Exponent II's Blog, page 14

Guest Post: Ministering

Guest Post by Kate Baxter

December 3, 2022

10:32 am  Clara Allred  Hi Kate! This is Clara Allred, your Ministering Supervisor. We just want to remind you to check in with your Ministering Sisters this holiday season. Thanks!    11:10 am  Kate  Hi Clara. I have no idea who these sisters are. Our ward has changed so much, and I’m busy with Primary. Can you tell me a little about them?2:18 pm  Clara Allred  I think they are in the new subdivision by the high school. Just send them a text or drop something off at their houses for Christmas. You can find their contact info in LDS Tools. It’s important that no one feels forgotten at this time of the year. Thanks for all that you do!!!!     

April 7, 2023

4:26 pm  Clara Allred  Hi Kate! We’re checking in with all the sisters to see how Ministering is going. How are your sisters doing? How is it going with your Ministering Companion? Let us know how we can help!!    9:18 pm  Kate  Honestly, Clara, it’s been rough. Things are really challenging right now. I haven’t met my Ministering Sisters or my companion. I dropped off loaves from Kneader’s at Christmas, but didn’t speak with them. Sorry I can’t tell you more about how they’re doing.   9:38 pm  Clara Allred  That’s okay!!! Ministering is not about monthly visits. It’s about creating connections. You can send them a text, drop a postcard in the mail, or even just say hi in the hallway at church. It’s simple. You’re doing great!!!     

July 25, 2024

10:51 am  Linda Peterson  Hi Kate. I’m your new Ministering Supervisor. We’re checking in with each companionship. With so many new sisters, we’re thinking about redoing the assignments. How are your sisters doing? Do you have any concerns?       1:36 pm  Kate  Hi Linda. I don’t think we’ve met. Welcome to the ward. As I told Clara, I haven’t had any ministering contact with anyone in the ward for a couple of years. If you guys are redoing the assignments, I’d really like to be placed with a companion and sisters I already know. I think that would make it lots easier for me. Thanks.   

July 27, 2024

2:51 pm  Linda Petersen  Hi Kate! We’re excited to share your new Ministering assignment with you. Please log into LDS Tools to see your new sisters and companion. Thank you for all the work you do on behalf of the Lord. Remember, without your loving and dedicated service, his hands are tied. 🙏    6:37 pm  Kate  Hey Linda. I just looked at LDS Tools. I don’t know my companion or the sisters I’m supposed to minister to. I asked to be partnered with people I already know. Can you please make that happen? Thanks.   

July 29, 2024

7:04 am  Linda Peterson  Hi Kate. I looked over the assignments and discussed it with Sister Jones, our new RS Pres. She and I feel that you are the perfect person to welcome all these new sisters in. I know they don’t live close to you, but remember, you don’t have to visit each month. Just an occasional text is fine.    11:23 am  Kate  I have a lot going on right now and am not sure I’m able to reach out to new people. Just sending a text every once in a while doesn’t feel right to me. For that reason, Ministering would be easier for me if I visited sisters I already know and who live by me. Could you check one more time if there’s another way I can serve? Thanks.   11:42 am  Linda Petersen  You’re over-thinking this, Kate. It’s natural to feel a bit overwhelmed. ❤️ Ministering is an opportunity to get to know new sisters. As someone who’s been in our ward for a decade or more, we feel you are the perfect person to help new sisters make connections in the ward and neighborhood. Remember, Jesus doesn’t ask us to do things without preparing a way. You got this! 👍     

October 15, 2024

3:17 pm  Linda Petersen  Hi Kate! I was talking to Joanna Fairchild, one of your Ministering sister assignments, and she said you two have never met. Joanna would appreciate a call, text, or visit. Thanks.     

October 17, 2024

4:22 pm  Linda Petersen  Just a reminder for all the sisters to reach out to their Ministering assignments this holiday season. Sister Jones has challenged us with 100% outreach through December. She has a super cute refrigerator magnet scripture quote you can pick up from her house to give to your sisters. We’ve made it super easy, so don’t hesitate. We (and the Lord!!!) appreciate your service!!!     

October 28, 2024

9:11 am  Linda Petersen  Hi Kate. Just circling back. Joanna Fairchild told me this morning that you two still haven’t gotten together. Her contact info is in LDS Tools, but let me know if you need me to send it. Thanks.     

October 29, 2024

  10:52 am  Kate  Hi Linda. I’m sorry I haven’t been a good minister. Things are really difficult right now. Could you please assign my Ministering sisters to someone who has the bandwidth to reach out? Thanks.   10:50 am  Linda Petersen  So many of our sisters are already visiting extra people—are you sure you don’t have time to send one text or chat with someone in the hall? Are you asking to be removed from the Ministering Sister pool? I’ll have to talk to Sis. Jones about that.       11:02 am  Kate  Of course I want to serve and help people. Absolutely call if someone needs a meal or something. I’m happy to do things like that. It’s just hard to minister to people who don’t live by me, and I don’t know them. I can barely get through the day as it is. I feel like I’m drowning. Can we adjust the assignments?   11:27 am  Linda Petersen  I talked with Sister Jones and we agreed that we’ll look at making Ministering changes in February. The Elders Quorum made it clear that they don’t want to do anything until after the holidays. Maybe around ward conference. Thanks for all you do!!! We sure appreciate you. 🙌     

December 9, 2024

7:27 pm  Linda Petersen  Merry Christmas, Sisters! This is a reminder to visit your Ministering Sisters before the end of the year. Our goal is 100% outreach. You have just a few more weeks before this opportunity to serve our Lord this year disappears forever. Don’t miss it! 🎄     

February 12, 2025

3:41 pm  Linda Petersen  Sisters, we need everyone to sign up for a time to meet with a member of the Relief Society Presidency to discuss Ministering Assignments. Be sure to sign up using the following link. Thanks!     

February 17, 2025

8:18 am  Linda Petersen  Hi Kate. We’ve noticed you haven’t signed up for a meeting time with the RS Presidency. We’re trying to get this done this week. Here’s the link again. Thanks! 🥰     

February 25, 2025

9:22 am  Linda Petersen  Hi Kate. I signed up you for an 8:45 pm slot tonight to meet with Sister Jones about Ministering. We’re finalizing the new assignments. Let me know if that works for you. See you there!!! 👍     

March 9, 2025

8:10 am  Kara Brighton  Good morning, Sisters! I’m Kara, the new Ministering Supervisor, and I’ve got exciting news!!! Check out LDS Tools for your new assignments. Come prepared to meet your new partners and the wonderful sisters who will become your best friends! 👩‍👩‍👧‍👧 See you at Relief Society!!!     

March 13, 2025

7:38 am  Kara Brighton  Good morning, Sisters! We want to remind everyone about the cupcakes we’ll have at church this Sunday in honor of the Relief Society’s birthday! Stop by Sister Jone’s house for a cute cupcake flyer to take to your Ministering Sisters. We want everyone there, so be sure to stop by. 🧁     

June 25, 2025

9:34 am  Kara Brighton  Hi Kate! We’re checking in to see how Ministering is going for you. I realized we haven’t met. Are you in Primary? Hope your day is extra fantastic!!!     

Kate Baxter is terrible at small talk, but pretty good at bringing in meals and helping at funerals. At RS events you can find her hiding in the kitchen near the desserts. She blogs about Wayfinding Mortality on her new website https://katebaxterauthor.com/.

