Exponent II's Blog, page 13

I Used To Work The Streets: How 2nd Amendment Rights Almost Killed My Partner and Me.

Part 3

A call came on the radio from Dispatch to my ambulance: “32 Delta”.

This means an unknown person is on the ground and unconscious.  “Delta” means, this is severe enough to also dispatch the Police and Fire Department along with us, the ambulance. 

We pulled up to one of the many “one step up from a homeless shelter” apartments that fill Salt Lake City. I’ve been to this place before many times on the exact same type of call. “Man down,” usually blitzed on drugs.

The Police led the way in front of my partner and me and made contact with the patient first. The Fire Department hadn’t arrived yet. He was lying in the middle of a public stairway. One officer pulled a needle from the sleeping man’s arm as they spoke loudly to wake him.

“ARE YOU OKAY? CAN THESE EMT’S CHECK YOUR VITALS AND MAKE SURE YOU ARE ALRIGHT?!”

The man came to and gave his consent. My partner and I approached and started checking his blood pressure, pulse, oxygen levels, and cognitive awareness.

“Do you know where you are?”

No response.

“Do you know what city we are in?”

Wrong answer.

“What day is it?”

Wrong answer.

“Who is the current President?”

Wong answer…but to be honest we joked that many cognitive, non drug users, did not know this answer. People were legitimately confused who the president was and we could not reliably use this question (answer at the time…Biden).

“We are going to take you to the hospital to get you some more help! Okay?!” It was protocol, we had to.

He shook his head “yes”.

As we were helping the man up, the Fire Department walked in. We all agreed which hospital to go to and meet up at. Fire led the way out the hall, followed by my partner walking next to our patient, then me carrying our large bag of supplies, followed by two officers behind me. We have done this countless times before. This is our most common type of call on the ambulance.

As we walked the long hallway, I noticed the patient lifting his arms up, but before I could think further about what was happening, I was forcefully pushed to the side as the officers ran past me. They grabbed the patient and pulled a gun from his hand, throwing it on the floor at my feet. I looked down at the gun, then up at my partner. She stared back at me.

Stunned.

The police had our patient pinned against the wall and started cuffing his hands behind his back. My partner quickly tells me that she felt the patient’s hand try to circle her neck.

He was trying to headlock her and point a gun to her head.

We immediately left the building with the Fire Department and discussed what just took place on the front lawn, leaving the cops to deal with the patient, turned perpetrator inside. 

(Note: Patients are routinely patted down for weapons on these types of calls. Because of our familiarity with this type of call, we unfortunately skipped this part. We of course regretted this failure).

***

Not too many weeks later, I was volunteering with my husband to clean one of Utah’s large, Church owned, Young Women’s camps. As the volunteers were standing around, eating our free breakfast, waiting for instructions, I talked to a member of my ward.

He, for some reason, thought I would be interested in hearing about his efforts in acquiring a large stockpile of firearms and ammunition. He stared at me straight into my eyes as if to challenge me. Proud of his 2nd amendment rights.

My gut churched with difficult emotions of feeling threatened and memories of almost losing my partner or getting hurt myself.

“Looks like you can kill a lot of animals to feed your neighbors.”

I turned to find someone else to engage.

***

A year later, I had Ken Ivory, my local State Representative, on my front porch telling me why he voted for teachers to have guns in the classroom, at the time time he also voted to repeal the carry and conceal permit (meaning you don’t have to have a permit to hide your gun) along with other firearm safety laws that Utah got rid of, making it easier for anyone to carry and use a gun. “You just have to have the right type of person use their 2nd amendment rights”, was his angle. However…he doesn’t really get to decide who those people are with the way he and the majority of the other lawmakers voted.

I explained to him that a year previously, my child had a teacher with anger management issues. I would not want her to have a gun in the classroom. He took that ability to keep my child safe away from me…just in a different way.

Not everything is black and white. We swim in the gray.

However the paradox of morals surrounding who lives are more important and when they are more important is disturbing.

For example, Mike Lee, another Utah lawmaker (this time at the Federal level) has recently been cavalierly spouting how he feels about other people’s lives that do not aline with him politically.

He doesn’t care..he tweets that they deserved it.

This man claims to be “pro life”. This man claims to follow Jesus and be a member of God’s “only true Church.”

Here are some gun facts to sit with…unfortunately, this will not be surprising.

I Used to Work The Streets Part One

I Used to Work The Streets Part Two

Where your state ranks on firearm safety laws.

When our Mormon Ancestors participated in genocide of the Timpanogos Natives of Utah

*

Stock photo image source.

World gun ownership and homicide table source

Guest Post: Recommendations to President Nelson for Preventing Child Abuse

Guest post by Elizabeth Richins. On April 7, 2025 Elizabeth shared her story with Exponent II readers in a guest post titled “Sexual Abuse in the Church.” This is a follow up post containing a letter she sent to President Nelson.

Dear President Nelson,

I come to you with a heavy but hopeful heart. I am writing not just as a survivor of abuse but as a mother, a disciple of Jesus Christ, and a lifelong member of this Church who deeply believes in its power for good. I was sexually abused by my bishop. He was a man who was supposed to represent Christ. The abuse I endured began in childhood, and its effects have reverberated through every aspect of my life: my faith, my mental health, my family, and my ability to trust.

While I understand that no institution is perfect, I believe with conviction that more can and must be done to protect the most vulnerable among us. My purpose in writing is to plead for essential safeguards within the Church to prevent others from enduring what I went through.

Specifically, I ask that the Church consider implementing the following changes:

1. Mandatory background checks for all clergy and youth leaders, including bishops and counselors.

Many countries already require this by law. Backgrounding those who are placed in positions of trust—especially over children—should be a global standard in a Church that spans the globe.

2. A formal policy that permanently bars any individual with a history of sexual abuse allegations, battery, or similar offenses from serving in callings with children or youth. 

Even a single accusation should be taken seriously. Leaders can serve elsewhere if repentance has occurred, but our children should never be the testing ground for someone’s reformation.

3. Independent reporting and oversight mechanisms.

Victims should be able to report abuse outside of local leadership. Bishops, no matter how well-meaning, are not trained investigators, and too often, abuse is minimized or covered up—intentionally or not.

