Exponent II's Blog, page 244

Guest Post: Your Place in the Parable — The Prodigal Son

[image error]

Wayward.

There was that word again in a Relief Society lesson.

The word that describes me.

Mentions of wayward children always make me uncomfortable. From my perspective, the discussions seem to devolve into mothers comforting each other with reassurances that they did nothing wrong, were good parents, and taught their children well. It was their children’s agency that caused the waywardness. Not them. They are the Father in the story; simply waiting for their wayward child to come home, arms outstretched.

I always find myself raising my hand in these lessons, prefacing my remarks by telling everyone that I’m the wayward in my family. I’m sure I come off as ornery sometimes, but I’m okay with that. If I’m the black sheep at home, I might as well extend that to church, you know?

“But what if all you good parents aren’t the Father?” I ask. “Both the Older Brother and the Father keep to the farm or whatever. Staying faithful and waiting for a prodigal, like myself, doesn’t mean you’re the dad.

“There are two faithful people in the story. I get tired of all you parents assuming you’re the perfect Father and not the self-righteous Older Brother. Which one are you, really? Be honest.”

Like I said, I can get ornery at church.

So, here’s a prodigal’s take on how faithful followers can determine whether they’re the Father or the Older Brother. After all, Nephi tells his readers to “liken [the scriptures] unto yourselves, that ye may have hope as well as your brethren from whom ye have been broken off” (1 Nephi 19:24).

First, let me say that these Relief Society sisters genuinely want their prodigals to return home. I believe their sincerity. But there’s a difference between the Father and Older Brother’s reception of the Prodigal, despite what I assume is a shared hope for the Prodigal’s return.

The Father welcomed the Prodigal Son.

The Older Brother got mad.

The scriptures state, “But when [the Prodigal] was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Luke 15:20). Not only did the Father not wait for his son to enter the house, he did not wait to discover whether the Prodigal had repented. The Father wanted his son regardless of his condition and embraced him accordingly.

The Older Brother “was angry, and would not go in…” (Luke 15:28). When talking to the Father, the Older Brother contrasted his own righteous living to the Prodigal’s riotous living, stating that the Father had never even given him a goat, much less a fatted calf. If anyone should have gotten the cow, it should have been him, right? He stayed. He was faithful. He deserved more and could clearly outline why.

What I find interesting about this exchange is that the Father goes out to meet the Older Brother, just like he went out to meet the Prodigal. Father types want to be in relationship with their children. They extend themselves outward, and in many cases, condescend in order to do so.

Older brothers do not do the same; they cannot meet prodigals where they are, either on the road or at the feast. I assume the Older Brother prayed for the Prodigal’s return, since that is righteous desire and he was an obedient son. But perhaps older brother types only want the results (the return) and not the consequences of it (the party, the fatted calf, the Father’s expressions of joy).

Even if the Older Brother let go of his anger and attended the feast, would he really be able to receive the Prodigal like the Father did? Perhaps he’d just be “getting over” his jealousy because it’s the “right thing to do.” But a particular performance does not always equal a change of heart.

When I ponder this story, I wonder if the Prodigal Son’s return showed the Older Brother the prodigal parts of himself which had not yet been transformed, despite his obedience. I can relate to this. The sins or actions of others often reveal my own weaknesses. When others receive mercy, it can trigger a compulsion to claim the same blessings for myself; I then begin to list my good works in order to justify my demands. While uncomfortable, these experiences are gifts because they reflect myself back to me, and I see through the glass a little less darkly.

Maybe this is what made the Older Brother so angry. He could no longer find confidence, comfort, and certainty in his works. When the Prodigal returned, the Older Brother essentially lost his position as “the faithful son” because there was no longer a “prodigal son” to compare himself to. Now who was he, exactly? How was he supposed to feel good about himself when his identity was being stripped away?

The Prodigal returning, the Father slaughtering the fatted calf—all of that meant a loss of security. Yet, it was a security he never really had because it was a false, worldly security based on comparison. The Older Brother suddenly became vulnerable. Or, rather, he was awakened to his inherent vulnerability and reliance on his Father’s grace.

I’ve found that when grace and mercy are extended, power dynamics, roles, and systems crumble. It’s honestly terrifying. In following Jesus I lose everything. I lose a sense of control. I lose a sense of knowing. I lose the sense of security I get from playing a certain role within a family, a marriage, a church congregation. I. Lose. Everything.

Grace is still there, though. Sometimes I don’t know how it will manifest, but it always does.

Here’s the thing about grace: it has nothing to do with what I get or even why I get it. Grace is about my ability to receive what is. Was the Older Brother able to receive the Prodigal in his fullness? Am I able to receive the transformation of myself and others? Am I the Father or the Older Brother?

The parable ends on a cliffhanger. Sure, we’d like to believe that the Older Brother attended the feast, that he trusted his father’s words and repented. But Jesus never tells us. He leaves the parable open; perhaps for us to find ourselves within it.

Paula Baker serves higher education populations with degrees in sociology, criminal justice, and liberal studies. She resides in Mesa, Arizona, but mostly lives in her head.

Violence Against Women: A Historical Overview

“Quick! Grab her!” The woman was pulled from the river, battered and bruised from the treacherous rapids. Nearly drowned, she gasped for breath. But before she could get more help the rescuers were back in the water, pulling another victim out. Woman after woman were floating by. “What can we do?!” someone shouted. “There are too many of them!” Finally, someone runs upstream to determine where all these bodies are coming from.

