Exponent II's Blog, page 52

Feminism in Politics: An Interview with Utah Representative Marsha Judkins

In an interview with Utah State Representative Marsha Judkins, Judkins reveals why she became a legislator, what she’s learned, and how identifying as a feminist has affected her experience in politics.

1. Why did you run for a seat in the Utah State Legislature?

I’ve always been interested in policy and politics but I don’t think I ever thought I would run for anything. However, I decided to run for the School Board (in Provo) for a variety of reasons, and while I was on the Board, I realized how much of what we were required to do was dictated by the Legislature and, from my experience, it was not a very sympathetic Legislature to education.

It seemed like education’s voice was mostly condescended to or not believed or not listened to at all so I thought, well, I would like to be in the Legislature and try and change that narrative, try and change that relationship between government and education to be more positive. 

Also, to be honest, I didn’t feel listened to by my own Legislators. I didn’t feel like my area in West Provo was listened to or represented. So that’s why.

2. What have you learned from your six years as a State Legislator?

Wow. I have always believed that the best decisions are made by bringing together a variety of stakeholders and listening to those with different points of view and different experiences, and being in the legislature has reinforced this belief. I have learned that listening is so important. I feel like I can talk about almost any subject, not super in-depth, but I have tried to learn enough so that I can vote on legislation, have a conversation, or ask good questions about most topics. I’m certainly not an expert in everything, but I feel like I’ve become (somewhat) of an expert in some things.

I have also learned that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you can’t like them. When I was elected, I went to the Capitol thinking I wasn’t going to like some legislators because I was so disgruntled with how things were being handled. I saw things in the newspaper about laws that were being passed, and I didn’t think I could possibly like people who would make these decisions. I assumed that I would feel as negative towards these people as I felt towards the things they did and said. But I realized that there are really good things about everybody. I was surprised by how much I liked just about everybody. 

I always knew I liked people . . . but I didn’t think I would like these people necessarily, and I just did.

I learned that I love being in a position to make a difference.

3. Do you identify as a feminist? Why or why not?

I do. I do identify as a feminist. I agree with Melinda Gates’ definition: “Being a feminist means believing that every woman should be able to use her voice and pursue her potential, and that women and men should all work together to take down the barriers and end the biases that still hold women back.” 

Women should be in places where decisions are made. Women have been left out of too many equations for too long. Sometimes I say I’m a radical feminist because I want the people around me to think about it and maybe feel uncomfortable. I want them to wonder: Why is this Republican woman saying she’s a feminist? Why is this Republican woman who was a stay-at-home mom who raised seven kids in a patriarchal, high-demand church saying she’s a feminist? Feminism can be seen as a dirty word, and I’m like, no! I want you to think about it. I want you to see that I’m a really kind, intelligent, critical thinking, accomplished person and I’m a feminist. 

4. Why aren’t you running for a seat in the legislature again?

I work really, really hard at what I do, and then I see something else that looks really hard and important and good and I want to try that. So I’m running for Mayor next year. There are things I can do on a local community level that I can’t do in the Legislature. And I think that’s really important.

I have to also say that running a campaign is really hard and really awful in a lot of ways. And I know I have to campaign to run for Mayor, but I couldn’t see myself campaigning again for this position that has run its course for me.

And being a legislator demands a lot of time and energy with very little compensation. That sounds greedy, but I gave so much of myself to this thing and it was really great and important and good but with such little pay, it’s unsustainable for me. To be compensated for one’s work is important. 

5. If you could pass any bill in Utah, what would it be?

I had twelve bills that didn’t get passed last session and some of them were really important to me so it’s difficult to narrow it down to one thing. Sheesh. How can I put it all into one bill? Hm. This isn’t really a bill, because I got the bill passed, it just didn’t get much funding, but I want to see a lot more funding dedicated to helping people with serious mental illness, including life-long wrap-around services. That would be really important. 

It’s all funding, actually. I would like to see more funding go to victims of domestic violence, I would like to see more funding go to the five thousand families on our waiting list for disability services for their kids, and I would like to see more funding for addiction recovery services and rehabilitation for those in jail. There are hardly any services in jail at all. So it’s often a revolving door and people end up back in jail over and over. So, my dream would be to take care of people–those dealing with serious mental illness, disabilities, intergenerational poverty, homelessness, addictions, foster care, etc.–in a way that has long term results instead of just throwing money at people short term and thinking that is fiscally responsible.

6. What are you most proud of during your six years as a legislator?

I am proud of the relationships that I’ve made. I’m proud of some of the funding that I’ve gotten for some groups and programs like increasing DCF caseworkers’ salaries and services for those with serious mental illness. I’m proud that I was able to shine a light on some of the places that needed a light – like special education and the disabilities waiting list– that are easy to ignore. Most of my legislation was people-centered and for people who really didn’t have a voice. I’m proud that the groups and organizations that work with those people trusted me, they knew that I was a sympathetic place that they could go to because I would listen. I’m proud of that.

7. What are some of the barriers and limitations of government that you’ve seen as a representative for your district?  

One of the biggest barriers, honestly, that limits the good that could happen is apathy. All activism starts with the citizens. Even if someone is elected that wasn’t your first choice, if everybody in the community is reaching out to that person and saying, hey, this is important to us, that would open their Representative’s eyes to what is going on in the community. 

For example, I send a weekly email to six thousand of my constituents, and about 20% get opened, which is great. That’s a lot of people. But that is certainly not my whole district of about 40,000 people. That means that I’m reaching about 1% of my constituents and I work really hard to reach them but there’s not a great way for Legislators to connect with their constituents. I don’t think that people realize that they can reach out to us. I don’t think that people understand the power of a democracy – a government built by the people for the people.

