Exponent II's Blog, page 139

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.

Honest Answers about Critical Race Theory: Part 1 of 2

Have you read “The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas” by Ursula LeGuin? Beneath Omelas, a city of prosperity and contentment, lives a child in misery. We’re told that her unwilling sacrifice is necessary for the rest of the citizens to be happy. Sometimes, when people discover the child’s situation, they refuse to participate in the system so they leave Omelas. Other times, most often, they stay. Willfully ignorant at best, or actively participating in the beatings at worst, they perpetuate the system of oppression: one person’s life for a town’s prosperity.

But what if we reject the narrator’s testimony? What if, instead, we unlock the shackles that bind the child? What if we raise her up, feed her, make amends for the years of ongoing trauma we’ve subjected her to? What could she do in society if she were free? This is what Critical Race Theory (“CRT”) seeks to do. It’s a way of looking at how society is organized. It asks, “What are the power lines and mechanisms for enforcing rules? How do those mechanisms affect different populations differently?” In other words, CRT rejects the idea that anyone needs to suffer to create another’s prosperity. It has, at its core, the belief that everyone deserves to prosper, to live authentically and safely. For the purposes of this post, I’ve pulled extensively from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. If you haven’t read it yet, I highly recommend it.

History

In the 1970s (ish) legal scholars began looking for a way to talk about larger US systems that affect people differently based on their race, gender, sexual identity, etc. It’s complicated work, and it requires us to develop a new way of seeing, as well as a new vocabulary to describe what we see. For example, Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality’ to describe ways people experience life, and ways society fails to meet their needs, based on their multiple defined identities, like being Black and female, one would have some different priorities and needs than someone who is Black and male, or white and female. And a Black trans woman, or a Latiné nonbinary person, would have different experiences than all of them.

CRT in Real Life

When I park my car at night, I’m very aware of the lighting and who is parked next to me. Sometimes I park further away from the door in order to be directly under a light and away from other cars. My husband just looks for the spot closest to the entrance and calls it good. Half the time, he doesn’t even know whether he locked the door or not. I always always always double click the lock, and then click it again as I’m walking, just to make sure. Sure, there are laws against hurting people, but because those laws are incomplete, or unenforced, and because I take my vagina with me everywhere, I have different needs in order to be safe than my husband does. I need a well-lit parking lot. I need laws that fully address the commission of rape, and money to support rape investigations, and a society that supports women who come forward.

How would CRT address my needs as a woman? CRT looks at the mechanisms, legal and otherwise, that prevent those things from happening. It also looks at the underlying power differentials behind any form of oppression, and how those might differ with my race, sexual identity, body type, etc. “[CRT theorists] also built on feminism’s insights into the relationship between power and the construction of social roles, as well as the unseen, largely invisible collection of patterns and habits that make up patriarchy and other types of domination” (Delgado, 5). Some of those patterns we know well (for instance, the pattern that says women are largely responsible for outmaneuvering sexual aggression rather than a pattern that would demand that men control their own aggression.) Other patterns we’re just now starting to understand. And, I hope, in the future we recognize even more, so we can do better. CRT, after all, isn’t an end-game. It’s “a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power… [and] places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious” (Delgado, 3).

What else is CRT?

Generally recognized foundational principles:

Favorable legal precedents erode over time and with narrow interpretations from lower court judges (Brown v Board is not the landmark case today that it was in the 50s).Society is a collection of patterns and habits that we often don’t recognize because we’re swimming in the soup.Our nation is founded on historical wrongs that need to be addressed before true equity can occur.Triumphalist history (God led Christians to a virgin land; Manifest Destiny; etc) doesn’t accurately represent all perspectives.Theory should have practical consequences.Communities and groups should be empowered.There is often interest convergence but also disparate needs for individuals within groups. We need more voices in order to meet more needs.Those in power, or with privilege, will not voluntarily give up their power or privilege.Personal narrative adds to the body of academia in vital ways.

Concerns

The idea of looking directly at how society is structured can be quite scary if you’re intent on holding onto your power. That sounds snarky. I don’t mean it to. It is, for some, a very frightening proposition. I want to name that because maybe you’re feeling the same way I did when I first heard about Critical Race Theory. Maybe you’re also concerned that, if we empower groups that are historically kept out of the power structure, they’ll do to us what we’ve done to them. The comedian Gabriel Iglesias told a largely white audience in Houston, “I know where you keep your brown people,” and that’s what we, as white people, are sometimes afraid of. What does #landback look like? Will white people be kept on reservations without electricity, running water, healthcare, or decent educational opportunities? If we issue reparations to people affected by enslavement, will we, as white people, be forced into ghettos where disproportionate numbers of police officers are allowed to shoot us without consequences? If we ensure that trans individuals have access to all educational resources, will they take over our sports? If we allow women to lead corporations, will they force men to accept less pay for the same work, as women have been forced to do for (checks notes) centuries?

No.

As I read it, CRT isn’t retribution for past wrongs, or punishment for ongoing inequities. CRT is, at the heart, about expanding the power base so that every person in America has a healthy, prosperous experience. It’s about taking a hard look at how “blind justice” isn’t really neutral. Our laws were based on the English system which favored wealthy landowners to the detriment of all other members of society. Remember jolly old England, where men who hunted merely for sport could have a person sent to an Australian penal colony for hunting solely to feed their starving family? Where women weren’t allowed to own property but were allowed to be beaten by their husbands? That society’s laws are the basis for our current laws. Looking critically at the historic patterns and assumptions giving rise to those laws benefits most, if not all, of us. After all, as a woman and a wife, I’m not really excited about the prospect of bringing back wife-spanking or having my daughters drowned as witches, all structurally supported practices that detrimentally affected one segment of society more than others. In our modern world, while I appreciate lights in parking lots, I would prefer to get rid of the threats to my safety (for example, by changing how consent is taught in schools and what modesty looks like so I’m no longer held responsible for sexual assault). In other words, CRT would ask why some men are allowed to prey on women, what laws enable that predatory behavior, why current laws don’t work, and how to change those laws so that women don’t have to carry a can of bear spray to ward off would-be attackers.