A Mormon Mother Revisited: Obeisance/Obedience

My great-great-great aunt was a second wife in late-1800s polygamous Utah. Her autobiography first lived on my parents’ bookshelves and then migrated to mine. I read it once, as a teen, but otherwise, it’s been left to age quietly in the background.  

It feels like time to revisit.  

Down that family line, two generations became ensnared in polygamy. Two sisters, daughters of a polygamous marriage, married polygamously, and that was the end of it. Monogamy won. Only two generations ensnared in polygamy, and yet a long, long, long tail of effects.  

Growing up, polygamy was at once something that had to be explained away and also not talked about at all. It was difficult. It was confusing. It was always there, but never fully understood or explored, especially in public. Private conversations, most often with my dad, were one thing, but at church polygamy needed to be tied up a neat little bow and placed on the shelf labeled ‘Already Resolved Issues.’    

In my immediate family, Annie Clark Tanner, whose life story sat on our shelves, was admired because she publicly criticized polygamy in her autobiography.  That was the thing to be proud of, mainly. I used to wear that pride – that progressivism – easily. My family connections to polygamy wouldn’t bother me. They had been on the right side of things by the end of it. And, after all, it’s not something we do anymore.   

I think I’d rather be bothered, a bit.  

The book is a bit faded from sun exposure, but the binding still holds.  

I have to spend a minute on FamilySearch to remember exactly how I’m related to Annie. In typical Mormon fashion, there’s a solid 21 children to wade through between two marriages before I reaffirm that Annie Vilate Clark Tanner, daughter of Susan Leggett, the second wife of Ezra Thompson Clark, is the older sister to my direct ancestor Sarah Lavina Clark.  

Clark became my grandfather’s name and my son’s middle name. The roots reach further than you think they do. 

Annie writes in the chapter describing her childhood, “the principle of obedience dominated the teachings of my girlhood, whether it applied to the home, the State, or the Church” (2).1  

She alludes to her father perhaps being something of a harsh disciplinarian, particularly to her older siblings with his first wife, but also that she loved her father’s praise so much, she never wanted to disobey and therefore enjoyed a good relationship with her father.  

It hits differently today, that obeisance as obedience.  

I know that euphoric feeling, of being so good and knowing, deep down in your soul, that that goodness radiates and you don’t have to worry about a thing because it’s obedience that will keep you safe and well and loved.  

How much of being a Mormon woman is wrapped up in reaching for the approbation of the priesthood – the men – in our lives? How many of us have met the harsh disciplinarian in the friend, family member, or the church leader because we couldn’t take the obeisance/obedience any further without sacrificing something vital? 

Annie wrestled with this cognitive dissonance too.  

She both admired and struggled with an exacting mother, which she attributed to her mother’s origin as an English immigrant, while she was a born and raised American (we may be descended from colonizers on colonizers, but I do get a kick out of the idea that Annie wasn’t immune to the challenges of being a first generation American daughter with an immigrant parent).  

When Annie writes, “it seemed so serious to me that I did not always agree with my mother” (5), she’s representing all of us good girls who make obeisance/obedience their whole personality.      

She loved and respected her father, but notes that her value to him was that she had good manners, dressed well, and could help out when there were social events at the  main house. Her father may have asked her to pick out presents at the local ZCMI, but she also never chose anything without his approval. Several times in her stories about her childhood, she balances out the kindness of her father with the truth that she never tested the strength and endurance of that love.     

The dissonance grows when she describes the state of relationships between the two wives of this family, first claiming that all was well and then immediately describing all the ways in which this polygamous family was, in fact, not well.  

In particular, “Aunt Mary,” the first wife, had complete control of the allotment of monthly supplies to both families. Annie’s father wouldn’t intervene if his second wife told him she wasn’t being given enough, a choice which Annie attributes to her father’s desire to follow the example of Brigham Young.  

Annie writes she was welcome at the home of the first wife, and she was. They couldn’t play with the toys unless the first wife’s children were also playing, they couldn’t eat the apples from the orchard, and the chicken coop was always locked to them, but they were welcome.   

Although she spends a few pages defending Aunt Mary’s actions, Annie balances her defense by noting the difficulties facing her mother, who was often put in the position of begging at the door while her husband turned a blind eye to the situation. 

A family struggling to make polygamy work widens out the lens to the wider community, which operated under what Annie called authoritarian management. She writes, “if one had a surprise party, it was with the consent of the Bishop. Indeed, all public gatherings were under the direction of the Church authorities…” (18). 

I mean, can you imagine such an environment? Who would want to live like that? If we learn nothing from Brigham-Young-era Utah, perhaps it’s that we ought to be fighting very, very hard in our own time to avoid authoritarian government. But I digress.  

Here’s the childhood Annie that I am imagining: 

The second-oldest-and-oldest-daughter of 11 children, with 10 more half-sibling ahead of her, spread across two houses, lives with inequitable hierarchies at home and strict societal demands in her wider community, where religion and state boundaries are blurred enough to be rendered meaningless. She sees the inequities and the challenges of her home life and her community life, but she’s doing the best she can, because sometimes good things happen too. She really, really loves her family. She wants to know that God still loves her when she goes to sleep at night. She reads every edition of The Woman’s Exponent that comes to their home. 

I can hold love and grace for Annie, her mother Susan, and her Aunt Mary in this heightened environment of Obedience/Obeisance and Patriarchy.  

Is Annie’s childhood steeped in obedience really that different from my childhood, which took place in the era of Modesty and Patriarchy?  

There, too, obedience, hierarchy, inequity were at play.  

Annie’s religious leaders taught her “obedience is Heaven’s first law” and mine told me, “blessings bestowed by God are always predicated upon obedience to law.”2

And while I am not going to ever argue that the modesty push is the same as polygamy (polygamy is way worse, full stop), both issues are cut from the same Patriarchy cloth.  

Patriarchy tells us to push aside what we’re seeing, hearing, and feeling in favor of strict obedience. It says to make choices based on the idea that there will be some sort of heavenly reward that will make any and all sacrifices worth it. Patriarchy is all about looking for approval from others for our perfect obedience.   

For me, obedience was covering my shoulders and wearing knee length bottoms. For today’s youth, it’s probably going to be something temple-related. For Annie, it was embracing the Principle. 

When obedience demands that we stop listening to ourselves, that we relinquish our agency, that we lose the ability to critically question, that we look to others, typically those with patriarchal power (read: men), for approval, we get to the heart of what Annie is describing as a throughline in her childhood. 

I don’t know what Annie would think of her great-great-great-grandniece who wears pants and pride pins to church, openly critiques the poor effects of our church policies, and neither sustains nor dissents during those ceremonial sustaining exercises. She probably wouldn’t like my messy-middle boundary-grounded version of Mormon participation.  

Probably, I’m a bit too disobedient for her taste.  

 And yet, I’m someone who also wants to know that God still loves her and reads every edition of The Exponent ii that comes to her home.  

I have to hope that a part of Annie would understand why I don’t see the value in being an obedient and obeisant Mormon woman. She might understand why I couldn’t look away from the inequities and the injustices any  longer, no matter how safe that obedience bubble truly felt at times. It did feel so safe at times. But the rest of Annie’s story might show that obedience isn’t always exactly safe either.

