Exponent II's Blog, page 138

Oh, Those Girl’s Camp Dress Codes

From the 2015 movie “Once I Was a Beehive”. These girls are way more accessorized and cute at camp than I ever was.

I am currently grappling with an issue that is hardly new among LDS young women and their mothers – but it is a new issue for me – that of dress codes and staying modest at Young Women’s camp. My oldest daughter turned 12 this spring and will be attending hers for the first time this summer. 

She came back from a camp planning meeting with a packet of information, which included a strict dress code: no shorts allowed, shirts must cover stomachs, and only one piece swimsuits with shorts over them during water activities. (My daughter said she was curious if she’d be allowed to sleep in shorts at night because she doesn’t like long pajama pants, but was too timid to raise her hand and ask since they were so adamant about the NO SHORTS ALLOWED rule.) These rules, I presume, have multiple reasons behind them, some of which I probably agree with.  I also know from my years as both a young woman and a young women’s leader that at least some of the reasons are because there will be priesthood holders at camp and the girls are required to dress modestly for them.

This frustrates me on many levels. Why do we need men to even go to girl’s camp in the first place, and why would we want to make the girls uncomfortable for their sake (too hot, bogged down with excess layers while swimming, worried about lifting their arms and exposing a flash of skin)? Isn’t the camp supposed to be for the benefit of the girls, not the adults? I also know from the photographs and stories of young men at their scout camps that they absolutely wear shorts, swim shirtless and go without unnecessary non-swimwear on top of their swimming suits. 

It’s interesting to me that dress code rules are on the top of the list , even before safety rules. Is keeping the girls modest more important than not being eaten by bears?

The camp my ward attended was at a church owned facility, staffed by missionaries. I do not blame my local Young Women’s leaders for these rules, as I am sure they would have preferred shorts, too. I know they were passing along the instruction they were given, but let me break down my points of concern with these camp rules:

Men are going to girl’s camp:
First of all, I don’t think we need men at Girl’s Camp. I’m a girl scout leader and we go camping every summer with no men involved at all. Camping is not an activity that requires men to happen. Women can set up tents and build campfires and administer first aid all on their own. In fact, having men come to camp every year with us when I was a teenage girl greatly impeded my ability to learn outdoor skills. They would come early to set up our tents for us and be there the morning we left to take them down again. This seemed like a nice gesture at the time, but in reality it set me back quite a bit in my outdoor skills. Now as a girl scout leader (this is embarrassing), I STILL don’t know how to set up a tent or start a fire. I always have another (female) leader with me who knows how and she takes over and does it while I work on something else. I have become accustomed to this, and it all started when I was a teenage girl and thought that only priesthood holders could manage fire or set up a tent. I am sure that eventually I will have to chance to do this on my own, and I will do fine when the time comes. But in my mind, I still think of fire building and tent setting up as a difficult task that I don’t know how to manage on my own.

But regardless, men will be attending Young Women’s camp. That’s just how it is, and I am resigned to this fact. So back to the clothing rules…

No shorts allowed: I can understand that long pants might be a better option in some situations (to stay warm at night, avoid poison ivy, or getting legs scratched up on a hike). However, why would they not be allowed to even bring shorts to camp in the middle of the summertime? Couldn’t they wear pants when pants are appropriate, but be able to change into shorts if the weather is hot and they are eating lunch at their campsite? Couldn’t they be allowed to make practical decisions for themselves? Even in the 1990s when I attended girl’s camp, I remember purchasing an extremely unflattering pair of shorts from K-Mart that reached my knees to follow the strict “knee-length shorts only” rules of my ward. I also remember thinking it was annoying because my regular shorts weren’t immodest, they just weren’t quite to my knees. But looking back, I’m glad that I got to wear shorts at all.

(Quick sidenote! I originally wrote this blog post over a month ago, and I’m jumping in here with an update on the weather two days after my daughter came home from camp. Sometimes in June it can be snowing in the canyon, so pants would definitely be preferable in that scenario. Unfortunately, this year the second day of Girl’s Camp we hit a record high temperature in the valley of 107 degrees Farenheit. It’s cooler in the canyon by about 10 – 15 degrees, but all I could think about during the heat wave was all the poor leaders and girls wearing pants in the record heat. It makes sense to ask people to bring long pants in case of unseasonably cold weather in June, but why not also allow them to bring shorts in case of unseasonably hot weather?)

No bare midriffs are allowed.
It even adds “This is Mandatory” following the sentence forbidding them. Are they worried about the girls getting a sunburn on their bellies, or are they worried about girls not dressing modestly enough around the priesthood holders that will be at camp? Again, the boys will be literally shirtless at their scout camp this summer. Is that because no women accompany them on their trips, so there’s no concern about turning the women on with their partial nudity? If that’s the case, then let’s solve this issue by kicking the men out of the girl’s camp as well. Problem solved! 

Only one piece swimming suits:
This is the one that baffles me. First, one piece swimsuits are a pain. You have to get totally naked to pee. Tankinis (in my opinion) are far more practical, cover the same amount of skin, and let you only get half naked to pee, which is far preferable. Unfortunately for some reason in our culture, two piece swimwear is considered immodest. Interestingly, I’ve heard from other women who grew up in different conservative cultures state the exact opposite – they were told that one piece swimsuits were inherently indecent because the bottoms were basically like a pair of underwear and the upper chest and back was usually open to the skin. Instead they would wear boy’s board shorts and a sports-style tankini top with a bit of their stomach showing (but less of their back and cleavage). They couldn’t understand the LDS phenomenon of forbidding the girls to show their midriffs since boys were allowed to not only bare their midriffs but also their entire stomach, back and chest at the swimming pool.

Shorts that can get wet to be worn over their swimwear:
What on earth is this for? They are going to a boating activity on a lake with the bishop. The only reasoning I can come up with is because priesthood holders (like the bishop) will be there and the girls need to dress modestly for them. This has been discussed many times before, but to state the obvious yet again – do we believe that our bishop is a saint with whom we can trust our 12 year old daughters to be alone with in his office while he listens to them confess to sexual sins, or are we worried he might be a pervert who cannot be trusted to control his thoughts around young teen girls in a normal swimsuit while at a swimming activity? We can’t have it both ways! Pick a lane, people.

By the time this posts, my daughter will have finished girl’s camp and she and I will be headed to Yellowstone National Park with our girl scout troop. The only clothing rule we have is this: wear some. There will be no men, no policing of midriffs or shoulders, and no bizarre rules about shorts over their swimwear – and the only thing the leaders will tell the girls to put on top of their exposed skin is sunscreen. 

Finally, just for fun everyone…here’s a picture of what LDS boy scout camps looked like for over a century:

Child Marriages Increase During Pandemic

COVID is hard on everyone– especially girls who may be forced into child marriage as a way to finance their families when parents lose employment. 

This is a reminder that global post-pandemic recovery is especially hard on the females who are still viewed as property.

Why do more men than women think children equal fulfillment?

The statement put to survey respondents was whether “having children is necessary in order to find fulfillment in life” — respondents were asked to agree or disagree.

We asked 60,000 Australians about their lives. See where you fit on the issues that matter.

