Exponent II's Blog, page 224

Victory is Near

This year for Christmas, my brother thoughtfully purchased for me several enormous pieces of World War II propaganda to display in my home. I believe his thinking was that my children will be more likely to eat their dinner if they are sternly admonished that wasting food is tantamount to murder and treason. We had a good laugh over various posters and he suggested to me that maybe the Church could benefit a more 1940s approach in conveying key points. So, without further ado, I offer you some new approaches to messaging.

For the Young Men:

[image error]Young men just don’t seem to understand that God expects them to have short conservative hairstyles. Perhaps the implication that floppy locks make them look like the Führer would help?







[image error]Many a youthful couple has sought to escape the watchful gaze of a chaperone during a stake dance. Perhaps the judicious placement of a few of these would keep things nice and chaste in a deserted classroom?



[image error]Why be coy about the consequences of violating the law of chastity. Do you want to be a poor boob and get the syph? Do you? I didn’t think so.

For the Young Women:

[image error]Bummed you don’t get the Priesthood? Why not use some sexy innocence to shame the boys into honoring theirs? Gee!! I wish I were a man I’d honor my PRIESTHOOD. It’s okay to be sexy if it is for guilt tripping boys into righteousness!



[image error]Our messaging about the law of chastity is waaaaayyyy to coy. Remember two things gals. 1) All young men have syphilis. Every one of them. 2) You can get syphilis from dancing with boys, especially mosh pits, bear hugging and slam dancing. Stay away from dance halls (there might be syphilis on the floor too).

Helpful Guidelines for Sacrament Meeting:

[image error]Now in a historical context, this was an admonition relating to loose lips and sinking ships. But in an LDS contest, I like to think that this man was enduring the long silence of a slow testimony meeting and is being rescued from drowning by a kindly soul taking one for the team.



[image error]It isn’t easy to know when to quit bearing testimony, and some people definitely go too long. This helpful reminder, posted on the podium, will keep things appropriately succinct.



[image error]This would be a nice one to put at the back of the chapel for the speaker to see — it would be particularly useful on High Council Sunday. Consider replacing the image of the hapless sailor with any member of the ward.



[image error]Taking a small child alone to Sacrament Meeting is entering a war zone. Don’t let anyone tell you differently. You’re a hero.

Regarding callings:

[image error]Women are happier with limited choices when beautifully made up women inform them that the calling they didn’t choose is, in fact, the place that was home all along!



[image error]Never ever divulge your calling between the time you meet with the Bishop and the time that he announces it in Sacrament Meeting. You just can’t risk it.



[image error]Did your Bishopric meeting give you a strong guess as to who the new Relief Society President is going to be? Tell NOBODY not even HER.

Some good general advice:

[image error]Where I live, the Temple is a few hours away. If you go WITHOUT carpooling, you’re basically hanging out with Hitler. Are you proud of yourself? Now, who is going to sign up to drive the youth? It’ll only take about seven hours out of your day, and you don’t want Adolf to be sitting there picking the tunes, do you?



[image error]Some women mistakenly feel that having their husband take on a second job and be gone most weeknights and all day on Sunday is enough of a sacrifice. False! Pay your tithing!



[image error]An unventilated mother’s room can quickly fill with fatal levels of noxious fumes. Think of the children!

Stay safe out there.

[image error]

Toxic Mormon Masculinity: How Patriarchy Poisons our Men and Boys

[image error]

Patriarchy in Mormonism negatively impacts men and boys by afflicting them with shame, anxiety, and unrealistic expectations. I term this “Toxic Mormon Masculinity.”

When I’ve written about a particular effect that our patriarchal church system has on women, like breastfeeding in church or how we respond to a young woman’s outfit, readers are sometimes curious about my thoughts on how men can be affected as well.

Today I’ll tackle that request by taking a closer look at the ways gender essentialism (the idea that our innate traits and attributes are due to our sex) and patriarchy (a gender-based hierarchy which assigns most power to men) harms men and boys, limits their options, and stunts their healthy development, both psychologically and spiritually. This damage radiates outward in ways that harm men, women, relationships, and society as a whole.

Talking about “Toxic Mormon Masculinity” relies on a foundational understanding of its parent term, Toxic Masculinity. When society narrowly proscribes what it means to be male, and when masculine traits get taken to the extreme, (like emotional stoicism, violence, and sexual aggression) Toxic Masculinity magnifies a man’s very worst learned tendencies and behaviors.

Remember Gaston from Beauty and the Beast?  This is “Toxic” Masculinity on full display: dominance, arrogance, bullying, physical aggression, violence, homophobia, insensitivity, and hyper-sexuality, all wrapped up into one character who is all wrapped up in himself. Gaston is such a caricature of toxic masculinity that we can laugh at him, but we’ve all encountered Gastons in our schools, workplaces, communities, and wards. He resonates because he exhibits, in extreme form, traits that some still see as desirable and powerful for men and leaders.

How do we reverse course on hyper-masculinity and its deleterious effects?

Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, wrote in 2005 that there is greater variety within a gender than there is between genders, and that gender role stereotypes are learned behavior, not innate and universal as some presume.

If men and women are inherently more similar than previously thought, why do men have such differing outcomes?

The statistics are sobering. Men are far more prone to commit violence and acts of physical aggression. They are more likely to suppress emotion and suffer the resulting psychological effects of doing so. They are more likely to be the perpetrator in a sexual assault, and the least likely victims to report being sexually assaulted. Toxic Masculinity hurts men, and it hurts society at large.

Teachings on Mormon masculinity diverge from mainstream masculinity in several important, non-toxic ways. Following the path of Christ, LDS men are encouraged to be servants to others, to be loving parents and spouses.  While Toxic Masculinity wrongly discourages men from exhibiting “feminine” traits like kindness, gentleness, nurturing, or collaboration, LDS doctrine emphasizes that men should be compassionate and charitable. These teachings have an impact. To their credit, most Mormon men do not exhibit the more overtly machismo type of toxic masculinity.

However, many LDS church leaders still preach gender essentialist beliefs as doctrine and elevate gender roles as divine and eternal, despite the dissonance it creates in many young women and young men.

Instead of embracing a full spectrum of positive human traits, Mormon men are instructed to perform their masculinity in particular ways, especially in regard to presiding, leadership and decision-making. Gendered expectations are presented as “the ideal,” with direction for “How-to be a Righteous Priesthood Holder” entwined with manhood and fatherhood.  Maleness is almost always equated with Priesthood, and less frequently with fatherhood (unlike women, whose femaleness is almost always equated with motherhood). Men are encouraged to “rise up,” and “lead out.” But when they don’t perform as expected, many men internalize shame because of their perceived failures.

