Exponent II's Blog, page 207

Relief Society Lesson: The Power of Sustaining Faith by President Henry B. Eyring

President Eyring’s talk is found here.

[image error] Photo by Snappy Shutters on Unsplash

by Paula (Paula can be found on Facebook on her page, The Gospel According to Paula, and on Instagram @ @thegospelaccordingtoPaula

***Teaching Tip/Author Commentary: Depending on your ward, this could end up being a traditional discussion about sustaining our leaders and following the prophet OR it could be a lesson full of nuance and new ideas. It really depends on your ward.

Prepare for
both. This lesson plan takes the concept of sustaining in a different
direction.***

Write the word TRUST on the board.

Class Discussion: What
does “trust” mean to you as it relates to your relationships? What does it mean
when you say you “trust” the Church leaders?

Have members of the class read these quotes:

“When
you accepted a missionary’s challenge to pray to know that the Book of Mormon
was the word of God, you had the faith to sustain a servant of the Lord. When
you accepted the invitation to be baptized, you sustained a humble servant of
God.”



“When
you let someone place hands on your head and say, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” you
sustained him as a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood.”



“Since
that day, you have, by serving faithfully, sustained each person who has
conferred the priesthood upon you and each who has ordained you to an office in
that priesthood.”

***Author Commentary: These examples seem to show a clear
definition of sustaining. You do what they ask. When the missionary tells you
to read the BoM, you do it. However, I prefer to look at sustaining someone as
being willing to interact with them in that particular ROLE.

I’m sustaining someone as a Priesthood holder when I ask
them for a blessing. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I OBEY them, it just
means I understand and uphold the role they have.

Roles change as people grow, as do callings (I sustain my RS
president as such when she serves in that role. I don’t sustain them after they
are released). My father’s role in my life and my sustaining of him as a father
is different as a child than it is as an adult. And my sustaining of him as a
father would be different if he were a goof father as opposed to an abusive
one.

I think looking at sustaining people as sustaining them in
certain roles, and interacting with them in those roles, gives a lot more
freedom to the word sustain. It’s less about obeying and more about supporting
them and seeing them as having a certain kind of stewardship.***

Class Discussion:
What are some ways you sustained your leaders as a child? How did your
progression along the covenant path show trust? Do you think trust (or
obedience) is a less developed form of sustaining leaders? Why or why not?

*** Teaching tip: I would have a personal experience and
response ready to share for these questions, just in case people can’t think of
a response. Sometimes if I share an experience or my thoughts, people find it
easier to respond to the question because they can piggyback off my
thoughts.***

Read the following quote:

“Early
in your priesthood experience, each sustaining was a simple event of trusting a
servant of God. Now, many of you have moved up to a place where to sustain
requires more.”

Pres. Eyring states that trusting is the beginning of a person’s
experience as one who sustains. Eventually we need to grow into new
understandings that require more from us.

Class Discussion:
What did sustaining the prophet and/or brethren look like to you as a child?
How has it evolved over the years?

***Author Commentary: When I think of trusting being a form
of sustaining, I think of the old adage that the prophet can’t lead the church
astray. Sustaining meant trusting that the prophet. It also meant that the Brethren
take the correct actions to build the kingdom—and this meant they were never
wrong.***

Have a class member read the following quote:

“These
are imperfect human beings, as are you. Keeping your promises will take
unshakable faith that the Lord called them.”

What Pres. Eyring seems to be saying here is that eventually
we have to move into a more nuanced way to sustain our leaders. Eventually,
something they do will hurt us or someone we love.

***Author Commentary: I tend to be super upfront when teaching about my beliefs
and non-beliefs, so at this point I would mention how Oaks talks about gender
tend to make me feel hopeless, like there’s no point in living. It’s very
difficult for me.***

Class Discussion:
Have you felt called to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of sustain? How
have the Brethren’s action shaken your faith?

According to the dictionary, the word sustain means to strengthen mentally or physically.

Class Discussion:
Can you strengthen and sustain someone without explicitly following their
counsel? Can you sustain someone by setting a boundary?

Have someone read the following questions posed by Eyring:

1. Have I thought or
spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?

2. Have I looked for
evidence that the Lord is leading them?

3. Have I
conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership?

4. Have I spoken
about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants?

5.
Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love?

Class Discussion: How
do these questions make you feel?

***Author Commentary: I’m not sure what will come of this
discussion, but it will be important that you let the class lead.

However, I think power is an important thing to consider
when discussing sustaining leaders, because they automatically have power over
the person doing the sustaining by virtue of having a calling.

Even if the example of the father, there is a power
differential. The boy is more vulnerable than his father. The boy depends on
his father for a place to live, food on the table, etc. He is basically forced
to sustain his father as his father in order to not die. In order to be safe in
his home, he essentially has to learn to empathize with and take on his
father’s perspective. Too much rebellion or a lack of sustaining means death.

It IS beneficial to look outside ourselves and see the
struggles of those in power, but very often, the most marginalized already know
the mentality of the people in power. It’s been taught to them.

Too often I’ve been asked to imagine what a Bishop is going
through, or how hard it must be to lead the church, but there isn’t much
reciprocal empathy. They aren’t willing to give up their power and be
vulnerable with me.

I don’t doubt that being in a leadership position (or being
a parent) can increase one’s sense of vulnerability. But rather than looking
inward in order to heal whatever that vulnerability is being exposed, we simply
ask others, usually the marginalized, to be empathetic to our situation. This
isn’t always the best approach.

I don’t have trouble with general encouragement and positive
words in the household. Parents do need encouragement.

But as an individual in power, I would want to examine
whether my child feels the need to be an emotional caretaker of me, or whether
he’s saying such words in order to “qualify” for “blessings.” I want to watch
out and see whether there is baggage attached to the words. Is my child saying
those words to me in order to stay safe and survive in my household? Is he/she
saying those words in order to earn blessings from God or to be seen as a good
person?***

***Teaching Tip: Here, I would do a complete shift into a
new discussion with no segue at all. I wouldn’t want any preconceived notions
in their response to this question. I might even ask these question at the
beginning of the class and circle back around to it at the end.***

Class Discussion:
When you follow someone on social media, what does that mean to you?