Annie Clark Tanner’s A Mormon Mother published by Tanner Trust Fund University of Utah Library 1976 Russell M. Nelson “Endure and Be Lifted Up” April 1997 General Conference   

Book cover image via Wikimedia

Photo by Mikhail Pavstyuk on Unsplash

In our town, as it is in Heaven

I was running errands on a Saturday morning, and I drove past a church that had a banner out front that read “In Phoenix, as it is in Heaven.” That fresh take on the Lord’s Prayer, likening the scripture unto ourselves, really struck me.

While preaching the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructed his disciples on how to pray: “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” Matthew 6:9-10

The earth is vast, and in that vastness, it’s easy to hand-wave away. A million is a statistic. I have no power over the whole earth. I have little power over my country, modest power over my state, and a bit more power over my city and community. Things are distressing in the world right now, and it’s overwhelming to see all of the need. It’s hard to know where to start, and it’s easy to feel powerless because I can’t do everything.

I can’t always do anything about whatever problem is happening over there. But I can do something about whatever problem is happening right in front of me. God’s kingdom come, God’s will be done in Phoenix, as it is in Heaven. If I make my city heavenly, and the rest of God’s people make their cities heavenly, then we will make the whole earth heavenly.

Guest Post: Nobody in our Ward (or Yours Either) Blesses the Sacrament

Guest Post by Su Ferrel

Last Sunday I again listened more closely to the Bishop’s comment after the ordinance of the sacrament than to the sacrament prayer itself. And, yes, he did it again. He thanked ‘the Priesthood’ (not the priesthood bearers or the young men) for blessing and passing the sacrament. We know, because it has been widely taught from the pulpit, both locally and from Salt Lake, that men who hold the priesthood are not ‘the priesthood’, so ‘the priesthood’ shouldn’t be thanked for blessing the sacrament. And unless the trays are moved by some non-human power, it is also inappropriate to thank ‘the priesthood’ for passing the sacrament. And yet, my bishop continues to make that same verbal and doctrinal error whenever he conducts.

I determined I had let this concern live rent-free in my head for long enough. I had sustained this bishop, and sustaining him meant, among other things, that I would support him in his calling. If I truly wanted him to succeed in his calling then it would be not only appropriate, but mandatory, for me to mention his error in phraseology, in a kind and loving way, of course.

As we were left the chapel I found the bishop and took a moment to relay my concerns, but was dumbfounded at his reaction. He scoffed at me (literally) and said it WAS ‘the Priesthood’ that blessed the sacrament, because that’s the power the priests used. He said I was parsing words and splitting hairs. I reminded him that the brethren had made a clear distinction between ‘men’ and ‘the Priesthood’, and that the stake president had directed ward leadership to specifically NOT thank ‘the Priesthood’ for the administration of the sacrament. I told him that both his counselors followed the recommended phrasing and that it was hurtful for a woman to hear the term ‘priesthood’ used as a synonym for ‘men’. He said I was taking offense where none was intended, that the exact words in his off-hand comment of thanks made no difference. I suggested that, if he truly believed there was no difference, then him using my (and the brethren’s and the stake president’s) preferred phrasing would harm nobody, while benefitting some. He said I was being overly sensitive and woke. I asked him to consider my request to change his verbiage. He gave me a dismissive hand wave and said he’d ‘consider’ it, but with such an inflection on the word ‘consider’ that I knew it wouldn’t happen.

That less-than-two-minute conversation made me wonder if perhaps I didn’t know enough about priesthood in general, and blessings in particular, to have communicated my concern effectively. My message was so poorly received that I wondered if I was being overly sensitive, woke, or splitting hairs. I began to delve more deeply into a variety of blessings bestowed by people in The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, specifically blessing babies, blessing the sick, blessing food, and blessing the sacrament.

General Handbook of Instructions, section 18.6.2, specifies that the Melchizedek Priesthood holder acting as voice during the blessing of a baby does the following:

Addresses Heavenly Father as in prayer.States that the blessing is being performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.Gives the child a name.Addresses the child.Gives a blessing to the child as guided by the Spirit.Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, General Handbook of Instructions, section 18.8.2, specifies that the Melchizedek Priesthood holder acting as voice during the Confirmation and Gift of the Holy Ghost do the following:

Calls the person by his or her full name.States that the ordinance is being performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.Confirms the person a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.States “receive the Holy Ghost” (not “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”).Gives words of blessing as guided by the Spirit.Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

In both instances the speaker himself blesses the child. Yes, the blessing is given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Yes, the speaker is guided by the spirit. Yes, the blessing closes in the name of Jesus Christ. But the blessing is NOT a prayer asking Heavenly Father or anyone else to bless the child. (Although Heavenly Father is addressed in the baby blessing ordinance, the blessing portion itself is addressed directly to the child by the Melchizedek Priesthood bearer. Heavenly Father isn’t even mentioned during the Confirmation and Gift of the Holy Ghost ordinance.) In both instances the blessing is from the Melchizedek Priesthood bearer/s themselves (as guided by the Spirit), voiced as ‘I/WE bless you to …’ God Himself is not called on to administer the blessing.

I considered other blessings, such as the blessing on the food at mealtime. My husband generally asks me, or a child or a grandchild (yes, we follow that patriarchy in our home) to ‘please bless the food’, and then the called upon person does as asked.

However, there is a great difference in how food is blessed and how children are blessed. Food ‘blessings’ are actually prayers to Heavenly Father asking HIM to bless the food. The person charged with blessing the food does not actually ‘bless’ the food. The person ‘asks a blessing on the food’, directed to Heavenly Father. We discussed this subtle difference at home and decided to replace the request of ‘(name), will you please bless the food?’ with ‘(name), will you please ask a blessing on the food? The new-to-us phrasing flows so easily that it’s likely we’ve heard it in other settings but hadn’t internalized the nuance.

Then I reviewed the sacrament PRAYER, not BLESSING. It dawned on me that nobody in our ward (or yours either, for that matter) actually blesses the sacrament. Like the blessing on the food, there is no statement that the work is being done by ‘the authority of the priesthood that we hold’ or ‘we bless this bread/water…’. Like the blessing on the food, the sacrament prayer doesn’t actually bless the bread or water. It is a prayer asking Heavenly Father to bless the bread and water: ‘Oh God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread or water)…’

Priesthood members do NOT bless the bread or water during the sacrament portion of our meetings. Just as we ASK Heavenly Father to bless the food in our home, priesthood members ASK Heavenly Father to bless the bread and water during the ordinance of the sacrament.

Although a priesthood holder offers the sacrament prayers, it is Heavenly Father, approached through the authority of the priesthood and in the name of Jesus Christ, who actually blesses the sacrament to the souls of those who partake. If anyone is to be thanked for blessing the sacrament, it should be Him. The deacons could appropriately be thanked for passing. However, if thanks are to be given, perhaps it would be best to simply thank those who ‘participated in the administration of the sacrament’.

But, wait, haven’t we been taught that blessing the sacrament is a responsibility of the Aaronic Priesthood? It certainly appears that way according to the General Handbook of Instructions, section 18.9.2, ‘Priests and Melchizedek Priesthood holders may bless the sacrament.’ In actuality, however, they do not bless the sacrament. Again, it is Heavenly Father who blesses the sacrament after Priests and/or Melchizedek Priesthood holders ask for that blessing through the authority of the priesthood and in the name of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps instead of looking to the ever-evolving General Handbook of Instructions for doctrinal guidance, we should instead look to the canonized Doctrine and Covenants, which states in 20: 46 ‘The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament (emphasis added).’