4. Healing support and acknowledgment for survivors within the Church.

The spiritual damage caused by abuse—especially by a bishop—runs deep. It fractures a person’s relationship with God, trust in priesthood authority, and sense of divine worth. When the abuse is cloaked in spiritual language or justified as part of a divine calling, the confusion and betrayal can feel eternal.

When I finally built up the strength to tell my parents about the abuse I had endured as a child, my father went directly to our then-bishop, Bishop Hansen, to report it. What he didn’t know was that Bishop Hansen already had firsthand knowledge of the abuse. More than a year earlier, he had walked into the Primary room and witnessed my body and mind being violated—yet he did nothing.

When my father brought the abuse to his attention, Bishop Hansen responded, “I cannot turn him in. I love him.” Not only did he refuse to report the abuse, he failed to protect me—and allowed the abuser to continue unchecked. When the allegations eventually surfaced, rather than receiving support, I became the target. My ward turned against me. The isolation and betrayal I experienced from my Church community compounded the trauma I was already carrying.

Though many years have passed, the emotional and psychological wounds from that time are still very present. The abandonment I felt—by leaders, by members, by the institution I had been taught to trust—shook the foundation of my faith and my identity.

If I could add a fifth change to the list I previously shared, it would be this: that when abuse is disclosed, a General Authority—preferably an apostle or even a prophet—be sent to the affected ward to stand with the victim. If the Church had stood beside me back then, publicly and spiritually, I would not have felt so completely alone. That kind of visible, authoritative support would send a clear message to both the victim and the community: that God is with the wounded, and so is His Church.

I’ve struggled for years with guilt, shame, disillusionment, and loss of faith. I wonder what my life, my testimony, my mental health might have looked like if stronger protections had existed—if someone had seen me, listened, or believed me earlier. I wonder how many others are still silently suffering within our congregations today.

President Nelson, I believe in the Savior’s ability to heal, but I also believe He expects us to act. I know that you care for the welfare of the Saints across the earth, and I trust that you are seeking divine guidance in all things. I implore you and Church leadership to consider these changes—not out of fear or anger, but out of love, accountability, and our sacred duty to “succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.”

Thank you for your time, your service, and for hearing my voice. My hope is that the pain I carry might become part of the catalyst for change that protects generations to come.

With hope and respect,

Elizabeth Richins

Elizabeth is a mom of six boys, a wife, an advocate, a social worker, and a survivor.

Denying Joseph’s Polygamy is Rape Apologetics

Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Period. End of sentence.

Plural marriage was introduced to the Latter-day Saint church and community by Joseph Smith during his lifetime. However, there is an increasingly vocal minority that refuses to acknowledge this, instead building a vast conspiracy and denial of historical and textual evidence to claim that Joseph fought polygamy, was killed for it, and that Brigham Young actually started the practice. I’m not going to use this article to break down any arguments as I know the history is sound and arguing with conspiracy theorists is a waste of time. Instead, I want to focus on why defending this conspiracy actively harms women and perpetuates rape culture. In order to deny that Joseph Smith instituted and practiced plural marriage, not only must we deny history, we must erase and throw out real women’s lived experiences and testimonies.

When we deny Joseph’s involvement in plural marriage, we’re doing the same terrible thing that polygamy itself does: reducing women to objects that can be ignored and defined as only pawns of powerful men. We’re making men’s image and reputation more important than women’s lives. Polygamy denial is actively engaging in rape apologetics in order to save and prop up patriarchal individuals and structures that allow men to harass, exploit, and rape women with impunity.

I understand the desire to absolve Joseph of this crime. As I’ve written before, polygamy is an abusive system and not from God. I can understand feeling cognitive dissonance around growing up with this larger-than-life figure that you revere as the founder of your faith, only to find out later that he did horrible things to women. Just like the JFK assassination, our brains don’t want to believe that a superhuman like Joseph Smith could be so sadly flawed and suffer such an ignominious death. We want to assign a larger conspiracy to it because it helps us feel more in control of a chaotic world that doesn’t line up with our reasoning. But as with all conspiracies, the simplest answer is usually the correct one and its better to deal with the dissonance rather than close ourselves off into a falsehood just to make us feel better. It’s okay to admit and accept that Joseph manipulated, lied, and exploited people, especially women.

Melissa Lott. Image from Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.

In the Temple Lot Case in 1890s, the RLDS church (now the Community of Christ) contested the ownership of the temple lot in Independence, Missouri against the Church of Christ (known as Hedrickites). To prove their case, they needed to prove that they were the true heirs of Joseph Smith’s church and thus entitled to the property. The Utah-based LDS church also participated in this case to support the Hedrickites against their anti-polygamy rivals. Members of the LDS church provided testimony on Joseph Smith’s polygamy, as that was a key argument in who was the rightful successor of Joseph’s authority. The Temple Lot Case provides us with first-hand testimony from women who lived in polygamy with Joseph, under oath in a court of law.

From Melissa (Malissa) Lott’s testimony:

Q. Did you ever room with Joseph Smith as his wife?

A. Yes sir.

Q. At what place?

A. At Nauvoo

Q. What place in Nauvoo?

A. The Nauvoo Mansion.

Q. At what place in the Mansion?

A. Do you want to know the number of the room, or what?

Q. Well just what part of the house the room was in if you can give it?

A. Well I can give it and the number of the room too. It was room number one.

Q. Room number one?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Who else roomed there?

A. I don’t know of any one. . . .

Q. So you roomed with him [Joseph Smith] in the Nauvoo Mansion in room number one?

A. Yes sir. . . .

Q. How often did you room there with Joseph Smith?

A. Well that is something I can’t tell you.

Q. Well was it more than once?

A. Yes sir, and more than twice.

Melissa states, quite plainly, that she was Joseph’s wife and that she slept with him on more than one occasion. Her testimony goes on to say she slept with him in other locations as well, including her father’s house. She married Joseph at age eighteen while she worked in the Smith household.

Emily Dow Partridge Smith Young. Image from Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.

In Emily Dow Partridge’s Temple Lot Case deposition, she shared, “[Joseph] came there into the room [in the Smith home] where I was one day, when I was in the room alone, and he asked me if I could keep a secret. I was about eighteen years of age then I think,-at any rate I was quite young[.] He asked me if I could keep a secret, and I told him I thought I could, and then he told me that he would some time if he had an opportunity,-he would tell me some thing that would be for my benefit, if I would not betray him, and I told him I wouldn’t.”