***Author Commentary: I asked these questions on my
Instagram and I received the following responses:

If I know them, it’s to keep in touch with them
and know what’s going on in their lives. If I don’t know them, it’s because I find their
content inspiring. I follow people I like or I am intrigued by what
they publish. I follow people to stay caught up on what’s
happening to them. Following means I’m interested by their lives and want their
perspective in mind. Following someone means you are interested in
what they have to say.***

Oftentimes we see sustaining someone, like sustaining
President Nelson, as meaning “following the prophet.” And we view following as
“obeying.” Many times in my life I’ve been accused of not “following the
prophet” when in actuality, I just wasn’t obeying.

Class Discussion:
Would holding “following the prophet” more lightly be beneficial for us?

If we saw “following
the prophet” in a similar way to “following” someone on social media, would
that be sustaining enough? Would that support the prophet in his role while
also returning our agency to us?

Relief Society Lesson: Careful Versus Casul by President Becky Craven

President Craven’s talk can be found here.

[image error] Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

by Paula (Paula can be found on Facebook on her page, The Gospel According to Paula, and on Instagram @thegospelaccordingtoPaula

***Teaching Tip: This is a long lesson with three potential deep dive discussions. It would take three Sundays to cover! Feel free to use the part best suited to your RS or change the topic order.

Throughout the lesson there are places for Class Discussion as well as Author’s Commentary, which gives you an idea of the commentary I’d make to guide the discussion.

You’ll want
to replace my notes/ideas with your own! This is where you, as a teacher, get
to insert the gospel according to you!
***

Part I: Careful vs Casual

At the beginning of the lesson, write the following words on the board. 

Careful           |             Casual

Class Discussion: what do these words mean to you? 

Write responses on the board, perhaps in a list or as a mind map. 

***Author’s Commentary: I find the word careful to be filled with fear. I have to be careful… or else I’ll get hurt! The world is a bad, scary evil place. I must be careful! ***

Have the class read the following quotes:
1) “If we are not careful in living our covenants with exactness, our casual efforts may eventually lead us into forbidden paths or to join with those who have already entered the great and spacious building. If not careful, we may even drown in the depths of a filthy river.”

2) “There is a careful way and a casual way to do everything, including living the gospel. As we consider our commitment to the Savior, are we careful or casual? Because of our mortal nature, don’t we sometimes rationalize our behavior, at times referring to our actions as being in the gray, or mixing good with something that’s not so good? Anytime we say, “however,” “except,” or “but” when it applies to following the counsel of our prophet leaders or living the gospel carefully, we are in fact saying, “That counsel does not apply to me.” We can rationalize all we want, but the fact is, there is not a right way to do the wrong thing!”

Class Discussion: How do these quotes make you feel? Ask the class how they would define careful vs casual based on Sis. Craven’s talk. Did your understanding of these words change after reading Sis. Craven’s quotes? 

***Author Commentary: When listening to this talk, I was a bit concerned how it would be received by those who struggle with scrupulosity, OCD, toxic perfectionism, and intrusive thoughts. 

I would definitely bring up mental illness and toxic perfectionism at the beginning of the lesson. I would then reframe the dichotomy so there’s a bit more grace. I would straight up mention all of this if I were teaching. YMMV. ***

Erase the definitions of careful and casual on the board, but leave the words “careful” and “casual.” Surround careful and casual with the following words: 

Mindful          |           Mindless
Careful           |           Casual
Intentional     |           Robotic

Class Discussion: what do these words mean to you now? How are careful and casual changed when augmented by these other words? 

Class Discussion: Think back to the train story from the beginning of the talk, as well as the mention of buying happiness for $15. Let’s messy up those examples. 

How might mindfully or carefully purchasing a $15 item bring a person happiness? How might staying on the covenant path (train tracks) in a mindless or robotic way not align to the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

***Author’s Commentary: Feel free to bring in research about the mental health benefits of mindfulness, setting intentions, etc. ***

Have people read the following modified quotes from the talk.

• Are we [intentional] in our Sabbath-day worship and in our preparation to partake of the sacrament each week?

• Could we be more [mindful] in our prayers and scripture study or be more actively engaged in Come, Follow Me—For Individuals and Families?

• Are we [intentional] in our temple worship, and do we [mindfully] and deliberately live the covenants we made both at baptism and in the temple? 

• Are we [mindful] of our appearance and modest in our dress, especially in sacred places and circumstances? Are we [intentional] in how we wear the sacred temple garments? 

• Are we [intentional] in how we minister to others and in how we fulfill our callings in the Church, or are [we mindless and robotic] in our call to serve?

• Are we [mindful or mindless] in what we read and what we watch on TV and our mobile devices?

• Are we [intentional] in our language? Or do we use [rote phrases robotically] and embrace the crude and vulgar?

***Author’s
Commentary: I added “rote phrases robotically” because sometimes Latter-day
Saint use Church-specific colloquialisms without stopping to ask if they’re
actually authentic for them. Example: every fiber of my being. That isn’t true
for me—and never really has been—but I used the phrase robotically. I am more
mindful in my word choice these days. ***

Class Discussion: IMHO, the word changes make these items sound less like a checklist and more like items that invite my creativity and contemplation. Do the adjustments change anything for you? In positive or negative ways? Please share your experience.

Part II: Upholding Standards vs. Making Adjustments

Class Discussion: Sister Craven mentioned keeping the For the Strength of Youth standards, explaining that they do not expire and still apply to adults. How do you feel about this directive? How might it be helpful? Could adults keeping youth-oriented standards become harmful or infantilizing? 

Have someone read this quote:

“We do not lower our standards to fit in or to make someone else feel comfortable. We are disciples of Jesus Christ, and as such we are about elevating others, lifting them to a higher, holier place where they too can reap greater blessings.

I invite each of us to seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost to know what adjustments we need to make in our lives to be more carefully aligned with our covenants. I also plead with you not to be critical of others making this same journey. “Judgment is mine, saith the Lord.” We are each in the process of growth and change.”

Class Discussion: How do we balance high standards and relationships? When are standards important to maintain? When might be using our standards as an excuse to remain inflexible or judgmental? 