Modern Mormon men show deep strength of character as they develop Christ-like attributes regardless of gendered stereotypes.  Jesus taught everyone to love one another, to turn the other cheek, to create peace, to forgive, to show kindness, and was no respecter of persons. Gender role stereotypes are inherently limiting because the wholeness of pursuing Christ-like attributes surpasses maleness or femaleness.   

With the help of consultations with dozens of Mormon men, I’ve compiled a list of specific ways we’ve observed how patriarchy hurts everyone, including men.

*****

It Stinks to be a Sole-Provider

“Providing for the family” is a hallmark expectation of Mormon masculinity teachings.

Many men reported intense pressure to provide for the family on their income alone. They felt pushed into pursuing more lucrative careers out of duty, and discouraged from following their own personal interests. In contrast to financial partnership marriages with two incomes, men who are sole-providers face extra pressure if they are ever fired, unemployed, or if they become injured or disabled and unable to work.  Some men reported working two or more jobs so that their wives “didn’t have to work.”  Providing a “work-free” life, rather, “profession-free” life, for a stay-home wife is seen as a badge of honor.  Many men reported feeling shame at hearing comments like, “Did your wife have to go back to work?” and “He just doesn’t make enough for his wife to stay home.”

When righteous Mormon motherhood is defined as staying home to raise children, Mormon fathers face tremendous pressure to provide for the whole family so that SHE can live her divine role. Forcing men into sole-providing roles and women into sole-caregiving roles can minimize their ability to work together as partners. Parents should determine how to provide for and nurture their children in whatever balance works best for them.

The unrealistic expectation to be a sole provider may inhibit some men from pursuing marriage altogether.

One friend states, “Definitely the sole provider idea stressed me out a *ton* as a teenager. I said over and over that I didn’t ever want to get married, and it wasn’t just because I was shy (which I was), it was mostly that I was so worried that I would never be able to get a job that made enough money to support my family. And it was clear to me that to be righteous, my family would be required to have as many kids as possible. I didn’t think I could even provide for *myself*, let alone a wife and a ton of kids.”

When a man believes his divine responsibility is to be a sole-provider, to the exclusion of allowing his wife to participate in their financial partnership, or experiences shame when she does contribute financially, he suffers the effects of Toxic Mormon Masculinity.

 

Pushed into Patriarchal Presiding

Men are told their divine appointment is to preside in the home, and then they are given specific lists of things that count as “presiding.”

Not all men want to preside, but not because they are lazy or cowardly.  Many men are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that their stance toward their wives and children should be one of wielding authority over them.

Not all men believe exercising dominion is their God-given duty, nor do they wish to develop this trait. Many men express deep desires for partnership marriages. They not want to preside over their wives, but to work together as complete equals. They find it troubling when benevolent patriarchy tells them that they’re supposed to be in charge, but as long as they’re nice about it. In speaking about equal partnership in marriage, my friend Ziff said: “Patriarchy was never benevolent, and dominion was never righteous.”

Another friend told me that the expectation to preside at home was like being “forced into wearing an ill-fitted jacket,” and that neither spouse should have unilateral “veto power” over the other.  

One man shared: “As the inevitable marriage friction arose, my good-Mormon-brain basically said ‘We’re having problems because I’m not being a good enough priesthood leader for my family. More church! More scriptures! No time for empathy, we need action!’ Ashamedly, I think I was the epitome of toxic masculinity justified through ‘religious’ adherence.”

A man in Sunday school class made the comment, “I come home from work and I’m tired and stressed, but I should be a better patriarch and lead my family in prayer and scripture study.”

When judged to be presiding improperly, some men reported being questioned about their worthiness to exercise the Priesthood in other ways.  

Inherent in all of these examples is the effect of shame for not achieving what the man thinks he “should” do.

Toxic Mormon Masculinity demands that all men, and only men, preside, because of their sex, regardless of circumstance. When personal preferences incline a man toward partnership rather than dominance, he may experience shame for not “measuring up.”

 

Not allowed to be Nurturers

Toxic Mormon Masculinity makes no room for men who wish to be stay-at-home-dads. Since women are assigned the sphere of nurturing children, men may worry that parenting won’t come “naturally” to them. They may feel incompetent, or have some amount of reluctance or shame in caregiving. Prospective SAHDs might wish to encourage their partners to pursue a career if she desires, but may feel bound to perform the role they’re given instead.

When men do care for their children, it’s often called “Babysitting,” as though it’s only done rarely, i.e. “Men, be sure to babysit the kids this Wednesday so the Relief Society sisters can attend their meeting.”

Some fathers push back on this by saying, “We’re not ‘babysitting,’ we’re ‘parenting.’”

One SAHD describes his experience: “I’d love to arrange for some sort of play dates within my ward but there are no other stay-at-home-dads and it feels incredibly socially inappropriate for me to want to get together with a group of moms and our babies. So it ends up feeling pretty isolating for someone as social as I am. I also certainly feel a sense of disapproval at being “Mr. Mom” instead of being a provider. Can’t I choose to be a full-time father for a season?”

The parental attributes of Jesus Christ appeal to all genders: love, gentleness, kindness, care for children. Rather than telling men that nurturing does not fall to them, these attributes give men freedom to develop care-giving skills as the Savior did. Parenting is a skill that can be learned, and is not more naturally occurring in women than men.

When a man believes that it is not his role to nurture children, or that he infringes on a mother’s duty if he does so, he is derailed and his father-child bond is potentially inhibited or undermined by Toxic Mormon Masculinity.

 

Female Friends Feared and Forbidden + Manufactured Sexual Tension

Whether in professional or personal circles, Mormon men are discouraged from having female friends.  When LDS men and women interact in a neutral space, both are taught to expect (and fear) temptation and conditioned to perceive sexual tension, as though neither sex is in control of their attraction or behavior. It negatively affects workplace mentorship as well as normal interpersonal friendship.

One man describes, “For me, I feel like I have missed out on a lot of friendships with other females because the church assumes every interaction between men and women must be sexually charged. This is reinforced as we are taught on the mission that young women are the devil sent to tempt us and distract us from our purpose. There are a lot of rules about not being alone with members of the opposite sex.”

Another shares: “With one exception, my closest friendships in life have all been with female-identifying folks. That always was awkward, especially after getting married. Even though I kinda taught myself not to care, there would always be lots of side-eye if I was enjoying a conversation with a female friend in church settings without my wife present (and/or their husband).”

One sad extension of this taboo over female friendships is the lack of female mentorship for men. Beyond their mother or wife, very few Mormon men recognize any female as a spiritual leader.