I’m unsure whether my bishop will change his verbiage, but I now understand that nobody in our ward (or yours either, for that matter) actually blesses the sacrament. I am grateful for those who administer it. And will gladly appropriately thank them.

Su Ferrel is a septuagenarian feminist living in Amarillo Texas where she does her best to sustain church leadership, even while playing Bishop Roulette.

Guest Post: The Other Secret Lives of Mormon W(ives)omen

Guest Post by Kate Lloyd

I walked into Lululemon in a suburb of North Austin after attending an interfaith activity. The bubbly worker chatted with me while my husband tried on clothes. I was just thinking how nice it is to be a normal person in Texas. No one dropping conspicuous hints about their religious allegiance, checking to see if I was wearing garments, or even assuming that I could be affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I asked her what she had planned for the weekend. “Have you heard of the show “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives?” 

I resist the urge to roll my eyes, and instead I drily mention that I’m from Utah, so yes I’m familiar! If I were a better Mormon* I would have taken a page from the Playbills of “The Book of Mormon” (the shockingly racist musical, not the book of scripture) and invited her to “come and see”. Or I would have shared why the term “Mormon” isn’t representative of a church centered on Christ’s teachings. Having grown up in Utah, I have spent my whole life navigating the tension between the gospel I love and the complicated culture it spawned in Utah.

And that’s the truth- I followed #MomTok as it gained popularity. Momfluencers brought the concept of “soft swinging” to phone screens across the globe, mine included. I wanted to watch The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives with an open mind. I recognize that the main issue I have with the show is not with the women, as much as it is with the practice of pop culture. These are mostly White, upper middle class women who may experience issues within their culture but have ultimately gained wealth and fame from their participation in the show. Perhaps a better title would be the “Secret Lives of Utah Wives.” These are women who certainly may be “Mormon,” although they don’t talk much about their beliefs. It’s more reminiscent of the catty and sometimes hurtful behavior among friends that I observed growing up in Utah.

Despite my general frustrations, there are a few moments that resonate with me and highlight important conversations happening among Mormon women. I appreciate the candor around sexuality, like when Whitney speaks frankly with her mom about how the absence of conversations about sex in her youth left her unprepared. In a later moment, Jen comments on her friend’s divorce, saying that “it’s courageous for Layla to walk away from that.” Mayci tells Taylor she sees red flags in Dakota that remind her of her own experience with her ex-boyfriend. It’s great to see women from our faith supporting each other and working to identify unhealthy patterns in culture and relationships.

On the other hand, this show encapsulates a lot of my frustration with living in Utah, and particularly living in the state where one religion constituted the cultural majority. When a rift begins to form between the “saints” and the “sinners” aka the “devout” and “non-devout,” Jen briefly mentions the work she does to appeal to her mother-in-law. She offhandedly mentions that her own Ecuadorian mother is a “cleaning lady in the same hospital that Zach’s dad is a heart surgeon.” The show demonstrates its priorities by glossing over this interaction. It seems clear that the writers are uninterested in exploring the classicism and racism underpinning Utah, and by extension Mormon culture. Instead, it prefers to center the shallow, petty squabbles that reaffirm sensationalized stereotypes of Mormon “weirdness,” like the obsession with soda, the “secret” temple ceremonies, and the fake swear words used to replace the real ones. 

As I continued watching the show, my initial sense of dread quickly melted into boredom. It was nothing I hadn’t seen before. I could honestly tell juicier stories from a single month of living in Utah, and I lived over 200 months there. Because it’s reality TV, I have to remind myself it’s not that serious. Ironically, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Come Follow Me from August 2024 had a comment that “followers of Jesus Christ are not easily offended,” showing a willingness to listen and learn.

However, it does feel serious to me. While attending BYU, I took a Mormon Women’s History class and never felt more connected to the Mormon culture surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mormon feminist and scholar Laurel Thatcher Ulrich is credited for the phrase “well behaved women rarely make history.” While this quote is often taken to mean that women should “misbehave,” she actually meant it in the sense that we should celebrate the accomplishments of everyday, unassuming women. When I think about the women in my religious community, a slew of faces come to mind. I think about my friends who are pursuing various passions, such as attending masters programs, raising children, and working to make change in their various fields. I think about the woman who lived down the street from me growing up, who texted me frequently to tell me how smart and wonderful I am- she also supplied a healthy dose of neighborhood gossip, which kept me feeling connected to home. I think of my sister in laws, who are juggling careers and families and severely challenging life circumstances. And I think of my mom, who is one of the smartest people I know and often underestimates her power and influence.

I also think of the women I interacted with in my North Texas congregation. I spoke with one woman who had been told she shouldn’t be attending church if she wasn’t paying her tithing. I like to think there must have been a miscommunication, but it broke my heart to think that kept her away. I also think of the woman who was my co-leader for activity days, balancing a full time job, caregiving for her mother and putting her daughter through school. Her life was touched by heartbreak after heartbreak, and she was one of the most devout and caring people I’ve ever had the pleasure of serving with.

Pursuing a fulfilling career is a luxury reserved for wealthy women. Most women, in and out of our church, have to work due to necessity. The show skimmed the surface of gender roles within Mormon culture. At one point, Jen complains that her husband Zach thinks “his job is more important because he’ll be doing it for his life.” She’s putting him through med school and is acting as the sole provider. The unofficial mandate that men be the sole provider has been a source of grief in my own life. Not because my husband wants to be the sole provider, but because of the cultural pressure and general consensus among Mormons in Utah that the ideal scenario is for women to be full time stay-at-home moms.

This conflicting messaging has not gone unnoticed in pop culture, particularly in light of Mormon influencers like Ballerina Farm and adjacent Nara Smith. Monica Hesse of The Washington Post said that The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives “highlights the irony of social media influencers who promote traditional homemaking while being the primary earners.”

Beyond career concerns, I’ve seen priesthood power exploited. To outsiders, this often seems like an abstract concept of power meant to reinforce traditional gender roles. The role that men play as mediators between women and God sometimes place women in a compromised position, at the mercy of the careless and subjective authority of men during temple recommend interviews or other confessions. I’ve had beautiful experiences of forgiveness through soft spoken men who asked for no details during confessions I went into seeking healing. On the other hand, I also had not one, but two separate Bishops, ask me if I orgasmed. I held a lot of anger toward these men but have come to understand that they were just doing the best with the tools they were given. Unfortunately, those tools did more damage than they repaired. 

What I’ve come to understand about frustrations regarding women and the priesthood is that often, power is filtered through the men closest to you. So if the men closest to you, including local clergy, are careless or worst case abusive, the power of the priesthood can be tainted. This is not to say that it’s an issue of “a few bad apples.” As a religion, we’re taught that people are imperfect and it’s very important to give people grace. We’re also taught that authority and respect is important and that we should not question or challenge ideas. My ultimate hope is that with time, women will feel empowered to push back and speak out about their own revelation and spiritual guidance in response to men who overstep their roles as leaders. 