Can lowering our standards to make someone else feel comfortable be helpful? When might we NOT want lower our standards? 

***Teaching Tip: I come up with personal responses to my discussion questions so that I can have the class lead the discussion. I know what I want to say, but once I’m in the classroom I let that all go and listen to where the class needs to be. 

Basically, I come to class with a full belt with different tools—and once I’m there I decide what needs to be used. In order to do that, I have to prepare my tool belt beforehand and let all my expectations go the second I walk into the room. 

Teaching is about serving the people who are there that day, however they decide to show up. Here are the three “tools” in my belt for Sis. Craven’s talk.

***Author’s
Commentary:

1) Vulnerability concepts from Brene Brown. To answer the previous questions, I ask myself: “What would make me the most vulnerable, thereby opening me up to deeper connection and/or personal growth?”

Sometimes keeping my standards high is merely me digging in my heels. Compromising in those situations is more vulnerable and connecting. Other times, however, maintaining my standards is deeply vulnerable as it goes against my people pleasing tendencies. 

2) The difference between principles/values and behaviors/outcomes as they relate to standards. I am generally willing to sacrifice certain outcomes and behavior standards if I feel like my internal standards/values are upheld. 

3) Developmental considerations and personal preferences. My interests are NOT in alignment with For the Strength of Youth and I found this incredibly difficult. I thought I was a bad Latter-day Saint and despite my best efforts, no amount of repentance would take away my “afflictions.” Long story short, there’s nothing wrong with me for loving what I love. 

The other consideration is human development. Adult brains are considerably different than adolescent brains. I can see having strict standards as a teen so that poor decisions aren’t made as they develop into adults. The pre-frontal cortex is developed by the time a person hits their mid-20s. Should we deny adults the “gray,” the nuance, the complexity of life, merely because it’s easier to keep things black and white? ***

Part III: Worthy vs
Perfect



Sister Craven mentioned, “Although we may not be perfect, brothers and sisters,
we can be worthy: worthy to partake of the sacrament, worthy of temple
blessings, and worthy to receive personal revelation.”

Do the same exercise with Worthy and Perfect that you did at the beginning of the lesson with Careful and Casual. Write the following words on the board. 

Worthy           |           Perfect

Class Discussion: what do these words mean to you? How does she clarify the differences between the two words? Does parsing out the differences give you hope about your own progression? 

***Author’s Commentary: To me, being perfect means that I have to do all the checklist items in an exact way. Worthy conjures up the meaning of intentionality, returning to myself (a la the Prodigal Son), re-dedicating or re-devoting myself to mindfulness, and letting go. ***

Class Discussion: Is there a danger that eventually worthiness will become just as toxic as perfectionism? How can we keep worthiness standards from becoming a checklist?

Book Review: Live Up to Our Privileges

[image error]

I was very excited to read this book! Author Wendy Ulrich says in the preface: “I have also felt frustration at times over gender inequities I’ve perceived in my Church experience, and I have sometimes prayed with a pained heart about shortages of female voice in the scriptures, Church governance, and representations of Deity” (xiii).

I’ve had questions about the priesthood ever since I was a teenager and have been longing for some answers. So when I heard about this book, I had to read it! This divine power of women is something that we’ve been hearing more and more about in General Conference, but there’s a lot of dense fog that still remains. I believe this book is the author’s way of trying to make sense of how women use priesthood power despite not having priesthood offices. This is a tough topic with endless questions and no answers in sight, so I am impressed that the author worked hard to write this book and attempt to clear up some of the confusion that we have in the Church.

One thing I particularly liked was when Ulrich wrote about the differences in how power works in the world and how power works in the kingdom of God. The quotes used in the book are very empowering and encompass everyone. I like that it shows that anyone can get revelation or have spiritual power. I would have liked to see more women’s quotes throughout this book, but I understand that there’s a shortage of quotes (by women) about the priesthood.

Ulrich goes through each priesthood office and explains what the responsibilities are and compares them to the ways in which women fulfill these responsibilities. I felt that at times the comparison was a bit of a stretch, but I appreciated that Ulrich tried to find ways in which women also accomplish these same responsibilities. Seeing this caused me to feel a bit sad, though, because it often seems that men get a title or priesthood office (which allows them to officially do those things) while women accomplish these things unofficially. While I know that whether or not someone gets recognition for something doesn’t affect a person’s value, it does seem strange to me that at church men seem to receive recognition much more than women do.

Ulrich talks about how the priesthood pertains to women and suggests a clearer definition of priesthood that includes women in it. She defines priesthood as “the power and authority given in different ways to men and women in God’s church…” (23). I appreciate this definition because talking about the priesthood as if it means men has a lot of negative implications. I even hear people say “priesthood leaders” as if only men are supposed to be leaders. I’ve never heard anyone refer to female church leaders as priesthood leaders. I also often hear people talk about priesthood authority when they talk about male leaders, but this is misleading because men who aren’t leaders have the priesthood too. Ulrich also makes a great point that I hadn’t known, that only a few men actually have priesthood keys. Most of them do not (22).

I found the book very enlightening and it opened up to me new ways to view things. For example, Ulrich explains how young men passing the sacrament is similar to what women do in preparing food and providing it to others, such as making meals for the family or for other people. I had never made this connection before, but it’s true that in a lot of families, the men are dependent on the women for the meals. Now, I didn’t find this analogy completely satisfying, but that’s just me. Since the sacrament is the highlight of sacrament meeting where people remember Christ and renew their covenants, it doesn’t seem at all similar to making a meal. These things are so very different, and that’s why this analogy did not satisfy me.

I was hoping to find some answers in this book about why only men have the priesthood, but there are no quick answers or any answers, for that matter. Really the only answer right now is that we don’t know. We have no clue why one gender gets the priesthood and the other doesn’t. Perhaps the answers will not come quickly and fully as I’ve been hoping, but are coming gradually line upon line. I felt very disappointed when I realized this, but I believe Ulrich’s book does help members get closer to discovering why only men have the priesthood.

