Exponent II's Blog, page 133

Guest Post: What is a seat at the table costing me?

Guest Post by BYU AluMom

What is a seat at the table costing me?

I have a child who is gay. A lot of people do. For me, it feels particularly unfair right now because he is at BYU. Let me be clear, the unfair part isn’t that he is gay. The unfair part is that as he is blooming into the person his Heavenly Parents created him to be, he is also being saddled with shameful rhetoric not just from his ecclesiastical leaders, but from his professors as well.

This mix of shame and inadequacy that splashes him on all fronts of his life by being there could drown him. It won’t because he is strong. Because he has an extremely supportive network of peers who reached out to him in the aftermath of Holland’s painful words to check on him. It won’t because he has parents who love him as he is and meets him where he is at and helps him find joy in the journey. He also has a really great therapist who understands both being gay AND being a Latter-day Saint.

But I can’t help but stop thinking about the boy he dated briefly. The boy who doesn’t know anyone else in Provo who is gay. The boy who is alone because he and my son broke up just before the address was given. I can’t stop thinking about all the peers he has met with over lunch, serving as a listening/sounding board to others on campus, who do not have a supportive network. Others who do not have parents who love and accept them. These are the children who weigh on my heart.

I check in with my child daily, particularly in the aftermath of the hate acts that are becoming more commonplace on campus. I need to know he feels loved and validated every day while he simmers in this unfriendly, unwelcoming climate. (Ironically, I think there is a true desire among much of the leadership to make BYU a more welcoming space, but they too are being quashed.) He tells me a couple of his friends from his mission have really been supportive and reached out. But others have, instead of just letting it go and saying nothing, have actively been antagonistic towards him. This is one of things I can’t wrap my head around: the need to poke and prod these profoundly hurtful points of contention. He found himself asking his presumed friend, “Do you think my love is sinful? Do you think, if I ever get married, the love between my husband and I will be wrong? Sinful? Ugly?” He gets the retort, “The apostle says…” My son pressed, “No, but what do you-you who know me so well-what do you say?” Eventually he was ghosted.

I don’t know how to move forward and show my son I love and support him but I do not support and sustain leaders who are chosen to be the Lord’s anointed when they don’t speak words I believe God has anointed.

I regularly tell him, when we talk about why his dad and I stay in the Church (but why I totally understand why he needs to leave) is, “If not us, who?” I validate our seats at the very busted up and broken table with the notion that we must remain to use our place of privilege to defend those without a voice, to fight for those who don’t have the strength or interest to fight for their right to simply exist. But sometimes I wonder if it is worth it. How do I know when its time to quietly stand up, push my chair in, and walk away from something I love when it can’t love my child?

My son and I were talking the other day about how so many individuals he knows, as they wrestle with what they know is right in their heart versus what the Church is telling them about this issue, cannot separate the idea of Heavenly Parents and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are one and the same for a lot of people so the separation feels insurmountable. I wonder what disservice we are doing to our youth by not teaching more about Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Parents without tying them to the Church?

All my life I have been taught that we can’t be “cafeteria Mormons.” We can’t just pick and choose what we want to believe. If we have a testimony, and have things we struggle with, we bear down and pray for humility for our hearts to change. But I wonder if that is the wrong approach because people like my son, who have a testimony of Jesus Christ, Heavenly Parents, the Atonement-the things that matter-feel pressure to just walk away from it all because they can’t pick and choose without getting labeled as not faithful enough.
I have a friend who will not attend the temple because she does not feel it reflects our doctrinal beliefs about Heavenly Mother. She is a faithful Latter-day Saint. She is the primary president in her ward and her bishop and stake president respect her opinion about the temple and know she can still serve as a great disciple in God’s kingdom. But I have another friend who shared concerns about the temple with her bishop and about Heavenly Mother’s absence across the board and she was released from her callings until she “figures it out.”

Some bishops on campus allow for chaste gay dating. Others say that if anyone even outwardly identifies as gay, they are breaking the law of chastity. So much of it boils down to “Bishop Roulette.”

With such HUGE gaps in revelation and response from leadership, it seems like there would be more room for acceptance and growth. More acknowledgement that maybe we don’t know everything, and we accept not knowing. Maybe we are missing some knowledge, and until we get it, we will let everyone be who they were made to be? Maybe we focus on loving more than we focus on judging. But so many aren’t willing to do that, to sit in the space of unknowing and their hearts are turning to hatred. In the meantime, what is the cost to our gay children? And are we willing to pay it?

Guest Post: Just to be Clear

Content Warning: Suicide

Guest post by Green

“Several parents have said they no longer want to send their children here or donate to the school.” – Jeffery R. Holland, speech from the 2021 University Conference1a. several (/ˈsɛv(ə)r(ə)l/): more than two, but not many. (Oxford languages dictionary)The number of students enrolled at BYU in 2020, according to College Tuition Compare is 34,499. 5% of the population are homosexual: “According to Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern University, Lisa Diamond, professor of human development at the University of Utah, and others, we learn that close to 95% of individuals can expect to be primarily attracted to individuals of the opposite sex. We also know that most males and about half of females who are attracted to individuals of the same sex have been exclusively that way since they sexually matured and are not likely to change who they are primarily attracted to.” –Jason S. Carroll, Chelom Leavitt, Dean M. Busby, Laura M. Padilla-Walker, A Better Way to Teach Kids about Sex Deseret Book, 2018, p 4323a. Five percent of the student population at BYU is 1,174 students.The percentage of the population who are intersex, according to Amnesty international: 1.7% (or the roughly the same percentage of redheads in the general population)4a. One point seven percent of the student population at BYU is 586 students.International transgender statistics are harder to come by; however, it is estimated that within the US, six tenths of a percent (0.06) of the adult U.S. population identify as transgender.5a. Point six tenths of a percent (0.06) of the student population at BYU is 20 students.

I rounded down in all of these numbers. With that in mind, conservatively speaking, Holland’s words personally, viciously, harmfully targeted five percent of the BYU student population, or 1,780 students. These numbers do NOT include sexually fluid individuals or other sexual minorities, but you get the point. Or at least I hope you do.

In 2020, the Trevor project found that forty percent of LGBTQI youth “seriously considered” suicide in the past year. This does not include those who suicided.6a. Again, with conservative numbers, that means 712 students at BYU considered suicide because they are LGBTQI.

712 students were directly hit by your musket fire. They are bleeding. Your musket was so finely and purposely powdered that the fire from rang throughout the  global church, hitting far more than only the BYU student population. The bullets stung no less, we are bleeding. If you prick us, do we not bleed?

“Several” parents no longer want to donate to BYU. More than two, but not many.

Thus, in his talk, Holland clearly stated that these “several” donors were more important than the already-suicidal 712 students at BYU. Money is more important than the ones who have already suicided.

Money is more important than those 712.

Just to be clear.