The past year has seen an increase in conversations on sexual and domestic violence. Many people have spoken up for the first time about the abuse they have lived through. It has others questioning “gray areas,” wondering what constitutes rape and what was simply a bad sexual encounter. It has highlighted intersectionality and brought attention to the margins, where instances of violence are more likely to occur. It has again brought to forefront the underlying ideas and values which contribute to statistics showing that every nine seconds a woman in the US is assaulted or beaten, and worldwide the fact that one in three women will be abused or coerced into sex in their lifetime.

Jane Doe Inc. (JDI), a sexual and domestic violence coalition, seeks to understand violence and work toward prevention through a gender analysis of violence. They purport that “the primary cause of sexual and domestic violence is the deeply embedded social norm that values power over another rather than equality and human rights.” JDI points to the history of women being viewed as property and having strict gender roles as crucial to understanding assault.

Violence against women is not a new phenomenon. Starting in the first book of the Bible, we have stories of the mistreatment of women. Exponent blogger, EM, illustrates assault with the story of Abram, Sarai and Hagar from Genesis 16 and 21. “Hagar is already a victim because she is enslaved. Then, as so many enslaved women have been across the centuries, she is sexually assaulted. It is useless to claim that perhaps she enjoyed it, or wanted it, or liked Abram. Firstly, the scriptures indicate no such thing, and more importantly, she did not have the freedom to say no. Consent is meaningless if a person cannot freely refuse sexual advances.”

Throughout the Bible, rape is seen as a crime against a family’s property. Individual rights and personhood are not considered. Commenting on the rape laws found in Deuteronomy 22, Cheryl Anderson says, “Clearly, these laws do not take into account the female’s perspective. After a rape, [the victim] would undoubtedly see herself as the injured party and would probably find marriage to her rapist to be distasteful, to say the least. Arguably, there are cultural and historical reasons why such a law made sense at the time. Just the same, the law communicates the message that faith tradition does not (and should not) consider the possibility that women might have different yet valid perspectives.”

The Bible is generally not a source that promotes gender equality. Instead, it upholds cultural norms that view women as second-class. This is not to say that the Bible holds no truth or value, but to point out that it, as with other historical documents, will be steeped in the values of its time. This should not be used as reason to perpetuate inequality in the present. Just because women were rarely included in the past, does not mean we should continue to silence women today.

Women, children, people of color, immigrants, and others throughout history have struggled to be heard. It is not just that the violence was perpetuated against these groups, but when they raise their voices, who will believe them? To whom do they report? They are revictimized by systems and structures that place the blame on them and offer no recourse.

Shakespeare pointed out this problem in his play, Measure for Measure. In this work on mercy and compassion, Angelo sentences Claudio to death for immorality. Angelo sees himself as virtuous, but when Claudio’s sister, Isabel, comes to plead for her brother’s life, Angelo finds himself lusting after her. He proposes that he will spare Claudio’s life if Isabel yields her virginity to him. She refuses and threatens to reveal his evil designs.

He says:

Who will believe thee, Isabel?

My unsoil’d name, the austereness of my life,

My vouch against you, and my place i’ the state,

Will so your accusation overweigh,

And her reply:

To whom should I complain? Did I tell this,

Who would believe me?

What I find so interesting is how Shakespeare highlights Angelo’s use of authority as a way to try and force his way into Isabel’s life. I remember my first conversation on rape when I was about 13 or 14 years old. My bishop’s wife had survived an attempted rape outside her office one night. It was the “typical” story: a stranger jumping out of the bushes in the dark. Because of her experience we had a YW/RS activity on self-defense. What was not discussed was the fact that “typical” rapes are more often committed by someone the victim knows, trusts, or who is in a position of power and authority. Also absent from the conversation was that rape can happen in marriage.

It wasn’t until the mid-1970s that men were first prosecuted for marital rape in the US. By 1993 all 50 states had removed some of the marital exemptions from rape laws. However, a 2003 study showed 26 states still had some form of marital immunity, such as the Tennessee law stating marital rape occurred only if a weapon was used or serious bodily injury resulted. In 2015, Utah lawmakers were discussing whether rape occurred if the victim was unconscious. The Salt Lake Tribune quoted Holly Mullen of the Rape Recovery Center saying, “Instead of dicing and parsing and saying, ‘Well, what about a wife if she’s asleep?’ just look at what is happening and the prevalence of sexual assault in our world. It’s a tool of power. That might be why they’re parsing. They don’t want to look at what is really going on around them.”

Naming a problem and raising awareness of the issue is often the first step toward change. This is the power of consciousness-raising-groups, which feminists started in the late 1960s. Women came together to share their personal stories, discussing topics long considered taboo. The personal became political as women found support and courage to face their oppression and push for change.

As a result of feminist activism, domestic violence emerged from the shadows and resources for battered women started to appear. The first rape crisis center in the US opens in 1971 followed by the first battered women’s shelter in 1973. By 1978 there were over 300 shelters, hotlines, and groups advocating for abused women.

One of my favorite activists, Rebecca Solnit, writes beautifully on the ties between violence and silence.

Violence against women is often against our voices and our stories. It is a refusal of our voices, and of what a voice means: the right to self-determination, to participation, to consent or dissent; to live and participate, to interpret and narrate.

A husband hits his wife to silence her. A date rapist or acquaintance rapist refuses to let the “no” of his victim mean what it should, that she alone has jurisdiction over her body. Rape culture asserts that women’s testimony is worthless, untrustworthy… These are assertions that the victim has no rights, no value – is not an equal.