Read more

Seventy-four per cent of women disagreed with that statement — three quarters.

Forty-eight per cent of men disagreed — one half.

That’s quite a gap.

Read the article here to see why. (hint: women are more realistic about the challenges of parenthood)

Sunday Prayers: Pride and Juneteenth in the Pandemic

Detail of the Rainbow Black Madonna of Częstochowa by Elżbieta Podleśna.

In the last month we have celebrated Pride even as states seek to restrict rights for transgender people. We have seen the adoption of Juneteenth as a national holiday in the United States while many state governments seek to restrict voting rights, which will disproportionately impact communities of color. Even as my children (and now whole household) reach full vaccination status this week, there are few mask-wearers in my low-vax rate county and millions of children and adults around the world do not yet have access to the vaccine. The impact of the virus on families and communities continues to be devastating, even as it is beginning to feel easier and less risky in my life. As I try to hold these joys and sorrows together in my life, I sense an invitation to pray.

Pray with me.

God who is with us in our celebration,
God who is with us in our grief and anger,
You know that we live in a complicated world.
Show us how to hold that messiness
Without being overwhelmed.

Guide us to remember our parents and grandparents,
Who were scarred by the conditions of the Great Depression and wartime rationing
At the time when our own pandemic scars are beginning to form,
As we try to get distance from the last year
And reach for normalcy wherever we can find it.

Remind us to hold and feel that which is good and joyful.
At the same time,
Remind us to hold and feel that which is sad and painful.
Pride and Juneteenth contain all of these.
Rainbows and red punch do not erase
Histories of violence and exclusion.
As we sit with the complexity of these celebrations,
Give us the courage to see and name the gaps
Between our values and our actions,
Personally and collectively,
And always seek to close them.

Give us the courage to be humble and curious
In a world full of misinformation,
Where the misinformed are exploited
In ways that benefit the powerful.

Help us to resist the destructive impulses of anger
But to heed the parts of our anger that call us into transformation.
Where bitterness grows from our wounds,
Remind us that we are not alone.
Help us to find healing disinfectant in our relationships,
To find the strength to pick up the phone and reestablish connections,
To repair and to trust again, where possible.

God of death-and-resurrection,
Hear our prayer.
Amen.

5 Ways Improve Primary

When sacrament meeting ends, what’s the first thing most adults do? Begin chatting. Sure; adults attend church for spiritual enrichment, but they also want to do more than sit and listen. We crave socialization, interaction, and even activity. Kids feel this twice as much.

By the time sacrament ends, kids are all over sitting still, reverence, and listening to over-their-heads content. So, why are adults consistently ushering them from sacrament immediately to Primary, holding up reverence reminder signs, and encouraging them to sit silently? No wonder so many kids must be pushed into class, heels dragging. I’m internally dragging my heels on my way to Sunday School and I’m in my 40s.

So, how do we make Primary more kid-friendly, engaging, and *gasp* fun?

Here are 5 ways to improve LDS Primary:

Emphasize Fun.

In an article about kid’s ministry at Better Bible Teachers, the author, Nathan Johnson, doesn’t mince words:

Your primary goal on Sunday morning is to teach God’s Word and to see the lives of kids changed. That is wonderful. But keep this in mind. The kids are not showing up to be spiritually fed. Think about it this way…When you were in third grade did you walk into church thinking about how great the message was going to be? No! You were concerned with the amount of fun you were going to have and if your friends were going to be there.

Better Bible Teachers

I’ll never forget the day I walked into Primary at a small LDS church in Banbury, London and found a class in the hallway bowling. I’m certain they had a spiritual goal in my mind, but more importantly, they focused on engagement, activity, and variety. The Spirit can be fun too!

2. Emphasize Relationships. When my husband and I taught Sunbeams years ago, we quickly learned that kids were over it by the time they arrived in our classroom. They wanted to talk to friends they didn’t see all week, move, and talk. We didn’t feel comfortable incorporating much movement beyond coloring pages, but we did implement  “tell us one great thing about your week” at the beginning of class. This allowed each child to take a turn sharing something special about their week with the class. They loved having the floor, talking about themselves, and getting to know each other! Sure, this took teaching time, but it also helped them feel valued and part of a community. With this in mind, here are some suggestions for emphasizing relationships in Primary:

Give kids 5 minutes to “visit’ each Sunday before formal activities beginTake a 5 minute break between activitiesUse group activitiesMake each 5th Sunday “Donut You Know” in Primary. Bring donuts and match kids up with a new friend or two. Have them draw a donut with a “get to know you” question and encourage groups to answer.Match up senior primary kids with a junior primary buddy. Make this about relationships, rather than behavior.

3. Get Moving. Visit any elementary classroom and you’ll soon discover that students are regularly moving. This includes getting the wiggles out with GoNoodle videos, hands-on learning activities, sitting in groups on the floor, and utilizing learning games. Primary already does this through action-oriented singing time, but movement should be incorporated into every activity.

Ways to get moving:

SkitsPlaysGamesPuppet showsSongs with movementWiggle breaksPuzzlesScavenger huntsOutdoor activitiesWalks in nature

4. Build a Kid-Friendly Curriculum. The LDS church has all of the tools needed to build an awesome kid-friendly curriculum that is fun, active, engaging, and even teaches a spiritual lesson or two. Kids need variety, creativity, and clever repetition of ideas. To improve curriculum, the LDS Church:

Pay educators to build a kid-centered curriculumInvest significant funds into the resources needed to truly engage kids at churchRegularly evaluate and update curriculum and resourcesTrain leaders and teachers in effective teaching strategies

5. Support Primary Leaders and Teachers. Primary should not be an afterthought or last to be staffed with volunteers. If we want to create a positive, engaging church experience for our kids, me must:

Prioritize staffing PrimaryComplete thorough background checksRegularly train teachersInvest in clean, bright, well-maintained spaces for kidsProvide generous funding without so many restrictions and need for Priesthood approvalHave resources readily available each Sunday in classrooms and regularly clean and replace them

Do I think many people are striving for this on an individual and branch/ward level? Absolutely! Do I think there aren’t kids who enjoy and look forward to Primary each week? Absolutely not! But to truly make lasting changes, we need a fundamental shift in the way the LDS Church as an organization frames Primary, funds Primary, and supports primary.

Come Follow Me: Doctrine and Covenants 71-75: “No Weapon That Is Formed against You Shall Prosper”

When Church Experiences Are Less Than IdealAn 1831 mission to Missouri did not go as expected.

A large team of missionaries, including Joseph Smith, Signey Rigdon, Ezra Booth, Edward Partridge, Isaac Morley, and Reynolds Cahoon, among others, traveled from Kirtland, Ohio to Independance, Missouri in June 1831. The missionaries had big expectations for this mission.