When a Mormon man believes that women are not friends, authority figures, leaders, or colleagues, but romantic partners, maternal figures, subordinates, or sex objects, he is conceding to Toxic Mormon Masculinity. The underlying mistrust that all men are philanderers who can’t be alone with women may burden a man with undue shame for actions he hasn’t committed. He is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

 

Returned Missionary Privilege and Stigma

A significant way Toxic Mormon Masculinity is projected onto men by others, including women, is in the privileged status bestowed upon full-time, full-term returned missionaries.

Men are explicitly told that missionary service is a duty of their Priesthood. Men who choose to serve in different ways are shamed and underappreciated.

Returned missionaries are held in high esteem: they are automatically considered for leadership callings, seen as more desirable husbands, and hold a life-long badge of honor compared to men who do not serve missions. Church activity retention programs are often geared toward the returned missionary demographic. No matter the diligence and efforts made by a man who did not serve a mission, he will rarely overcome the stigma of not serving a mission. Missionaries who return early also face a similar challenge. Insensitive questions like: “Why didn’t you go on a mission? Were you not worthy? Did you get sick? Did you not want to do your Priesthood duty?” afflict a man with shame and judgment rather than appreciation for his efforts.  Men who join the church after the age of missionary eligibility may escape the stigma, but may be less likely to be considered for leadership callings.

Says one man of his time in church service: “Let’s ignore the fact that I had been extremely active serving in multiple callings. Never mind that I have paid close to $200,000 in tithing over a 17 year period. Never mind that I gave up weeks and weeks of annual vacations to go to young men’s camps and youth conferences without having a youth aged child at the time.  I was seen as less-than in the kingdom of God because I had not served a mission.”

Church members project Toxic Mormon Masculinity on to men by connecting his worth in the church to his missionary service. Embracing a man for all his contributions and showing him that he is of value to the church and to God, regardless of missionary status, will greatly reduce shame and anxiety surrounding missionary service.  

 

[image error]
Leadership Aspirational Pressure + Prescripted Life Path  

Toxic Mormon Masculinity harms the self-worth of men who are not called into leadership positions.

Milestones measure a young Mormon man’s life, including Priesthood  advancements, scout rankings, leadership positions, and other accomplishments.

He is rarely allowed any deviations from these expectations without facing shame or ridicule. Men’s church service is defined by which leadership callings they occupy. “I’m so proud of my missionary – he just made District/Zone Leader/AP!”  “He was just made Bishop.”

These leadership callings are discussed as something he’s “accomplished” rather than been called to do. In many positions, extroversion is prized over introversion, and in some cases prioritized over spirituality, or even, sadly, worthiness. There is social pressure to meet Priesthood rank advancements as a teen. Church leaders emphasize the importance of a man’s leadership calling when sharing countless stories in talks and lessons about Bishops and Stake Presidents doing the most valuable ministry and administration work.

Some women value rank, position, missionary status and leadership calling as indication of a man’s worth in the church, and therefore more desirable as a potential spouse. Some women feel their spouses have let them and their family down if they’ve never attained a high leadership calling.  In these cases, women project disappointment and shame onto the men in unhealthy ways.

When men are released from leadership callings, they are often still called “Bishop” or “President,” even though their stewardships no longer include that title, perpetuating the emeritus status given to men for having served in those positions. Men are regularly lauded with resume-like descriptions of their past callings in biographical sketches. (It’s far less common for women’s contributions to be so well remembered and celebrated.)

Men are also judged for their leadership capacity or eligibility to perform Priesthood ordinances by their dress and grooming. They understand “the uniform of the Priesthood” to be a white shirt, suit and tie, with a short haircut and no facial hair. Men and women alike shame other men for wearing bright colors or beards.

One woman shares, “My Dad never had any high profile leadership callings before he retired. I know he was bothered by not being ordained a High Priest, or having a chance to serve in the callings requiring that office.”

Equating merit with leadership rank inflicts needless harm on men not called into leadership roles, frequently reiterating that they are somehow lacking if they don’t lead, and presumably aren’t worthy to do so.  The shame he may feel for not being called into a leadership position is a negative effect of Toxic Mormon Masculinity.

 

Unchecked Unrighteous Dominion

Toxic Mormon Masculinity flourishes when men exercise unrighteous dominion. Fueled by the admonition to preside, exercising unrighteous dominion can corrode a man’s character, inflating him with pride and power.  Such hubris will lead a man to think his opinions are more likely right, his judgment calls are more likely correct, that he is generally in control of a situation, and that he has little to gain from collaboration. At its worst, it will result in people who fear him rather than love him. He can be corrupted by the size of his ego and a false sense of invulnerability, and his most prized relationships may wither, sometimes without realizing it.  

Many church members and families have experienced unrighteous dominion at the hand of a Priesthood leader, or father. Despite being led by the Spirit, Priesthood leaders can overstep.

When making decisions or counseling with others, a Priesthood leader may be vulnerable to drifting outside the scope of his own expertise or stewardship. Without a system of checks and balances to hold him accountable to those he serves, pride and arrogance may creep in, with no one to declare “Amen to the priesthood of that man.”

Toxic Mormon Masculinity harms men when it encourages them to use their position of power and influence to control others.  It is deleterious for a man to be imbued with so much unquestioned authority. When men are given broad power and authority without a formal feedback system for accountability, their integrity may crumble.

 

Sexual Development, Gender Identity, and Marriage

Toxic Mormon Masculinity heaps shame on young men for what would otherwise be considered normal, age appropriate behavior regarding sexuality. This shame may follow them into marriage and make marital intimacy difficult.

As they progress through adolescence, young men are taught that their developing sexuality is to be all-but shut down until marriage. Many age-appropriate expressions of sexuality are seen as sinful, and can disqualify a young man from performing Priesthood ordinances. Some young men retreat in shame to develop their sexuality in secret, leading to unhealthy relationships, or use of pornography. Many young men, upon marrying, are left with conflicted feelings about how to express the sexuality that up until now they’ve been taught to fear and suppress.

Mormon young men are rarely believed or supported when identifying their gender or attraction authentically. Many are still told that being gay or trans is a choice, or a temptation to be eschewed. Countless young men are still disowned by their families after coming out. Teen suicide rates in Utah are the 5th highest in the nation, a large number of which are queer kids who feel rejected by a hostile family or church environment.  Binary gender essentialist roles are inherently exclusive to trans men, who are told they don’t fit in anywhere. 