Having a voice is crucial. It’s not all there is to human rights, but it’s central to them, and so you can consider the history of women’s rights and lack of rights as a history of silence and breaking silence.

Last year, Time Magazine named “The Silence Breakers” the 2017 Person of the Year, referring to the millions of women who came forward about sexual assault and harassment in the #MeToo campaign. There was something powerful in the collective voice that rose against the abuse and shame that kept women fearful for so long.

Yet at the same time, I have felt more overwhelmed than ever thinking about the scope of violence against women and how far we still have to go. It has been especially disheartening to see the Church’s lack of response to the #MeToo movement and reaction to specific cases such as McKenna Denson or Sam Young’s petition to end one-on-one interviews.

As I reflect on the weight of this global problem and work through my own experiences of assault, I find hope. This comes to me through simple means, like having space to raise my voice, and kind friends who listen and help me process my anger. Little things matter. Speaking up matters. Maybe we don’t make a difference in the Church. Maybe things continue to change laboriously slow in society. But an important part of personal growth is the empowerment that comes from speaking up. Our voices, and creating space for others to speak, can make a difference for our families, our friends and ourselves.

 

This is the first in a three-part series. Part two will review the MeToo movement in the Mormon community and part three will offer suggestions for action.

Selected Bibliography

Anderson, Cheryl. Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies: The Need for Inclusive Biblical Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Domestic Violence Timeline

Jane Doe Inc. The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence

Lapidos, Juliet. In Utah, Wondering What Rape Really is.

Morris, Bonnie and DM Withers, The Feminist Revolution: The Struggle for Women’s Liberation. Smithsonian Books, 2018.

Solnit, Rebecca. Silence and powerlessness go hand in hand – women’s voices must be heard.

On different types of blindness

I was only five months old when I got my first pair of glasses, and the doctor got it wrong. Because I could follow the pattern of the lights along the rooftop of Trolley Square in Salt Lake City, he thought I must be farsighted. Of course, this was before the nifty machines that can measure your eye and spit out an approximate prescription, so on went the glasses–and I hated them. All of my baby pictures have these enormous blue glasses tied onto my bald head with shoelaces. I’d tear them off whenever I could. As it turns out, I’m shockingly nearsighted–I could see the lights because they were lit up and formed a pattern, not because they were far away.

I remember the first time I got the right prescription. I was three. As the doctor was explaining to my mom that I would have a hard time learning to read because I had a dominant right eye and a dominant left hand (she bit her tongue; I’d already been reading for a year) I looked around the room and could actually see clearly. It was Catharina von Schlegel’s promise from the hymn: “All now mysterious shall be bright at last.”

We left the office and ventured into the sun, and I stood gaping. The tree just outside the door of the medical building had leaves. Individual ones. They grew that way. I had assumed that they formed like water droplets as they fell from the nebulous foliage, but now I could see each leaf quivering in the breeze, fully formed, already completely itself.

It has been a long time since I got the right glasses, but I have never forgotten the clarity of that moment. The reality of leaves had existed without my perceiving it, had always been so, and it was my perception changing that allowed me to see them.

On a family trip one year, my younger sisters decided to play a joke on me: one of them, skinny and constantly in motion, put on a pair of jeans backward. They waited to see how long it would take me to notice. I never did, and they laughed harder and harder before finally letting me in on the secret.

I wonder, often, what other realities my blindness and lack of focus keep me from seeing.

 

Latina Feminist Theology with Theresa A. Yugar

[image error]

Dr. Theresa A. Yugar

In this episode of the Religious Feminism interview series, Dr. Theresa Yugar, a professor at  California State University specializing in Gender in Colonial Latin American History and Ecofeminism in Latin America, teaches us about Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, the first known feminist on the American continent, and modern Latina feminist movements. You can find episode notes for the Religious Feminism Podcast here at the Exponent website: http://www.the-exponent.com/tag/religious-feminism-podcast/

Links to Connect and Learn More:

Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: Feminist Reconstruction of Biography and Text by Theresa A. Yugar 

Theresa on Facebook

Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: Feminist Reconstruction of Biography and Text on Facebook

Theresa Yugar on LinkedIn

Theresa’s website

Additional Resources Discussed in the Podcast:

Women’s Ordination Conference

Roman Catholic Women Priests

The Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual

Mujeres de Maiz

Listen and subscribe for free below:

How to Call Ourselves

[image error]“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:35

My favorite judge retired a few months ago. He was always kind to everyone, and he treated everyone with respect. When he first arrived, before I had ever met him, everyone always said, “The new judge, Judge So-and-so, is just so…nice.” And it was true. It wasn’t an act. He was fair-minded, but also warm-hearted. He oozed love. He never lorded his authority over claimants or attorneys, and he had empathy toward my clients. I represent people who suffer from severe illnesses, and he always made sure that they felt heard. When I ran into him in the cafeteria, I observed that he treated the cafeteria staff with the same respect as he treated everyone else. When someone asked me what this judge was like, all I could think of was “That man is a Christian.”

He never said a single word about religion; it would have been inappropriate for him to do so in the courtroom. But I knew. Shortly after he retired, I was talking with another lawyer about how when I grow up to be a judge, I want to be like Judge So-and-so. The other lawyer told me that Judge So-and-so’s robe that he wears in court is his church choir robe. This was a charming story that fits so well with his personality, and it confirmed my previous assessment of him. He is a Christian. And I knew it because of the love he showed for his fellow humans.