The pairs of missionaries departed for Missouri with high hopes. They believed the day of Jesus’s return to earth was very near and that they were traveling to locate and build a temple city in which they would gather to receive the Lord when He came. Rumors rippled that Oliver Cowdery and his fellow missionaries were on the verge of converting many American Indians.
—Matthew McBride, Ezra Booth and Isaac Morley, Revelations in Context

Joseph spoke optimistically about the church in Independence. He told some of the elders that Oliver and the other missionaries were sure to have built up a strong branch of the church there, as they had in Kirtland. Some of the elders took it as a prophecy.
—Saints, Chapter 12: After Much Tribulation

But some missionaries were unhappy with Joseph Smith’s leadership choices during the journey:

[Ezra Booth] was upset that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon left for Missouri on a wagon, while he and Isaac [Morley] were called to walk the entire distance in the summer heat, preaching along the way.
—Matthew McBride, Ezra Booth and Isaac Morley, Revelations in Context

…and that the mission area and people did not match expectations:

But when they reached the town [of Independence, Missouri], the elders were unimpressed by what they saw. Ezra Booth, a former minister who had joined the church after seeing Joseph heal a woman’s paralyzed arm, thought the area looked dreary and undeveloped. It had a courthouse, a few stores, several log houses—and little else. The missionaries had baptized only a handful of people in the area, so the branch was not as strong as Joseph had expected. Feeling misled, Ezra and others began to question Joseph’s prophetic gifts. Joseph was disappointed too. Fayette and Kirtland were small villages, but Independence was little more than a backwater trading post. The town was a point of departure for trails going west, so it drew fur trappers and teamsters along with farmers and small businessmen. Joseph had known people in most of these trades all his life, but he found the men in Independence especially godless and rough. What’s more, government agents in the town were suspicious of the missionaries and would likely make preaching to Indians difficult, if not impossible.
—Saints, Chapter 12: After Much Tribulation

…and that they did not accomplish nearly as much as they had planned to:

In spite of disappointment and the enormity of the city building project, Joseph was determined to make a start. Together with Sidney Rigdon and others, he set to work. They consecrated the land near Independence for a place of gathering, laid the first log for a house in Zion, and set the northeast cornerstone for a temple. Some of the elders, like Reynolds Cahoon, saw exciting possibilities in these symbolic beginnings. “There my mortal eyes beheld grate and marvilous things,” he wrote, “such as my eyes once never even contemplated of seeing in this world.”13 But Ezra Booth was unimpressed by the meager start. It was “a curiosity,” he said, “but not worth going to Missouri to see.”14
—Matthew McBride, Ezra Booth and Isaac Morley, Revelations in Context

Photo by Jon Flobrant on Unsplash

The return trip was tense.

Ezra [Booth] and other church elders started their journey back to Kirtland with Joseph, Oliver, and Sidney. Ezra was relieved to be returning home to Ohio. Unlike Edward, he had not had a change of heart about Joseph or the location of Zion.

The men launched canoes onto the wide Missouri River, just north of Independence, and paddled downstream. At the end of the first day of travel, they were in good spirits and enjoyed a dinner of wild turkey along the riverbank. On the following day, however, the August weather was hot and the river was wild and difficult to navigate. The men quickly grew tired and soon began criticizing each other.30

“As the Lord God liveth,” Oliver finally shouted at the men, “if you do not behave better, some accident will befall you.”

Joseph took the lead in his canoe the next afternoon, but some of the elders were upset with him and Oliver and refused to paddle. At a dangerous bend in the river, they hit a submerged tree and nearly capsized. Fearing for the lives of everyone in the company, Joseph and Sidney ordered the elders off the river.

After they set up camp, Joseph, Oliver, and Sidney tried to talk to the group and ease tensions. Irritated, the men called Joseph and Sidney cowards for getting off the river, mocked the way Oliver paddled his canoe, and accused Joseph of acting like a dictator. The quarrel lasted long into the night.
—Saints, Chapter 12: After Much Tribulation

This problematic mission experience affected the missionaries involved differently.

Isaac Morley and Edward Partridge had negative reactions to the mission, but went on to accept callings as bishops.

While Ezra Booth’s experiences in traveling to Missouri turned him away from the Church, Isaac Morley’s ultimately drew him closer. During the trip, Morley evidently shared, at least to a degree, in Ezra Booth’s cynicism. A revelation received on September 11 (Doctrine and Covenants 64) chastised both [Ezra] Booth and [Isaac] Morley: “They condemned for evil that thing in which there was no evil.” Any second thoughts Morley may have had about his mission were short-lived. Unlike Ezra Booth, Isaac Morley had ceased his criticisms and changed his outlook. The revelation continued in the Lord’s own voice: “I have forgiven my Servent Isaac.” …Having persevered through his doubts, he went on to serve as a bishop and a patriarch. He passed away in Utah in 1865.27
—Matthew McBride, Ezra Booth and Isaac Morley, Revelations in Context

Like Ezra Booth, Edward [Partridge] had expected to find a large branch of the church in the area. Instead, he and the Saints were to build Zion in a town where people were wary of them and not at all interested in the restored gospel.

As bishop of the church, he also understood that much of the responsibility for laying the foundation of Zion fell on his shoulders. To prepare the promised land for the Saints, he would have to buy as much of it as possible to distribute as inheritances to those who came to Zion and kept the law of consecration. This meant that he would have to stay in Missouri and move his family permanently to Zion.

Edward wanted to help establish Zion, but so much about the revelation, his new responsibilities, and the area troubled him. One day, as he inspected the land in and around Independence, he pointed out to Joseph that it was not as good as other land nearby. He was frustrated with the prophet and did not see how the Saints could establish Zion there.

“I see it,” Joseph testified, “and it will be so.”

A few days later, the Lord again revealed his word to Joseph, Edward, and the other elders of the church. “Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation,” He declared. “For after much tribulation come the blessings.”

In the revelation, the Lord also chastened Edward’s unbelief. “If he repent not of his sins,” He said of the bishop, “let him take heed lest he fall. Behold his mission is given unto him, and it shall not be given again.”

The warning humbled Edward. He asked the Lord to forgive his blindness of heart and told Joseph that he would stay in Independence and prepare the land of Zion for the Saints. Yet he still worried he was not up to the enormous task that lay ahead.

“I fear my station is above what I can perform to the acceptance of my Heavenly Father,” he confessed in a letter to Lydia. “Pray for me that I may not fall.”
—Saints, Chapter 12: After Much Tribulation

Back home, the situation escalated with Ezra Booth.

When Ezra returned to Kirtland, he continued to criticize Joseph and complain about his actions on the mission. A conference of Saints soon revoked Ezra’s preaching license.
—Saints, Chapter 13: The Gift Has Returned

Beginning that October, the Ohio Star, a newspaper located in Ravenna, Ohio, began publishing a series of letters Booth penned, heavily criticizing Joseph Smith and the Church.
—Matthew McBride, Ezra Booth and Isaac Morley, Revelations in Context

Excerpts from the letters can be found in these articles.  While the letters gave a largely accurate account of the mission and other church events Ezra Booth had witnessed during his time as a church member, the tone was negative, critical and occasionally sarcastic.

Marquardt, H. Michael (2008) Ezra Booth on Early Mormonism: a Look at His 1831 Letters. The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 28, pp. 65-87David G. (November 16, 2010) Ezra Booth and Commandments in Early Mormonism. Juvenile Instructor.Responding to Criticism

In D&C 71, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon received a revelation instructing them to preach in Ohio as a sort of public relations campaign to counter the bad publicity from Ezra Booth’s letters.