In Emily’s autobiography, “Incidents of the Early Life of Emily Dow Partridge,” she wrote, “I cannot tell all Joseph said, but he said the Lord had commanded [him] to enter into plural marriage and had given me to him and although I had got badly frightened he knew I would yet have him. So he waited till the Lord told him. My mind was now prepared and would receive the principles. . . . Well I was married there and then. Joseph went home his way and I going my way alone. A strange way of getting married wasent [wasn’t] it. Brother Kimball married us, the 4th of March 1843.” Her sister, Eliza, was also married to Joseph four days later, though neither sister knew the other was married to him at the time.

Emily also wrote of her conflict with Emma over this secret marriage and how she was re-married to Joseph to appease Emma, who thought she had handpicked the Partridge sisters as sister wives: “I was married to him on the 11th of May [1843], by Elder James Adams. Emma was present. She gave her free and full consent. She had always, up to this time, been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the Prophet Joseph with Emma’s consent, but ever after she was our enemy.”

Helen Mar Kimball. Image from Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.

Helen Mar Kimball was the youngest of Joseph’s wives, married at only age fourteen in a trade for her family’s salvation. She wrote in her journal of her father introducing her to polygamy: “I was skeptical — his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions […] The next day the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it, but I had no proofs, only his and my father’s testimony. I thought that sufficient, and did not deem it necessary to seek for any further.”

Later, she describes the reality of living as Joseph’s secret plural wife while only a child: “During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. … Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. … I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. … I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.”

In a poignant poem she penned about her conflicting feelings about plural marriage, Helen wrote:

“Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreams all o’er thou’st doom’d also to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;”

Her poem goes on to praise the celestial rewards she’ll receive, but concludes:

“I’d been taught to reveire the Prophet of God
And receive every word as the word of the Lord,
But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth,
I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.”

These are only three women of many who wrote about, shared testimony of, and were married polygamously to Joseph Smith in the 1840s. In order to deny that Joseph participated in polygamy or never had sex with his wives, you must directly erase these women’s words and lives. You must say that these women lied, were part of a vast conspiracy, or just ignore them as unimportant. By doing so you prioritize a man and his reputation over and against all the women he victimized. This is active harm and violence against women.

We’ve all read the newspaper stories of young men acquitted of rape charges because the judge “didn’t want to ruin his life.” We know stories of church members who received little to no punishment for sexual actions against women simply because they were “a good priesthood holder.” I’d hope you agree that this is despicable. How then is Joseph any different than these men? Just because he’s your favorite predator doesn’t mean he should get a pass.

Because this is exactly what polygamy deniers are doing––protecting and enabling a predator. It doesn’t matter that he lived over a century ago. His plural marriages were all nonconsensual. They were coerced through religious manipulation, spiritual threats, secrecy, and lies. His wives were survivors. Their story is built into the foundations of Mormonism and their trauma passes on to each generation so long as we can’t be honest about polygamy in either direction.

Polygamy conspiracists aren’t offering healing or answers; they’re further burying the truth so they don’t have to acknowledge the reality that the founder of Mormonism did bad things. It’s tempting to fall down the rabbit hole and clear Joseph so you can feel better about him. But weaving and defending a complicated conspiracy to make Joseph’s hands clean is no different than suggesting women frequently make up rape allegations. It’s the same as asking girls what they were wearing or hiding sexual misconduct to protect an institution or individual. It’s rape culture.

This is why this conspiracy matters. This is why I get so upset when I inevitably get comments on my posts about polygamy spouting this theory. At it’s heart, this conspiracy is about protecting men and patriarchy. It’s upholding unequal power structures that always give preference to men and their stories, whitewash their bad choices, and sweep women’s voices under the rug. Just like polygamy, denial theories boil down to power and optics. They’re designed to keep men in places of power and influence, while downgrading women into second-class roles. Polygamy turns women into objects that only matter when they prop up men’s lives and stories, just as denying it turns women into objects that only matter when they prop up the narrative of men that we want to tell.

If you believe that Joseph fought polygamy, we can get along and I can respect your right to believe that. But I will not confide in you my own survivor stories. I will not trust you as an ecclesiastical leader. I will not believe you when you call yourself a feminist, a girl’s girl, or pro-woman. Denying Joseph’s polygamy tells me that you don’t honor or care about women when put up against the life of a popular man. Saying Joseph never practiced polygamy actively feeds into rape apologetics that prioritize men’s personas over women’s bodies and trauma.

If you find yourself drawn to these conspiracies, maybe ask yourself why. Ask yourself how you can say you support and believe women while also denying Melissa, Emily, and Helen, who are telling you exactly what happened to them. Maybe ponder why you feel such a need to defend and support Joseph Smith over and above the broken bodies of women he left in his path. If you still want to believe this conspiracy, go ahead. But I and many other LDS woman know that you are not a safe person.

Guest Post: Cognitive Dissonance, Confusion, and the New Garments

Guest Post by Calleen Petersen

When the new garments were announced, I was thrilled! I live in The South where it is so hot and muggy in the summer, peeling off your soaked, sweaty garments should be an Olympic sport! Sign me up for breathable fabric, sleeveless tops, and slips. Why are we releasing them in the 4th quarter when it finally starts to cool down???!!! We need them stat! There was also a part of this “reformed Molly Mormon” who also couldn’t wait to feel she was breaking some rules without breaking them with sleeveless clothes. I was going along riding this beautiful wave of anticipation for the new garments.

Then enters my daughter.

She’s been mildly pushing boundaries lately, as most 17-year-olds do as they prepare to leave home. It’s a rite of passage and a developmental milestone. In our house, we have never allowed tank tops. Years ago, I had a friend who chose not to get married in the temple because she would have to buy a whole new wardrobe. I had determined then and there that any daughters I had would dress in a manner that they would be prepared to wear garments. But a few years ago, my daughter joined the high school dance team and brought tank tops into our house as they were part of her uniform. I had grudgingly allowed it only for that reason. Now she wants to wear them all the time.

I should let her right? They’re approved now?

