughout all the host: and the host fled to Beth-shittah in Zererath, and to the border of Abel-meholah, unto Tabbath.

Judges 7:22

How have you seen the Lord work in ways that seem unlikely?








Samson, a Cautionary Tale about Toxic Masculinity

The term toxic masculinity has only come into popular use in recent decades, but the syndrome of toxic masculinity has been around since Old Testament times, as illustrated by the cautionary tale of Samson, a much less effective Israelite judge than Deborah or Gideon.

Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits – which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual – are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.

—Harris O’Malley, The Difference Between Toxic Masculinity and Being A Man, The Good Men Project

Manhood and toxic masculinity are different concepts. It is possible, and infinitely preferable, to be masculine without being toxic. 

What is toxic masculinity?

No, it isn’t just a way of saying men are bad.

…No one is saying that all masculinity or that men themselves are toxic or bad. You are free to like the things that men stereotypically like: sports, cars, the opposite sex, with no judgment. There is nothing wrong with these things.

When does masculinity become toxic? When it derives from a rejection of the perceived opposite, femininity, that is so pervasive as to become unhealthy for both men and those around them.

Women and children are often victimized by toxic masculinity, through domestic violence and other violence, but men are victimized by it as well. Toxic masculinity stunts their cognitive, intellectual, and emotional growth. This damage is part of what fuels the victimization of women.

By rejecting anything stereotypically feminine, men and boys are taught to reject an essential part of themselves, something that is to be valued. What’s more, these allegedly female traits are often ones that help us all get along in society, things like compassion, empathy, even politeness. A man or boy displaying these traits can invite ridicule.

—Michael Carley, What Is Toxic Masculinity? The Good Men Project

Men commit violent crimes at higher rates than women, at least in part due to the social pressures toward toxic masculinity. These social pressures also lead many men to engage in other unhealthy lifestyles.

Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s.

…Traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors. For example, a 2011 study led by Kristen Springer, PhD, of Rutgers University, found that men with the strongest beliefs about masculinity were only half as likely as men with more moderate masculine beliefs to get preventive health care ( Journal of Health and Social Behavior , Vol. 52, No. 2 ). And in 2007, researchers led by James Mahalik, PhD, of Boston College, found that the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves ( Social Science and Medicine , Vol. 64, No. 11 ).

—Stephanie Pappas, APA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys, Journal of the American Psychological Association, 2019, Vol. 50, No. 1.

Elder Carlos E. Asay warned Latter-day Saint men about the social pressures toward toxic masculinity in General Conference:

It seems that everyone at some time or another is invited by peers to smoke, drink, steal, or engage in other immoral acts, all under the pretense of manhood. And when someone refuses to participate, he is often ridiculed and called names like pansy, mamma’s boy, idiot, chicken, sissy, and religious fanatic. Such names are used by peers who equate manliness with the ability to drink liquor, blow tobacco smoke out of all the facial cavities, sow one’s wild oats like some animal on the street, and break moral laws without a twinge of conscience.

We see colorful advertisements on billboards, in magazines, and on the television screen promoting cigarettes, beer, and other vices. Those who use cunning tactics to peddle their wares disregard the souls of young people and love only their money. They would have us believe that a person with a cigarette or alcoholic beverage in hand is a man, when in reality he is nothing more than a slave to a destructive substance. They would have us believe that a person who engages in illicit sex is a man, when in reality he is nothing more than an abuser of those who are “tender,” and “chaste,” and “delicate.” (Jacob 2:7.) They would have us believe that brute force, or crude behavior, uncontrolled temper, foul language, and dirty appearance make a man, when in reality these characteristics are animalistic at best and the opposite of manhood at worst.

—Carlos E. Asay, Presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy, Be Men! April 1992

How have you witnessed toxic masculinity in our society?
How can we resist toxic masculinity and promote healthier behaviors?

Jesus taught us all, male and female, to cultivate the healthy behaviors and emotions that toxic masculinity rejects.

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying

3 aBlessed are the bpoor in spirit: for theirs is the ckingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that amourn: for they shall be bcomforted.

5 Blessed are the ameek: for they shall inherit the bearth.

6 Blessed are they which do ahunger and thirst after brighteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the amerciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the apure in bheart: for they shall csee God.

9 Blessed are the apeacemakers: for they shall be called the bchildren of God.

Matthew 5:2-9

How do Christ-like attributes differ from toxic masculinity?

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin encouraged us to “put off the natural man” and cultivate traits which are the antithesis of toxic masculinity.

19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the fHoly Spirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a jchild, ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Mosiah 3:19

Some Israelites would seek to “put off the natural man” through a Nazarite vow. Both men and women could become Nazarites. Just as many modern people of faith occasionally consecrate themselves by fasting, Nazarites would consecrate themselves to God for a certain length of time. During that time, they would follow certain rules, including not cutting their hair. At the end of this designated period of consecration, they would cut their hair during a ceremony at the tabernacle.