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, that the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient in me that you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel, the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the scriptures, according to that portion of Spirit and power which shall be given unto you, even as I will.
D&C 71:1

What does it mean to act “according to that portion of Spirit and power” the Lord gives us?Why is it important that we act “according to that portion of Spirit and power” the Lord gives us?

The Lord then provided Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon with some “wisdom” to guide them in their task:

Wherefore, labor ye in my vineyard. Call upon the inhabitants of the earth, and bear record, and prepare the way for the commandments and revelations which are to come.

Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also;

For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.
D&C 71:4-6

How is understanding and receiving commandments and revelations different than simply reading them?What do we need to do to better understand and receive the gospel?How does receiving give us power?

In the New Testament, Paul taught Timothy that power from God is accompanied by other spiritual gifts as well: love and a sound mind.

When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began
2 Timothy 1:5-9

Why do we need to respond to people who may criticize our beliefs with love and a sound mind?How can a loving and mindful response be powerful?How can we avoid fear and shame?Why do you think Paul reminded Timothy of the examples of his mother and grandmother?  How can we be strengthened by remembering the good influences in our lives?How can we “stir up” our spiritual gifts?

The Lord also counseled patience to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon regarding Ezra Booth and other critics:

Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;

And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

D&C 71:8-10

What can we learn from this counsel?Why should we “let [people] bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord?” How do we do that?

Elder Hales taught that when our beliefs are challenged, we have an opportunity to emulate Jesus Christ:

One of mortality’s great tests comes when our beliefs are questioned or criticized. In such moments, we may want to respond aggressively—to “put up our dukes.” But these are important opportunities to step back, pray, and follow the Savior’s example. …To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula. The Savior responded differently in every situation. When He was confronted by wicked King Herod, He remained silent. When He stood before Pilate, He bore a simple and powerful testimony of His divinity and purpose. Facing the moneychangers who were defiling the temple, He exercised His divine responsibility to preserve and protect that which was sacred. Lifted up upon a cross, He uttered the incomparable Christian response: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But to “love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]” (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.
—Elder Robert D. Hales, Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship, 2008

Jesus responded in many different ways, so how can we know if we are doing what He would do?Learning from Criticism

Joseph Smith learned from this experience and edited his revelation regarding American Indians in Missouri to clarify that whether the church would be established among them would hinge on whether they chose to convert:

Original Text

And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and cause my church to be established among them
—Text of D&C 28:8, as reported by Ezra Booth, Ohio Star, December 8, 1831. Available in Marquardt, H. Michael (2008) Ezra Booth on Early Mormonism: a Look at His 1831 Letters. The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 28, pp. 65-87

Clarified Text

And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them
D&C 28:8 (current  version, published in 1835)

At times, the feedback we receive from critics can be useful, even if the tone is harsh.

Consider the suggestions, not the tone of the feedback. Understand that some people may have valuable critical suggestions, but their tone and style of speaking may hamper the way you receive it. For those reasons, it better to respond to the feedback and not their confrontational manner. Therefore, detach the two items and focus on the useful suggestions.
—Purity Muriuki, 15 Effective Ways of Dealing with Criticism & Negative Comments, 2020

To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.
—Elder David A. Bednar, And Nothing Shall Offend Them, 2006

Does anyone have any experiences to share in which you learned something useful from criticism that caused you to make a change?What strategies help you listen to and learn from criticism, despite its tone?Communicating Productively about Religious Issues

In our church today, we continue to have members who have negative experiences on their missions or in other spiritual rituals, such as temple attendance, that many other members of our faith community find spiritually enriching.

How can we talk to each other about these experiences?If our experience was positive, how can we hear other points of view with empathy and without defensiveness?If our experience was negative, how can be be honest about it while also being respectful of others who find these experiences positive and sacred?

[image error]Sister Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye, author of Crossings: A Bald Asian American Latter-day Saint Woman Scholar’s Ventures Through Life, Death, Cancer, and Motherhood, is an expert on the Way of Openness, a framework for holding productive conversations about religion among people with differing religious experiences, levels of orthodoxy and beliefs.

The Way of Openness is a set of dialogue conventions developed by Randall Paul at the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. Randall’s worldview, which stems from his Latter-day Saint theology and his generous heart, is that deep disagreements between people do not indicate that one person is very righteous and the other very wicked, or that one person is very smart and the other very stupid. Rather, deep disagreements between people are symptomatic of their mutual goodness, their desire to enact what is right in the world, and their unwillingness to compromise their values and beliefs about what people need to flourish. The goal for productive dialogue is not compromise, but trust.
—Sister Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye, The Way of Openness: Conventions for Productive Dialogue, April 22, 2020, Mormon Women for Ethical Government

How would we converse differently if we saw disagreement as symptoms of mutual goodness?How would our conversations be different if our goal were trust instead of compromise?

Read the Way of Openness.

Which of these strategies have you tried in difficult religious conversations?What has worked for you?

The Way of Openness
The Way of Openness is a set of skills and attitudes that will significantly improve the quality of your conversations, your perception of yourself and others, and the power of your influence for good in the world.

Be Honest
Honesty begins when you look in the mirror. Who do you really think you are and who do want to become? When you are deeply honest, you acknowledge your motives for doing things, and express your thoughts and feelings without faking it. Your honesty prompts others to respond the same way, and with open hearts and minds real communication results.

Be Kind
Kindness goes further toward building trust than the other practices listed here. It is not weak, or naive, or mere politeness. Kindness is a language easily recognized and understood by everyone. Sincere kindness is a powerful way to influence others to desire to hear you. But, be wise: nothing shatters trust more than phony, manipulative kindness, or false respectfulness.

Listen Well
It is hard to listen well when you focus more on your feelings and thoughts than those of the person addressing you. Listening well is not remaining quiet before you insert your response; it is intense focus on a unique person with a desire for understanding. By listening like this to others you offer the gift of respectful empathy that everyone craves to receive. In return others feel like they should listen well to understand you.

Share The Floor
If you want to be taken seriously you must take others seriously. Sharing the floor means allowing others equal time to speak even when you “know” you are right and they are wrong. It acknowledges the mutual dignity of those engaged in conversation. Hogging the floor is disrespectful and rude, and it always undermines your persuasive ability when you appear dismissive or fearful of what others have to say.

Presume Good Will
We often presume that others do not have our best interests at heart. Sometimes they don’t. But you sabotage any honest communication with someone you presume to be stupid, duped, or ill-intentioned. Presuming good will is not agreeing with someone else’s beliefs or values. It means that you grant that others are clear-thinking and good hearted unless proven otherwise.

Acknowledge the Differences
Each of us is uniquely different with a unique history and perspective. Acknowledging our important differences openly frees us to know where we stand without having to guess, and creates a tone of trust for real conversation. You cannot feel whole or honest if you focus only on similarities and avoid facing differences in deep beliefs and values.

Answer the Tough Questions
With genuine differences come tough questions—especially if the goal is a trusting relationship. When you answer tough questions in a straightforward way, sharing the floor equally and presuming good will, you build strong mutual trust. You can then face offensive issues without taking offense. However, diving deeper for better understanding has a limit. Aggressive interrogation or pushing for private details destroys trust.