Projecting the Mormon male gaze onto young women harms young men. By observing girls being taught that they become pornography by how they dress, and other similar messages, young men may internalize the false idea that they are not in control of their urges, and that if a girl is dressed “immodestly,” it’s perfectly reasonable to objectify her. When a young man has a sexual response to a woman’s appearance, then blames her by thinking, “It’s her fault! She made me do it!” he shifts the responsibility away from himself, and builds in himself a habit of non-accountability.  When young men feel justified in seeing women as objects, they stunt their ability to have a truly open, vulnerable, equal partnership with a woman, crippling the intimate bonds they could otherwise forge in marriage thereafter.

By defining one narrow, approved stance toward sexuality, Toxic Mormon Masculinity shrouds sex in fear and shame with damaging consequences that ricochet far past the harm it causes in adolescence, and disregards and dismisses the worth of any who deviate, even briefly, from the dictated norm.

 

Conclusion and Invitation

Prescribed roles for a man to “preside, provide and protect” in his family and in the church are the underlying causes of Toxic Mormon Masculinity.

When teaching others how to live their best lives, leaders should center their messages on how to be like Jesus by developing more of his attributes, not by delineating lists for correctly performing one’s gender, for “…there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The life of Jesus Christ is exemplary. His attributes transcend gender: he was strong and gentle, a leader and a friend, a teacher and a listener. Setting aside gendered expectations and fully embracing the complete spectrum of Christlike attributes will help Mormon men heal from the frustration and shame they carry, and improve the fabric of our church culture.  Men who are free from the burdens of this shame will be happier, healthier people.

***

In the coming weeks, The Exponent blog will share responses from men for how they experience Toxic Mormon Masculinity in their lives, and what they do about it. Please check back to hear more from them, and consider submitting your own experiences as a guest post to the series.  

Further recommended reading and viewing:

The Good Men Project

We are Man Enough

Hannah Gadsby’s monologue on “The Good Men”

Gillette’s ad about Toxic Masculinity:  “the Best a man can be.”

A Thoughtful Faith: How Patriarchy Hurts Men and Boys with Wendy Christian

 

#hearLDSwomen: I Was Released From My Calling Against My Will

[image error]A few months ago, my friend asked me to sub her Gospel Doctrine class. I did, and the lesson went really well. After class, the Sunday School president cornered me and said he hadn’t been there, but four people had already told him what a great job I’d done, and would I consider making this a full-time gig? To my surprise, I found I really wanted to teach. I’d been thinking about taking a step back from church, but I thought maybe this was God’s way of telling me I should stick around. I said yes, that teaching once a month would be perfect for me. He said he’d submit my name.

I found out later I was on a list of five names submitted for four open spots. I had a meeting a month or so later with the bishopric first counselor, and I told him I was burned out in my calling. I told him how much I’d enjoyed teaching Gospel Doctrine. “We’re going to keep you where you are for now,” he said.

I sent him an email later telling him I had received a strong impression that God wanted me to teach Sunday School. I reiterated that I was burned out in my calling and would like to be released. He never responded. The four other people were called.

I thought about confronting my bishop to ask if he had reservations about me teaching, but based on previous experiences with him, I felt 90% sure he would gaslight me and say it was God who didn’t want me teaching Sunday School and of course he didn’t have anything against me.

– ElleK

 

Over the last two years, I’ve been through a crisis of faith. In the end, I’ve freed myself from the oversight of ecclesiastical authority by reclaiming my personal authority to make spiritual decisions for myself and my family. The problem is, the leaders of my ward do not accept or acknowledge my declaration of independence, and instead, still maintain the power to shout down my voice.

I have served as the Primary chorister for three primary programs, and every fall I prayerfully consider if I should resign from my calling after the children perform.

This year was no different, and even though I’ve been feeling a desire for a church sabbatical, I prayed and decided to stay and serve the children of our ward. So I was surprised that a meeting with a counselor in the bishopric for a new calling ended with the offer of release from Primary.

I asked them to reconsider. I conveyed my desire to continue to serve in Primary — they told me they don’t like to let women languish there for years.

I told them I wanted to stay in Primary — they said they knew better than me.

I said I couldn’t fulfill the new calling because of time constraints due to my intense work schedule — they told me they think I’d be perfect for the new assignment and that I’d like it (for the record, I’ve done this one before, and I despise it).

In a moment of desperation to keep my calling, I told them that without my current calling, I’d no longer feel a pull to come to church — and after considering my statement for a week, they released me anyway.

Despite the fact that they had neither heard nor validated my concerns, inspiration or preferences, despite the fact that they released me over my objections, they did offer an olive branch — they could bring in a member of the stake presidency to mediate the situation.

Of course, I refused this offer. I’m not even sure what they were going to “mediate.” Perhaps they thought someone with more power and authority could get me to listen.

But my dear brothers in the gospel, the problem isn’t me listening to you. It’s that YOU are not listening to me. And though you can strip me of my calling at your whim, and though I have no true voice in the matter, no amount of ecclesiastical counseling or authority will convince me to suppress my newly claimed independence.

– Natalie G.

 

Pro Tip: Listen to women when they tell you the inspiration they’ve received about their callings. Whenever possible, facilitate what they feel God wants them to do.

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)

Guest Post: She Pondered in Her Heart

[image error]

By Alli C

After nearly a year hiatus from scripture reading, I decided this year to give the “Come Follow Me” curriculum a try. Partly because my faith transition over the past year has robbed me of the comfort I used to find in spiritual routines, and I was finally ready to claim that comfort, that part of me, back again. And mostly because the New Testament is very Jesus-centric and very simple. And partly because I like the idea of using different translations for scripture study, which still feels mildly rebellious to me after all this time with the KJV.

These first few weeks, my thoughts keep coming back to Mary. I love imagining her story, and I love that we have some insights into her perspective through Luke’s narrative. I’ve come across Bible historians that theorize Luke may have had direct access to a first-person narrative from Mary herself. I like the idea of that. I like the idea that she told her story to someone, and hundreds of years later we still have this story.

A “Come Follow Me” lesson from a couple weeks ago has an activity on the ways to worship and witness Christ, with a small little table with “Witnesses of Christ” (Shepherds, Simeon, Anna, Wise Men) and the question, “What do I learn about worshipping and witnessing?” for each of them. I enjoyed the activity, but my thoughts eventually came back to Mary. What can she teach me about worshipping and witnessing?