Yes, it means some adjustments. It means acknowledging, for example, that America wasn’t empty when Columbus stepped onto it (terra nullis). It means understanding how Manifest Destiny led to the genocide of Indigenous populations. It means beginning our history not with the Declaration of Independence but before, when enslaved people were forced from their homeland to labor, for free and under excruciating conditions, to build a nation which then enacted laws to relegate them to outsider positions. It’s understanding how all of that history, all of those individual stories added together, have created an unjust society–one that still has to address the past, undo the laws and policies that operate to keep people in (and out of) certain places, and move forward.

But moving forward without reconciliation is not moving forward at all. And we have to be honest about what keeps us from reconciling. There are certain groups of people who want to leave the curtain over the Wizard so we can’t see how power is generated. But, like Dorothy, it’s only by pulling back the curtain and exposing the truth that we can ultimately attain those things that the entirety of our broad American family needs in order to enjoy true equity. “The decade of the nineties saw the beginning of a vigorous offensive from the political Right. Abetted by heavy funding from conservative foundations and position papers from right-wing think tanks, conservatives advanced a series of policy initiatives, including campaigns against bilingual education, affirmative action, employment and educational set-asides, and immigration. They also lobbied energetically against hate-speech regulation, welfare, and governmental measures designed to increase minorities’ political representation in Congress” (Delgado, 114). People with money and connections lobbied to reduce all the ways we have of increasing education, employment, and representation of people across communities. In other words, the powerful fought to keep their power.

Power-maintenance isn’t a new idea either. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Not only is it never voluntarily given, but those with power will fight, claw, and destroy rather than see one single drop of power go to those they oppress. At the heart of anti-CRT speech is fear: fear by those in power that they will one day become the oppressed. But this assumes that someone needs to be oppressed in order for society to function. CRT rejects the premise of the Omelas story. CRT would have freed the child.

(Part 2 will be published today at 12:00 PM Pacific time)

 

Artist Spotlight: Tiare Terrill on Painting and Motherhood

Spotlight is a new feature on the Exponent II blog to shine light on individuals or projects in the world of Mormon Feminism outside of book reviews. In launching this feature, I knew I wanted to interview Tiare Terrill. She is an artist and mother of five based in the Dallas area who I had the privilege of meeting when I was in her ward for a short time. This is part one of her spotlight, about her experience of being called back to art after years of mothering young children. Part two, discussing her cover art for The Book of Mormon for the Least of These, is forthcoming.

Tiare Terrill spent many years swept up in mothering her five children without picking up her paintbrush. But when Tiare’s oldest child and only daughter, Kalee, was nearly sixteen, she asked a question that changed everything. Tiare and Kalee were talking about Kalee’s future dreams and what she might want to study in school when Kalee said, “Mom, have you ever thought about painting? You should totally do it because you love art so much.”

The question was a record scratch moment. “I was like, oh my gosh, there’s a whole side of me that my kids don’t even know because I’ve been so immersed in motherhood.”

Tiare developed a love for art in high school and tried to keep it up as she worked, married, went to school part time, and had several kids in rapid succession. But an incident when Kalee was three years old led Tiare to put away her art supplies.

“I was into oils at the time. We were in a tiny little house, so the dining room table was where I painted. Kalee got into my oils and got it all over this brand new cloth dining set. Why I would have a cloth dining set with little kids, I have no idea. But I was like, alright, I’ll just pack it up until she is older.” Then with more kids and a move from California to Texas and all the challenges of mothering young children, nearly thirteen years went by and her daughter had never seen her paint.

“I was like, I don’t want this for her. When it came to myself, I was perfectly happy and fine with making that sacrifice. But when it comes to her, I don’t want her to give up these huge chunks of herself. I began to think about how I’m not mirroring what I’m teaching her.”

The thought of starting again after so much time was initially overwhelming. Insecurities crept in: Am I any good? What am I going to do with it? I’m going to spend all this money on art materials, and then what? But to quiet her fears, she decided she just had to jump in.

“I decided to take that part away, the questions about where this would lead to, or if it was going to just be for fun or if I was going to pursue this for work. That was my goal when I was younger, that was my dream. I decided to take that off the table and just focus on jumping back into it for the love of it.”

Tiare signed up for classes in painting and pottery at a local art studio. After a couple of weeks, she decided to keep the pottery class because that was new to her and she enjoyed it, but she realized she could continue painting at home on her own. Once she started, the work flowed out of her.

“If felt like my conversion again. I was painting like a mad woman. There was so much locked up in my heart for all those years that I hadn’t given the opportunity to get out. All of this was pouring out on canvas.”

Tiare joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when she was about thirteen years old, living in Southern California where she was born and raised. Her mother had been raised LDS, but left the Church and married her father who was a Methodist. Her home life was turbulent, and she never felt like what she learned at church lined up with what they lived at home. She was craving stability. Her best friend was a cousin her age who lived two hours away, but whom she spent hours talking to on the phone every week. Her cousin’s family had begun going to the LDS Church and would tell Tiare about what she was learning. One weekend when visiting her cousin’s family, she attended church with them. She had attended with her grandma before, but this time was different.

“I went to church and this feeling washed over me. It was this song, ‘I am a Child of God,’ and I was just done. Like, I don’t know what I need to do, but sign me up. I was like a sponge, I took everything in.”

Tiare decided to get baptized, and that led to increased conflict with her father in what was already a rocky situation. She ultimately left home and moved in her cousin, finishing middle school and high school there. Church became the center of her life.