I appreciated this quote by Ulrich, which says, “I was reminded that a man does not automatically have authority to preside, conduct, or make decisions by virtue of his priesthood office alone, but only by virtue of his specific callings and keys” (114). She mentions an experience of being in a church leadership meeting of both men and women, and a woman conducted the meeting and called on someone to pray. I was surprised when I read that, because I’ve rarely seen that happen. There were several empowering stories about women getting together and using their spiritual gifts.

One thing that really stood out to me is that diversity is essential in coming up with solutions and having effective council meetings. Ulrich mentions a study that showed that diversity improves things immensely. Having diverse people in a group “stimulated the team to think more outside the box and not jump to conclusions” (139). She also talked about the differences in the ways men and women communicate with the same gender. Because of these differences, it can cause misunderstandings to occur in communication.

The chapter also talked about confidence and the difference in risk-taking between the genders. “Women tend to underestimate their ability or talent, while men tend to overestimate how well they are doing, even when their actual performance is nearly identical” (142). I was very shocked when I read this. This part of the book truly distressed me and made it seem like men have an advantage. Then, Ulrich talked about how to cultivate confidence, and I wondered why women have to work so hard to achieve more confidence. I find this a bit hard to believe, because women in the past and present have had to work hard to fight against the system, and because of this, these women became strong and confident.  So I’m not exactly sure what to believe in this area.

Those are just a few of the things that stood out to me. There are many worthwhile and enlightening things in this book, but also some things that made me feel perplexed. I think that each person who reads this book will get something different out of it and different things will stand out to them based on their thoughts and experiences. This post is just my opinion of what stood out to me and what I struggled with. I definitely recommend this book to anyone that has questions about the priesthood and how it applies to women. While it doesn’t answer the questions of why women don’t have the priesthood, it does give a wider perspective on the issue and helps us see that women are not barred from any divine power to help another person. I hope we continue to get books like this in the future and hopefully the priesthood will be increasingly viewed as something that applies more fully to women.

Amazon

Sacred Music Sunday: (Give Me That) Old Time Religion

[image error]Church by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

When I joined the church in 1994, it was in many ways a very different church than I find myself in now. We talked about how the Book of Mormon was written for our day and was a warning to us against pride. We prepared for the second coming of Jesus, under the assumption that even if He isn’t coming imminently, we’ll still all meet Him when we die, so we should be prepared. The temple was preached about as a place where we can offer the saving ordinance of baptism to all who have lived. We prepared to meet God as individuals, and it was our personal relationship with Jesus that would bring us into the presence of God. The purpose of church was to perfect the saints, preach the gospel, and redeem the dead. Sacrament meeting talks were based on the scriptures.

I haven’t heard much lately about the warnings for our day found in the Book of Mormon. The return of Jesus has fallen out of vogue, and the temple is now about reinforcing the 1950s white American middle-class nuclear family, and woe be unto anyone who doesn’t fit that mold. Individuals don’t seem to matter anymore; the church is for married people. I hear more about The Family ™ than I do about Jesus some weeks. Sacrament meeting talks are based on general conference talks. I think we’ve created an idol.

I teach primary, and I make sure to center every lesson on Jesus. It’s easy this year because we’re doing the New Testament, but even when we study other material, I still bring Him with me to church. He’s why we’re there.

We need to get back to basics. Faith, repentance, baptism, following the promptings of the Holy Spirit, loving our neighbors, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, preparing to meet God, sharing the good news that Jesus saves us from our sins. That will go a lot further in showing the world that we’re Christians than an expensive re-branding campaign will.

I love the song Give Me That Old Time Religion because it captures so well this back to basics longing that I feel. “Give me that old time religion; it’s good enough for me.” “It teaches me to love everybody.” “It will bring me back to heaven.”

Guest Post: Big God

[image error]

By Brittany Long Olsen

“Aslan,” said Lucy, “you’re bigger.”

“That is because you are older, little one,” answered he.

“Not because you are?”

“I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.”

― C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian

When I was 8 years old, around Lucy’s age, more family than I’d ever heard of came to see me get baptized and to give me presents. My frail great-grandmother gave me a package of pink underpants, and my parents proudly bestowed me with my own set of scriptures, my name embossed in gold ink on the cover. I was told that I’d just joined a church of more than 10 million members! My little mind could not imagine a number so big. God seemed so big that He could hear 10 million prayers all at once.

When I was 14 years old, a man put his hands on my head and told me I was part of God’s special family: Israel. I was told to do family history so that my dead relatives, who were part of Israel too, could do what God asked and be baptized. A man lowered me into the water in their names, and I was told to imagine that after hundreds of years of waiting, those people were finally allowed into spirit paradise! Wasn’t God so merciful and so big to come up with a plan that allowed people to join the church even after they died?

When I was 21 years old, I left the United States to serve a mission in a foreign country. I was told to seek members of the special family of Israel among the tens of millions of people in that country and gather them into the church. I taught people that they could be with their families forever as long as they joined the church and did what God told them. I felt divine love for those people fill up my whole heart. Surely every single one belonged to Israel because I could feel God’s love for them all! God had never seemed so big in my entire life.

When I was 26 years old, God started to seem smaller. The men in charge of the church said that God didn’t want gay families—not even their children—in the church. They said that God would never give women as much power or responsibility as men. They said that my younger brother wouldn’t get to be a forever family with us because he’d left the church. My heart broke. Then God whispered to me, “Little one, I am bigger than that.” So I waited to see how much bigger God was.

When I was 28 years old, I saw millions of Muslims and Hindus and atheists and Christians and others all over the world doing God’s work of helping the helpless, of loving their neighbors, better than my church was doing with its small God. I saw how vast God’s family is and how much Their love fills the world. I asked God, “There’s no special family of Israel, is there? Everyone is already part of Your family. We are already a family forever, aren’t we?” And I’m still waiting to see how much bigger God is.

You need a big god

Big enough to hold your love

You need a big god

Big enough to fill you up

― Florence Welsh

 

Brittany Long Olsen is a cartoonist, ex-pat, and dog mom.

So you Want me Back at Church?

[image error]So you say want me to come back to church?

Why? Do you really want ME? Do you really love me and want me to bring my whole self to church, just how I am right now? Or do you want my body there and not my mind and spirit? Do you need me to believe your creed and perform your checklist? Do you need me to bite my tongue about anything outside the whitewashed sacralized narrative?