Give Credit Where Credit is Due
Any compliment feels good, but a sincere compliment from an unexpected source such as a rival or critic can move our hearts powerfully toward trust. By openly admiring the excellence or good on ‘the other side’ you demonstrate your honesty and fairness, and your confidence that your side can handle the truth. But be cautious—insincere compliments to manipulate or disarm others disastrously undermine any grounds for trust.

Speak Only for Yourself
Each of us is unique and we don’t like others—especially outsiders—to stereotype us or claim they know what we really believe or value. So ask, don’t tell others what they think and feel. It is tempting to speak for your friends and tribe members as if they all share the same view as you do. Except when you have been authorized to speak on behalf of others, speak only for yourself and encourage others to do likewise.

Keep Private Things Private
Humans are social beings, but their thoughts and feelings are private unless expressed. Personal dignity is based in large part on your freedom to choose when and where to share your inner self with others. Being open, honest and trustworthy does not require you (even if it were possible) to disclose all things to all people. Keeping private things private means you strictly honor someone’s choice to say something to you alone. If you cannot keep it private, you should ask the person not to share it.
—The Way of Openness, World Table

While conversations with people from other religions are difficult, speaking to people from your own faith who have different views of it is also challenging.  We often expect members of our own faith to believe the same things when in reality, their is vast diversity of thought within the membership of the church. Sometimes, we can be shocked and defensive when another church member interprets the gospel differently than we do.

The Way of Openness worked in a dialogue over one of the thorniest interreligious issues out there. But an even thornier situation is intrareligious dialogue, between people who share a religious tradition. This is where everything blows up. This is where the knives and brass knuckles come out.

…The solution is not new arguments or new information, but new experiences and new relationships. People have their views because of their experiences. You can’t explain their experiences away. You can’t explain what their experiences mean to them. However, when two people with different worldviews form a relationship, the relationship itself can become the basis for something new. Relationships create trust. If I care about someone, I am more likely to view their experience as valuable and their worldview as valid.

…Someone is more likely to listen to you if they trust you. Someone is more likely to trust you if they know you care about them and are listening to them. This takes time and it is very inefficient. You can’t listen to people en masse. You can’t care about people en masse. It has to happen one on one.

We today are living in a historic moment, a moment in which the people of the world are both connected and divided as never before. The Information Age has given birth to 500 new technologies to help us shout and 200 new ways to call names. We have perfected visually striking ways of distorting our enemies’ words and know the sounds of some voices so well we can turn off the volume as soon as we hear the first few words. But where does this leave us? Surrounded by idiots, in a world full of garbage. Who wants to live in that kind of world?

I don’t want to live in a world full of patriarchal jerks, partisan scumbags, and ignorant hypocrites. So often it’s hard to remember, but actually, as a Latter-day Saint, I believe we live in a world filled with the children of God. I believe the purpose of life is to learn to look after each other, to help each other become better. But our experiences are so incredibly different. No wonder we disagree.
—Sister Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye, The Way of Openness: Conventions for Productive Dialogue, April 22, 2020, Mormon Women for Ethical Government

How have you maintained good relationships with friends and family who understand the gospel differently than you do?

A Jewish rabbi describes his attitude toward those with less orthodox views in his synagogue.

We do not need to put aside our left-brain training as we open ourselves to what the mystics can teach us. Rather, we can ask the questions that will bring us greater awareness of our souls: “How can I connect to what’s eternal and infinite within me and the world? How can I experience a sense of awe and wonder in my life?”

This search, whether or not we use the word “God,” pulls us into the deep and vital current of Judaism. And it doesn’t demand that the atheists and agnostics among us suspend their doubts and disbelief.

Judaism is embracing enough to welcome us all.
—Rabbi John L. Rosove, January 19, 2018

Could we emulate his openness to differing levels of belief in our own faith community?Why or why not?

Like Ezra Booth, some modern members eventually choose to leave the faith. When currently active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) converse about religious issues with people who have chosen to leave the faith, the conversation can be heated. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf described a common misconception active church members have about others who have chosen to leave:

The search for truth has led millions of people to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved.

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.
—President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Come, Join with Us, 2013

How will it change our interactions with former members if we avoid assumptions about why they left?What have you done to help you better empathize with the struggles and concerns of a loved one who has left the LDS church?

Not A Victim

V- is- for- victim that’s good enough for me
V- is- for victim that’s good enough for me
V- is for victim that’s good enough for me
Victim… Victim… Victim
Starts with V
(sung in the key of C-is for Cookie)

Long before meeting the missionaries on my small Caribbean Island, I had made friends with the invisible enemy known as depression. From an early age, my memories involved some level of sadness. As an only child whose only friends were books, existing within the walls of my own world was my daily reality. I discovered early on that I wasn’t like other girls my age who had a large group of friends. I preferred the company of my books and my dog Delilah.

To most, I seemed extremely shy. In fact, I was. I cowered in fear each time anyone spoke to me. And even at the “old-enough” age of twenty-nine I will break out into tears if someone raises their voice.

While growing up, each Sunday while seated with my grandmother in the congregation of our small Methodist branch I would often watch with jealously as other kids my own age flitted around the branch with their friends without a worry in the world.

As the years whizzed by, so did the rapid decline of the joy inside me. When I reached secondary school at age 11, I not only knew what sadness truly was but discovered early on that something was seriously wrong inside my head. Gone was the little girl who was lonely. Instead, an emotionless stranger had taken over who was simply tired of existing.

My thoughts graduated through the various levels of despair, sadness, until suicidal thoughts and depression filled my daily existence. I woke up each day unhappy and with a sick feeling of dread in my stomach that I had once again woken up to exist in a world filled with grey. I felt leashed and bound by the expectations others had of me. I was supposed to be someone who I couldn’t be…

I was supposed to be anyone but me…

During those years, I made several attempts to end my own life. At first, I considered pills but my fear of vomiting and failing seemed too much to undertake. I considered wrapping something around my neck, but I knew my fear of heights would override any selfish thoughts. Then I considered slitting my wrists. I knew I would pass out from the sight of blood before I even carried through with my plan.

Then I decided to walk into incoming traffic. I came close, almost nicked by a car while staying at my grandmother’s house. My need to not exist became greater with each passing day.

To this day, I credit my mom for always being vigilant. She’s always seen my tears. She’s been amazing at letting me vent. Still, there are some things she never knew. There are some things she will have to see in this post for the first time. So, mommy if you are reading this (and I know you read everything I write so you are) I’m sorry that I never opened up the way I should’ve when I struggled so horribly with the monsters raging on in my head.

It all came to a head when I turned 18, when after a fight with my dad, I attempted to slit my wrists as I finally gained the courage to end it all. It was almost therapeutic as I finally let someone in after years of hiding. After years of suppressing my thoughts, someone finally heard.

What followed was a round of anti-depressants and my doctor informing us that I was depressed after filling out the PHQ-9 questionnaire. I fell outside the normal range and scored at the bottom of the ranking. My doctor also informed me during this time that it only due to my mom’s diligent parenting that I was not placed in a psychiatric ward.