After high school Tiare moved back home and worked to reconcile with her parents. As she entered adulthood, she also realized that while she loved the gospel and had a deep testimony, she had to unpack the messages from church she had internalized and figure out the pieces she really believed. Like cleaning out the junk drawer, she went through a process of deconstructing her faith and identifying what was essential to keep.

It was at this time of faith deconstruction and rebuilding when she met her husband David. He had recently returned from his mission and they immediately connected on a personal and spiritual level.

“We were two people who really had a love for the Savior. Although we come from different backgrounds that never felt like it was an issue for us. I think it was more of an issue for other people outside of our families. 25 years later it has never been an issue. At the end of the day, both of our hearts were going in the same direction. We were just compatible that way. We got married, and then had four kids very quickly. We were just in the trenches.”

At times, being in the trenches of young motherhood meant Tiare put some interests and dreams aside, thinking she would one day circle back to them. So when Kalee’s question brought her back to her art, she decided to start again for herself and as an example to her children. Painting became an outlet for processing both the joys and hardships of life, and her completed canvasses began to pile up.

When an opportunity to submit to a local art show arose, it was her kids reciting her own words back to her that encouraged her to enter. After reading Brené Brown’s Daring Greatly, Tiare had chosen the idea of jumping in and trying new things as a family theme for that school year. She wanted her children to try things they were interested in even if it scared them.

“So then my kids were like teasing me—’jump right in, Mom.’ So then I had to do it. But this was a juried art show. I think I ate a whole sleeve of Oreos after I submitted, because it was like, I don’t have an art background, I never finished school, I just took classes on the side to keep it up until Kalee was three. I was so out of my league. I had a major vulnerability hangover.”

Tiare submitted her work and a panel of art professionals admitted her to the show. But when she drove up on the morning of the art show, nerves overwhelmed her.

“I show up and see people, like real deal artists—the whole set up. And I have Home Depot wire, and clips, and we don’t know what we’re doing because I’ve never done an art show. I immediately got back in my car and started bawling. David had come to help me set up, but he was on his way to another job and drove separately. And Dave is knocking on my window like, ‘Hey, what are you doing?’ And I’m like, ‘I don’t belong here. I’m just a stay-at-home mom. I’m not a real artist.’ And he says, ‘Obviously you got in, they saw something in your work. You’re here, let’s go.’”

Just like she was always telling her kids, she jumped in. She wiped away her tears and got out of the car. She set up her canvasses and as she started interacting with people, she began having fun. She sold one piece, and then another, until she sold nearly everything she had brought with her. Then there were requests for commissions. The response to her art was a sweet but overwhelming surprise.

In the years since that first art show, it has been a balancing act. Tiare seeks to find the right level of work without allowing painting to become all business and soul-sucking, and the right amount of time to devote to her family and other responsibilities. It’s been hard at times to find the right balance—at first it felt like she had to say yes to every opportunity that came her way. She’s had to get to a place where she says yes to the work she feels good about and decide it’s okay to turn away or say no to things when the timing is not right.

Tiare’s passion for art has been reignited, but so has her passion for mothers carving out time for things that feed their souls.

“As a young mom I felt that there was no other way to do it—to mother the way I wanted to mother without sacrificing this giant chunk of who I was. What I realized in the end was that was not the message I wanted to send to my daughter. Even though I was telling her to pursue all these dreams, I was not mirroring that. I am passionate about women carving out this time and not having shame attached to that. As women, we are really good at nurturing other people, but we also need to nurture ourselves.”

You can find Tiare on her website or follow her on Instagram @tiareterrillartstudio

How the Patriarchy Makes My Job Harder

I’m a lawyer in solo practice in the southwestern United States. I cover a large state and parts of surrounding states, representing disability claimants before the Social Security Administration. And the patriarchy makes my job harder.

In order to qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must, among other things, have a “severe medically determinable impairment”. This means a documented medical condition that can be expected to last for at least 12 months and which interferes with one’s life in some way. Additionally, this impairment must preclude work.

My male clients tend to have conditions that are easily documented. Heart disease, orthopedic injuries, cancer. There are objective tests for those. My female clients tend to have autoimmune diseases, migraines, fibromyalgia, and other more subjective conditions. Chronic pain doesn’t show up on an x-ray. It’s a lot harder to convince a judge that a migraine isn’t just a headache and that people with invisible illnesses have good days and bad days.

My clearest example of this was several years ago. I had a client who had five different autoimmune disorders as well as migraines, fibromyalgia, kidney failure, and liver disease. Her liver disease was so severe that she was on the transplant list. There were 3200 pages of medical records in the file. (A typical file has about 500.) The judge called a medical expert to testify. The expert said that she had somatic symptom disorder, which is the fancy medical way of saying that she has hypochondria – a mental illness. He said that all of her physical complaints were in her head and not supported by objective evidence because the drugs for the autoimmune disorders didn’t work, and if she really had them, the drugs would have worked. And he said that fibromyalgia is just a form of hypochondria.

Basically, because doctors didn’t know how to treat her effectively, this “expert” used a bunch of fancy words to go with a 19th century diagnosis of hysteria.

And the one time I had a male client with fibromyalgia and autoimmune disorders, I won with no difficulty. After all, what dude would possibly make up having a “lady disease”? (The judge even commented at the hearing that it was rare for men to have these conditions.)

The fact that medical science still hasn’t properly studied and developed treatments for conditions that disproportionately affect women has caused untold suffering. And the fact that doctors and judges don’t believe women when we report our symptoms just adds insult to injury.

Inscription on the door at the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem, reading “He is not here – for He is risen”

The story of the resurrection of Jesus is instructive. “It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” (Luke 24:10-11) At least five women told the apostles about the most important event in the history of the world, and the apostles were basically “oh, silly ladies”.