How can we measure our lives?: The crisis edition*

Photo by Pixabay at Pexels

“As I received with hard-won indifference a job rejection this week, I contemplated how the do-it-all feminism of the nineties on which I had been raised had rested on two assumptions: (1) that there were plentiful sufficiently-paying and meaningful jobs; and (2) the existence of cheap childcare.”

Natalie Brown considers the assumptions that the feminism she was raised on rested upon. Read the entire post at By Common Consent.

Dear Elder Holland,

Guest Post by Maren Chen. Maren Chen is an aspiring writer, who moved from the Pacific Northwest to the Salt Lake Valley in the early 2000’s. She can usually be found reading a book, writing poetry, crafting, or chauffeuring her kids.

Dear Elder Holland,

I get it. You don’t want students to come out as LGBTQ during their valedictory speeches at BYU. I have a few ideas about how you can achieve your goal. I’ll warn you in advance that you probably won’t like my ideas. But I can speak with some authority on this subject because the University I attended is one where no school valedictorian has ever come out as LGBTQ during their graduation speech. You see, I received my Bachelor of Arts from the University of Oregon (Go Ducks!) in the year 2000. The U of O is located in the small city of Eugene, Oregon, the only place I know of where tie-dye has been continually in fashion since the 1960s. It’s a town with hippie vibes, lots of green trees, and a thriving University. And nobody would ever even think of coming out publicly during their valedictory speech at that University. Why? Because nobody would care. Because the University of Oregon has a great deal of resources and support for LGBTQ students, and they have for decades. Because, for the most part, it’s not a big deal to be gay in Eugene, Oregon. Of course depending on various factors such as one’s upbringing, culture, family, and social circle, it certainly can be challenging to be LGBTQ no matter where you live and attend school. However there is nothing intrinsic to Eugene or to the U of O that would make a LGBTQ student’s life more difficult. So here’s what you’ve got to do: Create an environment in Provo, at BYU, where nobody would even consider coming out during their graduation speech. Create a strong support network for LGBTQ students. Make it a non-issue. It sounds counter-intuitive, I know. But here’s the thing: Your method of solving this problem- saying “Don’t come out during your valedictory speech at BYU”– is guaranteed to fail. I can promise you that. Your muskets will ultimately backfire. The method I am proposing is one you will hate. It’s rainbows and flags and parades and love. But it’s the only method that’s sure to succeed.

Sincerely yours,

Maren Chen

Onward

Photo by Jody England Hansen

I am setting aside my planned topic. This is a week of reflection, and trying to find hope.

This has been a week of loss, and remembrance of loss. Yesterday, it was 5 years since my father-in-law passed, and we remember him. Last week it was the 20th anniversary of my father’s death, and I miss him every day. On that same day last week, dear friend Curt Bench died suddenly. It is poignant to realize he was the same age my dad was when he died 20 years ago. A few days ago, I was planning on attending a book signing event at Benchmark Books, for the new biography of my dad, by Terryl Givens. Instead, I watched the funeral online as Curt’s family and friends sharing lovely and loving memories of this deeply good man.

It has been a week of remembering the ways people have impacted my life, and influenced my journey.

A few days ago, it hurt to read the words of Elder Holland, and feel and hear of the pain being experienced from those words. This is a man who has, at times, brought me hope and encouragement. It is difficult when someone who has testified of a God whose love is beyond comprehension, uses the podium to diminish the experience and existence of those who are different from traditional binary roles, those whose difference might possibly make someone uncomfortable and are therefore in need of silencing. It is alarming that he would use violent imagery during a time when extremists are using any excuse to use weapons against those they do not understand. I don’t know why he would include such things in his talk.

And there is work to be done. There are those in mourning, and in need of comfort. There are those who are at risk, and in need of people who would catch stones that are thrown at them (in reference to a valuable conference talk by Elder Renlund), and block the figurative and literal musket fire aimed at them.

There is a complex challenge here. Can I learn to acknowledge the harmful words, mourn the contradiction of message from a leader who usually has a compassionate message, resist focusing attention on this person, resist assuming malice, and instead focus energy on overcoming a harmful message with love? Can I be a part of overcoming evil with good?

I appreciate the request from Maxine Hanks, that after we do all we can to love and support those who are hurting and at risk, to then pray for Elder Holland, that he may be overwhelmed by God’s love. I think that is the only thing that can transform whatever is behind this speech. We cannot overcome hurt with hurt. We can only overcome with love.

I have been blessed with the company of Carol Lynn Pearson this week. I was able to host her while she was in town to speak at the ERA Coalition Rally last night at the Utah Capitol, and the following vigil at Memory Grove. There were several speakers who have been involved in this effort to ratify the ERA since the ‘70s. Carol Lynn is one of them. Like several others, she spoke of events, and rallies, and conferences from back then. The optimism, the obvious, simple benefit of this amendment, the rhetoric and push back from some community and church leaders, the staunch support from other leaders, the discouragement, followed by renewed hope. And the constant call to keep on working, to keep calling out “When do we want it? Now!” even as we continue on through the 5th decade of working for this, and approach the century mark of its introduction.

When Karen Shepherd was speaking, she referred to the International Year of the Woman conference that was held in Salt Lake City in 1977. She asked if anyone there had attended, and I was the only one that held up my hand. She spoke of how carefully they had organized to offer an informative and valuable conference. But it was overrun by church members, women and men who came with instructions to shut down the conversation about equality, and to hijack the vote. I was in the minority, apparently. I attended the workshops, and listened to the speeches. It was the first time I heard Christine Durham speak, and I was impressed. It was the first time I attended a conference where every speaker was a strong, articulate woman, and every workshop provided information about being involved and making a difference in the world. This was how I had been raised, and how I experienced living the gospel of Christ.

I also saw many people there who were tearing down signs, disrupting meetings, noisily gathering in the halls during speeches, then rushing in to overwhelm the voting. Seeing this helped influenced  my journey in several ways. I saw behavior that caused a paradigm shift for me. I could see that just because a man was a priesthood holder, that did not guarantee any kind of Christlike behavior or understanding. Many of the men there had come with groups of women from their wards, and they were forcefully, almost gleefully using their influence to take over the conference. I could see that shutting your ears and eyes, refusing to consider anything different from traditional rhetoric, and insisting there is nothing new for you to learn – this was not and never would be inspiring or have lasting influence. I also saw which church and community leaders I was inspired by, and which continue to inspire me. These women were also there, calmly responding with good information, following effective procedure, honoring the process, and not giving up or following the example of the opposition.

One of the speakers last night was someone who shared his own journey of realizing his mistake in voting against the ERA, his regret, and how the persistent actions of inspiring people made a difference in his change of heart. I wonder how many of the people who stormed the conference in 1977 would feel the same today. How many would tell their grandchildren about what they did, and defend it in any way.

I listened to the speakers last night, women who are older than I. Women who have been involved in activism longer than I. I did not hear bitterness. I did not hear any suggestion that they felt they were victims, even those who had been targeted and harmed by others. These women were focusing their energy on what could, what might have a chance at making a difference. There was not time for them to dwell on reasoning or motives of those who did not, or would not listen or try to understand. There is still work to be done, and resources need to focus on what will matter the most.