But the cognitive dissonance I feel after being told for the last 47 years that we had to wear the darn sleeves, slams its big fist down and makes me unreasonable. I’m all for wearing sleeveless for myself. Can’t wait. I’m not wearing them yet because I don’t have those garments. But to see my daughter in sleeveless tops and dresses makes me grip tighter. No, you can’t wear those! You aren’t allowed! Even though I mentally know it isn’t true, my brain screams, “She’ll never go through the temple if she wears those!” All of those reasons we were told we had to wear sleeves come tumbling out, and I’m left to wonder in confusion, did any of it matter? Or what does matter now?

To the younger generations- Please be patient with us who have been around a while as we try to recalibrate years of teachings and figure out how they fit into our lives. It’s a work in progress.

Calleen Petersen is a follower of Jesus, a therapist, a writer, a mom, and a wife who is just trying to find her nuanced way in the blazing hot South.

Exponent II Retreat Highlights From the Archives

There are only a few spots left! Consider attending this year’s Exponent II Retreat on September 19-21, 2025, at the Barbara C. Harris Center in Greenfield, New Hampshire! Learn more here.

The Exponent II retreat has been held annually in New England since 1983. Recently, the blog has been hosting a series to unlock the Exponent II retreat.

We’ve shared essays about the 1982 Pilgrimage that launched the network of Mormon feminist retreats, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s take on the Exponent II retreat’s history, the tradition of introductions at retreat Friday nights, Sunday morning Spiritual Autobiographies,  reflections on woman-led rituals, and more.

While retreat attendees are asked to keep confidences about what is shared there to maintain privacy and trust, the retreat is not fight club. Not only can we talk about it—a good deal has been published about the retreat over the years! Below is a roundup of blog posts and archived essays about other aspects of the retreat experience.

Featured in Fifty Years of Exponent II (book)

Don’t miss how Fifty Years of Exponent II, by Katie Ludlow Rich and Heather Sundahl, discusses the development of the retreat in the context of the rest of the organization’s history.

In the 50th Anniversary “reunion” issue of Exponent II (magazine)

These thoughtful essays appeared in our special reunion issue. They’re behind a paywall, so subscribe if you haven’t already.

Kirsten Campbell on The Origins of the Exponent II Retreat QuiltsHeather Sundahl’s essay Retreat: Reflect, Reinvent, Reunite, RenewEmily Fisher Gray’s essay A Love Letter to the Exponent II RetreatPhoto Credit: Anna ReamPhoto Credit: Anna ReamPhoto Credit: Anna ReamPhoto Credit: Anna ReamExponent II issues dedicated to the retreat

In addition to essays scattered throughout Exponent II’s history, three issues focused primarily on the retreat. Use the “search text contents” feature in the digitized collection on archive.org to find more!

Fall 1983 – Reflections from the first open-registration retreat, then called a reunion Winter 1984 – Featuring Virginia Sorensen and Esther Peterson + Sister’s Speak reflections Fall 2000 – Includes essays on the Exponent II, Rocky Mountain, Provo Canyon, and Midwest Pilgrims retreatsSelect retreat essays from the blogIn 2007, blogger Caroline asked: Should Mormon men have retreats too? Readers chimed in.In 2012, Jessica Steed shared advice on organizing a Mormon feminist retreat, based on her experience with the Southwest-based Sophia Gathering.In 2013, Libby wrote: “Retreat’s Going to Make Everything Better.”In 2015, Pandora shared what she loves about retreats in “Retreat Forward.”Blog posts featuring the retreat variety showPhoto Credit: Anna ReamPhoto Credit: Anna ReamPhoto Credit: Anna Ream

Saturday night features a keynote speaker, followed by a variety show—an eclectic mix of music, comedy, storytelling, and surprise talents that never fails to bring the house down.

Every year, the variety show gives Heather a chance to channel her inner Weird Al—rewriting hymns and pop songs for a Mormon feminist crowd. Thankfully, some of those songs live on in our archives:

The Modesty SongPersisters in Zion/Daughters of Exponent: A MedleyDon’t Call Me MormonChallenge PatriarchyCome Ye Husbands of the Ward

Last year, for Exponent II’s 50th anniversary, my friends and I asked ChatGPT to roast Exponent II for our variety show skit. It hurt our feelings and made us laugh: “Exponent II: Celebrating 50 years of making patriarchy nervous—but not too nervous. Unlike that radical Mormon Women’s Forum, you’re the polite feminists: you’re here to stir the pot, but only with an approved spoon, right?” Ouch.

Not fight club—but still sacred

The Exponent II retreat is not secret. It has advertised open registration calls from the beginning. But it is sacred. It’s sacred in the way that women and gender minorities show up for each other—joyful, questioning, grieving, hopeful. It’s sacred in the stories shared, the silences held, and in the squeeze-your-knees-together-to-stop-from-peeing laughter that bubbles up on the trails around the lake. Whether you’ve been coming for years or are just now learning about it through this series, we hope something here has stirred your curiosity or your spirit. This retreat is more than a weekend; it’s a community.

Don’t miss updates for future retreats—sign up for Exponent II’s monthly newsletter!

Mental Exercise: Let’s Visualize What Teenage Girls Marrying Polygamous Men in the 1800s Actually Looked Like

In my local headlines this month, a 15-year-old girl was found alive after disappearing for six weeks. Three older men in their thirties or forties were arrested in connection to her disappearance. This leads me to the question…

Would early Mormon prophets be in jail if they lived in 2025?

Something about early church polygamy (which included way too many teenage girls married to older, powerful men) continually sucks me down rabbit holes that make me want to stand on the street corner of my heavily LDS Utah County town and yell, “DO YOU ALL NOT REALIZE THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED BY ADULT MEN MARRYING TEENAGERS?!” 

Unfortunately, that would absolutely backfire because nobody seems to care. We build statues to these men and quote them at church and write hymns singing praise to them. 

The day I wrote this post I was in a class at my local rec center (where I’ve attended for 21 years) and we took our workout to the front lawn. I did jump squats and lunges and ran laps on a sidewalk that passed next to a founding father of Lehi, Utah, pictured above – David Evans. (Nothing weird there – just doing burpees at the feet of a 57-year-old man who impregnated an 18-year-old girl when he was already having babies with his wife and five other women.)