It’s time for the patriarchy to accept that women actually know what we’re talking about when we’re discussing our lived experiences. The apostles eventually came around. Hopefully the doctors will, too.

Breaking Down Patriarchy: An Essential Texts Book Club

Few things are as exciting to me as thorough explorations of origin stories–especially if they revolve around badass women, challenge my assumptions, and elevate my thinking. So I rightly suspected I would love Amy McPhie Allebest’s podcast, “Breaking Down Patriarchy: An Essential Texts Book Club” when a mutual friend recommended it. Each week Allebest and a reading partner discuss a different text that addresses the history or patriarchy and the women (and sometimes men, thank you John Stuart Mill) that have challenged it through the ages.

I met with Allebest (badass) to get the origin story of the podcast, because I knew there had to be a good reason behind starting a book group that centered on texts most of us have heard of, but, and I say this with embarrassment, never read. Even us English majors. She shared that when she started on a masters at Stanford in Liberal Arts, she always found herself asking ,“Where are the women? What were the women doing?” And as she investigated PhD programs, most focused on gender theory but not the origins and effects of patriarchy on societies, and the various movements and people who have challenged it. Instead of enrolling in a program, Allebest is doing what many of us have done during the pandemic: home school and remote learning, except she has crafted her own master class where she is both teacher and student.

Each week Allebest is literally breaking down patriarchy, both as she dissects texts that explore millennia old assumptions about the sexes and then as she and her various guests explore the implications and ways to disentangle themselves from the toxic web of bias that is baked into our culture, that oppresses not just women, but men as well (though in less obvious ways).

She begins with The Chalice and the Blade, by Riane Eisler. Eisler, an archaeologist “proposed theories about humans’ prehistoric past that caused quite a stir . . . and gave rise to a spiritual ‘goddess’ movement within feminism in the 1980’s and 90’s.” She covers early Christianity, exploring how and when women were excluded and erased from religious history. She explores European writers like Mary Wollstonecraft, the American suffragists, and does not let them off the hook for turning on their Black allies.

The show delves into the complexity of people like Margaret Sanger who championed birth control but then was in favor of eugenics to kill poor people. She doesn’t “cancel” Sanger, but doesn’t explain away her views as “a product of her time.” Some people are warriors for women, but only white, cis het women. People are messy and I enjoyed the absence of either/or thinking in these discussions, the willingness to sit with complexity, even at the expense of our comfort.

I was worried that the podcast would be too white, too straight, too Mormon, but Allebest brings in voices from a wide spectrum to share diverse perspectives (of her first four guests, only one is white). She shines light on tricky topics like how Sojourner Truth’s famous “Ain’t I a Woman” speech was actually rewritten by a white woman for dramatic effect and wisely had a Black co host for that episode. As she gets to more modern times, the texts explored get more diverse as well, with the two latest episodes featuring Black women discussing Black women’s texts from the 1960’s. When I asked what was coming up for the summer, Allebest shared there will be books on queer theory and she will “also include wildly successful CEO’s with Ivy League educations, and undocumented workers who clean houses, and everything in between.” I cannot wait.

The most moving episode for me focused on the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which discusses why certain texts make it into the canon of scripture and some don’t. The text was discovered in the late 19th century and there are three copies of it, all partial. It was ignored for years. But what is there is amazing. Hearing Mary speak authoritatively as a disciple to male disciples blew me away. Maybe I cried for something I didn’t know how desperately I had been missing.

Allebest is Mormon and will bring up aspects of her religion in conversations with co-hosts, but there is no Latter-day assumption and no attempt to fit everything into Mormon cosmology. This isn’t “Feminist Relief Society.” The Family Proclamation is examined at times as an example of Allebest’s religion’s cultural expectations, and Allebest doesn’t seem to feel the need to either justify or eviscerate it. Once again, breaking down is a great metaphor as it allows you to dive in, break apart, and examine for the purpose of greater understanding. And if you choose to piece things back together, you may find yourself consciously examining which parts you want to keep and which to set aside.

One of the things that is hard for me when people “discover feminism” is the lack of interest most show in learning the history of those who came before them to challenge patriarchy. It’s part of what drew me to Exponent, the need to learn about the women who came before, what work they had done, and how I had benefited. For me, Exponent is a Mormon feminism origin story (with lots of badass women). So I love that Allebest and company are not just exploring patriarchal oppression, but are going down to the seeds, the roots, the soil. They will introduce you to texts you will wish you had read in school, texts that will make you nod your head and say yes, exactly, and be freaked out that the author lived hundreds of years ago. There is so much I didn’t know that I didn’t know. And I am so grateful for a podcast that shows me just whose shoulders I am standing on.

The Temple is More than a Milestone

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.

I can’t count the number of times a friend whispered to me, voice heavy with shame, that they didn’t “get” the Temple. Or that they eventually grew to love the Endowment ceremony but the first time was uncomfortable or even distressing. Or that they still don’t like it one bit, but attend out of duty or familial pressure.

We craft a narrative of righteousness around frequency of Temple visits; uncomplicated, positive feelings about every aspect of the Temple; and most of all the “correct” progression through ordinances as milestones. This attitude breeds spiritual arrogance and intolerance in many members and feelings of shame and confusion in others.

To treat the Temple as a checkbox on one’s to-do list for the Celestial Kingdom is to fail to honor its sacredness. The Temple is the House of the Lord, and attending the Temple and performing saving ordinances for ourselves and our ancestors should fill us with awe and reverence for God. If we find attending the Temple is something we want to brag about, then we have turned the Temple into the great and spacious building in our hearts. Matthew 6:1 reads: “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…” It is human nature to seek worldly praise, but we are called to do better. When we serve others in the name of the Lord, we humble ourselves and offer glory to the Most High.