This morning I am hearing from friends who were on panels at the BYU conference for faculty and staff this week. These panels followed the speech Holland gave on Monday. Some of my friends were concerned about how their presentations about the need for inclusion and belonging at BYU would be received. Some were sharing their own, or their loved ones’ experiences of being hurt, threatened and marginalized because they are queer, or BIPOC. Several have shared about how overwhelmed they have been with the positive way they were listened to, and the desire of so many at BYU to learn about how to create a safe and affirming campus for everyone. Personal conversations have followed with stake presidents who want to make their stakes safe for all members.

What happens when people who are seeking Christ feel jolted by words that are not Christlike?

Did the speech from Monday become a setting for some paradigm shifts?

I can hope. I want to hope.

For now, there are people who are hurting. People who are mourning.

There are stones to catch, and muskets to block.

There is work to be done.

Onward.

We Asked, You Answered: A Snapshot of Local Leadership Reactions to the First Presidency Message on COVID-19

On Thursday, August 12, 2021, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a message urging members to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to wear masks in public meetings when social distancing is not possible. We asked our readers to share the reactions they saw from their local leaders in the week following its release. We appreciate all who responded. The goal of this post is to share a collection of the responses without editorializing. The views expressed are those of the individual contributors and may not reflect the views of the Exponent II organization or any of its members. Some responses have been edited for length.

In the collection of responses, it is evident that even within close geographic areas, there was significant variation regarding how local leaders addressed the First Presidency letter. Some of our readers heard their leaders read the entire letter from the pulpit, with all on the stand wearing masks. Other readers did not hear anything from their leaders about the letter. Some heard counsel on masks, but no counsel regarding vaccines. Some readers saw few changes as their wards were already implementing multiple safety measures, some saw safety measures re-implemented after having been lessened in recent months, and others saw no changes and few if any safety measures. While most readers shared the response of male church leaders, one shared that prior to this letter, their ward had called two female COVID specialists and has female ward council members actively involved in setting procedures. Another reported reading the First Presidency letter to her Primary class so the kids could hear the message directly. Readers reported mixed experiences with safety measures in Primary and at youth activities. Some readers worry that a lack of safety measures will prevent them or vulnerable family members from being able to attend worship services in person, while other readers worry that due to medical conditions preventing their personal wearing of masks, they will be unwelcome in worship services. Opportunity to participate in worship over Zoom varied, as did local government mandates regarding safety measures.

*********

Spunky – Australia:

I am in Australia and we are on online church. No one said a word about the message.

Benita – Washington:

My bishop sent an email to the ward asking everyone to wear a mask, referring specifically to the First Presidency’s message. I don’t know how many in the congregation wore masks, but everyone on the stand did. I participated by Zoom, because I had come home from the hospital on Thursday, recovering from surgery. I noticed in his email that he also reminded people that anyone who didn’t feel comfortable attending church in person was invited to use Zoom. No comments from ward Relief Society leadership. (Our governor just announced that masks are again mandated for all 5 and over in indoor spaces, taking effect next Monday. Previously announced statewide mask mandate for schools, and now a vaccine mandate for all K12, college, and licensed daycare workers.)

Danielle – Seattle, Washington:

Our ward had already been pretty much fully masking due to the increase in cases, even though our vaccination rate is pretty high, so the FP message didn’t really change anything.
Being a member of the ward council during this whole pandemic, I would say that another female member and myself have been fairly outspoken in our opinions on how to handle things. We also had two ward covid specialists called back around February to help us figure out when/how to go back to meeting in person. Both of them are female and have been highly respected and often deferred to in making decisions.
As for this past Sunday, everyone was masked without complaint, and a bishopric member read the FP letter aloud over the pulpit. Sacrament bread is still (and may always be) distributed in individual sacrament cups by masked, gloved, hand sanitized priesthood holders. Everyone who walks up to the pulpit wipes it down after they are done speaking.
I have to say, there is really nowhere I’d rather be going to church through this pandemic. Our ward gets an A+ for handling this so so well. I am incredibly grateful.

Em – Eugene, Oregon:

Got an email from the stake presidency informing us that the Governor had reinstituted a mask mandate in public places, and that everyone age 5 and up would be required to wear one at church, though singing and sacrament would be allowed (removing only to slip in the bread and water). They also sent a link to the First Presidency message, telling us we had received counsel to wear masks and be vaccinated. If wearing a mask is “physically or otherwise” an issue for you, please stay at home and take advantage of your ward’s broadcast, while finding other ways to serve and love. I wasn’t at church and couldn’t see the congregation in the broadcast, but a friend who was there said that attendance was way down but everyone was wearing masks. I’m grateful to live in a place where they’re taking this seriously and the congregation has been willing to follow guidance on it.

Kellie – Eugene, Oregon:

My Bishop read the statement from the pulpit and everyone at church was masked.

Naoimi – Corvallis, Oregon:

The First Presidency message came out the same week that the governor of Oregon reinstated a state-wide mask mandate for indoor public spaces. Our stake president emailed the message to everyone in the stake and on Sunday we went back to fully masked meetings and sitting every other row in the chapel. We had never stopped offering a Zoom sacrament meeting option (the broadcast ends when it’s time for the sacrament to be blessed and passed, but you can listen to the talks from home). Attendance was low in my ward, but everybody there wore a mask.

KDER – Bay Area, California:

It was mentioned briefly, but only masks-which were mandatory. No mention of vaccine. One female speaker joked asking, if “anyone was going to panic” if she took off her mask during her speech.

Jen – Idaho:

Our bishopric sent out an email soon after the guidelines were released strongly encouraging members to wear masks, but also explaining that there would be additional rows of seating in the back of the chapel/cultural hall for those who would prefer to distance themselves instead. I’d say 75% wore masks.

Heather – Idaho:

Not a peep from anyone—bishopric just wore masks. Only 5 members wore masks.

Sally – Las Vegas, Nevada:

We have to follow government guidelines and our governor is pretty strict. We went without masks for just a little while recently, but governor mandated masks again a few weeks ago, so we have been wearing them and social distance using every other pew. Everyone in the ward follows it. The entire letter was read last week over the pulpit. I know many people don’t want to wear the masks, but everyone does due to government regulation.

H – Provo, Utah:

Full letter was read over the pulpit. High council speaker spoke on following the prophet, closing prayer prayed for everyone to wear masks and get vaccines. Bishop sent a letter asking everyone to wear masks and read the talk “Lord, Is it I?”