Right before my workout class I had read a news story about a 15-year-old girl who had been missing for six weeks, found safe in Colorado. She disappeared from her American Fork School (right across the freeway from Lehi, where I live) after messaging online with three different adult men (one who was 35, one who was 37, and one who was 41). All three of those men were arrested.

This is what adult men look like:

This is what a 15-year-old victim looks like:

She’d been on missing posters since April.

I have big feelings of protection for that teenage girl. She probably was arguing with her parents. She probably thought she was using her own free will to interact with these older men. She probably thought she was mature for her age and was genuinely a love interest to them. She probably thought they were on an equal playing field and she was in relationships where she was respected and safe.

Nobody else thinks that though, and the law certainly doesn’t. 

Any adult can see that she was groomed and abused by adult men who should have known better. That’s why those three men are under arrest, and this girl will get therapy and support. It’s never okay for an adult man to pursue an underage teenage girl. She is not his equal. Her brain isn’t developed and his life experience greatly outweighs hers. Any relationship with this kind of age gap is predatory and wrong. I don’t think this is a controversial opinion that I hold!

And yet…

This is Martha Ann Hughes, who was 14 years old when she was given to 68-year-old Zera Pulsipher as a plural wife. He was the president of the seventy and famous for having baptized Wilford Woodruff. And then…he had sex with a teenager.

So here’s my hot take:

All teenage girls pursued by adult men – regardless of the century – are victims! 

And…

Joseph Smith married a 16-year-old when he was 32, then a 16-year-old, a 14-year-old, and a 15-year-old when he was 37.

Brigham Young sealed a 15-year-old girl to himself when he was 42, a 16-year-old girl to himself when he was 43, then another 16-year-old at 44, and another 16-year-old when he was 45.

John Taylor was 47 when he married his 16th wife, a 16-year-old girl.

Wilford Woodruff married six out of his ten wives as teenagers and later would seal himself to hundreds of girls and women on birthdays in his seventies, including a 6-year-old dead girl.

Lorenzo Snow married nine women – six of whom were teenagers. When he was 57, he married his last wife when she was 16 years old.

Joseph F. Smith married both a 17-year-old when he was thirty, and an 18-year-old when he was pushing fifty.

Modern day church members defend these men, saying things like, “They probably weren’t having sex with the younger brides until they were older.”

Guess what the three men recently arrested all said? “I wasn’t going to have sex with her until she was older.” 

If you happen to watch some of the Law and Crime Network videos covering this case that I linked to at the very beginning of this post, you’ll know that these “sick” men were arrested for having sexually explicit online conversations with this girl – but none of them had physically touched her. They’d never even been in the same room as her. By contrast, Mormon leaders in the 1800s were actually having sex (repeatedly) with girls. We know because these girls were having babies before they turned eighteen.

But let’s pretend (for the sake of this argument) that this actually was the case, and all of these men were entering relationships with a 15-year-old girl that wouldn’t become sexual until after she was 18 years old. It’s still wrong.

It’s wrong for a girl to leave her home and become a wife/future romantic partner of someone twenty years older than her, even if he doesn’t sleep with her immediately. He’s stealing her youth. He’s taking away normal development opportunities to date boys her own age. He’s taking away her opportunity to become who she wants to be outside of his wife and future sex partner.

If you are 15 and your 40-year-old male partner isn’t having sex with you – but you know that in exactly three years you’re expected to lose your virginity to him, and you aren’t allowed to have a boyfriend your own age (or even go on a date, or flirt with a teenage boy) because you’re promised to him – that man still owns your sexuality.

Don’t tell me that one of these is wrong, and the other is fine. 

As I write this, my 16-year-old daughter is getting her wisdom teeth out. She asked me to stay with her as they put the IV in because she was too scared to do it alone.

She’s afraid to be alone in a safe place with a male anesthesiologist for a small poke in her arm before she falls asleep for a dental procedure. 

When I imagine a 16-year-old girl given to a 40-year-old man as his plural wife and then sent alone to consummate the marriage with him (with no mom there to hold her hand and comfort her), I want to scream. It was statutory rape, even if it was the 1800s and the men said some religious words that pronounced the girls their spiritual wives before they did it to them. To imagine my 16-year-old daughter pregnant from one of these bearded polygamous men – even if they say God told them it was okay – makes me feel violent. I almost want to tar and feather them, or maybe chase them out of my community or burn down their temple where they marry themselves to teenagers.

Why will the church not call out what was obviously wrong behavior? Is it because the perpetrators are important men?

It almost makes you wonder if early church leaders were persecuted by mobs for reasons other than just how awesome their church was.

Patriarchy is Exhausting

Some people will forever remember being in the audience for a Beyonce or Taylor Swift concert, but Stassi Cramm’s ordination service on the evening of Sunday, June 1 is my equivalent. That evening, she became the prophet-president for Community of Christ and the first woman to serve as the leader in a Latter Day Saint church.

Earlier this month I was at Community of Christ’s World Conference in Independence, Missouri. I was there to give the John Whitmer Historical Association’s Wallace B. Smith tribute lecture with my colleague David Howlett. We spoke about how people changed their minds about women’s ordination during and after the 1984 World Conference.  

While I was excited about giving this talk, I was most excited about the vote to approve Stassi Cramm’s call to serve as the prophet-president of Community of Christ and the ordination service that was tentatively planned for after the vote. 

On Saturday morning, the conference officially opened with a procession and ritual from a local indigenous group, hymns, and further blessings on the proceedings. We heard testimonies from the outgoing First Presidency. At the end of their testimonies, the First Presidency was officially dissolved and Mareva Arnaud Tchong, president of the Council of Twelve Apostles stood at the podium to preside over the conference. Mareva brought forward Stassi’s call to be approved.

Afterward, Katie Harmon-McLaughlin, Director of Formation Ministries, described the discernment process that produced Stassi’s call. Apostles Angela Ramirez and Lachlan McKay both described their experiences of naming a new leader, describing Stassi’s long career in full time church ministry and also bearing their testimonies that they felt her call come from the Holy Spirit. A descendant of Joseph and Emma Smith, he referenced Emma ordination and how she would likely be smiling down on the conference proceedings.

Priesthood quorums (filled with adults of all genders from around the world) discussed Stassi’s call that afternoon and reported back to the conference delegates and observers on Sunday afternoon. Priesthood quorum support for Stassi’s call was nearly unanimous. 