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a avow of a bNazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord:

3 He shall separate himself from awine and bstrong cdrink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any dliquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the avine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.

5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no arazor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

6 All the days that he separateth himself unto the Lord he shall come at no dead body.

7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head.

8 All the days of his separation he is holy unto the Lord…

13 ¶ And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are afulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation…

17 And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering.

18 And the Nazarite shall ashave the head of his bseparation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Numbers 6:1-8, 13, 17-18

Samson’s mother, an Israelite woman whose only name provided is wife of Manoah, had an angelic visitation and was told she would conceive a judge that she should raise him as a Nazarite.

3 And the aangel of the Lord appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art bbarren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and adrink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any bunclean thing:

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no arazor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to bdeliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Judges 7:3-5

On several occasions, Samson demonstrated super-human physical strength (Judges 14:5-6; Judges 15:14; Judges 16:29-30). The manual states:

Samson’s covenants with the Lord gave him strength, just as our covenants give us strength. 

—Come Follow Me for Individuals and Families: Old Testament 2022: Judges 2–4; 6–8; 13–16

What can we do to become spiritually stronger? 
Have you ever felt the need for a period of consecration?  What did you do to consecrate yourself?

However, Samson broke his Nazarite vow to stay away from dead bodies because he wanted honey he found in a dead lion’s carcass (Judges 14:8-9) and Samson’s toxic masculinity interfered with his mission and his relationship with God.

Samson is a man who deliberately seeks out violence, sexual or not. His display of masculinity communicates that he feels sexually and ethnically superior. He is also fascinated with the lure of the “other” and addicted to mixing sex with danger.

—Dr. Susanne Scholz, Judges, Newsom, C. A., Ringe, S. H., & Lapsley, J. E. (2012). Women’s Bible Commentary, Third Edition

Invite the class to skim Judges 14–16 and find examples of toxic masculinity.

The beginning of the end of Samson’s story comes when he becomes involved with Delilah. Delilah is usually identified as a Philistine, and sometimes as a prostitute, although the text does not specifically say that she is either.

That she lives in the valley of Sorek does not positively identify her as either Israelite or Philistine. Moreover, that she is identified without reference to father or husband does not necessarily relegate her to the status of prostitute. What we do know is that Philistine leaders approach her and offer her money to discover the source of Samson’s strength (16: 5). We also know that she does not give up easily, since she inquires of Samson four times over several days before discovering his secret (16: 6–17). And, of course, we know that Samson loves her (16: 4). …Perhaps it is Samson’s propensity to be attracted to Philistine women (14: 1) and prostitutes (16: 1) that results in Delilah being identified as such.

—Dr. Josey Bridges Snyder, Delilah and Her Interpreters, Newsom, C. A., Ringe, S. H., & Lapsley, J. E. (2012). Women’s Bible Commentary, Third Edition

Because this is an Israelite story, Delilah is usually portrayed as the villain, but from the Philistine perspective, she would be the hero. Like Esther, she was in a unique position to protect her people (assuming she was a Philistine) because of her relationship with a powerful leader. When the Philistines approached Delilah and asked her to take on a dangerous mission to protect them, like Esther, she accepted. (Judges 16:4-5; Esther 4:8-16) In contrast to the impulsive Samson, Delilah was methodical and persistent in her efforts to protect the Philistines from Samson. Meanwhile, Samson saw many red flags which should have warned him of Delilah’s intentions, but he failed to take the threat seriously.

6 ¶ And Delilah said to Samson, Tell me, I pray thee, wherein thy great strength lieth, and wherewith thou mightest be bound to afflict thee.

7 And Samson said unto her, If they bind me with seven agreen withs that were never dried, then shall I be weak, and be as another man.

8 Then the lords of the Philistines brought up to her seven green withs which had not been dried, and she bound him with them.

9 Now there were men lying in wait, abiding with her in the chamber. And she said unto him, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And he brake the withs, as a thread of tow is broken when it toucheth the fire. So his strength was not known.

10 And Delilah said unto Samson, Behold, thou hast amocked me, and told me lies: now tell me, I pray thee, wherewith thou mightest be bound.

11 And he said unto her, If they bind me fast with new ropes that never were occupied, then shall I be weak, and be as another man.

12 Delilah therefore took new ropes, and bound him therewith, and said unto him, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And there were aliers in wait abiding in the chamber. And he brake them from off his arms like a thread.

13 And Delilah said unto Samson, Hitherto thou hast mocked me, and told me lies: tell me wherewith thou mightest be bound. And he said unto her, If thou weavest the seven locks of my head with the aweb.

14 And she fastened it with the pin, and said unto him, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And he awaked out of his sleep, and went away with the pin of the beam, and with the web.

15 ¶ And she said unto him, How canst thou say, I love thee, when thine heart is not with me? thou hast amocked me these three times, and hast not told me wherein thy great strength lieth.

16 And it came to pass, when she pressed him adaily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was bvexed unto death;

17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a arazor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.