A Poor Wayfaring Stranger – Provo, Utah:

Our bishop and SP finally sent out a notice yesterday-a week after the FP email. All they said was to pray about the matter. As a Covid Longhauler of 15 months I am really angry about their casual attitude to an extremely serious and life threatening situation. Our SP got Covid in the spring and was in the ICU for six weeks where he nearly died twice. You would think that he, of all people, would be working as diligently as possible to remind bishops and members of the stake just how deadly Covid can be. I refuse to go anywhere near our church building and the vast majority of the ward members because of my own health situation. Our bishop’s attitude is that if we have enough faith we won’t get Covid. I can’t sustain someone who has such an ignorant attitude. Besides, if a ward member gets Covid does that mean that they are lacking in faith? Thinking people know what the true answer to that question is, but for a large majority of the ward who refuse to follow masking and social distancing protocols or get vaccinations they tar with a very large brush anyone who gets sick. As I am the lone Longhauler I feel like my status is on par with the sons of perdition. I’m to be shunned. My heart is not broken because I have never felt like I belonged in my ward. Staying home with my husband (who’s also been an outsider since our ward was created) and staying safe has given us the blessed opportunity to learn to love Sundays again. We study the scriptures using the best resources that we’ve been able to find to aid our study (most would not be on the church’s approved reading list) and discuss them in a way that no Sunday School class would. Then we watch an episode of “The Chosen” which is about the Savior’s earthly ministry. Sometimes we’ll listen to an inspiring talk or sermon. So, even though we’re the current ward outcasts during the pandemic the Lord has blessed us with great and wonderful spiritual experiences that we’d have missed out on if we’d followed the crowd and taken our lives in our hands just to go to church.

Elisa – Utah County, Utah:

1) Nothing from the stake, although I know they sent leadership the letter on Saturday and said “this is your responsibility.” 2) we got our weekly pre-sunday email with announcements and the sacrament program a couple of days after the letter came out and it said nothing about masks (which have not been required for some time). 3) late Saturday night we got an email from the bishop forwarding the letter and asking us to wear masks. They were also passing masks out Sunday morning but they ran out quickly.

A lot of people in the chapel were wearing masks (that they’d been handed) but the overflow / cultural hall was probably only 25% or less masked. I don’t know what happened second hour because we didn’t stay when we saw how few were masked.

I think the attitude is currently exactly what it was the first time we required masks – they say they are required, but they also say “but don’t you dare make anyone who doesn’t wear a mask feel bad or excluded.” (That attitude has been expressed in both word and deed. It drives me absolutely nuts because masks are the inclusive option and it is quite a twilight zone to leave church because you are the only ones following the rules. Setting aside what you do in your personal life, if church asks you to wear masks at church just do it. They own the building and they can tell people to wear masks. Seriously.)

Shanna – Utah County, Utah:

The letter was not read or mentioned at all. The bishopric was masked as well as the organist and her husband which was different from two weeks prior where only one counselor in the leadership was masked. Very few masks in the congregation. The priesthood preparing and passing the sacrament was masked but those came off as soon as the administration of the sacrament was done.

H.S. – Pleasant Grove, Utah:

In my ward we had less than 5% masking before the First Presidency email and no social distancing. I am at high-risk and have been watching Sacrament Meeting via Zoom, though my fully-vaccinated husband attended in-person to help with the music. After the FP email, the stake sent out an email advocating the importance of obedience, but it didn’t mention masks or any change to COVID-19 preventative measures in the stake. No mention of the email over the pulpit, no masks worn by members of the bishopric, EQ presidency, or RS presidency. No female perspective. At best, we had 20% masking post-email. My bishop did voice support on FB for a sister who shared copy-paste “personal revelation” that she can ignore the FP guidance and that she shouldn’t get vaccinated. My husband was so disturbed by that that he won’t be attending in person anymore either (to protect me, since no one in the ward is taking COVID-19 seriously).

Wenwin – Southern Utah:

No mention of the letter. No masks in the congregation. SP was our main speaker. Bishopric not masked. Covid was not mentioned once. No social distancing.

Melissa – Ogden, Utah:

No one read it over the pulpit. A few more people than usual were wearing masks in Sacrament Meeting. I read it to my Primary class of 11-year-olds. I wanted to make sure they could hear and understand it themselves.

Amanda – Salt Lake City, Utah:

We have always been every other pew. Masks were optional for vaccinated people for only a few months, but even then all primary children and leaders were required to mask. We went back to highly recommended masks in July. Letter was emailed out earlier in week, but no mention at church. Virtually 100 percent with masks.

Holly – Salt Lake City, Utah:

Complete radio silence. No email from our bishop or our SP. No announcement over the pulpit. Seven same people wearing masks (we are four). It was as if the official declaration never happened. I just don’t understand. Needless to say, we will be attending via Zoom now. Indefinitely.

Steve – Salt Lake City, Utah:

My ward went back to masks and social distancing the week before the letter was issued. The Bishop said in an effort to protect the vulnerable (seniors and young children) in our ward, we will be required to wear masks in the church building. People who aren’t comfortable or unable to wear a mask are asked to attend via Zoom. Ushers hand masks to anyone who shows up without one if they would like to stay, otherwise they are asked to attend online.

SML – Wasatch County UT (Heber/Midway area):

Nothing was said between when the letter came out and Sunday meetings. At our in-person sacrament meeting (Zoom has been discontinued for a few weeks now and masks are no longer required), the letter was read, and it was stated that the stake presidency had asked for the letter to be shared over the pulpit. The bishopric member who read the letter urged us to pray about the counsel given in the letter. 2/3 of the bishopric were masked, and there was a slight uptick in mask wearing overall (maybe about 10-15% wearing them up from essentially zero last week). The bishopric member told me after the meeting that the Zoom option would likely be reinstated, but there is no word on that yet.

SMH – Utah west of Salt Lake City:

Nothing in our meetings re: 1st Pres. Letter. Deacons are masked during sacrament which is still served in individual cups. Stand is not wiped down between speakers anymore. Primary and weekly activities are pre-pandemic standard. There is still a broadcast option for folks at home. Some of the elderly members still wear masks. Chapel seating is pre-pandemic and numbers are increasing due to home construction in the area. Many new families don’t mask. Our county covid numbers are highest per capita in the state at the moment.

April – Thatcher, Arizona and South Jordan, Utah:

I went to a wedding in Thatcher, Arizona last weekend. The temple workers were wearing masks but not the guests. I did not attend church there on Sunday, but my extended family members said they returned to all their previous pandemic rules which had since been relaxed, besides masks, they also went back to seating only every other row and individual cups for bread.

My own stake presidency in South Jordan, Utah sent an email encouraging everyone to be vaccinated and mentioned that the stake presidency themselves had been vaccinated. They said that masks would be required again at church in our stake. (They had lifted mask-wearing rules a few months back.) They also added that church members can choose to watch church via Zoom instead of attending in person, which seems to me like a good option for immune-compromised and anti-maskers alike.

Valerie – Southern Arizona:

First counsellor in our bishopric read the part about social distancing and pointed out that every other row in the area where the pews were was roped off. It was a free for all in the overflow section, where we sit. We had tried to social distance but a 20-something, who was unmasked and who I know is anti mask, anti vaccination, sat in the row directly in front of us. First counselor didn’t read the part about masks strongly urged, instead he said masks were optional. We had a Stake HC speaking (no one on the stand wore masks) and he specifically said how happy he was to see people’s faces. Made me sick, my husband and I were the only adults wearing masks. However, in other wards in our stake, people on the stand were masked. I know a friend in Tucson whose SP said “back to wearing masks, folks.”
Another thing that I shake my head over is how people are NOW saying, well it’s SO important to follow the prophet, isn’t it great that he and the First Presidency made that statement? After how many people have died or become very ill?