Will you give me space to speak my mind even if I disagree with ward members, and especially if I disagree with church leaders? What if I cannot in good conscience sustain church leadership? Will you shame me if I don’t conform?

If I tell you the temple is painful for me, will you tell me I must not understand? If I tell you I spent over a year going weekly to an early morning session trying to work through the pain, pleading with God for peace, but the pain got worse? Will you tell me I didn’t pray hard enough or attend often enough, or in some other way my effort was not enough? Will you blame me if I didn’t feel the way you feel there?

Will you let me talk about my doubts? Or will you say doubters have weak character and are deceived by Satan? Will you say I am wandering toward the great and spacious building if I admit I no longer believe?

Will you judge me if I show up differently; dress differently than you? What if my shorts are a few inches above my knee? What if my shoulders show? What if I wear pants to church? What if I have more than one pair of holes in my ears? If you want me to look like you and act like you, you do not want me.

Will you tolerate my position that scriptures are not literally true events? Can I say that although I was taught the book of Mormon was a history of people on the American continent, I find that historical, archaeological, linguistic, genetic, botanical, and other evidence, does not support this claim? That when I read them, the stories seem farfetched and more like bedtime stories or tall tales than history? If you want me to keep silent about my disagreement, you do not want me.

Will you judge me if I stay home from meetings I am uninterested in, or that seem useless to me? Can I say a church meeting is useless, or will you choose to be offended?

Can I say “no” when you want my free labor?

Will you be okay with me expressing a belief that women should hold the priesthood and participate in all levels of church leadership? That women have been historically suppressed and undervalued in the church, their power and authority stripped and circumscribed by male leaders? Will you say that I just do not understand the special role of women (to support men and rear children)?

If I came to Sunday school can we talk about real church history? About Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones? His drinking alcohol? His land speculation and banking fraud? His coercion of underage plural brides? He was a complex character after all. Will you say I am expecting too much of leaders and they are flawed? Will you expect me to keep silent about my concerns? Will you expect me to be less flawed than church leaders?

If I am with you, will I be able to speak out against harmful practices the church has engaged in? Will I be able to ask for the church to change? To be more loving and accepting of those who are different? To apologize and make great efforts to support those they have victimized in the past? Or do you expect me to pretend all is well in Zion?

Are you willing to mourn with those that mourn? Will you listen if I tell you of my internalized shame and self-hatred from the teachings I grew up with in the church? That I never felt I could do enough or be good enough, no matter how hard I tried?

Will you listen when I tell you I spent decades in prayer and wrestle with God, looking for a firm testimony, and seeking to reconcile things like a God that loves men and women equally with a God that will ‘destroy’ a woman who won’t accept polygamy (D&C 132)?

Will you listen if I tell you I experienced trauma learning truths about the LDS church that I had loved and given all to? That I sought out and studied reliable sources and have spent the last few years processing my grief and pain. That the church’s modern social policies disappoint and pain me, and that historically it has made so many mistakes that I can’t believe it has any more direct leadership from God than any other institution?

Will you listen if I tell you I prayed before I stopped attending church on Sundays? That my decision was confirmed through a feeling of peace that it was okay to separate myself from the religion of my upbringing. Will you listen if I tell you God is not found only in the LDS church, and not only on Sundays in a chapel?

I am pretty sure, when you say you want me back in church, you don’t want me at all. You want a version of me that doesn’t exist anymore. It was an external shell that masked my true self, full of questions and doubts, who sat quietly in church and parroted the ‘correct’ answers. She couldn’t speak up because she knew it wasn’t okay to make waves. She did all that was expected of her. She submitted and submitted and she slowly died. After considering who I am now, do you want me back at church after all? If you do, make it a safe space for people like me. It isn’t.

#hearLDSwomen: My Gospel Doctrine Teacher Asks Questions Specifically to “Priesthood Holders” and Ignores Women

[image error]I’ve taught Gospel Doctrine in three different wards for a combined 10 years, and I could never get a woman to sub for me. I asked plenty. They always said “Oh, I could never do that. Ask Bro. So and So.” So frustrating. Also, since my last stint ended, I’ve never been asked to sub. Had a female teacher for a year after me, and now a male teacher again. Always male subs. Always.

– Julie Rowse

 

When I was in my early 30s I was called to be a gospel doctrine teacher in a family ward, along with an older gentleman. We were replacing two older men who had served for about 2 years. People asked if I felt overwhelmed or nervous, and women told me they would be terrified to have that calling. I don’t think they asked my co-teacher the same questions. I usually answered that I was excited because I like teaching, as well as studying to prepare the lessons. I taught the first year and had great experiences and got so much good feedback from class members, who complimented my preparation and the perspectives I brought to the lessons. Sadly, the other teacher’s wife passed away around the year mark. I don’t know if he asked to be released or if the ward leadership wanted to take something off his plate. But they released BOTH of us at the same time and called two new teachers. Maybe they thought it would call attention to him if he were the only one released? I didn’t want to be released and didn’t see why I should be, but I wasn’t asked how I felt about it. Our replacements were two more older men. One of them basically stood at the front of the class and read from the manual. I was really hurt. It was another 2 years before a sister was called again to teach Gospel Doctrine.

– Anonymous

 

One of our gospel doctrine teachers gets very nervous if anything is brought up outside of what is included in our super old Sunday school manuals, (e.g., Heavenly Mother, church history, gender roles, sexuality, fallibility of prophets, etc.). Many times, if someone brings up one of these topics she’ll defer answering to a priesthood leader. When we were learning about creation someone asked a question about Heavenly Mother which is something I’ve studied at length and have a huge testimony of. After she said she didn’t feel comfortable answering it, I raised my hand to give some insight. She pretended not to see me and said “Let’s let a priesthood leader handle this one”. So I said I’m not a priesthood leader but I have a few thoughts based on my own study and gave my answer without being called on. To his credit the stake president who was attending backed me up. But it really bothers me that no matter how well a woman studies, understands and articulates her thoughts she will always be seen as less credible than a man with priesthood whether he knows anything about the subject or not.