Luke 2:19: “But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.” (KJV)

Other Biblical translations of this verse use the following phrases:

• Pondering

• Gave much thought

• Committed to memory

• Considered carefully

• Treasured these things

• Mulling them over

• Meditating on them

• Remembered

• Thought deeply

• Always thought about them

• Kept to herself

• Holding these things dear

• Continued to think about them

• Thought about them over and over

• Thought about them often

• Often dwelling on them

• Preserving these things

Each phrase is another part of Mary’s story, another way to describe another moment when she sat with these memories and held them close to her heart. Maybe as Sunbeam-age Jesus learned his first words, Mary thought on these things. Maybe as 9-year-old Jesus ran off to play with his friends, Mary continued to think about them. Maybe as her son went off to be tried, and later killed, she thought deeply on all she had seen and heard in her life.

What I learned from Mary’s method of worshipping and witnessing. 

First, worshipping doesn’t always have to be loud or showy. It doesn’t always have to look like missionary work, either. In a church that rewards extroverts, Mary’s introverted approach to worship is a powerful lesson on the beauty of private worship and communion with God.

Second, the gospel requires time. The principles we learn in the gospel aren’t always easy to understand. Some days, they make sense. Some days, they don’t. I’m glad that I have a lifetime to sit with my questions and my hopes and think on them over and over and over again.

Third, Mary thought with her heart. Meditating, to me, is spiritual because it is not intellectual. I meditate with my feelings. I can explore the hidden corners of myself, and find what is truly close to my heart. I don’t have to force myself to feel a certain way—I can just accept what I feel, and use my emotions to guide my search for truth. If I feel at peace with a principle of the gospel, I can hold onto it. If I am repulsed by something I hear at church, I can embrace the truth of that feeling and choose to let that teaching go. Being close to my emotions, close to my heart, has been a steadying influence as I try to sort through my beliefs.

I’m grateful for Mary’s story, and I’m sure she has so much more to teach me.

 

 

Alli C loves biographies, yoga, public transportation, and cross-stitching. She’s caught in the crossroads of desperately wanting to be a mom and desperately wanting to build a her career and she wishes that affordable child care was a real thing.

Guest Post: Women and the Temple Changes — A Live Wrestle

[image error]By Tara T. Boyce

I haven’t written on the temple changes but not because I haven’t been thinking about them. I’ve been thinking a lot. I tried writing something yesterday, but I didn’t publish it because I didn’t know what I wanted to say, because I didn’t know what I felt. I still don’t.

I’ve been thinking about my past experiences in the temple. About women and their inherent power and the power limited toward them. About change. Correction vs. revelation. Responsibility and accountability of institutions and responsibility and accountability for my own faith. I’ve been thinking about women who have been ostracized or excommunicated for advocating for some of these temple changes. Some who have come back and others who probably never will.

I just want to get out my feelings right now—in the middle of things—because it’s a step in the process that I rarely write about while in it. So here goes:

I don’t feel clarity. I feel glad and hopeful yet confused, and at times angry and very, very suspicious. More suspicious than ever. There have been powerful experiences I’ve had in the temple but there has also been so much confusion and a lot of resentment from it. I did a lot of work—reading, praying, pondering, studying—to try and make sense of it and there were times when I felt like I found some real answers. And now all that work feels unnecessary and wasted because many of my previous questions and doubts were just eliminated but without any explanation as to why. As if, no big deal. Policy changes. About woman’s eternal role. I feel the anger swell in me like contractions.

I’m suspicious of deliberate or unintentional mistakes—abusive, spiritually damaging and destructive mistakes—guised under the term revelation. It makes me feel sick. I felt sick at the Be One celebration when we celebrated a prophet supposedly receiving the revelation to remove the Priesthood ban. IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. It was wrong. Say it. Say “I’m sorry we ever thought God thought less of you and we didn’t let you have temple ordinances that we believed would exalt you or we cared more about what past leaders did than finding real answers for you.”

But there will always be enough silence from leaders and enough spiritual experiences from God for that small window of uncertainty to make me feel paralyzed. Were the past 150 years in the temple a result of corrupt and sexist views? I believe so. But my leaders won’t say that and I continue to feel slightly guilty for thinking it.

I’m glad for these changes. It will be simpler for my daughters and for young women. They won’t wonder, like I did: “OMG is God actually hierarchical?” And women are below men in that hierarchy for the simple sake of order? In moments of doubting my own self-worth after attending the temple, I approached God with “What do you think of me? What does all this mean?” I asked. For the first time, I literally doubted how God felt about me. God told me, “You know how I feel about you. Hold onto that. Despite what you feel in the temple; know I love you and see you and value you. Despite what you feel in the temple.”

What do my past feelings mean and what do I feel now? I know God works us through the doubt and fuzziness. I know God makes up the difference. But He has also always promised to hold those who place stumbling blocks or caused suffering or practiced unrighteous dominion accountable. He will hold me accountable too. Where do I go from here? What do I do?

Right now I’m waiting. I’m listening. I thought I’d share that publicly because I think that it’s important to recognize that there are others out there not saying anything, who don’t absolutely know everything so we wait. If we don’t actually need to wait, if our leaders know something that will make this less traumatically uncertain for us, please tell us. Please talk about it with us. In the meantime, I’m waiting for God’s voice directly to me because I refuse to have a mediator anymore. I will be here—unveiled and open.

As I read over this, as I sit here, writing in the dark, because it’s so late and I can’t sleep, and I have a massive headache, I’m feeling in the back of my mind and in the back of my chest, “But of you, it is required to forgive all men.” And I don’t even want to write that right now. I know it pisses people off—it pisses me off—and I think that phrase is often used as a dagger to force people who have been wronged or hurt to be quiet, to shut up. And I believe in accountability and I believe in saying what’s true and what I feel and I hate liars and I hate deniers and I hate everyone who doesn’t say anything and tells me to shush and tells me to doubt myself that I don’t know that I’m not righteous enough that I must not get it that I should feel this and I should say this. I hate that all and still, right now, against all odds and against all my will, I literally feel God telling me, “But of you, it is required to forgive all men.”

Even if no leader apologizes or explains or cares and what a freaking waste of decades of pain and struggle of real people and real faith and their real relationship to you? I want your justice because I’ve already felt your mercy.

“But of you, it is required to forgive all men.”

For the first time, I cry.

I feel the resentment begin to leave me, but I will not forget it. And I shouldn’t. Is this how forgiveness starts? A release of the flood?

I cry again.

 

Tara T. Boyce is a woman, Mormon, wife of one (Mormon joke that’s not actually funny?), mother of two girls, writing instructor at BYU, and re-emerging-after-too-many-silent-years-of-pondering writer about all things woman and Mormon. She blogs at Womormonings, www.taratboyce.wordpress.com

Jesus Doesn’t Want Us to Teach the “Ideal”

[image error]So many times, when I or others have expressed that a particular way that a message at church has been framed or presented is hurtful or irrelevant to a swath of the congregation, the response is something along the lines of “well, we have to teach the ideal.” So basically, it comes across as a giant “You’re not good enough. Church isn’t for you. Church is for married people with 4.5 smiling blond children. Maybe you should go get married and make some babies and then church will be for you, too.”