Jason – Peoria, Arizona:

At 10pm Saturday night an email went out urging masks at church, and to be christlike to each other about our choices. Only a dozen wore them the next day. We had speaker after speaker gaslight us about how we “choose” to be offended. How it’s unchristlike to take issue with those who choose differently than us. That we need to come together and accept those who think differently than us. Oddly this never applied to all the young girls lectured or sent home from an activity for short shorts though. This is all to be expected on Peoria Arizona though, not surprised. To add there is no zoom option.

Anon – Southwestern US:

We were back to seating every other pew and were told to only sit by household. Less than 10% of people were wearing masks. The bishopric and high council were not wearing them. The letter was not read.

I’m honestly fine with this reaction. It complies with the letter, since masks were only required if social distancing could not be maintained, and social distancing was maintained. I have a medical condition that prevents the wearing of a mask, and I was afraid I would be turned away at the door and called unchristlike for my disability, and I was pleasantly surprised that it was a non-issue. I was glad to still be welcomed in God’s house.

Cierra – Colorado:

Here in Colorado we were told that the ward wasn’t going to tell anyone to wear or not wear a mask. That it’s the individuals choice. Additionally, that social distancing of rows will take place. Masks were not encouraged at all.

Elisabeth – Texas:

Part of the letter was read out loud mentioning only the parts about wearing masks. The speaker called it a letter from the stake presidency. Typically no matter how interesting letters from the first presidency or stake presidency are read in full. More people were wearing masks, but I think we need more promotion of vaccines.

Clara – South Central Missouri:

Our bishop emphasized choice and only those passing the sacrament wore masks. His remarks are very much in line with the political climate here in MO.

Tygan – Wisconsin:

Because of changes to county guidelines, my Wisconsin ward actually started requiring everyone to wear a mask a week or two before the first presidency message. Once the message was released, the bishopric read it from the pulpit. I believe it was read from the pulpit for all units in the stake, but I’m not certain.

E.C. – Ohio:

We got emails from our stake president and bishop. The salient section from the stake president: ”1. First and foremost, we ask that you confidently and faithfully follow the recommendations found in the First Presidency’s 12 August 2021 statement 2. Please continue to conduct in-person local Church meetings. . . 3. Urge those who attend local in-person Church meetings to wear a facial covering if social distancing is not practical A) All of us should be polite, never rude, or contentious in these matters B) Offer to accommodate others as possible to respectfully make things work 4. Local leaders may consider broadcasting Sabbath meetings to individuals who cannot or are unable to attend after notifying the Stake President 5. Individuals who are sick should not attend in person meetings”

And from our bishop: “In line with [the letter from the First Presidency] and observing that we cannot practice physical distancing during our Sunday meetings, Gahanna Ward is going to be following the Prophet’s urging to use face coverings for all in attendance beginning this coming Sunday. I am thankful for President Nelson – an inspired Prophet who leads God’s kingdom on Earth with love and wisdom during these unusual times.”

In general, the response in my ward/stake has been on the side of mollifying those who don’t want to wear masks or be vaccinated. Primary teachers in our ward were instructed to wear masks, but the first Sunday we attended after the CDC announcement in May, neither nursery instructor was wearing a mask. The email from the Primary President assuring us Primary teachers would wear masks was the only instance of a female leader discussing masks at all. We received no information (at least digitally) from a Primary or RS leader following the FP letter.

[Follow up report] Our ward did in fact have everyone masking today (though not everyone wore them correctly). My husband said that at Wednesday night boys activity days last week about 80% (parents and kids) were wearing masks. Honestly it was better than I expected. 

Jenzi – Dayton, Ohio:

Received an email from the bishop the day after the Church’s email saying that the stake sent out instructions that masking and vaccine are personal choices and neither will be enforced. Zoom and social distancing seating were discontinued several months ago, no word about re-instatement.

Beth – Fayetteville, North Carolina:

The message from the First Presidency was read over the pulpit by the bishopric counselor who is conducting sacrament meeting this week. He added that the Stake Presidency appreciates the flexibility and patience of the members of the stake.

My husband is the Bishop and the entire bishopric opted to wear masks, where they had not been wearing them previously. Before the message there were fewer than 25% of ward members wearing masks. On Sunday it was closer to 75%. Interestingly, when the message was read at the beginning of sacrament meeting several members who were unmasked pulled masks from pockets or bags and put them on.

I serve in Primary and leaders/teachers wearing masks were about 50/50. We have been in this ward less than 6 months and I have not been asked at all about my views on COVID/vaccines/masks by a single ward member.

A Person – Orlando:

Full letter read over pulpit. We had already returned to every other pew seating several weeks before and wearing masks again had been asked earlier so this was a re-emphasis. Relief society activity and activity kids were cancelled. Youth activity still occurred, was supposed to have everyone wearing masks again but most were not and I’m tired of being the one requesting it. Temple requires everyone to wear masks to attend here. Our stake presidency has several doctors in it and our stake has a significant population of medical people.

Di – Calgary, Alberta:

We had very strong protocols that were fully lifted by our provincial politicians about a month and a half ago and so the stakes here were directed to lift all protocols too. Then the Delta variant brought on a 4th wave and we get the FP announcement to encourage vaccination, masking and social distancing again – but NOTHING changed at church. In fact we got an email from the stake saying area authorities weren’t providing any new directives. My husband and I have only attended in person about 3 times since March 2020 because we are older and he has some health issues so we won’t be going back anytime soon. It’s very disappointing because the positive covid numbers are really climbing again.

Tim – Calgary, Alberta:

The Stake Presidency simply stated while The First Presidency urged members to get vaccinated, that they are to follow the law on government mask mandates (Calgary, Alberta, in this case) and/or the like. Masks are not required here, but up to the individual. I do not believe wearers — or non-wearers — should be abused or vilified for doing so.

Charlotte – England:

Nothing changed, but our rules are very strict anyway. Temperature check coming in, hand sanitized. Everyone over 11 years masked. Pews spread to back of cultural hall, internal and external doors open to promote airflow. Sacrament: hands sanitized, bread in cups and cups put in bin bag carried by deacon that follows behind the tray. All primary workers are encouraged to take lateral flow tests Saturday night, since kids struggle with social distance. Primary chairs are set up socially distanced, but if we have any visitors the social distance starts to get reduced. Speakers and teachers may take their masks off while they are at the microphone. During primary singing time, the music leader removes their mask. This is in-line with government guidelines for children choirs. They also stand in the draft that blows ways from the children.