Which leads me to the point of this post. I’m a bit late to the party, but there have been many pixels spilled about how President Nelson doesn’t want us to call ourselves “Mormon” anymore because it doesn’t do enough to emphasize the name of Jesus Christ, and we need to tell the world that we’re Christians. We’ll probably hear at least two or three talks on the subject at the upcoming General Conference.

One of the first rules of persuasion is “show, don’t tell”. So, if we really want the world to know that we’re Christian, instead of harping on what people call us, we should focus on behaving like followers of Jesus should behave. We should be known for being loving. If we have a choice between being inclusive and being exclusive, we should be inclusive. If we have a choice between giving someone the benefit of the doubt or being judgmental, we should give someone the benefit of the doubt. We should, as the saints covenanted to do so at the waters of Mormon, “bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; … mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort.” Mosiah 18:8-9.

That is how people will know that we follow Jesus Christ. No matter what people call us.

Ten Years

[image error]This summer marked my ten year anniversary as an Exponent blogger. As with any anniversary it feels remarkable both that it’s been that long and that it also feels like it was yesterday. When I started blogging I had one child and was pregnant with my second, at the time I was a director of a domestic violence program in Arizona and I was in throes of my feminist passion. Since then I moved to a different state, was a stay-at-home mom for 5 years, survived a major depressive episode, added two more children to my brood, finished a Master’s degree and went back to work. And through it all the Exponent blog has been there. This community has been one of the most meaningful and supportive of my life and I feel blessed every day to be a part of it.

As I’ve been reflecting on this anniversary it struck me how much I’ve changed during this decade. This is, of course, to be expected but there’s one change in particular that has surprised me–my activist zeal for change in the Mormon church has almost completely disappeared. In 2010, I was one of the co-founders of LDSWAVE along with some of my fellow Exponent bloggers and other MoFems. And while the organization is mostly defunct now it was at the forefront of the Mormon feminist activism wave that began eight years ago, culminating with Ordain Women. I remember attending a retreat and talking excitedly about the possibility for change in the church when an older feminist who had been through the fights of the 90’s remarked on my fervor and said that experience had taken hers away. Besides feeling a little patronized I also felt pity for this woman who couldn’t see that things were changing and that all the church needed was a good push. But my activism came to halt with the excommunication of Kate Kelly and then the November 2015 Exclusion Policy stomped on any remaining hopeful embers that things could be different. It turns out that the wise matriarch was right and I was wrong.

My activism has turned outside of the church and I now work towards making my state, and society more broadly, a more equitable and just place. I still go to church every week and find quiet joy in belonging to the little community of Saints in my downtown ward. But my expectations for change in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is low–and maybe it’s healthier that way. I don’t know what the next decade will bring but I look forward to finding out.

When you look back at your life and things you cared passionately about, does anything surprise you about how it turned out? What do you think the next decade will bring for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

 

We Don’t Know Who the Tares Are

[image error]

One of the most commonly misunderstood and misapplied Biblical parables in the modern church is the parable of the wheat and the tares, found in Matthew 13:24-30. People who reference it often do so in such a way that they indicate that they’re certain that they’re the wheat and the people they’re criticizing are surely the tares. I’ve heard it referenced on anything from how to vote to how to treat people who don’t fit in at church to, most ridiculously recently, how or whether non-journalists should follow a journalistic style guide when discussing members of the church.

All of those things miss the point of the parable. The point of the parable is that only God knows which people are wheat and which people are tares. We don’t know, and until the harvest, we can’t know. We are not charged with separating the wheat from the tares, and when we try to do so, we are usurping God’s job and doing it poorly to the detriment of the saints.

In the parable, once it has been discovered that there are tares in the field, the servants ask the master whether they should go and root out the tares. The master says to leave the tares alone because attempting to root them out would damage the wheat. His explicit instruction – “Let both grow together until the harvest.”

The reason for this is twofold. The first is that until it’s time for the harvest, wheat and tares look so similar that it’s not possible to conclusively tell one from the other. The second is that the wheat and the tares are growing closely together and their roots are intertwined such that pulling out tares, even if we’re certain they’re tares, will also pull out wheat.

This has application to the modern church. In our wards and stakes there are people who practice the faith differently from us. We might be so sure that our way is the “right way”, so therefore, anyone who disagrees with us or with our favorite policy must be a tare and must be sent packing to spare the saints. But we’re wrong. We don’t know if they’re tares, and even if they are, the collateral damage to the surrounding wheat would be high, and souls might be lost due to our careless self-righteousness. And God told us to “let both grow together until the harvest.” God will judge, and we might be surprised at the results.

We should also take care not to design policies that push people away.  And if we do find that our policies push people away, we shouldn’t throw up our hands, claim “well, that’s just separating the wheat from the tares” and go on about our business. We should repent of our harm, fix things, and lovingly welcome people to the fold of God.

Jesus also cautioned us against judgmentalism in the Sermon on the Mount. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matthew 7:1-2. If we go around accusing people of being tares for being different, then at the day of judgment, when the tares are truly identified, we may be dismayed to find that we’re among them.