My favorite verse in the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 9: 28-29: “O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God” (emphasis mine). I found that studying and preparing for my own Endowment helped immeasurably with my understanding and comfort with my first visit to the Temple. There is no hypocrisy in learning as much as we can about the Temple while respecting its sacredness.

In the April 2019 General Conference, Elder David A. Bednar quoted President Ezra Taft Benson regarding the Temple, saying “The temple is a sacred place, and the ordinances in the temple are of a sacred character. Because of its sacredness we are sometimes reluctant to say anything about the temple to our children and grandchildren. As a consequence, many do not develop a real desire to go to the temple, or when they go there, they do so without much background to prepare them for the obligations and covenants they enter into.” It is our responsibility to make sure we and others are prepared for the Temple.

In practice, this means that we cannot force someone to go to the Temple before they are ready. I married a non-member and received pressure from others in the Church to make sure I received my Endowment at that time. I took a few Temple prep classes, but they didn’t resonate with me as a recent convert. I had more questions about the Temple and wanted more time to study them, since I had only recently learned it existed. I wasn’t ready to go through the Temple when I got married, and I was glad I waited until a few years later. Thankfully my Endowment escort, a dear friend and roommate, was not only kind and patient but understood what I needed and recommended an excellent book called Your Endowment by Mark A. Shields. The book’s tagline is “Gain Greater Joy and Satisfaction in Your Temple Service”, and it caters to both new and returning Temple-goers. I can’t imagine how different my first Endowment would have been without that book and without careful study of the Scriptures about Creation.

At the same time, we should not judge or shame those who do not attend the Temple. Many of those are people who earnestly wish to attend but struggle with the harm they have experienced there. I, like many members without a Priesthood holder in the home, understand that feeling. Some parts of the Temple ordinances are inherently inequitable. The most egregious wording in the Endowment that contradicted what I knew about Heavenly Parents who loved sons and daughters equally was changed a few years ago. But other inconsistencies remain between men’s and women’s access to Priesthood power and God, not to mention the fact that there is literally no place for intersex people or those who don’t identify as male or female.

As multiple prophets, seers, and revelators mentioned in the April 2021 General Conference, most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not married. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows that women outnumber men in the Church. It’s clear that messages of lower access for non-men as well as structural barriers for marginalized populations will continue to be a problem for many until major changes are made.

When we approach the Temple with reverence and treat its patrons and non-patrons with compassion, we truly honor the most holy site on Earth: the dwelling place of the Lord.

.

BIPOC LDS Sistas Q&A Fireside – This Sunday!

 

As a way to continue the pursuit of Anti-Racism work in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a Q&A fireside will be offered this Sunday, June 6th, 2021 to all LDS women and young women.  This fireside is in connection with the Black Lives Matter Sunday Discussions held earlier this year and posted about and endorsed here.

The fireside this weekend is for BIPOC LDS women and all anti-racism allies, including Non-BIPOC women and young women. The fireside will be offered as a larger gathering of those who have completed the 3-week Sunday discussion series, as well as anyone joining in for the first time. These larger gatherings are planned and led by Black and Black biracial LDS women in leadership with the BIPOC LDS Sistas Spiritual Support Group.

Here is some information about the event:

The BIPOC LDS SISTAS (ANTI-RACISM ALLIES) – Q & A FIRESIDE is developed and facilitated by BIPOC LDS Sistas :

As an anti-racism ally it is an opportunity …

To directly hear from BIPOC LDS Sistas as you continue on the path to interpersonal anti-racism transformation.To reflectively and actively engage with BIPOC Sistas and other Fireside active participants.To ask difficult questions, because they are an opportunity to provide valuable context around racialized issues.To actively gauge where you are in terms of unconscious racial prejudices and biases in ones beliefs and attitudes that leads to automatic stereotype/prejudice type behaviors.To access tools to help demonstratively consciously rectify any problem areas.To Commit to “Make A Concrete & Actionable Plan To Go From Learning to ACTION (If applicable).

Prior to the fireside, those who register for the event will be sent selected readings as “homework” so you’ll want to fill out this RSVP link right away to get started. Those who register will also be sent the Zoom meeting codes to attend virtually from all over the world.

From Dr. Pepper McCoy, “the FIRESIDES are open to both BIPOC & Non-BIPOC LDS Sisters, even though the non-BIPOC Sisters are especially encouraged to be “spiritually” reflective and vulnerable while challenged to examine learned beliefs of white supremacy/white privilege, as well as to “unlearn” it by leaning away from habitual often implicit racial biases and/or racial prejudices tendencies…then turning that interpersonal anti-racism transformation into action (truly “leading/rooting out” racism)!”

Register here for the fireside this Sunday.

Come Follow Me: Doctrine and Covenants 60–62 “All Flesh Is in Mine Hand”

Using Our Best Judgment

These sections focus on counsel given to a group of missionaries who traveled from  Kirtland, Ohio to Jackson County, Missouri in the summer of 1831.

Missouri River, photo by Aimee Castenell

Read the following verses. What do they have in common?

But, verily, I will speak unto you concerning your journey unto the land from whence you came. Let there be a craft made, or bought, as seemeth you good, it mattereth not unto me, and take your journey speedily for the place which is called St. Louis.
D&C 60:5

And it mattereth not unto me, after a little, if it so be that they fill their mission, whether they go by water or by land; let this be as it is made known unto them according to their judgments hereafter.
D&C 61:22

And then you may return to bear record, yea, even altogether, or two by two, as seemeth you good, it mattereth not unto me; only be faithful, and declare glad tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, or among the congregations of the wicked.
D&C 62:5

I, the Lord, am willing, if any among you desire to ride upon horses, or upon mules, or in chariots, he shall receive this blessing, if he receive it from the hand of the Lord, with a thankful heart in all things. These things remain with you to do according to judgment and the directions of the Spirit.
D&C 62:7-8

Why do you think the Lord chose not to give specific instructions about those things?Why is it good for us to make some decisions without specific direction from God?