Beyond the half hearted attempts to display patriarchal systems within Mormon culture, the show did a great job at displaying the worship of aestheticism in Utah. One woman comments, “[my] body is a temple, so let me get botox. [The church doesn’t] really care about plastic surgery.” This one gets my blood boiling because she’s right. Culturally, there is much judgment passed when a woman gets a tattoo, but no one bats an eye at botox anymore because it’s insanely common in Utah. A 2017 study found that Utah has more plastic surgeons per capita than Los Angeles. Beyond plastic surgery, there is also an obsession with having beautifully curated parties. At her baby shower, Taylor comments “I came back to the church to get my life back together, but I feel like I have distanced myself from all of my friends. I don’t know who’s going to show up and who’s not.” She’s throwing this fancy baby shower, and wondering if her friends hate her. That part felt a little too familiar- not that I was often invited to fancy parties, but I was well aware of the ones I wasn’t invited to.

I hope the women of our faith continue to be an influence for good. I would consider myself radical, so I ask people who have agreed with me up until this point to continue to hear me out. Power and wealth are inherently corruptive, as seen in 3rd Nephi of the Book of Mormon. It takes a very conscious effort to counteract the inherent corruption, and most people aren’t willing to humble themselves when they find themselves in these positions- I know I struggle with this. I believe the capitalism we currently practice as a nation is ungodly. And at risk of coming on too strong, I believe that those who support Donald Trump’s policies and practices value wealth more than they value the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

I won’t be watching any other seasons of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. There are too many better shows to watch, and I am busy worrying about how to save our democracy. At a happy hour recently, one of my classmates remarked that he “knew I was Mormon” because I was “one of the f*cking nicest people [he’s] ever met.” I loved this comment because it sometimes felt like the opposite of my experience growing up in Utah. I also would remark that we’re actually just like most other communities, some of them religious—wonderful, kind, community-focused, and trying our best to navigate the horrors and joys of being alive. We can also be incredibly imperfect and frustrating with policies and cultural practices that actively harm people.

But I stay for lots of reasons. But mostly because I love the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And the community of 5.5 million women doesn’t hurt either. The real secret about Mormon women is that we come from a legacy of political organizers and religious refugees who were forced to shun traditional gender roles of the time in the name of survival. In modern times, women join the church all over the world from all walks of life, often working outside the home and rarely as influencers. But what I hope is not a secret is our devotion to the gospel of Jesus Christ and our commitment to family, both our families of origin and the human family collectively. I miss Utah, my mountains, my people, my little city. But I sure don’t miss the culture that sometimes left me doubting my worth based on appearance and righteousness. 

*A note on the use of the term Mormon: while I identify more with the title of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I use Mormon and LDS throughout this piece, the former because I feel it better encapsulates the cultural aspects. I believe in Christ, not in being a “Mormon.”

Kate is a graduate student living in Austin, Texas. She was born in Seattle and moved to Salt Lake City as a child, where she spent over 20 years before moving to Texas. She loves politics, being social/social change, her husband, and Jesus Christ.

Wearing a garment top gave me a health scare on my birthday

A month and a half ago, as the summer heat arrived, it was my birthday. I got up and went to work. It was a hot, humid day and due to the facilities team losing our work order, window AC units hadn’t been put in my office yet. I worked at my desk for a couple hours, but was increasingly uncomfortable as sweat dripped from the top of my head in the humidity.

My boss let me go home to finish. She was coping okay because she had a big fan in her space. After work, I celebrated my birthday with my family. That night as I got undressed, I realized I had developed a very disturbing looking rash. Bright red, bumpy and blistered, itchy and painful. I’m very ignorant of the details of up-close realities of cancer experiences, but this rash reminded me of illustrations I’d seen of breast cancer rashes and scared the crap out of me. I suffered a very unpleasant health scare just as I was ready to wind down for sleep.

I searched the internet for info. and realized I was suffering from heat rash. I found another rash on my back.

I had thought I was okay wearing garment tops, even though in recent years I’ve come to accept that the bottoms are simply unsuitable for periods and the vulva’s and vagina’s needs for air flow, esp. for someone like me who is prone to suffer from pelvic pain and other issues. But now I realize in a way I hadn’t before there are fundamental problems with garment tops in hot weather, even if we remove the capped sleeves. Extra layers make us hotter and sweatier, keep our skin from breathing, and put us at higher risk of health issues caused by overheating.

According to the Mayo clinic, “Heat rash occurs when sweat is trapped in the skin. Symptoms can range from small blisters to deep, inflamed lumps” and “adults usually develop heat rash in skin folds and where clothing rubs against the skin.” Garments add a tight layer close to the skin, and many women wear garments under their bras, adding heat and trapping sweat against the skin. Either way you wear it, the addition of garments means there are too many layers close to the skin for hot, humid weather. According to WebMD, heat rashes are often caused by  “Not enough airflow between your skin and clothing.”

WebMD gives this advice for avoiding heat rash: “Wear fewer layers of clothing. Wear loose clothing that allows airflow. Choose cotton fabrics, which are more breathable.” In other words, if you want to prevent this kind of problem, garment tops are a no-go.

Are garment tops, women’s bodies, and hot, humid weather compatible? While many of us might be getting by fine wearing garments this summer, the reality is garment tops put us at greater risk of overheating and problems like what I experienced. LDS garment tops aren’t a truly acceptable pairing with boobs, bras, and hot weather! Wearing a garment top made the end of my recent birthday truly frightening, and my skin still hasn’t fully recovered.

It’s true that my office should have had AC. But it is also true the heat I was in was not extreme (it was actually an overcast day), and that many LDS women live in places without much AC in more extreme weather than I experienced. I live in one of the coldest large cities in the world. If this is happening to me in Canada, it’s happening even more in other places. And heat rash is just one bad outcome of being overdressed. We could also talk about heatstroke, heat exhaustion, or heat cramps. And even if there are no significant outcomes, wearing garments in summer is make us more uncomfortable and irritable than we need to be. It becomes more of a burden than a blessing to be wearing them.

The AC wasn’t installed in my office for another two and a half weeks. The summer heat only cranked up. Do you think I wore garments to work during this period? It was simply not a safe or healthy environment to do so. Sometimes, for reasons out of our control, garments aren’t an acceptable or safe option, and Church admins need to face this reality instead of continuing to impose strict rules on women’s our personal clothing habits.

It turns out wearing garments isn’t working out well in general where I live this summer. Montreal is breaking temperature records; there are heat warnings and long streaks of days in the 90s with high humidity. It’s a pedestrian heavy city, with fewer cars and lots of time spent walking on the street and sitting in hot underground subway stations. Many apartments don’t have AC. Most people don’t have cars. Wearing garments isn’t simply isn’t comfortable or wise in such conditions!

The current garment policies best accommodate suburban people who spend most their time in air conditioned houses, cars, and offices. Garments are less suited to blue collar high activity jobs outside jobs or other kinds of work in the outdoors, poorer people and urban people without AC or vehicles, and even nature lovers in the summer months.

In a world that is heating up, requiring members of the Church to wear an extra layer of clothing 24/7 year round is a bad idea. Many places and buildings that once faired okay without AC are now hazardous during heat waves, as we’re seeing in the city I live in. To respond to rising temperatures, we need to adapt, and our adaptations shouldn’t assume that all members live some kind of Utahn suburbanite-like life with a car, AC at home, and an office job. The Church should no longer treat wearing garments as something expected outside of the temple. It should make space for members to use their best judgment and treat the practice more like fasting– use your best personal judgment, accommodate your own health, do it when its meaningful and spiritual for you, etc. From what I understand, this would be closer to how garments were originally used. I learned in Mormon Enigma that the saints only started wearing them 24/7 after Joseph Smith was murdered because they were worried about being attacked themselves. Anxiety about being murdered is not a very inspiring reason for this to have become an “all day, everyday” practice. I would like to see the Church consciously work on shedding rigid trauma-based traditions like this one.