Then the delegates voted. From my seat as an observer in the Auditorium balcony, I could see the delegates seated by mission (stake) center on the conference floor. When Mareva asked the delegates who approved the call to raise their hands, it was nearly unanimous and the energy in the room was intense and exciting. It seemed like only 10-20 delegates raised their hands to vote no. 

Mareva asked those who were participating in groups at remote locations to vote, the children’s caucus voted, and as a conference observer, I was invited to raise my hand to approve Stassi’s call. I was glad to participate in this way. It was an everyone-crying-tears-of-joy experience.

It is hard to communicate how joyful, celebratory, and healing it was as a former-Mormon-now-ordained-Community-of-Christ-elder to raise my hand. With so many things going so terribly wrong in the world (wars, fascism, etc) particularly during the last year, collectively we were all desperate to rally around something good and squeeze every last drop of good feeling out of the moment.

When Mareva announced that the motion to approve Stassi’s call had passed, Stassi returned to the Auditorium while the congregation sang two hymns whose lyrics had been composed by one of the church’s great and recently passed powerhouses, Barbara Howard. Instead of being able to process down the aisle and up to the stage, Stassi was hugged down the aisle by delegates. People of all genders, priesthood holders and regular church members, were excited to participate in this sacred process. 

The ordination service was on Sunday evening. I got there 75 minutes early to get a good seat and to hopefully hold some seats for friends – other former Mormons who had converted to Community of Christ. When I arrived at the Auditorium, the other early folks were mostly older women who shared my commitment to getting a good seat for this momentous event. 

Grammy award winning organist Jan Kraybill was in top form and her playing communicated so much energy and celebration. 

Choirs from Africa, Tahiti, and Independence all sang in celebration. 

One of my favorite parts of the service was Mareva’s charge to Stassi, where she gave strong words of counsel for this responsibility because “We are not here to crown a leader” (timestamp 47:31).

When it was time for the ordination to take place, Stassi invited friends and family from around the world to join her on the stage. There were older folks together with young adults and babies and toddlers, together with Stassi’s grandchildren. The now-former prophet-president Steve Veazey and Mareva laid their hands on Stassi’s head and performed the ordination. 

The closing hymn was The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning (sung in English, French, and Spanish) and I have never felt such intense joy in congregational singing. By the last verse, the volume of the organ was at 11. 

By the next morning, I had a church hangover, but I was so glad to witness this.

And so, to the point of my title, during the sessions of opening, voting, and the worship services in between, I saw people of all genders from a variety of places speaking English, French, and Spanish, Tahitian, and Portuguese on the stage doing the work of the church together. While we had gathered to made decisions about church leadership and policy, the whole conference experienced reminded me that we all participate in the work of the church because church is not about the person at the top, but about the work we do together. Church is a team sport.

To my final point: to create, educate, and cultivate a community where women and gender expansive folks are excluded from meaningful decision making and from performing nearly every ritual and ordinance in the church is an awful lot of work. It takes curriculum writers, leaders at all levels, and women gate keepers to carefully and consistently police boundaries and make it unthinkable for all people to fully participate in the life of the church. To sustain that level of exclusion as a community norm that is rarely challenged over generations is downright exhausting. It takes so much work.

So while people often talk about the difficulty of inclusion work, and creating inclusive communities *is* hard, let’s also remember that the work of exclusion is probably harder, but we’re just used to it. The machinery of exclusion is a constant loud churning in the background of our lives. Patriarchy is exhausting.

Happy Pride Month

Photo credit: Arvinjaygaa WikiMedia Commons

Trigger warning: suicide

Happy Pride Month! I celebrate Pride Month because everyone has value, especially those marginalized by their cultures, countries,  or churches. I celebrate Pride Month to encourage my LGBTQ+ friends to stay alive and to thrive. I celebrate it because everyone deserves the right to marry the one they love. I celebrate it because I love my LGBTQ+ friends and family members and because I want them to know that I do. I celebrate it because I want all governments, churches, and institutions to recognize that LGBTQ+ people are human beings who deserve the same respect, rights, and privileges as anyone else.

The rainbow flag was created by renowned San Francisco activist Gilbert Baker, who said that “the rainbow of humanity” symbolizes all genders and races. Each of the six colors of the rainbow flag represents a different aspect of the LGBTQ movement: life, healing, sunlight, nature, serenity, and spirit.

If you attend church, work, or pursue daily activities, wearing a rainbow pin, bracelet, or wristband signals to LGBTQ+ folks that they are safe with you and that you care about them. This allows you to comfort those who need comfort and to show that you practice the Golden Rule. How many cisgender folks would feel happy if their churches told them they could not marry the partner of their choice, use a restroom, teach a class, or attend a meeting with folks of their gender? Wearing a rainbow pin or emblem is a simple way to show that you believe everyone deserves love and respect.

During Pride Month, let’s remember that in 65 countries, it is a crime to love the wrong person, and in 12 countries, this is punishable by death. In addition, 50% of LGBTQ youth report being bullied in the last year. Among LGBTQ middle school students, 29% of those who were bullied attempted suicide in the past year. LGBTQ students who reported their school to be LGBTQ-affirming had odds that were 30% lower of being bullied in the past year. I celebrate Pride Month because being LGBTQ affirming saves lives.

I was raised in a homophobic church, a church that refused to accept LGBTQ members as beloved children of God. My church once taught that being LGBTQ is an evil choice. My transgender neighbors must be accompanied to the church restroom by a supervisor. No transgender person, to my knowledge, has ever abused an LDS child at church, but plenty of heterosexual men have. Perhaps, they should be accompanied to the restroom. And, surely, to make all feel welcome, churches should provide individual restroom facilities.

I grew up in a church where leaders taught that being gay was an “unpardonable” choice and that you could pray gender attraction and identity away, a doctrine that destroyed many lives before it was reversed. Although he has denied it, a current top church leader allowed horrific electroshock and vomit aversion as a form of “gay conversion therapy” during his tenure as president of Brigham Young University. Although the LDS Church refuses to apologize for this horrific treatment, I say to anyone who suffered from this, I am deeply sorry.