In time, I eventually found a therapist and attended a few sessions to help work out some of my most pressing issues.

As the years passed, I eventually became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It was there that I heard the most sickening generalization of depression and mental health that I have ever heard in my twenty-nine years of life.

I had been a member of the church for almost two years when I heard someone speak about mental health for the first time.

Victim.

The word slapped me in the face as a young man around my age referred to those who struggled with mental health as victims who preferred to listen to the voices of the world over choosing to become healed by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Although I was majorly peeved, this really put into perspective how often we speak of mental health within the closed boxes of the gospel. Time and time again I’ve been surrounded by uneducated voices speaking from “pedestals of misinformed judgement”.

Although church talks profess to have the perfect answer to combat the “demons of mental health”, I have found that it isn’t quite possible to paint each mental health journey with the same brush. For some… the gospel will only get us so far. Eventually, we may have to rely on other methods of support. Building a tribe who understands us at the point of where we are works wonders in establishing a place of constant evolution where we can grow past our demons.

Mental health challenges don’t come result of our unworthiness. They aren’t punishments for mistakes we have made. We aren’t weak if we struggle in our day-to-day lives with things, we can’t rationalize well in the physical world.

What I’ve learned about mental health especially in my own journey to vanquish my own imaginary dragons is that each day fighting back against the forces of negative thought processes is a day where we pat ourselves on the back for our efforts.

And on the days where we succeed in changing a small speck of our lives for the better, we can truly celebrate our victories with renewed hope that our tomorrow will be better than our today.

(Trigger Warning for This Video)

Voting With The Lord’s Dollar

In 1899, President Lorenzo Snow gave his famous Tithing talk, promising rain*. The Church was in dire financial straits, but by the end of his 3 year presidency our finances were in order. And by all appearances, the Church has kept the finances very tidy ever since. Last year, this article broke in the Wall Street Journal, which told the world that we have amassed a mind-blowingly large sum of $100 billion dollars.

A five dollar note from the Kirtland Safety Society Bank, courtesy of Wikimedia commons

Today, this cultural memory persists in our shared value of thriftiness. Pioneer descendants, bishops, relief society presidents, primary activity coordinators, elders quorum leaders, and mothers are all charged with stretching their dollar to its greatest expanse. And indeed, using our means to their greatest economy is an excellent skill and it is good to not be wasteful. But I contend that the time has come for us to expand our value system.

When we make purchases on behalf of the church, it is a time to stretch our vision and our reach.

When we buy candy for primary children, do we care if the chocolate is a product of child labor and slavery in other parts of the world?

When a bishop signs an order for food, does he offer a generous stipend to be used at a local grocer, or does he implore the family in need to pay only the lowest prices? Does the Lord care about supporting a local economy? Is it godly to provide patronage for home-grown companies that employ vulnerable humans with good wages and working conditions?

When a Relief Society president makes purchases on behalf of sisters or families, is there room for her to worry about the origin of the clothing she is purchasing? Does she have enough flexibility in her budget to buy textiles that were ethically grown and produced?

What part does stewardship of the earth play in our spending choices? Do we eschew using the Lord’s money to support single use plastic and poor land management practices? Do we go out of our way to support companies that engage in responsible ecological practices? Do we support companies that use their profits for good?

God is not a cheapskate. Creating a whole planet could not be cheap! Having children is not cheap! And there are seven billion of us walking around!

In all my years of church activity, the only measure of monetary goodness I have ever heard from the pulpit or in any planning session is thriftiness. But if God were spending the church’s money, God would take a broader view. Thriftiness has served us well, but it can no longer be our guiding star; we must think bigger. Our measure must not be how far the dollar can stretch, but how far it can reach and how many it can lift.

Next time you spend on behalf of the church, remember; we can afford generosity. We can afford sustainable products. We can afford to support local jobs and economies. We can afford to buy fair-trade. And God will expect it.

* In this article you can read more about Lorenzo Snow and the the 1898 Tithing revelation! The well-known story about Lorenzo Snow promising rain if the Saints would pay their tithing is, in their words, “unsubstantiated by contemporary records”, but he really did speak to the Saints about tithing, and he really did get our finances figured out in a big way.

More Women’s Voices in General Conference!

During his tenure, President Nelson has made a number of significant changes to the way the Church operates. Especially notable is the reduction from a three-hour block of Sunday meetings to just a two-hour block. But the recent announcement that all Saturday evening sessions of General Conference will be eliminated is another game-changing move for the Church.

Why? Certainly the Saturday evening meeting has drawn some controversy in recent years, first with sisters from Ordain Women being refused entry to the priesthood sessions and ultimately resulting first in Primary girls and Young Women being included in the General Women’s Meeting (and officially making that meeting a part of General Conference), then moving that meeting to the Saturday evening of October Conference and limiting the Priesthood Session to April Conference. That’s a lot of moves for a huge worldwide church to make, especially one that’s managed top-down by 15 men who say that they must be united in their decision making.

But this change, especially coming from the prophet who addressed LDS women in 2015 with, “We, your brethren, need your strength, your conversion, your conviction, your ability to lead, your wisdom, and your voices,” tells me that eliminating the Saturday evening session means just one thing: more women will now be speaking in other General Conference sessions.

It’s quite obvious, if you think about it. In recent years, General Conference has included such homage to women as, “You sisters … do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children,¹” “Our Latter-day Saint women are incredible!²” and especially, “Sisters, you were given the blessing of being daughters of God with special gifts. You brought with you into mortal life a spiritual capacity to nurture others and to lift them higher toward the love and purity that will qualify them to live together in a Zion society,³” all statements that would lead any thinking member of the Church to conclude that the reasonable next step will be to include more LDS women’s voices giving instruction in our most sacred church-wide meetings. As President Nelson said, they need us.

Now I can’t wait to watch the October sessions! To use a sports analogy, something that we currently hear a great deal in such meetings, the bench is deep. Imagine: we could hear from Kathryn Reynolds, a member of the Relief Society General Board who represents the growing numbers of single women in the Church; from Carol Costley, a member of the Young Women Council who is a woman of color and the former CEO of a nonprofit aimed at improving the lives of people with developmental disabilities; and from Salote Tukuafu, a member of the Primary General Board who has spent years teaching English as a second language and could speak eloquently on the ways children learn. untapped by the Church as a whole. These are just three of the strong, capable, faithful women who have a depth of experiences and wisdom to share–sharing that has been, sadly, limited to the circumscribed advisory roles they’ve filled in Church leadership. We’ll all–men and women alike–benefit from hearing about the diversity of their backgrounds, the ways they find to live the Gospel in their daily lives, and their testimonies of the Savior.

The history of women speaking in General Conference is, admittedly, short–but there’s no time like the present to start selecting speakers who look like the Church as a whole. I look forward to the newest of President Nelson’s innovations.