We could also discuss the many other ways besides incompatibility with heat and humidity that garments cause health issues. Some people are allergic to the white dyes used to color them. For some women, the lack of airflow to the vulva causes bacterial infection, yeast infections, or vulvar irritation and pain. Others report increased susceptibility to get UTIs. There are many causes for rashes and discomfort and also psychological distress that make garments impossible to wear for many women, beyond what I can name here. The bottom line is that garments aren’t actually inclusive to everyone and don’t really support women’s health. It is time for Mormon women to choose their own underwear, use the garment in the way that is best for them, and be treated as the capable, self-determining adults we are.

Our commitment to our Heavenly Parents and Jesus Christ need not rely on symbolic underwear. A couple nights ago while not wearing garments, I felt God draw close. I felt God’s pure love for me for me profoundly, and also God’s appreciation for the love and service I give others. God wasn’t chastising me for any supposedly leader-framed failings such as not wearing my garments. God wasn’t withdrawing the holy ghost or telling me to repent by obeying church leaders concerning such shibboleths. I feel God’s love and approval and receive revelation just as much during times I don’t wear them as when I do. My experience is that God simply doesn’t seem to have the expectations or thoughts that Church leaders have when it comes to this practice.

I have enjoyed and benefitted from symbolism in the Adam and Eve story, and I think garments are a creative, effective idea for a spiritual practice. But I don’t need them to remember, love, serve and draw close to God everyday. (I also resent it when leaders tell me exactly how the should be treated and thought of symbolically as if I’m a young child). I agree with Kaylin Hamilton Conradt in her recent beautifully articulated guest post. She argues that in the garden story, it is clear the garment made for Eve is intended to be a gift, and it should still be experienced as a gift today by using our personal agency. As Kaylin writes: “It was never about how much of Eve was covered or for how long. The garment was a gift of emotional and physical comfort from her loving parents. And as a daughter of Eve, I claim the right to that comfort and reject a compliance-only mindset. I retain the privilege of wearing the garment for what it truly is: a gift of heavenly love.”

Garments should indeed be a gift and blessing all on levels, including physical health and comfort.

As individuals, we can adapt by asserting our rights to wear what is best and safest for us. I assert my right to be fully a part of the Church while also choosing what is best for me to wear according to my health and spiritual needs, which I know best and should have the right to do as an adult woman. I refuse to treat garments as a shibboleth in the Church or my family designating the faithful and elect or as a way others can have any rights to control or judge me or my body.

Help Us Keep the Blog Running! Our blog struggles to tackle many tech issues and could use your support! Click here to make a tax deductible donation. Thank you!

Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash.

Oppressing the Widows

Every time I go to an LDS church, I’m reminded that there is still so much work to do. This week, I sat in sacrament meeting listening to talks on Doctrine and Covenants 80-83 (my thoughts on D&C here). These sections are primarily about caring for each other in the church, particularly widows and orphans. So no one thinks I’m calling a specific member out, the talks were fine. Honestly, some of the better ones I’ve heard in a while as they focused on taking care of others instead of temple and prophet worship. The reason my ears perked up at these talks (and my stomach soured) was not the talks themselves but rather, what they reminded me:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds policies in place that actively harm and abuse widows and their children.

Let me say that again. The LDS church, which should by its own scriptures be specifically caring for widows, has doctrines and policies that specifically target and hurt widows and the fatherless.

It’s clear that the canonical Christian God cares deeply about widows:

“Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor.” Zechariah 7:10

“The Lord watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow.” Psalms 146:9

“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.” Deuteronomy 10:18

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress.” James 1:27

(Also note the commandment to care for the foreigner…)

The LDS church today breaks this commandment through its doctrines and policies of eternal polygamy. Once again, yes, everything is polygamy.

As I’ve written numerous times, the church still very much believes in polygamy. It’s never formally disavowed polygamy as an unrighteous practice, nor untangled its legacy and what it means for members in the future eternal kingdoms they are working so hard to qualify for. Because despite what members may say, the church absolutely continues to practice eternal polygamy today in its sealing practices.

Sealings are essentially temple marriages which, according to doctrine, bind a couple together as married for eternity. There is no “til death do you part.” Most find this a comforting doctrine and the idea of eternal family units that continue beyond death is beautiful. However, sealings are also directly tied to past and present polygamous practices.

What happens when a spouse, who you’re sealed to forever, dies?

For a man, that’s simple. The church says that a man who loses his wife can be sealed to another wife without issue. Both of the two highest men in the church are in this situation and proudly proclaim to be eternal polygamists, testifying that they will live with both of their wives in the eternities. This pattern can continue if the second, third, or even fourth wife dies. There is no limit to how many wives a man can be sealed to.

For a woman, it’s exceptionally more complicated. If a woman’s husband dies, she cannot be sealed to her next husband. Women may only ever be sealed to one man (because polygamy) and so if she desires to be sealed to her second husband she must have her sealing to her first husband cancelled. Cancelling the sealing is like a divorce but with extremely eternal consequences.

Because the church teaches that the family unit continues after death only if family members are sealed together, a husband who has been divorced from his family due to sealing cancellation now is no longer sealed to anyone, including his own children. Most women, very understandably, don’t want to cancel their sealings to their first husbands if they’ve passed away. They chose to keep that sealing even after they remarry. Her second husband then can never be eternally sealed to her. Now, the second love of her life is left out in the cold, forever separated from her and their children.

Here’s the real kicker—any children that are born to that woman and her second husband are therefore sealed to the first, dead husband. This means that husband number 2 is not only not connected through sealing to his wife in the eternities, his own biological children belong to another man and follow that family unit (again, because polygamy).

Women are forced to make a choice that will literally rip families apart and leave at least one man they loved eternally cut off. Their children must deal with the trauma of not knowing who they belong to in the eternities and that they may lose their own father. Meanwhile, men are allowed to simply grow and grow their eternal family without having to make such heartbreaking decisions. (And force their wives to eternally share him without their consent but that’s another post.)

In a church that constantly preaches temples, covenants, and eternal families, we are horrifically separating and torturing families as sacrifices on the altar of eternal polygamy.

Widows who try to date LDS men frequently report that they are treated as pariahs because men do not want to marry someone that they can’t have their own eternal family with, creating even more heartache. The men who do marry widows are faced with knowing that their own children belong to a stranger and that they will be eternally separated from them and the women they love. It’s little wonder there is grief untold in these families’ stories.

As Carol Lynn Pearson writes in her poignant book, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, women are actively harmed by this incredibly sexist imbalance in sealing practices. Widows are hurt directly by the church and its policies. They are forced to endure the agony of choosing between two men they love to spend eternity with and the immense pressure of who to tie their children to. Pearson quotes in her book many stories from every day LDS members living with this very real pain and suffering. (Please go read this book!) You can also find many stories shared online.

Widows—and their children who are affected by this as well—must suffer through extra sorrow and misery that widowers will never have to suffer because of the church’s policies and doctrines of eternal polygamy. This is abusive. The church that is supposed to love and care for widows is instead harming them. And that harm is completely unnecessary given that polygamy is supposedly no longer practiced today (and not even from God in the first place).