A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don’t receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable. “We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.”
— Elder Dallin H. Oaks “Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” 1994

Taking Initiative

The Lord has taught:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
D&C 58:26-28

Why does the Lord want us not to be “compelled in all things”?What prevents us from “bringing to pass much righteousness “of [our] own free will”?

Reading these sections brought me back to my own missionary days. When I was 21 years old, I wanted to serve a mission. Actually, I had always wanted serve a mission since I was a child. But Church leaders were counseling women to make the decision about whether to serve a mission of matter of prayer, seeking personal revelation from God about whether or not we should serve. Many of my friends were wrestling with the decision and some of them told me about the spiritual experiences they had when they received an answer from God. Although I had always planned on serving a mission, I second-guessed myself. I prayed for revelation about whether I should go on a mission. No such revelation came. I felt no direction from Lord. But I wanted to go, so I submitted my papers anyway, without feeling any particular guidance from the Spirit on the matter. It wasn’t until after I submitted my papers that I felt joy that confirmed to me that I had made the right decision. I believe that the Lord did not answer my prayer because I did not need an answer. I knew what I wanted to do and I knew that it was a good thing to do,  so I was capable of making the decision on my own without waiting for the Lord to intervene.

Does anyone have an example of a time when you needed to make a decision based on your best judgment, in the absence of divine inspiration?  How did you reach your decision?

So often, we feel like we need to have someone give us direction. We don’t. Use your own initiative, your own inspiration, your own personal revelation to find ways to bless.”
— Relief Society General President Jean B. Bingham, Church News, 2021

How can we better use our own initiative?Can you think of some examples from your scriptures, history or personal experience when someone took initiative and did good without waiting for  an assignment?So what instructions did the Lord give the  missionaries?

Behold, they have been sent to preach my gospel among the congregations of the wicked; wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, thus: Thou shalt not idle away thy time, neither shalt thou bury thy talent that it may not be known. And after thou hast come up unto the land of Zion, and hast proclaimed my word, thou shalt speedily return, proclaiming my word among the congregations of the wicked, not in haste, neither in wrath nor with strife.
D&C 60:13-14

Why do you think the Lord gave these instructions?How would following these instructions make us better missionaries (or better people)?Opening Our Mouths

The Lord rebuked some missionaries:

But with some I am not well pleased, for they will not open their mouths, but they hide the talent which I have given unto them, because of the fear of man. Wo unto such, for mine anger is kindled against them. And it shall come to pass, if they are not more faithful unto me, it shall be taken away, even that which they have.
D&C 60:2-3

Review the parable of the talents.  How does it apply to opening our mouths to speak important truths?

For the kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Matthew 25:14-29

How is your testimony like a “talent,” or a treasure from God?In what ways do we sometimes “hide [our] talent”?

Sister [Eliza R.] Snow gave the following counsel to such sisters: “Do not let your president have to say all. … Has not God endowed you with the gift of speech? … If you are endowed with the Spirit of God, no matter how simple your thoughts may be, they will be edifying to those who hear you.”

Emily S. Richards said that Sister Snow helped her learn to speak in public: “The first time [she] asked me to speak in meeting, I could not, and she said, ‘Never mind, but when you are asked to speak again, try and have something to say,’ and I did.” Sister Richards continued to improve in her ability as a public speaker, and in 1889 she spoke at the National Woman Suffrage Association convention in Washington, D. C.

A journalist described Sister Richards as “trembling slightly under the gaze of the multitude, yet reserved, self possessed, dignified, and as pure and sweet as an angel. … It was not the words themselves but the gentle spirit [that] went with the words and carried winning grace to every heart.”
— Daughters in My Kingdom: A Wide and Extensive Sphere of Action

How can we better prepare “to have something to say” when opportunities arise?Overcoming Fear

Scattered throughout these revelations to early missionaries are reassurances that can help us overcome our fears about sharing the gospel—or other fears we might be facing:

I, the Lord, rule in the heavens above.
D&C 60:4

I am able to make you holy.
D&C 60:7

All flesh is in mine hand.
D&C 61:6

And now, verily I say unto you, and what I say unto one I say unto all, be of good cheer, little children; for I am in your midst, and I have not forsaken you; And inasmuch as you have humbled yourselves before me, the blessings of the kingdom are yours.
D&C 61:36-37

The Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, your advocate…knoweth the weakness of man and how to succor them who are tempted.
D&C 62:1

What reasons do we see in these verses to “be of good cheer”?How could you help you remember that the Savior is “in [our] midst”?Um, no.

There are a few problematic verses in these sections that have been used over the years to perpetuate outdated practices and Mormon myths. I would not recommend emphasizing these verses as part of your lesson plan but it is good to know some background information about them in case a class member brings them up.

Shake off the dust of your feet against people who reject missionaries?

Missionaries we  re told on August 8, 1831:

And shake off the dust of thy feet against those who receive thee not, not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret; and wash thy feet, as a testimony against them in the day of judgment. Behold, this is sufficient for you, and the will of him who hath sent you.
D&C 60:15-16

This verse repeats similar counsel given in July 1830, where this action is described as a ritualistic curse:

And in whatsoever place ye shall enter, and they receive you not in my name, ye shall leave a cursing instead of a blessing, by casting off the dust of your feet against them as a testimony, and cleansing your feet by the wayside.
D&C:24:15

This cursing ritual had Biblical origins:

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mark 6:11

By the turn of the century, however, church leaders were teaching that cursing is not in accordance with the spirit of missionary work:

If they cursed, in the spirit of righteousness and meekness before God, God would confirm that curse; but men are not called upon to curse mankind; that is not our mission; it is our mission to preach righteousness unto them. It is our business to love and to bless them, and to redeem them from the fall and from the wickedness of the world. . . . We are perfectly willing to leave vengeance in the hands of God and let him judge between us and our enemies, and let him reward them according to his own wisdom and mercy.
— Joseph F. Smith, 1904  Available in Samuel R. Weber, “Shake Off the Dust of Thy Feet”: The Rise and Fall of Mormon Ritual Cursing, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought , Spring 2013, Vol. 46, No. 1 

By the middle of the 20th century , the Missionary Handbook banned the practice altogether:

Bless, but do not curse.
— 1946 edition. The Missionary’s Hand Book Available in Samuel R. Weber, “Shake Off the Dust of Thy Feet”: The Rise and Fall of Mormon Ritual Cursing, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought , Spring 2013, Vol. 46, No. 1 

Today it is not the general custom in the Church for our Elders on missions to shake off the dust of their feet against the people who do not receive them. In our time the Lord is giving men everywhere ample opportunity to receive the Gospel. Consequently, Elders may return to the same people time and time again, thus giving them every opportunity to receive the word of God before His judgments come unto them.
— Doctrine and Covenants Compendium, 1960 Available in Samuel R. Weber, “Shake Off the Dust of Thy Feet”: The Rise and Fall of Mormon Ritual Cursing, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought , Spring 2013, Vol. 46, No. 1 

Satan rules the waters?

After a day of dangerous travel via canoe on the Missouri River in August 1831 with a group of missionaries, Joseph Smith had this revelation:

Behold, I, the Lord, in the beginning blessed the waters; but in the last days, by the mouth of my servant John, I cursed the waters. Wherefore, the days will come that no flesh shall be safe upon the waters.
D&C 61:14-15

The section header reports that another member of the party also had a vision:

Elder William W. Phelps, in a daylight vision, saw the destroyer riding in power upon the face of the waters.
D&C 61 header

This section, combined with a modern ban in the Missionary Handbook on swimming and water sports, has been used to perpetuate Mormon myths about waterways. According to the text for this chapter:

The Lord’s warning in Doctrine and Covenants 61 was, in part, a warning about the dangers His people could face while traveling to Zion on the Missouri River, which was known at that time for being dangerous. This warning should not be interpreted to mean that we should avoid traveling by water. The Lord has “all power,” including power over the waters.
— Come, Follow Me For Individuals and Families: Doctrine and Covenants 60-62

It should also be noted that the Missionary Handbook bans several land-based activities as well, such as horseback riding and rock climbing.

A Response to Elder Callister

 

TW: Sexual assault, slavery, lynching, forcible removal of Indigenous children

The Church has evidently decided to publish anything that someone with the title “Elder” chooses to write, regardless of how inaccurate, offensive or damaging it may be.  Thus we are again treated to an essay by Elder Tad R. Callister which is a Tad Un Christlike.  Elder Callister begins with a false dichotomy – whether one should address the symptoms or the source of a problem.  As he put it, should one put a fence at the top of a cliff or an ambulance at the bottom.  Ideally, I imagine, one could do both – warn folk away from a dangerous ledge while also mercifully providing assistance to anyone unfortunate enough to become hurt.  Mercy, however, does not seem to be on the program.

To Elder Callister, the fence would be “a return to family and moral values.”  As a historian specializing in the history of the family, I always find this sort of phrase a mixture of amusing and horrifying.  Which period exactly will we be returning to?  Perhaps to the 1950s, when it was legal to rape your wife and harass your secretary and when women were forced into domesticity by routine discrimination?  Maybe he meant a bit further back – perhaps Jim Crow and Reconstruction, when white societies routinely lynched and persecuted Black people with the goal of actively destroying the family?  It is very difficult to pinpoint an exact year for an imaginary historical construction that never was.  Luckily, Elder Callister does not shy away from a task just because it relies on historical ignorance and ideological bias.  Indeed, he thrives on such.

The year, it turns out, is 1833.  In this year Joseph Smith received the revelation which we call Doctrine and Covenants 93, in which each of the first Presidency at the time were instructed to “set in order [his] own house.”  He takes this as evidence that traditional family values are at the heart of the Gospel.  Of course 1833 is also the year that Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger, a sixteen year old girl, and then proceeded to lie about it to everyone, including his legal wife Emma.  I really think Elder Callister should define more clearly what he means by a “traditional family” since his example obscures more than it clarifies about what the golden age of family life looked like.

Elder Callister then quotes Bill Barr, an extremely controversial and polarizing figure, not known for his honesty or integrity.  Since Elder Callister follows the quote with the reflection “how right he is” it seems that Elder Callister is entirely in agreement with and endorses Barr’s views.  Let’s take a look.

“The reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.”  “Illegitimate” is an offensive way to describe an innocent child, but let us assume he is referring to children who are conceived and/or born out of wedlock.  It is not correct to state that the rising number of children born outside of marriage is correlated to rising abortion rates.  Abortion rates have consistently been falling since 1980.  Neither Elder Callister nor Barr make the slightest attempt to understand or address the reasons why women seek abortions which would be the logical place to start if you wish further reduce the number of abortions. Marriage rates are also falling, with more children born out of wedlock.  However, that does not automatically indicate sexual irresponsibility.  While long-term unmarried sexual partnerships are not in harmony with Church teachings, they aren’t by nature sexually irresponsible any more than marital relationships are sexually irresponsible.  The commitment to the child indicates responsibility, not the piece of paper.  I believe in the law of chastity and teach it in my home.  But that does not mean my unmarried neighbors with two children are somehow reckless.

Unsurprisingly, Barr and Callister are firmly against compassion and a helping hand.  Offering help to people who are in trouble is no good – you have to punish people who fall off of cliffs, otherwise everyone will want to do it.  Drug addicts should use in public places where their hypodermic needles can be a danger to everyone who might step on it, and they certainly deserve the illnesses that can be transmitted by used needles.  Women abandoned by husbands and partners should suffer. Children born to struggling mothers should not receive any aid.  If you alleviate suffering in any degree everyone will want to jump into poverty and addiction.  