There are so many things wrong with this response. The first is that it’s a direct violation of our baptismal covenant to mourn with those who mourn. The second is that in a church that teaches personal revelation and that God has a unique path for each of us, there is no one “ideal”. God might want one person to marry young and have many children. God might want another person to marry young and have no children. And God might want another person to marry older and have fewer children. And another person’s God-ordained life path might be to never marry at all. Each path is the ideal for that person. Acting like there is a single one-size-fits-all drives people away and denies the marvelous glory of God’s creation.

The third thing that’s wrong with this approach is that it’s directly contrary to how Jesus conducted His preaching and teaching during His mortal ministry. Jesus didn’t tell everyone to gather around while he preached a sermon about how the Pharisees, the religious elite, were so great and pleasing to God and how everyone should just go be like the Pharisees. He did the exact opposite. He called out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees – they were obsessed with conformity and details but missed the point of the gospel.

Jesus instead spent His time being friends with those on the margins – the women, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the children, the mentally ill. He left the ninety and nine in search of the one. He preached love and redemption to them and welcomed them into His kingdom. He said that they would have an honored place in his kingdom – that though they were the last on earth, they would be the first in heaven. He gave them all the same invitation: “Come, follow me.” And they did.

We are not members of the church of the 1950s-style middle-class American nuclear family.  We are members of the church of Jesus Christ. We should behave and teach accordingly.

How should this look in practice?

The first thing is to center all lessons and talks on the principles taught by Jesus Christ. Jesus is relevant to everyone. And resist the impulse to turn a talk or lesson about “faith” into “how do we help our children develop faith?” or one on “prayer” into “how do we pray for our husbands?”. By covering faith or prayer, those who need to teach it to or pray for others can certainly apply those principles to their lives, but people in other life circumstances can apply it to theirs as well.

The second thing is to remember the command of Jesus to judge not. By asserting that certain marital statuses, careers, numbers of children, places one has served a mission, etc. are ideal or superior to others, we are implicitly judging those who are different as less-than. Only God knows the hearts of the people, and only God knows whether that person is following the path divinely laid out. And even if it turns out that unrighteousness is the reason for someone’s circumstances, the way to help is to love and serve, not to judge and condemn. We should love people back to God, not shame them back to God. God wants a broken heart and a contrite spirit as gifts, but he doesn’t want us to be the ones doing the breaking for others.

The third thing is to embrace the diversity of experiences and circumstances in our wards and stakes. We’re not all cookie-cutter, and everyone has something to bring to the table. Take some time to have a real, honest conversation with someone who is different from you. If you married young, talk to a single sister in her 40s. You’ll find out that being single at 40 is nothing like being single at 20, and you’ll learn something. If you’re from Utah, talk to someone from another part of the country. And if you’re not from Utah, talk with someone who is, and discover that not all Mormons from Utah are “Utah Mormons”.

If we do these things, we’ll be more united as a people and we’ll be closer to building up Zion. Our churches will be places of healing and not places where hurting people go to get hurt even further. Jesus is the only ideal. The rest of us need to get off of our Rameumptom and get back to the business of loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Jesus Doesn’t Want Us to teach the “Ideal”

[image error]So many times, when I or others have expressed that a particular way that a message at church has been framed or presented is hurtful or irrelevant to a swath of the congregation, the response is something along the lines of “well, we have to teach the ideal.” So basically, it comes across as a giant “You’re not good enough. Church isn’t for you. Church is for married people with 4.5 smiling blond children. Maybe you should go get married and make some babies and then church will be for you, too.”

There are so many things wrong with this response. The first is that it’s a direct violation of our baptismal covenant to mourn with those who mourn. The second is that in a church that teaches personal revelation and that God has a unique path for each of us, there is no one “ideal”. God might want one person to marry young and have many children. God might want another person to marry young and have no children. And God might want another person to marry older and have fewer children. And another person’s God-ordained life path might be to never marry at all. Each path is the ideal for that person. Acting like there is a single one-size-fits-all drives people away and denies the marvelous glory of God’s creation.

The third thing that’s wrong with this approach is that it’s directly contrary to how Jesus conducted His preaching and teaching during His mortal ministry. Jesus didn’t tell everyone to gather around while he preached a sermon about how the Pharisees, the religious elite, were so great and pleasing to God and how everyone should just go be like the Pharisees. He did the exact opposite. He called out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees – they were obsessed with conformity and details but missed the point of the gospel.

Jesus instead spent His time being friends with those on the margins – the women, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the children, the mentally ill. He left the ninety and nine in search of the one. He preached love and redemption to them and welcomed them into His kingdom. He said that they would have an honored place in his kingdom – that though they were the last on earth, they would be the first in heaven. He gave them all the same invitation: “Come, follow me.” And they did.

We are not members of the church of the 1950s-style middle-class American nuclear family.  We are members of the church of Jesus Christ. We should behave and teach accordingly.

How should this look in practice?

The first thing is to center all lessons and talks on the principles taught by Jesus Christ. Jesus is relevant to everyone. And resist the impulse to turn a talk or lesson about “faith” into “how do we help our children develop faith?” or one on “prayer” into “how do we pray for our husbands?”. By covering faith or prayer, those who need to teach it to or pray for others can certainly apply those principles to their lives, but people in other life circumstances can apply it to theirs as well.

The second thing is to remember the command of Jesus to judge not. By asserting that certain marital statuses, careers, numbers of children, places one has served a mission, etc. are ideal or superior to others, we are implicitly judging those who are different as less-than. Only God knows the hearts of the people, and only God knows whether that person is following the path divinely laid out. And even if it turns out that unrighteousness is the reason for someone’s circumstances, the way to help is to love and serve, not to judge and condemn. We should love people back to God, not shame them back to God. God wants a broken heart and a contrite spirit as gifts, but he doesn’t want us to be the ones doing the breaking for others.

The third thing is to embrace the diversity of experiences and circumstances in our wards and stakes. We’re not all cookie-cutter, and everyone has something to bring to the table. Take some time to have a real, honest conversation with someone who is different from you. If you married young, talk to a single sister in her 40s. You’ll find out that being single at 40 is nothing like being single at 20, and you’ll learn something. If you’re from Utah, talk to someone from another part of the country. And if you’re not from Utah, talk with someone who is, and discover that not all Mormons from Utah are “Utah Mormons”.