But the church hierarchy doesn’t even care. They will simply say (as I know from first hand experience trying to explain this to a general authority) to “just have faith and God will work it all out in the end.” Great, sure. Most of us have a lot of faith that God will make all things right in the end. But don’t you think God is angry that we are actively hurting the people They directly told us to take care of over and over?! Don’t you think it’s a pretty crappy God that allows women to suffer so much turmoil on earth just so Their supposed church can uphold an abusive power structure from the 19th century?! If the church and the Mormon God truly cared about widows—and women in general—they would allow equal sealing practices for men and women.

Optimistic me agrees with Carol Lynn Pearson’s conclusion: that it’s entirely plausible for the church to disavow polygamy as a bad historical practice, similar to the policy of exclusion for black members, and then equalize it’s sealing practices. Everyone could be sealed to everyone, all living together in heaven in one great community of God’s family without borders or possession.

But the cynical part of me fears that will never happen. Because the LDS church has proven time and time again that it must protect polygamy at all costs, both eternal and historical. Their entire foundation of priesthood power and authority IS polygamy. Because if they admit that Joseph Smith made up polygamy and it was never a real commandment, then how can they say they hold God’s authority passed down to them? If they change policies of eternal polygamy to equal sealing practices, then they must answer serious questions about why women are still barred from equal participation in leadership and priesthood. That would challenge their authority as men and the power structures that place them on top. Everything is tied up in the weeds of polygamy, a doctrine the Brethren can’t dismantle without taking out the foundations of the Brighamite movement.

It seems to me the modern day Latter-day Saint church worships power and authority more than it worships God. It cares more about upholding its structures of power than uplifting women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals. If they pull the plug on polygamy, they might drain themselves of authority because polygamy is the main vestige that allows them to discriminate in God’s name and call it holy. Polygamy means that every one who isn’t a white, cisgender, heterosexual man is literally worth less. As Pearson puts it so gut-wrenchingly, 5 pennies of women equal one nickel of a man. When groups of people are doctrinally and eternally less than, it’s okay to continue their oppression. So long as eternal polygamy haunts us, the current hierarchy can continue to justify their sexism, racism, and homophobia because polygamy means there is an eternal hierarchy.

Yesterday the church dropped a new Q&A on polygamy in their gospel topics section. While it does take some steps forward on clearing the air around polygamy, it’s overall disingenuous and misleading, leaving out several critical things I mentioned above. It states that the church no longer practices polygamy but neglects to mention eternal polygamy through sealings. I went to bed angry and woke up angry. This kind of handwaving and half-truths does nothing but further entrenches us in the mud.

Note how in the above section it mentions men being sealed to multiple women and that deceased men/women can be sealed to other dead spouses, but it says nothing about women not being able to be sealed to a second living spouse! Until this is equalized, polygamy will always haunt us. Until the church can admit that polygamy wasn’t ever right or godly in the first place, people will still suffer and struggle under its weight.

You cannot say that no one will be forced into marriage arrangements while allowing men to seal themselves to multiple spouses when the dead can’t give consent. You cannot say that everything will just work out in heaven while you harm widows on earth, forcing them to pick between husbands and who to tie their children to. You cannot say that polygamy is part of the past while sealing practices continue to follow strictly polygamous precedents.

Equalize sealing practices. The current ones only exist to continue to uphold sexist 19th century practices that supposedly we don’t do anymore. Stop making eternity about individual family units and open it up to a wide, diverse family of God that doesn’t require male possession of women and children. Let everyone be sealed together regardless of sex, including same sex couples. Clinging onto polygamy only serves to uphold male power structures and oppress women, minorities, and LGBTQ individuals.

Guest Post: Safe Spaces for Soft Bellies

Guest Post by Laura Karren Glasgow

At a recent Relief Society meeting several women referred approvingly to the idea that church is a “safe place.”  While no one took the time to explicitly define what was meant by “safe space,” the subtext of the discussion revealed a shared belief that within the church’s walls or within the church community, your beliefs will not be criticized or challenged as opposed to “out in the world” where gentiles and heretics abound and you may be critically questioned or judged negatively for your beliefs.

I agree that ideally no one should feel criticized or judged negatively in their religious space.  However, it has been my experience that while the stated expectation of a “safe space” is that it be free of probing questions or challenging ideas, what is actually demanded by the community norm is NO disagreement, NO difference of opinion, all agreement, all the time, all heads nodding.  This mindset dictates that the religious part of life be a comfortable retreat; a refuge from deliberation, difference of opinion, debate, or exploratory discussion; a veritable spa of validation.  Functionally, “safe space” means “echo chamber.”

In such an environment conformity and uniformity must be total and diversity absent.  A variety of expressed opinions would automatically cancel the “safe space” status.  To preserve the “safety” of the environment, any group member with a different opinion or experience must refrain from expressing their views and feelings, repress the hunger to recount their unique experiences and remain unrepresented.

In my own experience this is the choice that too many divergent-thinking or nuanced believers, especially women, make because when we speak up and express ourselves, space is not held for our dissimilar experiences and ideas.  The group leaders jump in to counter-testify and the teacher redirects the conversation away from our perceived messiness back to uncomplicated, shallower, safer waters.

Once in a (different) Relief Society meeting we were discussing the church’s teaching that life circumstances do not determine our worth or our capabilities. I mentioned that despite this teaching, as a female I often feel less-than in this church and that the sexism of the temple makes me feel decidedly like a 2nd class citizen.  I could see the panic rise in the Relief Society President’s face.  She raised her hand and passionately testified that she did NOT feel that way about the temple, that the temple is a beautiful place, and that we should go as often as possible.  In one stroke she (tried to) shut me down by counter-testifying and redirecting the conversation. More on this later.

In this type of space, a group member with a different opinion is negatively impacted whether she stays quiet or speaks up.  Chronic self-repression and exclusion deliver a silent payload of injury to a soul.  Alternatively, speaking up and being shut down delivers an equally destructive blow.  This kind of “safe space” is only safe for the conforming thinkers of the group.

While pondering on this idea I happened to look over at my dog, Clover, whose furry white belly I’ve unscrupulously exploited for a photo to accompany this post.  She was sleeping on her back, all four paws relaxed and floppy in the air.  When I see Clover asleep in this position I know she must be feeling safe enough to expose her unguarded, vulnerable, soft belly to the world.  (Either that or she’s asking for belly rubs like the shameless beggar she is.)

If church were truly a safe space, ALL members of the group would be able to expose their vulnerable “bellies” to the group instead of having to hide them. ALL members would be able to express an opinion and have it respectfully received by the group even if they don’t agree or have had a different experience.  In a universally safe place we would be free to express our real selves, our real opinions, and our real experiences knowing that in the worst case, space will be made for us and best case, curiosity will piqued and follow-up questions asked.  Such a space would allow for genuine, and sometimes hard questions to be asked.  It would allow group members to safely expose a lack of knowledge or the culturally-approved certainty about church teachings.  What makes a safe space isn’t WHAT we say but HOW we are treated when we say it.