 

Guest Post: Open Letter About the New Relief Society Curriculum

[image error]

Mary Magdalene in Meditation (Madeleine en meditation) by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

by Mamie

I was sexually abused as a child by a neighbor and physically and emotionally abused by my LDS parents. Multiple siblings in my family sustained this same abuse until one sibling died, so I cling to my relationship with the Savior like a survivor on a life raft. The gospel brings me the healing I need to cope, recover, and function. Partaking of the emblems each Sabbath day is a very sacred and empowering time for me, but my mental health suffers as a result of my childhood scars. I struggle with trusting and interacting with people. As a result, I prefer to be left alone in my corner of the chapel each week and I don’t like to be touched, so I am very grateful for the recent Exponent article that gave voice to the struggle with men who insist on making women shake hands each week (temple worship is another article-length topic I’ll save for another day).

For the most part, by staying quiet and standoffish, I’ve managed to send the message that I’m not social and prefer to be left alone during my sacrament meeting and Sunday School worship (note to the rest of the church: not all of us Latter-day Saints need to be “ministered to” to feel close to God!). But in January of 2018, the church made changes to the curriculum that have made it extremely difficult for me to attend Relief Society, the one meeting that used to be my safest space in all of the three-hour block.

Relief Society used to be my favorite meeting because, by the time the third hour rolls around, the crowd has whittled down to its smallest size. As an added bonus, the men have been filtered out and it is just we women, so I used to feel especially safe in our little Relief Society space. I used to relish the chance to really focus on that third-hour lesson, whereas first and second hour my focus was more on finding a spot to sit in that wasn’t too crowded and where I felt most at ease, trying to carve out my own worship space where nobody would bother me. (Why is it that Mormons feel so entitled to bother others during our worship services? When did we begin to equate spirituality with socializing? Why am I not allowed to just sit and ponder/meditate during church, especially during prelude music or before and after class so I can prepare to feel the spirit or ponder on what I’ve just learned? Why do people feel the pressing need to intrude on somebody sitting in solitude and interrupt their meditations with jabber? Can we please just set aside the foyers for jabbering and carve out the chapel and our classrooms as sacred spaces for worship and learning?)

In January 2018, when the church curriculum changed to allow for monthly council meetings in Relief Society, my branch decided to have our sisters sit in a circle not just on council weeks, but Every. Single. Week. There is literally no longer a safe space for me even in Relief Society anymore.

I can’t tell you how painful the change from rows to circle-sitting has been for a woman like me, who desperately needs private space for worship, study, and pondering. I willingly acknowledge that everybody has different learning styles and that on the whole, most Latter-day Saints are extroverted, sociable people, so I don’t expect major changes just to accommodate me. But for those of us who are not as sociable—and especially for those of us whose introversion is the result of emotional baggage, disability, or mental illness—this 2018 Relief Society curriculum change is spiritually and emotionally crippling.

I carefully studied the materials relating to the curriculum change as posted at LDS.org, then I went to my Relief Society presidency and politely pointed out that I didn’t see any hard fast rules about sitting in a circle each week. I saw images of sisters sitting in a circle and some mention of it in regards to the council meeting on the first week of the month, but I couldn’t find an actual rule saying that we needed to sit in a circle the remaining weeks of the month. “This is the Lord’s will for the Relief Society,” came the curt answer from the presidency member who responded to me.

I tried keeping my chair outside the circle each week, but the sisters in the room wouldn’t have it. I realize that they were trying to be nice—that they couldn’t stand the thought of somebody being “left out,” so I kept explaining that, “oh no, I’m fine. I much prefer the ‘back row,’ thanks!” But each time I tried to make my own private space outside the circle, the sisters in the room opened up and expanded their circle of chairs to engulf my chair. I had intentionally placed that chair outside the circle for my very private reasons. I was getting louder each week in trying to hold my ground without revealing my very private painful past, but nobody listened and my chair was weekly swallowed up by the larger circle. Whenever this happened, it made me feel panicky and entrapped. If for any reason I needed to leave, I was now locked inside this circle. Leaving would require asking people to move furniture—I couldn’t just quietly slip out anymore. I was literally locked into the room! Sure, I could have just started skipping Relief Society, but that would have put my temple recommend in jeopardy (attending all three hours of church meetings is required to maintain it), which makes me feel equally panicky, unworthy, etc because I’ve worked so hard to obtain and keep that recommend.

Feeling locked inside a council isn’t the only reason that sitting in a circle robbed me of a safe space in Relief Society. I also dread circle-style Relief Society because, when I was young, my abusive (LDS) parents conducted numerous “family councils” which were nothing more than my mother’s manipulative mind-rapes or gaslighting sessions designed to prevent us kids from reporting the physical abuse of my father, who did things like throwing us against the wall or hit us hard enough to make us bleed. Circle-style sitting, to me, is a painful throwback to those days, which I’d rather not revisit it in what used to be a safe space for learning and worshipping with my sisters in Christ.

I shouldn’t have to reveal the painful memories of my past to church leaders in order to feel safe at church again. My branch struggles with gossip, so my troubled childhood stories would spread. (I once confided something in confidence to my branch president, and a few days later his clerk very casually referenced it to me in front of several members as if it were no big deal. I also worked with the wife of a branch presidency member who told me she knew about something I had told her husband in confidence during a private interview. I had to go back to both these brethren—sweet, loving men, but recent converts who don’t quite “get” the whole confidentiality thing—and explain to then that EVERYTHING I say about personal matters needs to stay strictly confidential. They are still learning, bless their hearts.)

And so I am penning this piece to my sisters at The Exponent blog because I know that my confidentiality is 100% safe here. I know I can start a churchwide conversation here, too. Sisters, I honor and respect those of you who are social and chatty, and I am willing to concede that on the first of the month you need to sit in a circle for council meetings. Would you, in exchange, be willing to make similar concessions by allowing sisters like me to either sit outside the circle, or create a faux second row? Or can we skip the circle altogether on the weeks that we aren’t holding council meetings?