Roaming microphones have been purchased for the adult lessons so people don’t have to speak so loudly while commenting. Loud talking causes more aerosols. For the adult toilets, we are instructed to clean after every use and bins are provided outside so you throw your paper towel out after touching the door handle. It seems to be working as the toilets are the cleanest they have ever been. We are struggling with the primary children only toilets, but they are cleaner than before. It was decided that making sure it was two deep everywhere was more important than a person to clean after every child.

We have 3 nutters that don’t wear masks and one exempt person. Despite all this, there are a number of families that don’t think church is safe and are boycotting. I’m calling BS on them because one family traveled to France this summer and another is planning to go to Florida and on a cruise next month. It is a bit of a thing because they are in leadership. The stake said that only special cases approved by the bishop may have sacrament at home.

Elder Holland: Today is the Day to Turn Swords and Muskets Into Plowshares

“Let Us Beat Swords Into Ploughshares,” in the United Nations Art Collection

Dear Elder Holland,

On Monday, August 23, you spoke at BYU’s 2021 University Conference. I first heard about your speech from the expressions of pain on social media from current and former LGBTQ+ BYU students who knew that your words made them less safe on campus. You called for more “musket fire” from faculty in “defending the faith,” specifically in the context of supporting the “doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” with special attention paid to not condoning or advocating for LGBTQ+ students. While I understand that “musket fire” was intended metaphorically, I have to wonder, who are you expecting to maim or kill, even metaphorically?

You started your speech by referring to those present as “teachers,” as all faculty, staff, and administrators at BYU are teachers in some capacity. You also spoke of these teachers as “builders,” building a “temple of learning.” But unfortunately, you also quoted Dallin H. Oaks in calling on these teachers and builders to carry and shoot muskets, as though the Kingdom of God could ever be established by the force of musket fire. As though Jesus had not told Simon Peter to “put up thy sword into the sheath,” because His way was not the way of the sword.

I took particular interest when you spoke of looking forward to a time without need for violence or war. You said, “But we do all look forward to the day when we can ‘beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,’ and at least on this subject, ‘learn war [no] more.’” You see, this day—the day when we can beat swords and muskets into plowshares—is not some future day. Not when it comes to defending the Church. It is today. And it starts with doing away with the words of war.

When Isaiah spoke of a time when people “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks,” he was speaking of a time when people would come to the mountain of the Lord’s house and allow the Lord to rule. The peace that comes from “walking in the light of the Lord” does not come without people first choosing to put down their weapons of war.

Like my friend Em, I believe that you meant the musket shooting metaphorically. I think you intend professors to use intellectual strength, not actual guns, in achieving your goals. But also like Em, I find your words dangerous both in the contexts that she wrote about and in the context of the long history of violence against LGBTQ+ people around the world. It was only two years ago that President Nelson met with the owner of PULSE, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where in 2016, a gunman killed 49 people in a mass shooting. This meeting was well-publicized, but I hope that it was more than a stunt. The reality of actual gun violence against the LGBTQ+ community makes calling for even metaphorical gun violence in “defense of the doctrine of the family” both hurtful and dangerous. Elder Holland, who is it you hope will be shot, even metaphorically?

In her book Cassandra Speaks, Elizabeth Lesser argues for abandoning the language of war in favor of other metaphors and rhetorical options as often as possible, “to fill our imaginations with the full range of what it means to be human.” She argues that our vernacular reflects our culture—do we want a culture of war, or a culture of peace? Do we want our teachers to start the school year considering who they can shoot, or who they can nurture? Instead of words of war, we can reach for metaphors of farming, gardening, baking, building, creating, and healing. We can enter conflicts of theology or doctrine with a mindset of connecting rather than killing.

What might our language become if we turned our rhetorical weapons into plowshares? There are many options for kinder metaphors, but perhaps we might talk of gardening and cultivating. Perhaps you could address BYU teachers at the start of a new school year about prepping the land to provide the best conditions for growth. When we are mired in the language of war and battles and enemies, it’s no wonder there is “confusion” about “recent flag-waving and parade-holding.” When your mission is to shoot, maim, and kill your enemies, what do you need to know about people beyond their label as “enemy”? BYU teachers speaking out on behalf of the marginalized can feel like “friendly fire” when you view teachers as soldiers and marginalized students as enemies.

If we put down the language of war and pick up a metaphor of gardening, of course our teachers would need to know and understand the particular identities of those they are to nurture. It is not enough for a gardener to know that something is a plant—they must identify the specific plant and understand the conditions it needs to thrive. When we are no longer enemies, “flag-waving and parade holding” become useful methods of understanding the needs of students on campus so that a hostile environment can be transformed to a nurturing environment by caring teachers with a stewardship and responsibility to help all students thrive. I think of the BYU Arboretum at the south end of campus with its neat labels identifying different plants. Understanding, naming, and sharing identity is not divisive when the intention is to foster health and growth.

Violent language reflects violent intentions, so we must choose better language and have better intentions. It is not possible to become of “one heart and one mind” while asking teachers to play the role of shooters.

I was sad to hear the way you spoke about love, as though it is love and empathy that we must be careful not to indulge. You said, “We have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning or advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people.” It is people we must be careful with, not acting too freely with love or empathy. You noted that Christ “never once withheld His love from anyone,” but it seems we differ in our interpretations of what that means for us. Christ was never afraid to exercise love over orthodoxy, or show empathy over the principles of the religious institutions of his time. You cannot sustain cruel ideas and policies and call those love. In Queer Mormon Theology, Blaire Ostler explains why Church leaders cannot act in ways that hurt queer Mormons and call it love. “If their so-called love doesn’t promote love, joy, and life, then it is not love. If their so-called love promotes depression, anxiety, hopelessness, and thoughts and feelings of suicide among queer Mormons, then it is not love” (30). Elder Holland, who did you hope would feel loved when you asked BYU teachers to use more musket fire, even metaphorically?

Elder Holland, like you, I also saw the “Y” on the mountain as a child. I also dreamed of attending, following in the footsteps of my father, grandfather, and great-grandmother. When I was privileged to attend BYU, I would enter the Wilkinson Student Center with pride. Ernest Wilkinson, President of BYU from 1951-1971, was my great-uncle, married to my grandpa’s oldest sister. Years later, it was with great sadness that I learned of some of Ernest’s egregiously homophobic speeches on campus, and that he developed a spy ring so students could turn in suspected homosexuals (Taylor G. Petrey, Tabernacles of Clay, 64-65). Recently, I learned more about my grandpa’s youngest brother, Dean, a brother-in-law of Ernest. Dean grew up in Spanish Fork and attended BYU in the early 1940s. He had a great baritone voice and sang in BYU choirs. After graduation, he worked as an announcer for Provo’s KOVO radio station, before spending most of his adult life in San Francisco, working as an accountant.