Biblical scholar Dr. Dan McClellan wrote an outstanding book, The Bible Says So, that describes, among other things, how the Bible has been misused to attack, marginalize, and abuse the LGBTQ+ community. He writes that the “biblical” position on homosexuality is just as negotiable as slavery, polygamy, and other positions. Dr. McClellan writes that the main reason so many conservative Christians today “so publicly…condemn homosexuality and wave their Bible around at their authorization… is precisely because that condemnation has become a central identity marker.”

He adds, “I believe there will come a day when conservative Christians will have grown out of such callous and harmful identity politics, but what I cannot predict—and what has kept me awake late into many nights—is how many bodies will be heaved onto the altar of those conservative Christian identity politics in the meantime, and how many of their faces I will have known and loved.”

I belong to a church whose leader once said, “Our knowledge of God’s revealed plan of salvation requires us to oppose many of the current social and legal pressures to retreat from traditional marriage or to make changes that confuse or alter gender or homogenize the differences between men and women. We know that the relationships, identities and functions of men and women are essential to accomplish God’s great plan.” This talk made some LGBTQ+ members feel like outsiders in the Church, folks who are already at higher risk for suicide. For this I say that I am sorry.

I also belong to a church that “bars people from being baptized even if they have transitioned only socially, by changing their appearance, name or pronouns,” will not allow transgender members to attend gendered meetings of their choice, and will not allow them to teach children or youth. For that, I say, I am deeply sorry.

I belong to a church that punishes transgender members who transition with membership restrictions and even excommunication. I grieve that any religion would oppress God’s children, and again, I say, I am sorry. Treating our beloved transgender members like this is unacceptable and wrong.

Scriptures can be used to condone slavery, polygamy, murder, racism, misogyny, genocide, and a host of other atrocities, or they can be used to encourage kindness, compassion, generosity, mercy, and a host of other loving behaviors. Leaders and members of churches should evaluate whether their doctrines harm or help others. May they choose wisely which doctrines and policies they adopt and implement.

Jesus did not condemn LGBTQ+ folks but had a lot to say about those who are unkind and cruel, especially those in church leadership. He said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23 NIV). His final charge to all is to “love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

To all my LGBTQ+ friends who long for love and inclusion, I see you. I hear you. I love you. Thank you for adding incomparable beauty, joy, and goodness to the world. This month, and every month, I celebrate the many things you have taught me about kindness, compassion, and goodness. As Brené Brown says, “Owning our story and loving ourselves through that process is the bravest thing we’ll ever do.”

Happy Pride Month to all.

sLedziennicasanrp_KJJ

Photo: Katowice Pride Author: Silar WikiMedia Commons

Mission Microaggressions and 3 Reasons I’m Glad I Wasn’t “Called to Serve”

“You just need to pray harder!”

“I only want to date/marry a girl who is a returned missionary.”

“If you’ve gone on a mission, then you’ll recognize this scripture/conference talk/gospel principle…”

These examples, along with constantly being asked where I served my mission or why I didn’t serve one, are all microaggressions that I experienced firsthand after deciding not to go on a mission at age 19.

Photo by Bailey Burton on Unsplash

Going on a mission always felt like it would be part of my life plan growing up because both of my parents had served missions. Then the age change happened when I was in junior high, and many girls my age started feeling that it was something they were excited to do. But the closer I got to 19, the less it appealed to me. After much prayer, I was devastated when I was not blessed with a feeling that God wanted me to go or even a desire to serve a mission. It felt like all of my friends were going and I was being left behind.

One particular microaggression stands out in my mind now almost ten years later. I road tripped with a few friends to visit a temple open house one weekend. At the beginning of our tour, a senior missionary sister asked us whether we were “future or former missionaries?” One by one, my three friends answered that they were returned sister missionaries. When it was my turn, I blushed and said “Neither?”

The sister missionary corrected me, saying that I was a future missionary since I could serve a senior mission with my husband someday.

I felt so angry and confused after that encounter. Was I doomed to spend the majority of my life being referred to as a “future missionary?” I didn’t even have a husband yet! Wasn’t it too soon to be making plans for spending our retirement together? Why was I asked to define myself dichotomously and simplistically by this senior missionary?

“Was I doomed to spend the majority of my life being referred to as a “future missionary?”

Missions are not a saving ordinance, in fact they are not an ordinance at all. Missions are not lifelong, they last 2 years or less. Why do so many church members continue to define each other by this one decision? We talk as though the only thing you need to know about someone to ascertain their character is whether they are a returned missionary or not. As though plenty of terrible people are not also returned missionaries.

It’s important to note here that church leaders have consistently taught that women should not feel pressured to serve a mission, but the culture surrounding missions is such that I did feel this pressure from other members. I can only imagine the amount of pressure that young men must deal with when they likewise choose not to serve a mission, since there is an expectation from church leaders for men to serve missions.

Photo by Isaac Quick on Unsplash

I’m not someone who likes to stand out, so being one of the few in my circle who did not serve a mission was a point of discomfort for years. It still is sometimes.

Now, with a fully developed prefrontal cortex, here are some reasons I am glad I didn’t serve a mission:

Scrupulosity

Between my eager to please disposition and the orthodox way I was raised, I thrived on rigid structure and lists of “dos” and “don’ts” for most of my life. I was the weird kid who came home from my first day of kindergarten excited about all of the new rules to follow. I scoured the “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet as a young woman. This was back in the day when it specifically taught not to wear bikinis, and forbade “petting,” or “necking” (whatever those are). Before and after getting endowed, I scrutinized endowed members’ clothing choices to see whether they were wearing their garments, and judged those who weren’t.

I fear that if I had served a mission, these tendencies would have developed into full blown scrupulosity (religious OCD) in an environment where I would repeatedly be told that “exact obedience brings miracles,” and have a full set of new, sometimes pointless rules to follow.

Photo by Pau Patterson Photography on Unsplash

Instead, I’ve spent the last few years unlearning hurtful attitudes about living the gospel and my worth. While it has taken me a long time to unlearn my judgmental, “letter of the law” tendencies, I feel that I would have a harder time doing this had I served a mission, since I likely would have had more baggage to sift through.

For example, I can’t imagine the 180 degree shift from not being allowed to interact with the opposite sex in normal, organic ways as a missionary, to being told to get married as soon as possible once I got home. Dating in my young adult years was complicated enough without arbitrary mission rules getting in the way!