Love, your sister in Christ,

Mamie

Dear Sister Sassy: Sacrament Questions

[image error]Dear Sister Sassy,

I know that keeping children quiet during the sacrament is important for everyone to find the ordinance meaningful, but I find it to be very tricky.  I also wonder at what age I should let my kids start taking the sacrament. I’m thinking around 18 months when they have a good handle on eating solids?

Anxious to do the right thing

Dear Anxious,

I will answer your second question first because it raised alarm bells.  Your 18 month old has made no covenants and so should be forbidden to take the sacrament.  This is not a personal choice you make as a family based on how you want to teach about the sacrament, this is a dictum that applies to everyone because my seminary teacher once said so!  The best way to teach a child the importance and sacredness of the sacrament is by making sure he or she never participates and instead is ostentatiously excluded. If your child takes a piece of bread or a cup, swat it right out of their hand.  Better a disrupting scene than a child profanely eating wonderbread. This of course also goes for a fetus or even a blastocyst.  Women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant would be wise to forgo the sacrament so they don’t accidentally expose their child to a reminder of a covenant they haven’t made.  You can’t be too orthodox!

As for how to keep your child reverent during the sacrament, I have found that laminating a few generic pieces of church art and placing them on a key ring is more than sufficient. My three-year-old remains enthralled by the same four pictures week after week for the full hour and ten minutes of Sacrament Meeting.  He sits with his ankles neatly crossed in his starched suit and tie staring rapturously at scripture illustrations.  Of course my one-year-old is a little more fussy so he is allowed to clutch a single cloth figure of Moses while gazing at his laminated pictures.  Hope this helps!

 

Dear Sister Sassy,

Recently a member in my ward voiced a specific political opinion in testimony meeting, and a member of the Bishopric gently reminded everyone that we try to keep politics out of our ward and focus instead on the Gospel that we share.  How can I reconcile my desperate need for expressing my enthusiasm for my chosen candidate with this offensive gag order?!

Freedom of Speech Destroyed in American Fork

 

Dear Fork,

There are many, many ways of indicating to your ward that your testimony of leader X is strong, without actually violating your Bishop’s insane request.  You should start with your car.  If it isn’t liberally bedecked with bumper stickers decrying the other party and belittling their supporters you are missing a real missionary opportunity. I assume you are a loyal campaign sticker decorator? It’s a great way to show your political pedigree goes back as long as your ownership of your vehicle.

Another great way to sneak in a political remark is through prayer.  No one can object to you praying for our leaders and you can get as specific as you want to.  Name that candidate and pray for victory! Ask that the leader you hate be blessed to see the error of his ways! You can even add a passive-aggressive addendum to the prayers of others who forgot to mention our leaders!

Honestly, I’m guessing your ward knows where you stand.  If that is the case (if not, see above ideas), then your course is clear.  Make vague  references to current events and then assert “of course we’re all on the same page here, the Gospel clearly indicates the right course is…”.  Hopefully anyone who disagrees with you will feel so alienated and lonely they won’t voice their opinion because they’ll be convinced they are, in fact, alone.  And that way they’ll know to repent!  Like all moral questions, choosing between options in a democracy is easy and straightforward! Just choose the right! Like me!

 

Feel free to ask any further questions of Sister Sassy in the comments, she’ll be happy to help you find the right way to live and be happy.

 

 

How to Have Difficult Conversations, Part III: Talking to Someone Who Is Safe

[image error]

This is the final installment of a three-part series about how to navigate difficult conversations. Part I discussed how to identify whether someone is safe before determining if, or how, to have a difficult conversation with them. Part II detailed how to engage in a complex talk with someone who is unsafe. Part III below illustrates how to have an effective hard talk with someone you trust enough to be vulnerable with.

How do I know if someone is safe? Safe people . . .

are trustworthy. They allow trust to be established over time and admit when they make mistakes.
are honest. They own up to their moments of dishonesty and work to align their words and actions.
are willing to grow. They are open to feedback and apologize when their behavior negatively affects you and work to change it.
face their issues. They recognize that their weaknesses impact others and work to grow emotionally over time.
actively listen and share their concerns. They actively engage in conversations through attentive listening and speak up about how you impact them, without demanding that you be perfect.
“greenlight” you. They accept who you are while supporting your individual development with compassion.
treat you with dignity and respect. They honor your humanity by sending you positive regard and treat you with kindness.
share power. Safe people allow you to influence them and collaborate in decision-making with you.
demonstrate mutuality. They give your thoughts, emotions, and needs equal importance to their own. Relationships in which mutuality exists are reciprocal in love, trust, and support. In short, the relationship is mutually beneficial.

Create a foundation that strengthens your relationship. Drs. John and Julie Gottman have spent decades conducting quantitative relationship research (especially on marital relationships), writing books, and conducting seminars about how to have successful relationships. They have applied their work to all close relationships and have data that points to the importance of the following dynamics if a relationship is to survive and thrive overtime.

The most important is to develop a strong, mutual friendship that incorporates expressing appreciation regularly for even the smallest of acts that positively impact you. Consistently expressing appreciation is the best and easiest way to fill your relationship’s “emotional bank account.” They have found that for this metaphorical bank account to stay in the black, so to speak, and not to live in a place of deficit or negative balance, each person needs to contribute five “deposits” for every one “withdrawal.” A deposit can be as simple as inquiring about the person’s day to as elaborate as planning a thoughtful activity. It can be as supportive as asking if they would like a hug, to as intimate as saying “I love you.”