If we do these things, we’ll be more united as a people and we’ll be closer to building up Zion. Our churches will be places of healing and not places where hurting people go to get hurt even further. Jesus is the only ideal. The rest of us need to get off of our Rameumptom and get back to the business of loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Guest Post: A Boat Story

[image error]

By Laurel

I find that I am in the middle of the ocean without a boat and I am exhausted from swimming for days, not to mention in dire need of food and drink. Suddenly, a small old boat, dinged, weathered and worn, pulls up next to me. An old man leans over and says, “Would you like a ride to shore? I have nourishing food, I have some crackers, the freshest and most delicious fruit you could ever taste, and some fresh water.” I am famished and I readily agree to drag my weary body into his boat. He seems a kindly old man, after all.

He gives me crackers and water and I eat them hungrily. The gnawing in my stomach begins to subside and after a rest I begin to feel somewhat restored. I reach down to put another cracker in my mouth and notice that it is quite stale and has a bit of mold on the corner. “I think these crackers may have gone bad,” I say. “Oh, no” the fisherman says, “Those are the freshest and best crackers in all the world. You’ve had a tough time and aren’t thinking straight. Trust me, those are good crackers.” Since I have been beaten by the elements for days, I figure he probably has a point. I must be seeing things.

I continue to eat the crackers and drink the water. Then I notice the water is very bitter and tastes like it is probably not fit for human consumption. “I think this water has turned. It tastes like it might make us sick,” I say. “Like I said,” the fisherman benevolently explains, “you’ve had a hard go of it. You might even have some permanent brain damage after what you’ve been through. Just trust me. I’ve been doing this for years. No need to be afraid, just eat the food, drink the water and you will be just fine. Out there, that’s what will kill you.” I suppose he’s right. After all, what do I know about sea travel?

We travel for days and I start to see little critters moving around on the floor of the boat. “Look! There are moles crawling around on the floor! They’re probably getting into the food and water!” “No moles,” the old man says emphatically. “There are no moles in this boat. Do not trust your eyes; they are not to be trusted.” I start to wonder about this old man. I am clearly seeing moles. One brushes against my leg. Soon, the bottom of the boat is swarming with moles. “There are some moles here,” the old man finally concedes. “Never you mind the moles, though. They won’t harm you.” I start whacking the moles, trying to get them off of me. I can’t sleep at night. “That’s silly to whack the moles,” the old man says. “I told you the moles won’t hurt you or bother you. Mind over matter. Forget the moles.”

But the moles make me extremely uncomfortable and since there clearly are moles that even the old man can now see, I start to wonder about the safety of the food and water I’ve been ingesting. I look down at my arms. There are rashes and spots appearing. I taste blood in my mouth and feel my gums swelling, I am tired and achy. “I think I have scurvy,” I say. “I need some fruit. You said you have the most delicious fruit. May I have some?” “Sure I do. Best fruit in the world, nothing better than this fruit.” He hands me a piece of fruit that is half eaten by the moles and rotting. I can smell the stench and my stomach churns. It is now pretty clear that the old man may have seriously clouded judgement from eating rotten food and water all of these years and I’m not sure if it’s in the best interest of my health to continue this journey with him. I look out over the water. Suddenly I see other boats—some beautiful, some old—but there are many other boats with kindly looking passengers and captains that look quite healthy.

“You know,” I say, “I’m really, really grateful for the ride you’ve provided me and the food you’ve given me. You’ve kept me alive and have provided such a kindness. But I think I need to go now. My body is telling me that I need some fresh food and water and I think you could probably use some too.” “Oh, wait!” the old man exclaims. “Before you go, look what I found!” He pulls a fresh unopened box of crackers, an apple and a sealed jug of water out from below the seat that he’s been sitting on the whole time. “Here is some new food. Forget about that other food I gave you before. This is the best and only safe food on the ocean.”

“No, thank you!” I say as I stand and prepare to disembark. “But enjoy your trip and safe travels! Oh, it also looks like one of those moles has gnawed a hole in the bottom of your boat. You might want to patch it!” I dive into the clear water. “I don’t patch holes! And you’re going to be eaten by sharks or drown and it’s all your fault! You should have been grateful for what you had!” the old man yells back as I swim away with strong strokes towards the boat next door with a really delicious looking fresh fruit tray on deck.

“Hello!” I yell to the captain of the boat next door. “Do you have rotten food and moles on board?” “Oh, no, we throw rotten food overboard! We’ve got some fresh, some stale (after all we’ve been out here for a while) but it’s all edible!” The captain calls back, “As for the moles, we’ve got a few, but we deal with them as they pop up. So you’re welcome to join us if you’ll have us. And if we don’t have what you need there are lots of other boats nearby!” “Sounds good to me!” I say, as I grab her arm and she pulls me on board.

 

Laurel is a convert since age 9, served a mission, has served in many callings and loves seeking truth from wherever she can find it in this beautiful world. She is a wife, mother of two teens and hopes to someday use her degree in counseling. She loves learning about psychology and spirituality, and taking long walks in the redwoods with her daughter, especially in the rain. She is currently still in the boat, responding to what a recent boat talk evoked in her.

Guest Post: One Man’s Experience with the New Temple Endowment

 

[image error]

By Bryan

Much has been written about the January 2nd changes to the temple endowment to make it more equitable for women. I have thoroughly enjoyed the perspectives that have been shared on this important topic by the Exponent II bloggers and guest posters. By sharing my own experience here, I want to be clear that I submit this as just one more perspective to add to the discussion, and by no means as a rebuttal or criticism of anyone else’s experience.

Like many others, I celebrated hearing about the changes to the temple ceremonies. After having served for many years in bishopric, high council, and other leadership callings, I had come to know well the pain felt by many women regarding the blatant inequity existing between women and men in the temple. As I became more aware of these things, my temple attendance dwindled as I felt increasingly less comfortable with the treatment and placement of women in the ceremony, knowing that many women would take those rituals as an indication of their place and value in the eyes of God.

On what I genuinely thought would be my last visit to the temple several months ago, I distinctly remember thinking, “I never want my two young daughters to hear the words that I am hearing right now. NEVER. And if I don’t want them here, then I shouldn’t be here either.” So when I heard that changes had been made, I felt compelled to witness the extent of the changes myself.