– Julia

 

As a newlywed, I was in a ward that was very resistant to any progressive ideas. My husband would say much more inflammatory statements in lessons than I ever did. But while I was either shunted off to Primary or left without a calling for months (all while many ward members held 2 or 3 callings, so there was need), he got called to the Sunday School presidency.

– Mary

 

My favorite Sunday school teacher (a woman) read a scripture from a more modern translation to help the class understand it better and was called in to the bishop’s office. A male member of the ward who was a CES instructor regularly quotes from the same translation.

– Anonymous

 

Pro Tip: Where possible, make sure that women are cycling through positions as Sunday School teachers. If you have a hard time finding a woman who will accept this calling, do some listening and reflecting on what it is about the culture of your ward that makes women feel they aren’t qualified to speak.

Click here to read all of the stories in our #hearLDSwomen series. Has anything like this happened to you? Please share in the comments or submit your experience(s) to participate in the series.

“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mark 4:23)

What Mormons Can Learn From Catholics and George Pell

Guest Post by TimTam

 

When I first saw the thousands of brilliantly coloured ribbons tied to the fence around a cathedral in Ballarat, I mistakenly thought that meant that church welcomed gay parishioners.  

[image error]I was wrong.

The ribbons around this cathedral and even the letterboxes in front of many houses were all a part of the Loud Fence Project. I quickly learned that Loud Fence is a movement that encourages individuals to tie brightly-coloured ribbons on the fences around Catholic (and sometimes other) cathedral and church buildings as a symbolic act of solidarity. The solidarity is in support of and recognition of the survivors of sexual abuse, their families and communities, particularly those who were abused at the hands of priests. 

There was such a high rate of child sexual abuse reports in Ballart, Victoria Australia by school and religious leaders that a royal commission was launched specific to Ballarat.  The intention was to uncover, understand and learn why such a relatively small city had such a significant amount of reported abuse. In the Australian system of government, royal commissions are the highest form of inquiry on matters of public importance. They usually cover larger geographic areas, in matters that effect hundreds of thousands of people. Such a commission in a small area meant that the government identified that there was a major problem; a problem that was only recognised when it was arguably too late. One of the findings of the commission was that there was-

 

“…a catastrophic failure in the leadership of the (Catholic) Diocese and ultimately in the structure and culture of the Church over decades to effectively respond to the sexual abuse of children by its priests.”

– Report into Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat released | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse”. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Retrieved 16 December 2017.

 

The Royal Commission wasn’t limited to the Catholic community. It also delved into public and private schools as well as other churches. The findings were sickening: statistically speaking, one in three boys were sexually abused in Ballarat, most often at the hands of clergy. The sexual abuse of children, specifically boys was in pandemic proportions.  This triggered a secondary epidemic of suicide: Ballarat has the second highest rate of suicide in Australia.  Perhaps that is the reason that LDS family services doesn’t offer counseling to Ballarat residents, even though Ballarat is only 90 minutes’ drive from the heart of Melbourne. Instead, the church recommends that those reaching for help simply call a “local” (non-LDS) counselor. 

 

The most recently convicted offender is Cardinal George Pell. His conviction was a long-sought acknowledgement of the horrific history of institutionalized clerical sex abuse,   From a global perspective, Pell was also the Catholic Church’s most senior official to be convicted of child sexual abuse. In his religious career, Pell was appointed as a cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2003, where he served on the Pope’s Council of nine advisers- in other words, he had the ear of the pope. Comparative in Mormon terms, his position was similar to being a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Before his calling to the Council of nine, Pell served as a priest, and in a number of different religious appointments, finally becoming the Archbishop of Melbourne. In this office, he created a diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse. In an irony that was sadly predictable, this is the same time period in which he was accused, and just this year, found guilty of sexually abusing two choirboys.  

 

Pell’s conviction shook the Catholic church around the world—it was the primary story on both CNN and BBC , and in Ballarat, where Pell was born, political statements and official responses were released in intervals, ticking down through a small, but significant list of sympathizers.  Abuse that widespread didn’t skip the non-Catholic churches. Even for those lucky enough to not be assaulted, they still knew friends or friends of friends who were victims. Even in the Ballarat ward, the rumor was that a member’s adult son completed suicide a few months prior to Pell’s conviction. This man was a husband, a father, and a survivor of child sexual abuse. But no one was talking about it.

 

[image error]

The LDS church’s response to Pell and reports of child abuse was different, which, in so many ways was predictable. Without any acknowledgement or even a breath of the name “Pell,” the LDS Pacific offices effected anti-child abuse videos and “training” in addition to its already diligent implementation of government child-protective legislation.  (In Australia, all church members are encouraged to carry government -issued working with children clearance cards; those in callings with children are required by law to have the cards) . To be clear, this meant that in reaction to the pandemic of child abuse,  the LDS church provided her members with a non-compulsory anti-child abuse video for bishops and stake presidents to use.

 

In other words, a discovered pandemic of child sexual abuse was addressed by the LDS church by suggesting that church members might consider watching an optional online video if they felt like it. No big whoop. No statement. Just a trickle-down hint of a video resource. 

 

Interestingly, further components of the Royal Commission found that when women, specifically mothers reported concerns about the abuse or the actual sexual abuse, they were “ignored.” These were mothers stepping up to protect their sons, and yet were disregarded as official complainants. After all, it was easy for the women to be ignored. The religious system of governing in the Catholic church, just like the LDS church, is patriarchal: women are secondary. As the Royal Commission stated, it is  “a structure in which ultimate power and responsibility rests with one person: the provincial.” In Mormon terms, the “provincial” is considered equivalent to a bishop or Branch President. The report continued that it was, “a system without checks and balances” and because of that, the church “has the obvious potential for mismanagement or abuse of that power and neglect of that responsibility.”

 

One might argue that there is a system of checks and balances within the LDS church, with High Councils of men and male Stake Presidencies. But is that really a “system”? Each branch and ward is a combination of geographically combined individuals; the reporting structure is fed through a stake president who is also in the calling in part due to his geographical location. There are no “sister cities”- or rotating “brother stakes” in distant areas wherein checks and balances can occur; all checks are made within the local boy’s club, no questions asked. And though sometimes ward and stake boundaries may change, the changes may shuffle a problematic relationship or person elsewhere. This is exactly what was found in the Royal Commission. In many of the sexual abuse allegations within the Catholic organization, when a complaint against an ecclesiastical leader gained momentum, the accused clergy member was moved to a new location, or given a new “calling”. The royal report continued that “In some cases, the reason given for the move was to conceal the true reason for it and to protect the reputation of the Christian Brothers and avoid scandal and embarrassment.”