Honest Answers about Critical Race Theory: Part 2 of 2

They’re at it again, those white apologists who brought us the radical orthodoxy manifesto. This time, they’ve issued “an open letter to Pro-CRT Latter-day Saints at BYU and beyond–inviting a good-faith dialogue.” Sigh. We’ve been here before, right? People screaming about how colleges are going to destroy our entire society with (insert moral panic agenda item). The craze against CRT is just the most recent fad (I discuss CRT here). In the past, Moral Panickers have Chicken-Littled about comic books, Dungeons and Dragons, mini skirts, interracial marriage, and Rock and Roll. At their most extreme, Moral Panickers fought to maintain slavery, supported Indigenous boarding schools, and threw stones at women caught in adultery. It’s easy to dismiss Moral Panickers once we see them for who they are: individuals who benefit from the status quo, intent on maintaining their current position of power. Unfortunately, they maintain a wide platform from which to speak, even though they scream about being cancelled. So, here we go, once again explaining where their fallacies lie, and what lies they’re currently telling. Sit back. It’s a wild ride.

Originally, the “open letter”  included a picture of a Black man directly over the names of the writers. I assume they got word that a lot of people recognized  their choice for what it was: an insinuation that a Black man had been involved in writing the article. In other words, blackface. They swapped that out for a picture of a Black student listening to a white teacher. Oops. Also problematic. As of the writing of this post, the picture they’ve selected to appear under the names of the writers has two young Black children smiling for the camera. They just can’t get it right, can they? Ah, those power dynamics. It’s a heck of a drug, privilege. To be so certain that they, with their limited relevant experience, yet steeped in power and bias, have something to teach a young Black man, or any Black person, about what power looks like, or how society works–well, that’s a whole lot of ego right there. And combined with the rest of the article–one that insists the authors are devoted to “racial reconciliation”–I wonder what, exactly, they think “racial reconciliation” looks like. Because from the picture (and from the article, honestly) it appears that, to them, reconciliation means nothing more than Black people listening to white people telling them what’s what. 

I’ll be honest. I have little interest in addressing the writers themselves. They’ve proven how deeply they’ll dig the trench in order to maintain current power dynamics. They’ve attacked people harmed by LDS church policy, telling them to be patient, palatable, and polite. I responded here. 

I don’t believe the writers genuinely care about real dialogue when it comes to Critical Race Theory. Every single thing they insist needs to be addressed has already been tackled by people who have been writing about the topic for, oh, centuries. Or at least since the  1970s. But, of course, these “open letter” writers don’t seem to listen to those voices, do they? “Too often allied thinkers largely talk amongst themselves about those who disagree with them, rather than engaging their differences together openly with grace, civility, and trust” they write. Tone policing aside, there are literally entire conferences devoted to discussing issues of Critical Race Theory. Thousands and thousands of pages have been generated in an ongoing, open dialogue. Many “crits,” as CRT theorists are sometimes called, speak at conferences, Tweet, teach in universities, or argue in public court rooms. Where, brave open letter writers, are you when those events occur? Where is your desire for dialogue when you run across an Instagram account or an email address of one of these highly-educated, extremely informed crits? The writers say, “We want to keep learning…” but that isn’t really what they want, is it? As their cover picture reminds us, they care about the appearance of inclusivity without the stomach to engage with those already doing the work. 

Question 1 reveals both their bias and their ignorance. “How open are you to concerns over Critical Race Theory and associated ideas reflecting something other than underlying racism?” Well, since they asked so genuinely, I’ll answer: I’m extremely open to critiques of CRT. In fact, some of my favorite CRT writers have pushed back against the theories posited by other CRT writers. Latiné, LGBTQIA, and Indigenous writers, among others, have expanded the voices of people engaged in looking at structures of power and systems of oppression. The disabled community has been actively speaking and writing as well, something we all benefited from during a pandemic that sent us to makeshift home offices to work, teach, and socialize. With every additional voice, with every push on those boundaries, our ability to meet needs and create a truly just society has increased. 

What do the writers of the letter bring to the table? “To be clear, unlike many in popular discourse right now, when we speak of ‘Critical Race Theory,’ we are not using the term as shorthand to refer to any and all measures, programs, and ideas that seek to address historical injustices. We are specifically referring to perspectives that can, if not wielded carefully, lead us to see all ideological and philosophical disputes through the prism of historical race conflicts, rather than allowing us to evaluate political and ideological arguments and proposed approaches to reconciliation and progress on their own merits.” They, themselves, attempt to reduce CRT to the most narrow definition. From its beginning, CRT was never a program, or a measure, or an idea: it was a way of exploring power dynamics so that America would be what it promised to be. It was, and still is, a conversation. Aren’t their own perspectives leading to ideological and philosophical disputes through a certain prism, one that denies the lived experiences and voices of hundreds of thousands of people? Why should their concerns be centered when they refuse to hear the concerns of those who work within a CRT framework? 

It’s also nonsensical to claim that CRT isn’t being evaluated on its merits. If the writers were truly interested in a good-faith discussion, they would already know that CRT writers are not a monolith and that there is a healthy and vigorous debate going . “Here are some examples of debates in the black intellectual community that have only begun to get played out and transformed in law,” Dr. Duncan Kennedy writes in “A Cultural Pluralist Case for Affirmative Action in Legal Academia.” He continues with the following list: “between nationalists and integrationists, between progressives and conservatives, between those who see current racism as a more or less important determinant of current black social conditions, and between black feminists and traditionalists.” Want to engage in good faith? Dr. Kennedy already invited you, “There is nothing that precludes white scholars from making the contributions anticipated from scholars of color.” But you are required to sit at the tables where it’s already happening rather than demanding the entire conversation move to your table and center itself around you. That’s exactly the sort of power play that CRT seeks to address and discard. 

Question 2 is no better than the first because it, too, forces the answer they would like us to give. “Are reports of racism increasing in part because we are expanding the set of attitudes and opinions considered racist?” Do we really believe that 5 white people are the best experts on what is and isn’t racism, especially when they misquote and misrepresent the words of Black people within their article?  More on this in a moment, but to start, they quote Dr. John McWhorter (without giving him his title, it should be noted). If they quote one African American man, and if his statement seems to suggest that what we call ‘racism’ is actually just misused language, then clearly racism is done and dusted! I mean, Candace Owens also agrees… 

Question 3 asks “Are we operating under a shared definition of racism or are we talking past each other?” As an answer, they quote a white professor and President Oaks, both clearly experts in racism. Actually, I’ll give them credit for this. As with a lot of what CRT has done, it has given us words to refer to things we didn’t know how to name before. Here are some words CRT writers have used that might help the open letter writers out: intersectionality, interest convergence, microaggressions, antiessentialism, hegemony, hate speech, language rights, black-white binary, nullification. All of these are used and defined in the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. I invite the writers of the article to read it and see if those words are more helpful in describing different situations. If they don’t find it there, some other terms may help: ideologically specific products; segregated racial privilege; subordinated cultural communities. If the writers would like, they’re welcome to propose other descriptive terms. After all, Dr. Kennedy (also a white man) has already invited them into the conversation.

Question 4 has been answered by countless writers, including Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, James Baldwin, Zora Neale Hurston, W.E.B. DuBois, Audre Lorde, Lee Maracle, Dian Million, Sarah Deere, Ijeoma Oluo, Ibram X Kendi, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. I should probably stop listing people who have addressed why our siblings of color feel unsafe. I fear the writers of the article won’t get through the list I’ve already given them.  