Safety does not lie in uniformity of opinion but rather in unity of love, respect, and gentle handling.  Father Joseph Yoo said unity is “not about agreement.  It’s about commitment.  It’s about holding space for differences without letting go of each other.”  Our identity is often so tied up in our religion that it can be hard not to take a difference of opinion as a personal attack.   I think that’s what happened with my Relief Society President.  Fortunately for me, I was the teacher that day so she couldn’t shut me down without making a very big, very memorable scene.  I tried to do what Father Yoo described: I made space for her experience AND mine.  I acknowledged her feelings as valid AND mine.  I expressed a hope that we could be mutually curious about each other’s conflicting experience and both learn something new and be the better for it.

We will move a little closer to a beloved Zion community when we exchange some of our certainty for curiosity.  We will create safe spaces for EVERYONE’s soft vulnerable bellies when we learn to see diversity, not as a threat,  but as an intriguing opportunity to learn something new.

“We don’t need a church that all looks the same.       We need a church that dares to love like Jesus.”

– Father Joseph Yoo

Reader, traveler, feminist, and a huge fan-girl of Jesus Christ. Laura works as the Programs Coordinator for a charity that serves refugee and immigrant children and is also a French language tutor.

Guest Post: Following Eve and Reclaiming the Gift of Garments

Guest Post by Kaylin Hamilton Conradt

I bought a pair of shorts last week, and they came in the mail yesterday. They are definitely not long enough to cover my garments, so I didn’t wear them (the garments). And when I walked around the house, showing a lot more skin that I am generally used to, I was struck by a thought:

These are just my legs.

And then I was hit by a wave of sadness for all the years I spent thinking something else:

It’s okay that I can’t wear shorts that hit above my knee, I don’t look good in them anyway.

Or:

Being modest is easy for me. Because I’m bigger, that type of clothing doesn’t appeal to me anyway.

Or:

It’s just not meant for me. My body isn’t good enough for it.

—

I have thought a lot about garments recently, as I walk through the 98% humidity and 91 degree weather—sans garments. (Sans temple covenants? Sans integrity, some might say?)

As I’ve walked around without my garments, I’ve thought more about Mother Eve, walking through her garden, tending it with care, nurturing every living flower, without clothing and without shame.

And when Eve made the courageous choice to partake of the fruit—because one thing the serpent spoke was true: there was no other way, but I digress…

When Eve began walking the unknown path of bearing children (i.e. multiply and replenish the Earth), she was met with Parents who loved her enough to clothe her. Not because her nakedness was obscene or appalling or shameful to them, but because they loved her enough to see that she was uncomfortable and then fix the problem.

Eve wanted to be clothed. And her parents gave her the gift of the garment to protect her and help her feel comfortable. And yes, to remind her of Them and of the things she could do to create a happy life for her family and herself. Things like:

Feeding ourselves spiritually and often,Listening for our Parents’ voices,Choosing the best path, and—Remembering our Savior and brother (who loves us) along the way.

To remind her of promises made to her parents? Yes. But also to serve her and protect her and keep her comfortable in a world of insects and blood and bad weather.

Why has our culture taken such a sacred gift and made it into something so unkind to women? Prescriptive. Controlling.

Why does our common rhetoric in the church take this personal reminder of the things we have promised to our parents (who love us, remember), and made it into a way to shame women into wearing the “right” kind of clothing?

—

The day I made covenants with God was incredibly happy for me, but only because I made promises of my own free will, with no fiancé or mission call demanding I do so. I walked in with a desire to follow God and that was enough.

That has always been enough.

To this day, my garments remain a symbol of freedom to me, but only because I refuse to let anyone else dictate the rules of engagement with my Heavenly Parents. Trust me, it hasn’t been an easy process. I continually have to wrestle back my agency regarding when, where, and how I engage with this symbol, especially as general authorities have begun offering more and more prescriptive “counsel”.

But on the hardest days, I remind myself: It was never about how much of Eve was covered or for how long. The garment was a gift of emotional and physical comfort from her loving parents. And as a daughter of Eve, I claim the right to that comfort and reject a compliance-only mindset. I retain the privilege of wearing the garment for what it truly is: a gift of heavenly love.

Kaylin is an Alaskan kid at heart who has (somehow) found happiness in the humidity of Virginia. She is an educator, artist, writer, but most often lately—caretaker to the best littles around. On Sundays, she can most often be found sneaking in to sing primary songs.

The Idolatry of Temple Worship

Temples. That one word stirs up a mixture of emotion in  my stomach. As a parent of a young adult, the temple has been on my mind often lately; it’s often a topic of conversation with my daughter. During this time of emerging adulthood, I want her to build upon the sense of self she developed during adolescence as she tackles this time of transition that is critical to psychological health, social connection, and brain development. The temple looms large on the horizon. For females, the past covenant to obey which was changed to hearken, can teach submission to the point of identity erasure. While this language has been removed, females still do not covenant directly with God but instead covenant in the new and everlasting covenant i.e. polygamy. This along with the word preside added to the sealing ceremony, places females in what I see as a ‘one-down’ position. This is not what I want for my daughter. 

Thinking about this has led me to evaluate the current role of temples in the church. Here are some conclusions I reached:

Money. Temples are ‘pay to play.’ It is quite uncomfortable for me to say this. The church does not need tithing money. Yet members are still instructed to pay tithing even when they can’t afford food. I grew up the oldest of a large family. I qualified for reduced lunch until my junior year of high school. There was a time when I was about ten years old that I remember being really hungry for an apple. I wanted a piece of fresh fruit so badly. Yet I know that my parents strictly observed the church’s instruction to pay tithing on their gross income. Most of childhood years were spent in the 80s in a small town in Wisconsin. This was a time when people were expected to pay tithing and contribute to the ward budget. I remember a large elephant poster in the church foyer with the words ‘help us take a chunk out of the ward budget.’ What kind of church expects parents to have their children go hungry in order to be with them in the next life? Division. There no longer seems to be a rationale for where temples are built and access creates class divisions in wards. My parents, unlike four of their six children, are still active in the church and have been temple workers for years. They live in Utah and even in a place with a high density of members, there is a shortage of temple workers. Meanwhile, my daughter lives in the capital of a country in Europe where the temple, depending on the mode of transportation used, is a 4 to 8 hour trip one way. Those who can afford to attend talk about it and in the times I have visited her ward, I sense some tension around the temple. Loss of Community. The focus on individual temple covenants is coming at a cost of creating community. I can’t stop thinking about Candice Wendt’s piece The Insidious Exchange of Community for Covenants.  The Book of Mormon directed church members to meet together often. It didn’t tell them to go to temple often. Five years ago I completed a trauma focused masters degree in education. One of my professors said that we are harmed in relationships and we can also be healed in relationships. People need healing and connection. We very much need community. Embodied ritual. The temple provides a place for embodied ritual. LDS church services are not participatory like a Catholic mass and we don’t have rituals like lighting Shabbat candles every Friday evening. Rituals are important and can be grounding. However, instead of focusing on how ritual can help us now, talk about  temples focuses with fear on the afterlife with phrases like ‘no empty chairs.’

Emerging from this evaluation is this question: Have temples turned into idols? 

Is there an excessive level of attention and veneration of the temple that it has replaced a focus on loving God and our neighbor? Is there so much focus on the covenant path that the church, like the people who built the Tower of Babel, try to control the environment so people live in conformity instead of discovering the life path God calls them into for their own personal growth? 

Right now, I don’t have complete answers. I do have concerns about the current dialogue around temples. I am not convinced that the current emphasis on temples helps adolescents grow into healthy adults. I am concerned that the current dialogue around temples is idolatrous. 

Thoughts? What do you see?