The Gottmans urge us to accept each other’s bids to repair our relationship after a conflict. They identified that it generally takes people about an hour to cool off if they have become emotionally and/or physiologically “flooded” by a conflict, so they recommend initiating “time-outs” and taking breaks as often as needed to avoid escalation. They strongly encourage avoiding chronic use of the four most destructive relationship dynamics: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. They call this the “Apocalypse of the Four Horsemen,” since any one of them used repeatedly over time threatens to dissolve a relationship, and in combination the relationship is unlikely to survive. In a word, it is imperative to fight fair. Fighting fair incorporates the antidotes to the “Four Horsemen,” which include

using a gentle start-up (see below)
building a culture of appreciation
taking responsiblity
taking time-outs when flooded (physiologically self-soothing)

Finally, these relationship experts recommend accepting others’ bids to repair the connection after a conflict as soon as possible. In essence, being open to the other person’s attempts to reconnect and “make up” significantly impacts the relationship outcome. After someone reaches out a handful of times, or attempts to repair the relationship fissure, they will stop trying to reconnect. A “repair attempt,” or “bid for connection,” can be simply making eye contact or cracking a joke, or even being the first to take accountability and say “I’m sorry” for your part in the fight. This concept is called “turning toward” the other. Over time if your pattern symbolically and literally looks like moving toward each other versus moving away from each other, your relationship has a much higher likelihood of having longevity and happiness.

How can I prepare for a difficult conversation with someone I trust? In an interview I recently watched featuring Brené Brown, she suggested entering difficult conversations with “curiosity, accountability, and generosity.” Consider how much of your behavior factors into any issue in your relationship. Being humble and avoiding self-righteousness by owning your part of the problem is key to having a constructive conversation. It also sends a message that you are trustworthy and safe and that you are engaging in the dialogue from a position of mutuality. It signals that you are willing to share emotional power in the relationship, face your issues, and commit to growing over time. Being as generous as you can with others’ faults and giving them the grace to be human and imperfect (and giving that same grace to yourself!) contributes to safety when navigating differences. However, as mentioned in the previous posts in this series, if abuse is present or it is unsafe to engage in mutual sharing or generosity, protect yourself and do not make yourself vulnerable to someone who would use information about you or use your generosity to harm you or those you are responsible for.

Other ideas include inviting a trusted friend or family member to role play the conversation with you (see the “Intentional Dialogue Exercise” mentioned below), when appropriate. You could also make notes about what you want to discuss and hold them in your hand (e.g., on a sticky note) or have them nearby during the talk. Even if you don’t refer to them, knowing you could look at them might be a way to feel centered and prepared and even to redirect the conversation if needed.

How do I begin a hard talk?  Approach the other person by respecting their time and engaging them from a stance of mutuality. Invite them into a conversation with questions like

“Can I make a request?”
“Is now a good time to talk?”
“Do you have time to talk?”
“When would be a good time for you to talk?”

A difficult conversation can last a few seconds to several hours. Be flexible and take a break to cool off if the conversation has soured or become too conflictual to be productive (or if it becomes very late at night or is too early in the morning: no one functions at their best when they should be sleeping, need to eat, or need to engage in daily self-care routines). Engage in self-soothing activities (meditate, go for a walk, read or watch something enjoyable, exercise, etc) to de-flood yourself physically and emotionally, and resume the conversation on a mutually-agreed-upon time table.

Use soft, or gentle, start-ups. John Gottman’s findings predicted with 90% accuracy whether a couple in his study would divorce based on their use of “soft start-ups” or “harsh start-ups.” He found that the first three minutes of a couple’s conflict-ridden conversations almost always determine the outcome of the conflict and the fate of the couple’s marriage. Why? Because both tend to end on the same note as they begin. If most of a couple’s conflicts start gently, the marriage is likely to be stable and happy. If they consistently begin conversations harshly, their relationship is almost certainly doomed to fail.

A “harsh start-up” is full of criticism and contempt: “Where were you this afternoon? I can’t believe you didn’t call me like you said you would, AGAIN! This is just another example of how irresponsible you are. Can’t you do anything right?” A soft start-up engages the other from a position of mutuality, giving them the benefit of the doubt while being honest about their impact on you: “I waited for your call for quite a while today. I missed talking to you when you didn’t call when you said you would. This is becoming a pattern. What happened?” Soft start-ups need not be diplomatic. They simply need to be direct complaints instead of contemptuous accusations or criticisms.

Women have a significant amount of influence here because Gottman found that they start difficult discussions 80% of the time. If women use soft start-ups more often than not, these conversations are likely to be productive and their relationships are likely to be happy and long-lasting.

Share power by accepting influence. Men also have influence when it comes to a relationship’s success. According to Gottman’s research of married heterosexual couples,

“[M]en who allow their wives to influence them have happier marriages, and are less likely to divorce than men who resist their wives’ influence. Statistically speaking, when a man is not willing to share power with his partner, there is an 81% chance that his marriage will self-destruct.”

That’s a staggering statistic. Allowing influence is a form of sharing power and it appears few intimate relationships can survive without it. It looks like “accepting, understanding, and allowing your partner’s perspective, feelings, and needs into your decision-making process.”  It’s important to point out that this much-needed skill is not only necessary in heterosexual relationships. On the contrary, Gottman’s reasearch shows that gay and lesbian couples are remarkably more skilled at accepting influence from each other than straight couples. (Read more about outcomes for same-sex couples in John Gottman’s “12 Year Study” here and here.)