Before I discuss my impressions about these positive changes in the endowment for women, I have to first acknowledge with disappointment that there was little-to-no progress to speak of in making people of color more represented in the presentation of the ordinance, and the changes to the Law of Chastity covenant seem to have been carefully and deliberately reworded so that, no matter what changes may happen to marriage laws or public opinion, our LGBTQ community will remain unwelcome in the House of the Lord. So, while I celebrate the positive steps forward for women’s equality in the temple, I want to recognize those in our midst who are still waiting and hoping for change.

The prelude to the new endowment—-which is a statement from the First Presidency that will be temporarily played regarding the changes—-already left me feeling hollow and angry. Somehow the statement manages to explain that changes needed to be made to the endowment without acknowledging that there was ever anything wrong with it, and certainly not apologizing or taking any kind of responsibility for the pain that has been caused by the inequities of the past. It feels as if they’re pinning it all on God, as in “I guess God used to really want women to covenant to hearken to their husbands rather than to God directly, but He has recently informed us that He changed His mind on that point. . . . Don’t kill the messengers!”

They further explain that these changes have come through revelation from God, and due to their sacred nature, not only should we not discuss the specifics of the changes outside the temple, we should not even discuss that there have been changes. I had always been taught that, with the exception of the handful of things that you specifically covenant not to discuss during the endowment ceremony, the rest of what one experiences in the temple can and should be discussed with family, friends, and others who could be relied upon to treat such conversations with the reverence they deserve. So it was puzzling to me why Church leadership would require complete silence on this topic.

If this truly is revelation from God, why can’t we publicly rejoice and give thanks for such a blessing? I suspect that most Church members would agree that the First Vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith was among the most sacred revelations ever given, yet we send missionaries out by the tens of thousands to tell that story to anyone who will listen. The fact that they are demanding silence on the entire topic makes it seem like a subtle acknowledgement that serious mistakes were made with the previous ceremonies, and they’d rather not have those mistakes—or the fact that corrections of such mistakes were necessary—in the public domain (which, by the way, is absurd to even attempt; there are no secrets in the Information Age. All this prohibition will accomplish is keeping the Church’s most ardent defenders silent during the public discussions/debates that are bound to happen.)

Once the actual endowment began, I was again disappointed by the inequity that remains. Right at the start of the old endowment, there was some language about what the men and women in the room had been anointed to become in the eternities. It had always felt to me like the part talking about what is in store for faithful men went on and on with grandiose phrases like “kings and priests unto the Most High God” and “rule and reign in the House of Israel forever.” This had bothered me because, when it came time to talk about what the eternities have in store for faithful women, all that was offered was a short phrase that essentially assigned them as eternal possessions to their husbands. In the new ceremony, I anxiously listened to the men’s part (which, to my ear, had not changed) wondering what new, more substantive language they might have added for women. Were they to be queens and priestesses unto the Most High God? Would they rule and reign in the House of Israel? Would they be granted some other new honors entirely? It felt like a punch in the stomach when I heard the same short, unceremonious phrase as before, with just the small change that “to your husbands” had been swapped with “in the New and Everlasting Covenant.” At best this change doesn’t transform the original meaning much at all, and at worst it suggests a destiny for women of eternal polygamy.

Of course, not all of what I saw and heard was negative. My heart sang when I heard Eve covenant to hearken to God rather than to her husband, using the exact words that Adam uses to make the same covenant. I also noticed that the pronouns throughout the ceremony had finally been changed to include Eve. For instance, rather than “I am looking for messengers from my Father,” Adam now says, “We are looking for messengers from our Father.” And the super-offensive practice of male characters referring to visiting “the man Adam in the Telestial world”—as if there is no other person present there—has now been changed to include Eve.

I also really loved hearing Eve’s new monologue from the Pearl of Great Price at the end of the slideshow portion of the ceremony. It was beautiful and inspiring, but it just left me wanting to hear more of her voice in the earlier parts of the story. In the entire hour-plus of dialogue included in the endowment, I counted 13 lines of dialogue spoken by the only woman in the story (which is generous; two of those “lines” consisted of “Who are you?” and “Is there no other way?”).

I’ve heard it said that Eve now speaks more than Satan (I guess that’s a win?), but that is most likely due to how many scenes there are where Satan is not present at all. When he is there, he is talking. The same is not true for Eve.

What remains most striking to me about Eve’s part in the presentation of the endowment is how often she is actually present and where the matters at hand clearly involve and affect her, but she is silent. I understand that Church leaders are trying to keep as much of the dialogue as they can to what can be found in scripture, but there is still a lot of non-scriptural dialogue that could easily be given to her. Why couldn’t she be the one to tell Satan, “We are looking for messengers from our Father” or the one to ask Peter, James, and John to prove they are true messengers? There is so much more that could be done to include her and recognize her value as a person—separate from her husband—in this story. Sadly, those opportunities, if considered at all, were dismissed.

The last time I went to the temple, I said that I never wanted my daughters to hear the things I was hearing. Despite the significant improvements that have been made, unfortunately my opinion on that point remains unchanged. I don’t want my daughters to be subtly taught the message that, when it comes to matters of their own spirituality and salvation, they need to always take a back seat to the men around them. Until that message is rooted out of the ceremony entirely, the temple will not be inspired enough to earn their participation. And if I don’t want them there, then I shouldn’t be there either.

 

[Photo by Adam Segal-Isaacson https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...]

#hearLDSwomen: Male Converts Were Valued More Than Female Converts on My Mission

[image error]When I was on my mission, a bishopric member in the ward we served in told us, “Now, sisters, it’s great that you’re teaching women and children, but can you please focus on finding some future priesthood leaders?”

I’ve heard this is a common experience of other returned sister missionaries.

– Morgan

 

My mission newsletter included an honorable mention each month of which companionship had baptized the most “future priesthood leaders.” I just found an old mission newsletter. The section was called “Future Leaders ” and mentioned every companionship who had baptized three or more men the previous month. This was in Southern Chile in the late 90’s. I could go on for days about the misogyny I dealt with on my mission, although a large part of that was the culture of the area, not necessarily the Church.

– Anonymous

 

I was counseled repeatedly by different district leaders on how to run my area, and they often tried to tell me they knew my investigators better than I did (investigators they’d never met). They questioned the personal revelation I had received for my area/investigators and offered suggestions for how to “improve” my revelation for my area. We weren’t getting the answer they thought was the right one, so they questioned our abilities to receive revelation.

– Chloe M.

 

I was told on my mission that I didn’t have a ‘baptism count’ since I hadn’t actually baptized anyone in the water personally. The 49 people I converted didn’t count because I didn’t have the priesthood.

Amy H.

 

Pro Tip: Recognize that each soul is of great worth in the sight of God, regardless of gender. Do not place men’s value above women’s.

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)