Sometime in the 1960s, Dean stopped coming around to family events. Before his visits ended, he never brought his male roommate, believed to be his long-time romantic partner. I can’t say if Dean ever heard any of his brother-in-law’s anti-gay speeches, or if he heard any of the homophobic statements of other Church leaders in his lifetime, or what other issues may have distanced him from his mostly-active LDS extended family. But while Dean lived until I was a junior in high school and was only two hours away from where I grew up, I didn’t get to know him. And our family records do not contain the name of his partner, leaving the records of our family incomplete. You see, I do not believe that musket fire from BYU in “support of the doctrine of the family” strengthened my family. Musket fire does not strengthen anyone’s family. LGBTQ+ families are families.

Elder Holland, today is the day to turn swords and muskets into plowshares. Put down the weapons and words of war that would turn LGBTQ+ member of the BYU community into target practice. Cultivate a nurturing, nourishing environment at BYU that allows all student to grow to their greatest potential—and not just metaphorically.

Sincerely,

Katie Ludlow Rich

Musket Fire

CW: Gun violence, school shooting

When I was an eighth grader, just turned fourteen, I encountered gun violence in schools for the first time.  It was 1998 – a year before Columbine brought school shootings into the public consciousness.  I was in band when there was an announcement that the school was on lock down – no one should leave or enter because there was an active shooter at Thurston High School, a few miles away.  As I said, this was before school shootings became so tragically commonplace in the United States that students perform active shooter drills to prepare.  It was an utterly unthinkable situation – terrifying, unprecedented, so much unknown and unknowable.  There were no cell phones and there was only rudimentary internet so tween rumor, speculation and fear provided the first narrative.  In the end we learned two students were killed and twenty-five others were wounded.  It was a scar on my childhood, a moment that marked a clear “before” and “after” – not just for me, but for so many who lived part of their lives when students weren’t shot at, and part when they were.

Since that time school shootings have become nearly routine in my country. As a professor I now stand at the other end of the class room, theoretically in charge in an emergency.  But I’m trained to teach history.  I’m not an armed guard.  I have never received guidance on how I could turn a decades-old University classroom into a makeshift bunker, or escape from painted shut windows should the need arise.  I have on occasion brain-stormed an action plan with students but the hard truth is that if someone entered my classroom wielding a gun I, as the standing authority figure facing the door, would probably be the first target. I think about that every single time I stand up to lecture.  I try to imagine where I could hide, whether I could text “I love you” to my family, if playing dead would only ensure my demise, or if it could work.

Sometimes pundits have proposed arming teachers so that we could exchange fire over the heads of our classes.  Besides my own aversion to guns and violence, there is the wee problem of who I’d be shooting at – my own student.  Sometimes my students drive me nuts.  But I do invest a great deal of time, energy and love into their education.  I care about them, a lot.  I would not be able to turn on a dime from helping build their future one day to ending their life the next, even in a self-defense situation (for which I am, I add, not at all trained nor do I wish to be.  I’m a teacher, not a commando.)

I do the same thing at Church — there are so many Church shootings here.  How would I shield my children if a shooter entered my chapel? Could I brace myself shielding them against the wall, taking the bullet? Could we crawl under pews to an exit?  These are the thoughts American teachers and parents have to have on a daily basis.

This is the background that I brought with me to reading Elder Holland’s address to the faculty and staff of BYU from August 23 called “The Second Half of the Second Century.”  In it he repeatedly uses the violent metaphor of defending “the temple of learning” with musket fire.  It is abundantly clear in context that he means this entirely metaphorically – he is not advocating that anyone physically shoot anyone else.  However, his choice of metaphor, given the larger context of school violence, is terrible.  There are already radicalized far-right extremists in this country, including high profile examples of Church members (dressed as Captain Moroni while commiting sedition?) who are clearly armed and ready to act violently.  Now we have the undesirable situation where DezNat and other violent extremists can point to three different apostles (Elders Maxwell and Oaks having been quoted by Elder Holland) seeming to approve of using gunfire to defend Church ideology.  I find Elder Holland’s remarks on the subject to be so dangerously distasteful I’m having a difficult time finding words emphatic enough to convey my feelings.  When so many students and faculty have a fully justified fear of being killed in their classrooms, why on earth would you suggest that faculty and students should be prepared to take up arms against people they see as ideological enemies?  And if you see yourself in the “enemy” camp of this talk, how could you feel safe going to Church, or a Church School, knowing that an apostle of God has urged Church employees to be prepared to (metaphorically) shoot you for your views?  It makes me feel really, really awful and frightened and unwelcome.

Ironically he calls for an end to divisive imagery: “So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.”  I can only presume from context that he means divisive symbols like rainbows.  What could be more unifying than shooting at those you disagree in the name of faith? Is there anything less contentious than categorizing a set of opinions as a threat and enemy of the Church, and that the holders of such opinions should get a round of musket fire?  Rainbows are divisive.  Gunfire is unifying.  Got it.

Unfortunately Elder Holland does not content himself with vague references to defending the faith.  He had to pick out a specific enemy.  Can you guess? Give it a try! He quoted a letter from a parent: “You should know,” the writer says, “that some people in the extended community are feeling abandoned and betrayed by BYU. It seems that some professors (at least the vocal ones in the media) are supporting ideas that many of us feel are contradictory to gospel principles.”  Hmm! I feel that way! I think that some vocal BYU professors have said abbhorant things contrary to the principles Christ taught in the Gospel.   “Several parents have said they no longer want to send their children here or donate to the school.”   Again, I’ve certainly questioned whether my tithing money should be used to support an institution that discriminates, and I’d hesitate to let my children be indoctrinated in a far-right rhetoric environment.  But alas, he is not speaking to the allies of minority groups who have experienced discrimination, cruelty and exclusion.  No, the real victims here are the “wounded students and parents who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means.”  The enemy that is assaulting the temple of learning, and needs to be repelled with metaphorical musket fire, are LGBTQIA students, parents and allies.  As if that community were not already the targets of violence by radicalized conservatives, we now need to add apostolic voices seeming to advocate for exactly that.  It’s unconscionable.

Elder Holland pays the lip service to love that is so commonly the prelude to taking profoundly unloving stances.  “Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.”  Rhetorically there is a convenient little sleight of hand here – it is “the World” (a word that we commonly contrast to the Church, and which is vaguely “other”) which is too often unkind and crushingly cruel.  Not Church leaders, or the Board of Trustees, or the students.  It’s The World, so not us!  We’re against The World!  I won’t dispute that homophobia thrives outside the Church.  But that aspect of worldliness is alive and well within our walls. Rooting it out vigorously would be a good balm for all those hours of weeping.

His plea over and over is for unity, which is a Godly goal.  But his vision of unity serves only the people who already agree with him.  There is no place in the fold for disagreement (those folks are guilty of taking aim and shooting north, to Salt Lake and the Church Office Building). Nor will the fold be in any sense willing to grow, change or accommodate.  Unity is conformity.  For instance, he decried a student at graduating speaking about sexual orientation:  “If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long?”  Commencement should represent the best of our values and should never represent a view that others would find painful, confusing, controversial or upsetting. Hmm.  I would argue that BYU lost institutional dignity at commencement in 2007 when they gave an honorary doctorate to Dick Cheney, the unrepentant architect of torture.  So Unity would mean progressive people being silent both about their own experience and when faced with their school lauding and rewarding a morally bankrupt man.