Choose Your Own Adventure

Dealing with these mission microaggressions (however innocent many of them were) forced me to develop thicker skin. I learned to care more about what God thought of my decisions than what friends, family, and random acquaintances thought of them.

Not taking the same natural step forward as my peers forced me to develop my own life plan and not do the same things as all my friends. My life plan sans mission included excelling in school, going on three study abroad programs, getting a master’s degree, and receiving my endowment.

Going against the grain and developing thicker skin has served me well as I now navigate engaging in a church community where my ideas and values feel increasingly counter cultural. Had I not experienced something similar with my choice not to serve a mission, I would worry about my ability to exist in this nuanced gray area for long.

Photo by Haley Black: https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-ta... and Emotional Safety

You may be familiar with the @ldsmissionwellness_stories account on Instagram. Between the stories that returned missionaries submit to that account and anecdotes I hear from friends and family who served, I am relieved that this was not my lived experience. I have read stories of abuse from companions, domineering mission presidents, food insecurity, lack of access to routine and emergency healthcare, extreme leadership roulette, stalking, and violence experienced by missionaries.

“The church is not to blame for the actions of others (such as abusive companions, or those who antagonize missionaries), but they are responsible for the lack of resources many missionaries and mission presidents have while dealing with these problems.”

Missions are naturally difficult as sisters and elders will inevitably face rejection by investigators, culture shock, language barriers, or adjustments to being with a companion 24/7. But missionaries deserve to feel physically and emotionally safe. We do not need to make missions harder than they naturally are to “toughen up” the next generation or to test their faith.

Photo by cottonbro studio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-i...

The church is not to blame for the actions of others (such as abusive companions, or those who antagonize missionaries), but they are responsible for the lack of resources many missionaries and mission presidents have while dealing with these problems. While policy changes in recent years have improved quality of life for missionaries (e.g., weekly video chats, and sister missionaries wearing pants), there is still much room for improvement.

My Hopes

At a time of life when most emerging adults typically gain independence over their finances, living situation, time management, and relationships, missionaries surrender control to the church to dictate each of these areas. I’m grateful that my emerging adult years were more autonomous than this.

Photo by Bailey Burton on Unsplash

I hope to be supportive of my children’s agency and will try to support them if/when they serve missions someday. I know I will feel anxious about them experiencing these difficulties. My hope is that they will feel comfortable sharing hardships they go through as missionaries with me, without feeling like they need to censor them to be more obedient or faithful. My hope is also that if they decide not to serve missions, they won’t be met with the same cultural pushback that I was at 19.

I hope that by talking about and addressing things that can go wrong in regards to missionary service, we can discontinue hurtful microaggressions and improve missionaries’ access to needed resources.

Submit a guest post! Learn more about our post guidelines and use the submission form on our guest post submission page.

Guest Post: Defenders of Light

Guest Post by Ann Goebel

Just recently, I travelled to Philadelphia. One of the days of my trip, I made it a point to spend time going to various old churches in the city. I was really excited to see the Arch Street Meeting House where the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) meet. I know very little about this religion, but I have always been intrigued by descriptions of quiet and contemplative religious services and the mention of many Quaker communities being LGBTQ friendly. Now, I am sure this faith tradition and its members are imperfect in their own ways, and I would hate to overly idealize them. However, I anticipated that I would fill my spiritual cup that day. 

When I arrived, I noticed a sign posted in the grass announcing that immigrants were welcome. I smiled, and continued indoors. The man behind the front desk was kind and inviting, and I felt welcome. To my understanding, the meeting house is still in use today, but the first floor is a beautifully simple museum with signs posted explaining the history of the building and Quaker beliefs. 

I learned that this Society of Friends was a group of pacifists, but there was a group that split off during the Revolutionary War because they wanted to take a more active role in the fight for sovereignty. I learned that Quakers believe in an Inner Light, which some identify as the Christian God while others view as a general divinity and spirituality found within us all. I learned that Quakers were vocal abolitionists of slavery and have a tradition of fighting for social justice. 

I was quiet as I explored the rooms, enjoying learning from these signs and then taking in the quiet reverence of the space. As I pondered, I wandered over to the front of where the congregation would meet to read a final sign. I read these Quakers did not typically have one person designated to address the congregation, but there would be a community of people on the stand. I looked at the rows in front of me (three or four rows with a middle aisle creating six or eight long benches), and I smiled at that idea of communal teaching. 

My gaze returned to the sign, and I inspected the black and white photograph more closely. Before I could fully process what I was seeing, tears filled my eyes. The left half of the front benches were filled entirely with women! I did a double take, and reread the sign.

To my amazement, it made no mention of equal gender representation! I was shocked. I knew, of course, that many religious groups have female ordination, and I was well-aware of the LDS Women on the Stand movement. But what most shocked me was the nonchalant way that it was not even mentioned, as if it was not the huge accomplishment that I had come to believe it is. Nothing in the sign said, “look at how awesome we are that we look for equal gender representation! How amazing that we have accomplished something so wildly progressive!” In this space, this small act of gender equality was not treated like a huge modern feat but a common-sense way of living and worshipping. 

I sat in a pew and wept for a few minutes, my heart aching. Is this what I’ve been missing out on all this time? How often have I taught myself to fight for and be profoundly grateful for mere breadcrumbs? If my church experienced this kind of egalitarian leadership and representation, is this the kind of environment we would create? One that is safe for immigrants, safe for sexual and gender minorities, safe for women, safe for African Americans, safe for the poor, safe for all? 

As I sat there, I imagined strong women and men who have been empowered through Quakerism, their personal spirituality and faith community helping them use their talents for meaningful social causes. I closed my eyes, filled with both pain and sorrow for my own church’s long-standing oppression of women. But through that pain, I felt gratitude for that moment and a deep spiritual connection to something. In that Quaker meeting house, I imagined I was seen and known by something bigger than myself. I pictured warm, expansive light filling my soul, and it called on me to let my light so shine. It called on me to not hide it under a bushel, but to share it. It asked me to defend that light in my brothers and sisters.

Ann Goebel is grateful for the spiritual education she received as a youth in her progressive Mormon household. Her undergrad is in political science, and she loves thinking about how different institutions impact our lives (even though it often makes her anxious). She enjoys spending time with her husband, calling her grandma, birdwatching, discussing books with friends, and eating mapo tofu.