Make *valid* complaints, *reasonable* requests, and state positive needs. Be aware when your complaints veer into territory that is not something someone can realistically change. For instance, complaining that someone is too short isn’t fair and borders on abuse (using an extreme example here to make a point). Conversely, making a complaint about how someone’s behavior impacts you, such as how much they are contributing to the emotional or physical labor involved in the relationship, can be valid (e.g., not doing their fair share of household chores). Gottman calls this complaining without blaming.

Similarly, make requests that are manageable given their situation. It’s important to note that John Gottman’s research demonstrated that nearly two-thirds of all marital conflicts are unresolvable. Things like your mother-in-law being overbearing and intrusive will likely always persist. Insisting that your partner do something to change her personality or relationship style is not reasonable or realistic. However, a reasonable request in this kind of extended family relationship looks like expressing how you feel when your mother-in-law violates healthy boundaries and asking that your partner establish and maintain firm boundaries in terms of what she reveals to her mother about you and how much you interact with her mother as a partnership. This is an example of stating a positive need. It takes the form of “here’s how I feel [about a given situation] and here’s what I need.”

Be direct and polite, use “I” statements, allow yourself to be vulnerable, and deal with problems as they arise. For trust to remain intact, it is essential to treat the other with dignity and respect and to be polite throughout difficult conversations. However, you can be firm while being kind. Being passive aggressive or requiring someone to read your mind is not an effective way to get your needs met. Using “please,” “I would appreciate it if . . .,” and “It would mean a lot to me if . . .” can go a long way in the listener being receptive to your requests. Starting sentences with “I” can help the listener avoid defensiveness. Be authentic. Own your feelings and needs. When doing so, be as vulnerable as you can be. Mutual vulnerability deepens intimacy and can mobilize compassion for each other. Finally, address issues as they come up. Avoid letting them build up or you will have less control over how you communicate, which may negatively affect your relationship and ability to work out your differences.

Accept differences and compromise when possible. This statistic from Gottman’s research bears repeating: 69% of relationship conflict is unresolvable. He calls these conflicts “perpetual problems” because they have to do with aspects of a person that are unchangeable like their personality or lifestyle needs. Trying to devise a solution or reach a compromise about a perpetual problem is like trying to squeeze water from a stone. Instead, work to accept the other as they are and to communicate about persistent issues with a healthy dose of humor. When discussing solvable problems (which are situational in nature), negotiate solutions that accommodates each person’s “inflexible needs,” or things that are “musts” versus “wants.” Gottman admits that

“[c]ompromise never feels perfect. Everyone gains something and everyone loses something. The important thing is feeling understood, respected, and honored in your dreams.”

Practice active listening to increase mutual understanding. Incorporate mirroring, validation, and empathy by utilizing Dr. Harville Hendrix’s “Intentional Dialogue Exercise.” Take turns being the “speaker” and “receiver” (listener). This can feel awkward and even contrived at first, but practicing these effective communication tools—or even keeping the dialogue steps on hand in case you reach an impasse in your conversation—can help you both feel heard and understood, with time. The basic steps include

Mirroring (repeating) what the other person said to confirm that you understand what they are saying.
Validating that what they are saying makes sense logically.
Empathizing with how they must feel by stating what you imagine it is like for them emotionally to be in their shoes, so to speak.

These tools are invaluable in conflict-laden conversations. In particular, validating that the other person is not crazy or irrational for thinking or feeling a particular way is vital for them to feel understood and accepted—even, and especially, if you strongly disagree with their perspective. However, validating someone’s perspective that you oppose does not require being dishonest. It requires putting yourself in their shoes and imagining what rational conclusions they may have come to based on their life experiences, beliefs, core values, et cetera. Even periodically saying phrases like, “That makes sense,” or “I can see that” can send the message that you view their perspective and selfhood as valid.

No matter the outcome of a difficult conversation, never abandon yourself. Be true to your thoughts, feelings, needs, wishes, and desires. Verbalizing them can be an important part of validating that you are important and that what’s in your heart and on your mind is valid—even if the other person is unable to do so. Hearing yourself speak your truth from a position of power by claiming your authority as the expert on YOU can be incredibly healing and empowering.

Wendy is a psychoanalyst, licensed clinical social worker, and marriage and family therapist in private practice.

Intentional Dialogue Exercise by Dr. Harville Hendrix

KEY: Use “I” statements: “I feel hurt when you talk down to me.”

Mirror: Listen to your partner without distorting their thoughts and feelings.

SPEAKER: Uses “I” language

RECEIVER: “If I heard you right, you said . . . ”

“Did I get that right?”

“Is there more about that?”

“Did I get it all?”

Validate: “What you said makes sense because . . . ”

“Did I get that right?”

“Is there more about that?”

“Did I get it all?”

Empathize (make an educated guess/conjecture): “I can imagine that you might be feeling . . . ” or “I can see you are feeling . . . “

“Did I get that right?”

“Is there more about that feeling?”

“Did I get it all?”

Make a small, positive [reasonable] request: “Can I make a request?” (Example: “Can you come and hug me? Can you say a kind word to me?”)

Your partner should comply, if possible.

“When you are finished with your intentional dialogue, reverse roles. You are now the receiver of your partner’s feelings and should start with the mirroring exercise. With practice, you and your partner can continue to create [a healthy relationship].”