It is hard to imagine how one could ever be unified with people who suggested you deserve to be shot at for your point of view.  Elder Holland says that after all the shooting is done (and presumably BYU wins) then we can beat our swords into ploughshares and “learn war no more.”  This vision of unity really just suggests a willingness to destroy or alienate anyone who disagrees until the only people that remain are of one mind.  I do not believe that that is not what the Lord had in mind when he said “if ye are not one ye are not mine.”

The tension between the teachings of current Church leaders and how progressive Mormons interpret Christ’s teachings is a real issue.  I’m not minimizing the scale of the disagreement – the defensiveness on one side and the pain of discrimination on the other are both exceedingly great.  I do dream of unity, though it is hard to imagine how we could achieve that without a personal intervention and arbitration by the Savior.  But I’ll tell you one thing – you’ll never ever achieve unity by glorifying killing people who disagree with you.  Why on earth would I want to hear the perspective of people who can, with a straight face, claim in the same talk that they love me and want unity, but also it would be good for me to have a whiff of grapeshot (as long as we’re using 18th century weaponry).  I treasure some of the words that Elder Holland has spoken on very tender topics close to my heart.  But this was dangerous, and badly done.

 

 

 

Selfishness Never Was Kindness

Guest Post by Nicole Sbitani. Nicole is an adult convert, a non-Black woman of color, and a professional diplomat. She blogs at nandm.sbitani.com and writes microfiction @nsbitani on Twitter. The content of this post does not represent the views of the U.S. Department of State or any other U.S. Government agency, department, or entity. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and in no way should be associated with the U.S. Government.

On August 13, the First Presidency shared a message regarding COVID-19. Here is the full message with nothing altered or omitted:

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

We find ourselves fighting a war against the ravages of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting pandemic. We want to do all we can to limit the spread of these viruses. We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population.

To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective.

We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children.

The First Presidency

Russell M. Nelson

Dallin H. Oaks

Henry B. Eyring

This message clearly urges (with the word “urge”!) us to wear face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. It also devotes multiple sentences to the safety and efficacy of vaccines as well as the importance of getting vaccinated to protect oneself and others. Despite the message’s brevity and plain language, however, some members and leaders have bent over backwards to avoid hearing the Prophet.

Take, for example, the message a friend’s friend received from his bishop (excerpted below and photo included above):

“…I have been impressed that this message is more about humility, tolerance and kindness than about masks and vaccines. As your bishop, I encourage you to ponder this message from the Prophet in humility and determine how you will proceed.

If you choose to attend our church meetings with a mask – GREAT.If you choose to not wear a mask – GREAT.If you choose to be vaccinated – GREAT.If you choose to not be vaccinated – GREAT.

…Our Sabbath day worship and other meetings are and will continue to be open to everyone that wants to attend regardless of masks or vaccinations. As your bishop, I also encourage you to understand that if you comment or have unkind feelings about someone else’s choice regarding wearing a mask or being vaccinated, this is not Christ-like…If you are not comfortable attending meetings at this time, we will continue to broadcast Sacrament meeting over the Internet.”

What that local leader fails to realize is that in matters of public health the consequences of an individual’s decision are not limited to that individual. By choosing to prioritize the inclusion of those who refuse to vaccinate or wear masks, this bishop has chosen the de facto exclusion of those who cannot attend church while their fellow congregants are taking such risks. These include the immunocompromised, caretakers for at-risk family members or friends, and those who cannot afford to get sick for financial or other reasons. The bishop decided that they, some of the most marginalized populations in his ward, should be stuck at home watching Sacrament meeting online while others attend church. By failing to do his part to encourage those under his stewardship to protect themselves and others, he also put vulnerable people at greater risk in the surrounding community more generally.

He also says that even so much as commenting on someone’s choice to mask or vaccinate is “not Christ-like”, but Christ always prioritized those most in need of Him. Matthew 25:40 reads: “…Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” It is baffling that any honest student of the Scriptures and the Gospel could conclude that Christ would encourage one group’s personal preference and convenience at the expense of another’s safety and life. We have even been blessed with a Prophet to guide us on the Earth today who is urging us all to get vaccinated and wear masks.

From people like that bishop, I have heard many complaints about the possibility of public health mandates taking away freedom. As someone who grew up exposed to the harms of secondhand smoke, I’m so grateful for mandates in the United States that now prevent smoking indoors and right in front of the entrances of buildings. Smokers still have the freedom to smoke but not to harm others with their smoking who chose not to be around smoke.

I see indoor mask mandates the same way. I have friends with medical conditions who cannot attend Church if public health precautions are ignored. I would not mind a mandate limiting my ability to take my mask off in Church, a small price to pay to protect the health of my fellow men and women and give them access to the blessings of attending Church and taking the Sacrament.

When they first banned smoking inside, a lot of smokers complained about their freedom being taken away. But people with lung disease and others who suffered from their decision to smoke inside were blessed by that mandate. And the reality is, smokers can still smoke in their home, in their yard right in front of the door, or with their friends freely. But a mandate that protects the halls of houses of worship and the people who attend them is not against God – it’s what God would have us choose to do, using our precious gift of agency.

Those who would seek to preserve their freedom to harm others should heed the counsel in Alma 41:10: “Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.” To this I add: selfishness never was kindness. Later in the same chapter of Alma in verse 14, the Scriptures command us to “see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually”. When we focus on dealing with others mercifully, justly, and righteously, we will be inspired to do good continually – including holding ourselves and those around us accountable for masks and vaccines.

A Prayer for the Weary

Many days, I get on Facebook and it seems that the hearts and minds of Christians are among the harshest, hardest, and cruelest.

Then I read an article or post and I am reminded how Christians can be filled with compassion, hope, and beauty.

And I think: I’ve heard that churches should be like hospitals for the spiritually broken, but so often they feel like shrines for the supposedly whole.

I’ve heard that the gospel is for the weary, the sinner, the broken-hearted, the seeker, the other, the hopeful, the hopeless.

So often, it feels like it is for the same, the perfect, the know-er, the comfortable, the getting it “right,” the judge.

I believe Christians should focus less on Christ throwing out the money changers and more on Him welcoming in the poor in spirit.

Our hearts should be so filled with the Living Water, that it overflows as charity, service, love, kindness, and compassion.

We should worry less about how someone dresses, whether they use and a credit card or ebt card, and if they are following every rule.

Our churches should look like community centers; serving, welcoming in, healing.

Our flock should have no boundaries, no “them,” only “us.”

Let’s “love the sinner and not the sin” less and just love more.

Let’s excommunicate the “sinful” less and excommunicate rigidity, fear, tradition, and culture more.

Let us be so filled by the mercy and love of Christ that when truth leaves our lips, even hard truths, they only heal, never wound. This is my prayer.