It seems that caring for the poor, the fatherless, the sick and afflicted is definitely not what Christ commanded us to do.  I tried to find scriptural support for Callister’s understanding of Satan’s plan and came across the following: 

“One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”

Mark 10:21

“A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling.” 

Psalm 68:5

I have definitely been misinterpreting these passages as being commandments from God and not the alluring plan of Satan, so I appreciate Elder Callister’s clarification of what Ol’ Scratch is up to.

Elder Callister is particularly upset by how nice Satan’s operatives on earth make compassion and empathy seem.  Satan uses alluring terms like “love” and “compassion” about fellow human beings wanting to be treated as human beings with the same rights and privileges as everyone else.  You can tell that on some level Elder Callister is tempted.  He describes empathy as being “cosmetically appealing” a “decorated” package wrapped with “glitter and a glamorous bow.”  To Elder Callister I say – why not unwrap the package? When has Satan ever been the one trying to tempt us to be more compassionate, more empathetic, more merciful, more understanding? Does that even sound like Satan to you? Because it sure doesn’t sound like it to me.  

President Uchtdorf said “Love is the healing balm that repairs rifts in personal and family relationships.  It is the bond that unites families, communities and nations.  Love is the power that initiates friendship, tolerance, civility and respect.  It is the source that overcomes divisiveness and hate.  Love is the fire that warms our lives with unparalleled joy and divine hope.  Love should be our walk and our talk.”

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “The Love of God” October General Conference 2009

Given current Church policy and leadership, I wouldn’t expect Church leaders to express pride or support during Pride month.  But as members we could do a better job of expressing love.  We can lead from below.  If you feel tempted to be loving towards LGBTQ members, if it seems quite appealing to have empathy, then give in!  Satan never tempts you to be kinder, more generous of heart, more compassionate, more loving.  That isn’t an insidious voice of the Devil, that is the still, small voice calling you to love thy neighbor as thyself.  To want for your neighbor what you want for yourself.

Elder Uchtdorf’s vision of what will heal the nation seems much more aligned with Christ’s teachings than Elder Callister’s offensively ahistorical colonial analogy.  Elder Callister shares a quote celebrating the remarkable unity of Northern Europeans overcoming their differences to celebrate the sanctity of the white family.  Understanding how crucially important family units are, they actively weaponized that information to destroy, oppress and eliminate other peoples.  Chattel slavery depended on familial destruction.  Selling family members apart was an intentional decision to undermine resistance and more effectively oppress the enslaved.  White masters and overseers raped enslaved women, intending to destroy any father or husband’s identity as such – sexual assault drove home an enslaved man’s inability to protect his wife or children, or to have a monogamous relationship.  Indeed slaves were forbidden to have legal marriage, and enslaved women could not bring charges of rape against anyone.

These same colonists actively tried to destroy Indigenous families.  It was particularly tone-deaf of the Church to publish this drivel in the same week that the graves 215 Indigenous children were found in Canada.  This discovery has thrust into public conversation something that has been no secret to Native communities.  Beginning with the colonists, but continuing to this day, white-run governments have pursued active policies of familial destruction with the goal of domination.  These governments, supported by their citizens, wrested children from their parents. Destroying family was the point. The schools existed to try to eradicate cultural ties between generations and stamp out any sense of tribal (read: family) identity.  That these schools were also institutions of cruelty and death is not a coincidence.  The cruelty was the point.  Holding up white colonists as a source of wisdom on the sanctity of family is a disgusting racist misrepresentation of reality.

Elder Callister solemnly affirms: “No government program or policy can compensate for lack of strong families and moral values.”  However, government polices absolutely can constitute frontal attacks on families.  For example, having a stable living situation, a home, is hugely helpful to a family.  Redlining was designed to make sure that didn’t happen.  Disproportionate arrests of Black and other non-white men carries forward the role of slavery in ensuring that generations of fathers and husbands are not present to raise their children, while white men who commit the same offenses are at liberty.  Systemic racism perpetuates poverty, a consistent predictor of drug usage, lower education, fractured families.  

Elder Callister understandably finds it very alluring to imagine that all it would take to heal the world is to make heterosexual monogamous middle class life universal.  However, the idea that a father who can provide for children so the wife can be home full time and there is no need for child care is a fantasy that never was.  To the extent anyone ever lived it (i.e. middle class white women) it was always predicated on the labor of poor women and women of color.  In the 19th century homemakers wore cotton that was picked by Black slaves whose families had been ripped apart. The cloth was woven by women working under terrible conditions in factories. Their homes were cleaned by poorer women who by definition were not full time homemakers.  The middleclass housewife dream continues to be built on the labor of poor women whose poverty means they cannot be full time homemakers.  The cute centerpiece from Hobby Lobby was made in a sweatshop in China.  The cookies you baked this afternoon were made with chocolate from cacao beans harvested by trafficked workers, many of them children.  The idea that we can solve all social problems by just being married and having a single-earner family ignores the harsh realities of how the world works.

If we want to heal families, we should start where we are wounding them.  Elder Callister provides no clear directives on what “promoting family values” might mean, other than denying social services and lecturing people.  Instead of taking away ambulances, why don’t we ask why people are falling off of cliffs? Why is the fence not enough? And when the fence breaks let us strengthen the weak, heal the sick, bind up the injured, bring back those who stray, and seek those we have lost. Let us feed the hungry, give drink to those who thirst, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and minister to those in prison.

Ezekiel 34:3-4 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them.

Ezekiel 34:3-4

 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,  I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’  Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’  Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’  And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew 25:41-46