 

So the predators were moved to avoid embarrassment. Not to protect the innocent. Not to maintain chastity or even piety. It was to avoid embarrassment. When I first read this, I was reminded of when I was working as an administrative assistant for a much older, married LDS man. At that time,  I was forbidden by him to travel in the same car with him to corporate meetings. The reason I was given was that this separation was necessary to “protect the priesthood.” Do you know how creepy it was for me to hear that from my boss and my church leaders? I was labeled as a predator because of my gender, and the much older, and physically stronger men were in danger of being one-on-one with me in a car. Yet at that same time, as I am now, I am required to speak to male leadership (bishop, stake president) privately as means of declaring my pious worthiness, wherein they are required to directly ask me about my adherence to the “law of chastity.” So– it’s okay for me to be one-on-one with an individual mormon man so long as we talk about my sex life.  Ya know– because  I can’t serve pizza in my home to a couple of 18 year old missionaries, because that is sexually predatory thing for me to do.

 

Just like the Catholics, these policies are to protect from embarrassment from ill-behaving males, not as a means of protection.  The checks and balances are non-existent, and wholly-aligned to protect the male leadership from women and children, who are positioned as predatory within LDS church policy and structure.  Yet as the Glory of God is Intelligence , it seems wise for the members of the Church of Jesus Christ to learn from the catastrophic Catholic sex-abuse Royal Commission findings. We’ve borrowed hymns from other christian denominations, share a bible with Baptists, and copied the Methodist general conference concept. So what can we borrow and learn from the Catholic experience in how to protect children? 

 

We can empower women. The conclusion of the The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the Royal Commission recommended that women be given decision-making roles at all levels of the church. This conclusion was made because the evidence suggested that in dioceses and churches where women played a larger role, there were significantly lower levels of sexual abuse. In other words, having women in decision-making roles prevented child abuse and child sexual abuse within the churches.

 

Did you catch that key phrase? “Decision-making roles.” Women is decision making roles about worthiness, religious protocols, and institutional finances. In other words, not a role where one is assigned as a president and given counsellors who are also assigned. Not a role where groups of women must gain the bishop’s approval for primary children’s song choices and programs. Not a role where groups of women must gain the bishop’s approval for Young Women’s cookie-making activities. Not a role where groups of women must gain the bishop’s approval in order to have Relief Society craft classes or book club. Not a role where groups of women must gain the stake president’s approval for the fliers made to advertise Stake Young Women’s camp (maybe that last one was just my experience… because as a 30 year old temple-recommend carrying adult with a university degree, I couldn’t be trusted to make a flyer on my own).

 

Women in decision-making roles. Real decision making roles. Not assigned. Not micro-managed. Real, decision making roles.

 

In other words, women who are ordained. ORDAINED OF GOD. 

 

Do you still want to be a stay at home mother? Great! You can still be that and be ordained.

 

Do you still want a husband who is as dedicated to the gospel as you are? Great! You can still have that and be ordained.

 

Do you want a son who works hard to memorize sacrament prayers because he feels motivated to serve the Lord? Great! You can still have that and be ordained. So can your daughter.

 

Do you want to have your daughter go on a date with a young man who opens her door, pays for the meal and treats her with dignity and respect? Great! You can still have that and be ordained. So can your daughter.

 

Do you want to do the major thing that is shown to protect boys from being sexually assaulted at church? Me, too. To do this, evidence shows that we need to support the ordination of and increased decision making roles of women at church.

 

Do you want to do the major thing that is shown to protect girls from sexual exploitation at church? Me, too. To do this, evidence shows that we need to support the ordination of and increased decision making roles of women at church.

 

Do you want to protect children and women from abuse? Me, too. To do this, evidence shows that we need to support the ordination of and increased decision making roles of women at church.

 

Do you believe that children should be able to attend church without fearing that they may be abused? Me, too. To do this, evidence shows that we need to support the ordination of and increased decision making roles of women at church.

 

But mostly, in addition to knowing that the decision-making roles and presence of women protect children from sexual predators, and overall child abuse…Do you believe women can be guided, influenced and feel prompted to do service and work in the name of Jesus Christ? I do. That is why I believe women should be ordained.

 

[image error]We can learn from the Catholic experience with George Pell and others who have been convicted of child sexual assault. We can make the Church of Jesus Christ a safer space for everyone. All we need to do is allow women to be ordained. I’m tired of LDS church leaders saying, “We don’t know why  women can’tr be ordained.”  I suggest we stop asking “why,” and instead ask “how” and “what” we can do to protect the men, women and children of the church. Research shows that ordination is an effective answer. Let’s be humble enough to accept this, and invite the spirit of Christ and healing into our lives at a greater level. 

 

A Journal Entry from Many Years Ago, before I Found my Voice

I recently rediscovered this journal entry that I wrote several years ago, before I started analyzing church policies and advocating more equitable changes, before I had ever been interviewed by a reporter about gender issues within my faith community,* before I became an activism organizer for Ordain Women, before I started the Religious Feminism Podcast, and before I wrote a book for feminist activists.** 

Before I ever imagined I would do any of those things, this is what I was thinking.  Today, as I read the last question I asked myself in this diary entry from so long ago, I smile and answer, “Yes.”

[image error]

The Tempest by Auguste Rodin, Courtesy of the MET

“It sure made me mad when that feminist woman said women aren’t equal in our church on TV a few days ago,” said my Sunday School teacher.*** My classmates audibly gasped.  As they indignantly muttered their how-dare-she’s, I bit my tongue and glued my eyes to the baby in my lap.  

He went on to give the sort of sermon we Mormon ladies are used to.  “Men and women are equal,” he told us.  I agree.  

“God loves women,” he continued. I agree with that, too.