I will touch on two things, though. First, THE QUOTE. Yes. An actual quote by an actual Black man, Dr. John McWhorter (referenced earlier). You know what’s funny about the quote? It was given in a very specific context. A context which, if the writers had included the whole passage, would have undermined their assertion. The quote comes from an interview Dr. McWhorter gave to NPR’s Steve Innskeep regarding Dr. McWhorter’s thoughts on Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility. His critique of her work points out that by focusing on changing individual behavior rather than systems of oppression, she offers white people a way to feel good without doing real work. Here’s the longer quote, and as you’ll see, Dr. McWhorter appears very much in favor of changing systems.

“Steve Inskeep: She’s trying to, you argue, fix white people’s souls when in reality the place that people should look is at institutions. What are the rules for police? What are the rules for fair housing? That sort of thing.

“Dr. McWhorter: You have said exactly what I believe. I think that what Robin DiAngelo is doing is well-intentioned, but I think ultimately, it’s idle. Ultimately, the result of what she would create is a certain educated class of white person feeling better about themselves. And frankly, that’s antithetical to her goal, because no matter how she wants it to go, people are going to think that they’ve done some kind of work. It’s going to be hard to get people to truly feel as endlessly culpable as she’s seeking. 

“And in the meantime, what’s the connection between that and forging change? You can say that all of this is a prelude to changing structures. But the question will always be, why don’t you just go out and change the structures?”

Dr. McWhorter is an advocate of changing systems of oppression. What he’s against is something done just to make white people feel better without doing the hard work to change those systems. His targets sound a lot like the writers of that article, don’t they? White people wanting to feel better about themselves without doing any actual work? 

Second, a quote by Kimi Katiti, a Uganda-born musical artist. Recognizing baked-in racism in the US hurts. It feels like leaving Eden, or Plato’s cave. Part of CRT is personal narrative as academic work, and if she wants to volunteer her story, along with her very valid, very real feelings, wonderful. If, in that story, she would rather not name an experience “racism” or “misogynoir,” she’s absolutely welcome to name it however she wants. Or to ignore the events. And if she’s never experienced racism, hallelujah! We’re doing something right. But it doesn’t mean CRT is null and void. Children are still exposed to history books that only mention their ancestors in the context of enslavement and not as inventors, mathematicians, writers, or theologians. Children still lack adequate educational opportunities, including language inclusivity. Black women still make less money than Black men, white women, or white men. Black, Latiné and Indigenous people still fill jails at higher rates, are more likely to be killed by a police officer, and are less likely to have a bank near their homes. These are systemic ways racism still shows up, and this is why CRT is needed. 

Question 5: the open letter writers attempt to draw a parallel, but it’s more like two points from completely different planets. One of the white writers of the article led a university workshop. We aren’t told where the workshop was held or who the students were. (In CRT, situatedness, or the identity a person has, matters a great deal because it changes how life is experienced. But, I digress.) The leader of the workshop, we are told, had the undergraduates talk about “subtle manifestation(s) of underlying racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.”  Which then turned into a discussion about how to maintain peace in the home, the point being that calling out injustices creates tension, undermining domestic bliss. Except it doesn’t. The injustice itself creates the conflict: naming it is, in fact, the first step in healing. In the same paragraph where the writers insist that they want to “heal, reconcile, and come together” they also insist on silencing those who point out injustices.

And then they use Archbishop Desmond Tutu as a weapon. They say he talks about forgiveness but they don’t tell you the whole truth. So, let’s see what he actually says:

“True reconciliation is based on forgiveness, and forgiveness is based on true confession, and confession is based on penitence, on contrition, on sorrow for what you have done. We know that when a husband and wife have quarreled, one of them must be ready to say the most difficult words in any language, ‘I’m sorry,’ and the other must be ready to forgive for there to be a future for their relationship. This is true between parents and children, between siblings, between neighbors, and between friends. Equally, confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation in the lives of nations are not just airy-fairy religious and spiritual things, nebulous and unrealistic. They are the stuff of practical politics.

“Those who forget the past, as many have pointed out, are doomed to repeat it. Just in terms of human psychology, we in South Africa knew that to have blanket amnesty where no disclosure was made would not deal with our past. It is not dealing with the past to say glibly, ‘Let bygones be bygones,’ for then they will never be bygones. How can you forgive if you do not know what or whom to forgive? In our commission hearings, we required full disclosure for us to grant amnesty. Only then, we thought, would the process of requesting and receiving forgiveness be healing and transformative for all involved. The commission’s record shows that its standards for disclosure and amnesty were high indeed: of the more than 7,000 applications submitted to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it granted amnesty to only 849 of them.

“Unearthing the truth was necessary not only for the victims to heal, but for the perpetrators as well. Guilt, even unacknowledged guilt, has a negative effect on the guilty. One day it will come out in some form or another. We must be radical. We must go to the root, remove that which is festering, cleanse and cauterize, and then a new beginning is possible.” 

Oh dear. It looks like the writers were a bit too selective in their reading of the Nobel Peace Prize winning activist’s words. Perhaps acknowledging the need for radically exposing the truth was more difficult for them than it was for Archbishop Tutu.

Question 6 is directed specifically to LDS readers. They say they’re not attempting to misconstrue CRT, or form a reactionary anti-tribe (yes, they used that knucklehead phrasing, but they would likely argue that they’re from the tribe of Ephraim, so they’ll use the word ‘tribe’ any way they want). Anyway, they say they don’t want to misconstrue or form an anti-CRT coalition. And yet, isn’t that exactly what they’ve tried to do? They’ve purposefully misrepresented the work of Black people, insisted on “starting” a conversation that actually began years before any of them could stomp on it, claimed no one will talk to them, and then promoted the work of white academics who, quite frankly, have everything to gain from maintaining the status quo. Sheesh.

Lisa Delpit said, “Those with power are frequently least aware of–or least willing to acknowledge–its existence [and] those with less power are often most aware of its existence.” This is where I land with the open letter. From start to finish, it’s an attempt to obfuscate the ways the writers benefit from current power dynamics. Under the guise of genuine curiosity, they sea-lion their way into convincing themselves that they are the only honest brokers in a conversation about CRT. I’m not fooled, and I call ‘foul’ on the whole thing. I haven’t even touched on the anti-LGBTQ tropes, the digs at single parents, or extended family situations, or the ridiculous nature of their language (insisting on Christ-centered wording to address a theory that incorporates all faith communities, including agnostics, atheists, humanists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and many others). There’s so much in the article. Unfortunately, most of it is bunk and should be tossed in the bin as the self-serving drivel it is.

For some worthwhile reading about CRT, from people who actually know what they’re talking about, I recommend Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. If you’re hungry for more after you finish that (and who wouldn’t be?), Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement features a collection of powerhouse writers who engage in good faith, speak to (instead of over) each other, and provide a lot of insight into how systems of power continually work to perpetuate themselves.

 

I’m grateful for those who are willing to take a hard look at the ways people experience life differently based on their gender, sexuality, race, etc.