18 And when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart, she sent and called for the lords of the Philistines, saying, Come up this once, for he hath shewed me all his heart. Then the lords of the Philistines came up unto her, and brought amoney in their hand.

19 And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him.

20 And she said, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And he awoke out of his sleep, and said, I will go out as at other times before, and shake myself. And he awist not that the Lord was departed from him.

21 ¶ But the Philistines took him, and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison house.

Judges 16:6-21

Why do you think Samson failed to take precautions after witnessing so many red flags?
Why do we sometimes fail to notice or address real threats?

Samson was born with great potential. His mother was promised, ‘He shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines’ [Judges 13:5]. But as Samson grew, he looked more to the world’s temptations than to God’s direction. He made choices because they ‘pleaseth [him] well’ [Judges 14:3] rather than because those choices were right. Repeatedly, the scriptures use the phrase ‘and he went down’ [Judges 14:7] as they tell of Samson’s journeys, actions, and choices. Instead of arising and shining forth to fulfill his great potential, Samson was overcome by the world, lost his God-given power, and died a tragic, early death.

—Sister Ann M. Dibb, Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency, Arise and Shine Forth, Ensign/Liahona, May 2012

How can we know when we are not meeting our potential?
How can we turn things around when we are not meeting our potential?
How can we strengthen our commitment to God?

Phew! Those genocides probably didn’t happen!

Let’s take some time to recall this advice from the Come Follow Me manual:

Don’t expect the Old Testament to present a thorough and precise history of humankind. That’s not what the original authors and compilers were trying to create. Their larger concern was to teach something about God—about His plan for His children, about what it means to be His covenant people, and about how to find redemption when we don’t live up to our covenants. 

—Come Follow Me for Individuals and Families:  Old Testament 2022:  Reading the Old Testament

Chapter 2 of Judges summarizes a cycle which is repeated with numerous examples throughout the rest of the Book of Judges. This cycle may be the “something about God” that the authors hoped to teach.

11 ¶ And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim:

12 And they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the Lord to aanger.

13 And they forsook the Lord, and served aBaal and Ashtaroth.

14 ¶ And the aanger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of bspoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.

15 Whithersoever they went out, the ahand of the Lord was against them for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.

16 ¶ Nevertheless the Lord raised up ajudges, which bdelivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.

17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a awhoring after other bgods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned cquickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord; but they did not so.

18 And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: afor it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and bvexed them.

19 And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their afathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their bstubborn way.

Judges 2:11–19

What led Israel did to stray from the Lord?
How did the Lord deliver them?
In what ways do we sometimes “bow down” to “other gods”?
How can we step out of negative cycles and change our “stubborn ways”?
What are some ways God delivers us from sin and suffering?

The gory details by which this cycle plays out in the book of Judges are often disturbing, so it is a relief to know that most scholars consider the events recorded in Judges to be literary rather than historical. 

The book of Judges, the seventh book in the Hebrew Bible, contains many stories that report various kinds of war crimes, acts of ethnic cleansing, and sexual violence, as well as statements of political chauvinism and explicit preferences for authoritarian rule. …The narrated events are placed into the era of the so-called “judges,” the imagined premonarchical era in ancient Israel’s history of the eleventh century BCE. This is the moment when the Israelites arrived in Canaan, the land in which other peoples already lived. Importantly, none of the stories or characters can be reliably identified as historical. Initially, the narratives were transmitted orally and written down only during the Babylonian exile of the sixth century BCE, perhaps to instruct exilic and postexilic Israelites about their political, cultural, and religious heritage in a foreign country, Babylon.

—Dr. Susanne Scholz, Judges, Women’s Bible Commentary

The reference to the environment in which Judges was written reminds us that it was not originally received as a work of historiography. It acquired the designation “history book” centuries after its composition. …The chronologies it supplies are “impossible;” the numbers it cites, whether they be year attributions or casualty figures, are for the most part determined by the symbolic value of the numbers rather than their literal meaning. It introduces characters whose improbable names suggest them to be figments and whose role is artful – for example, the first of Israel’s foreign oppressors, Cushan-rishathaim (“Cushan the twice wicked”) (Judg 3:8)[10] – and it presents accounts of the same event which are, in certain respects, contradictory – the battle against Sisera (Judg 4 and 5). These are only some of the features of Judges which militate against defining the book as an objective chronicle of an epoch in Israel’s national life. These characteristics, while limiting the value of Judges as a historical record of the Settlement, are entirely consistent with the approach to recording the past in the dominant literary tradition in Syro-Palestine at the time when the work was written, namely, the Mesopotamian tradition. For the Assyrians, as demonstrated in their royal inscriptions and epics, “letters to the god,” and mythological explanatory works, it was not historical verisimilitude in the recording of data, but the theological message conveyed by, and sometimes concealed within, the narrative, which gave such works their purpose and value.

—Dr. Robin Baker, The Book of Judges: A Spiritual History? The Bible and Interpretation, University of Arizona