“Men and women have different roles in our church, but they are equally important,” he concluded. Lost me there.  Still, I stayed focused on my lap, afraid that if I looked up, my eyes would shoot darts at that very nice, harmless man. 

“What did you think about Sunday School?” my husband asked cautiously that night.

“He was just saying what everyone else says,” I replied.  “We have created a culture where it is more important to call women equal than to treat women equally.”

The very next week, a member of the Relief Society presidency relayed her recently returned missionary son’s explanation about why women couldn’t have the priesthood.  He told her that there is a scripture somewhere that says God loves women and also, women can bare children and men can’t. She bore testimony that pregnancy is just awful, but she would rather do that for a few months of her life than have the priesthood. 

“Today in Relief Society, I learned that women shouldn’t have the priesthood because our uteruses make it possible for us to gestate.  That makes about as much sense as saying that men should have the priesthood because their penuses make it possible for them to pee standing up,” I reported to my husband.  “And we got this information by way of the counselor’s 21-year-old son.  An adult woman with a lifetime of church experience considers the 21-year-old boy that she raised a greater authority than herself on female roles and purpose.”  

“Our culture reveres returned missionaries,” my husband pointed out.  

“I’m a returned missionary. I’m not revered,” I countered.

“Our culture reveres male returned missionaries,” he corrected himself.  

Two weeks in a row, I kept my mouth shut until church was over.  I did no harm.  I did not offend those nice people who were teaching my classes.  I did not damage my reputation as a “good” Mormon.  

I believe in choosing my battles. These weren’t important battles.  Neither of those people had any authority to change the status of women at church, even if my comments could have changed their minds.  Neither person wanted to repress women.  Neither was an enemy of women.

But then I wonder, did I really choose not to fight these battles?  Or am I incapable of opening my mouth?  

Did I really do no harm?  Or was there someone else in that room like me, someone who feels alone, baffled that no one else can see the inequity, wondering if she belongs in a church where she is the odd woman out among so many like-minded individuals? 

At church, I have learned to be silent.  (Apparently, I have also learned to write my thoughts in chiasmus.)  But should I be silent?  When should I speak?  

After being silent so long, do I know how to speak?

* Speaking of which, I recently spoke with a radio host in Germany on the topic of how to find and raise our voices.  Have a listen here:

April Young Bennett interviewed by Kara Johnstad, Voice Rising, iHeart Radio

**My new book, Ask a Suffragist: Stories and Wisdom from America’s First Feminists, covers what modern activists can learn from the first generation of American activists. You can find it through these sources:

Order Ask a Suffragist from your local independent bookstore.

***At this point, so many years later, I don’t remember the identities of the ward members who made these comments, and it doesn’t matter.  Their comments weren’t offensive—just jarring to my feminist sensibilities—and their words were typical of what I have heard many other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say on many other occasions.

#hearLDSwomen: My Bishopric Didn’t Call the Person I Requested to Fill a Calling for Ten Months

[image error]As ward music chairman, I submitted a name for choir director. It took them ten months (ten months!) to call her, and the first counselor was really lukewarm about my pick. I told him the names of 5 other people who would be good, but they all had big callings. I invited him to make other suggestions, but said I felt confident this sister would do a good job. While waiting for her to be called, I worked with the YW president and the bishopric to start having the YW lead the music in sacrament meeting since our choristers were moving. The first counselor acted somewhat hesitant, saying the bishop wanted to limit the opportunity to just laurels and just once a month. I pushed back, saying why not have as many as want to and as often as we could have them. Three weeks later, without consulting me, they called a new chorister (she had only been in the ward three weeks and they STILL hadn’t called the choir director I’d submitted MONTHS ago). I sent an email to the first counselor saying I expected that they respect my stewardship and at least let me know when they were going to be extending music callings. I asked what the status was of having the YW conduct and what they wanted my involvement to be. He never responded.

I ultimately asked to be released. I had emailed the first counselor twice over the last few months asking him to grant the choir director and president editing access to the ward Sacrament Meeting schedule spreadsheet so they could do their callings, but he never did. He totally revoked my editing access on the day I got released, though.

– ElleK

 

I LOVED teaching Sunday School.

The bishopric called me to teach what they termed a “difficult class”. Apparently they’d had a hard time finding takers.

The 14yos in the class told me the demeaning nickname their former teacher had given them, and I’m ashamed to say I didn’t believe them, until I ran into their former teacher in the hall and he smirked, “Oh, you’ve got the _____?”

But I LOVED this class. I devoted what little time I had to prepping lessons, outside my 7-homeschooled-kids-two-babies life. The kids responded to me, and we had an awesome time together.

I was so happy with my accomplishments that I excitedly asked the bishopric that when assignments were made in January, if I could advance with the same group of kids, since I’d already built so much rapport with them and we were really starting to build enthusiasm for the scriptures.

Bishopric shrugged and said nope. And that was that. And it didn’t matter what I said, or how I asked.

(I’m still friends with the kids, though. They’re GOOD PEOPLE.)

– Rebecca

 

I was approached by the Primary President when I was an Activity Days Leader, asking why I had requested to be released from my calling (I hadn’t). When I said I was very happy where I was she looked confused, and said she had been told I was feeling tired and needed a break (I was expecting my second child). I said “No, I think you’re confusing me with my Co-Leader.” (Also pregnant, and had told me she planned on requesting a release). She insisted she had it on good authority that I did want to be let go, and it was OK for me to be honest. I finally got her to tell me that the bishop was the source of the rumor. I called a friend, who was the first counselor to the bishop, to clear up the misconception. Long story shorter, he completely gave me the run-around and acted like it wasn’t what it was. Said I was being released for completely unrelated reasons, even when I said “Look, I know the bishop got confused, that’s fine, but please speak directly to me next time.” My friend circled the wagons and wouldn’t admit to the misstep.

– Anonymous

 

Pro Tip: Give women as much input and control over their callings as possible, and extend callings requested by female auxiliary leaders in a timely manner. Trust women’s inspiration for their circumstances and their stewardships.

Click here to read all of the stories in our #hearLDSwomen series. Has anything like this happened to you? Please share in the comments or submit your experience(s) to participate in the series.

“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mark 4:23)