That is what I would like to change: people feel like they don’t have a voice so then they don’t raise their voice. But if enough people decide to be loud, everything would be different.

8. Exponent II focuses on the intersection of Mormonism and feminism. How do you relate to this? 

The intersection between Mormonism and feminism is just an intersection with a lot of car crashes. So, there’s not a lot of people getting through that intersection. Maybe it’s more like a roundabout with no exits. 

9. What would you like to tell the Exponent II community?

Thinking about women and voting and how many women hold office, I often hear that we shouldn’t vote for women just because they’re women, but I think that to make things equal, sometimes we should. It is important for all of us, men and women, boys and girls, to see women in positions of leadership. However, I have to admit there are some women I would never vote for.

Think of who you would like to run for office or to represent you in government, try to think of a woman, or even yourself, and then be part of the change you want to see.

Representative Marsha Judkins serves in the Utah State Legislature.

Interview with Utah Representative Marsha Judkins

Interviewed by Lavender

Representative Marsha Judkins serves in the Utah State Legislature.

Why did you run for a seat in the Utah State Legislature?

I’ve always been interested in policy and politics but I don’t think I ever thought I would run for anything. However, I decided to run for the School Board (in Provo) for a variety of reasons, and while I was on the Board, I realized how much of what we were required to do was dictated by the Legislature and, from my experience, it was not a very sympathetic Legislature to education.

It seemed like education’s voice was mostly condescended to or not believed or not listened to at all so I thought, well, I would like to be in the Legislature and try and change that narrative, try and change that relationship between government and education to be more positive. 

Also, to be honest, I didn’t feel listened to by my own Legislators. I didn’t feel like my area in West Provo was listened to or represented. So that’s why.

What have you learned from your six years as a State Legislator?

Wow. I have always believed that the best decisions are made by bringing together a variety of stakeholders and listening to those with different points of view and different experiences, and being in the legislature has reinforced this belief. I have learned that listening is so important. I feel like I can talk about almost any subject, not super in-depth, but I have tried to learn enough so that I can vote on legislation, have a conversation, or ask good questions about most topics. I’m certainly not an expert in everything, but I feel like I’ve become (somewhat) of an expert in some things.

I have also learned that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you can’t like them. When I was elected, I went to the Capitol thinking I wasn’t going to like some legislators because I was so disgruntled with how things were being handled. I saw things in the newspaper about laws that were being passed, and I didn’t think I could possibly like people who would make these decisions. I assumed that I would feel as negative towards these people as I felt towards the things they did and said. But I realized that there are really good things about everybody. I was surprised by how much I liked just about everybody. 

I always knew I liked people . . . but I didn’t think I would like these people necessarily, and I just did.

I learned that I love being in a position to make a difference.

Do you identify as a feminist? Why or why not?

I do. I do identify as a feminist. I agree with Melinda Gates’ definition: “Being a feminist means believing that every woman should be able to use her voice and pursue her potential, and that women and men should all work together to take down the barriers and end the biases that still hold women back.” 

Women should be in places where decisions are made. Women have been left out of too many equations for too long. Sometimes I say I’m a radical feminist because I want the people around me to think about it and maybe feel uncomfortable. I want them to wonder: Why is this Republican woman saying she’s a feminist? Why is this Republican woman who was a stay-at-home mom who raised seven kids in a patriarchal, high-demand church saying she’s a feminist? Feminism can be seen as a dirty word, and I’m like, no! I want you to think about it. I want you to see that I’m a really kind, intelligent, critical thinking, accomplished person and I’m a feminist. 

Why aren’t you running for a seat in the legislature again?

I work really, really hard at what I do, and then I see something else that looks really hard and important and good and I want to try that. So I’m running for Mayor next year. There are things I can do on a local community level that I can’t do in the Legislature. And I think that’s really important.

I have to also say that running a campaign is really hard and really awful in a lot of ways. And I know I have to campaign to run for Mayor, but I couldn’t see myself campaigning again for this position that has run its course for me.

And being a legislator demands a lot of time and energy with very little compensation. That sounds greedy, but I gave so much of myself to this thing and it was really great and important and good but with such little pay, it’s unsustainable for me. To be compensated for one’s work is important. 

If you could pass any bill in Utah, what would it be?

I had twelve bills that didn’t get passed last session and some of them were really important to me so it’s difficult to narrow it down to one thing. Sheesh. How can I put it all into one bill? Hm. This isn’t really a bill, because I got the bill passed, it just didn’t get much funding, but I want to see a lot more funding dedicated to helping people with serious mental illness, including life-long wrap-around services. That would be really important. 

It’s all funding, actually. I would like to see more funding go to victims of domestic violence, I would like to see more funding go to the five thousand families on our waiting list for disability services for their kids, and I would like to see more funding for addiction recovery services and rehabilitation for those in jail. There are hardly any services in jail at all. So it’s often a revolving door and people end up back in jail over and over. So, my dream would be to take care of people–those dealing with serious mental illness, disabilities, intergenerational poverty, homelessness, addictions, foster care, etc.–in a way that has long term results instead of just throwing money at people short term and thinking that is fiscally responsible.

What are you most proud of during your six years as a legislator?

I am proud of the relationships that I’ve made. I’m proud of some of the funding that I’ve gotten for some groups and programs like increasing DCF caseworkers’ salaries and services for those with serious mental illness. I’m proud that I was able to shine a light on some of the places that needed a light – like special education and the disabilities waiting list– that are easy to ignore. Most of my legislation was people-centered and for people who really didn’t have a voice. I’m proud that the groups and organizations that work with those people trusted me, they knew that I was a sympathetic place that they could go to because I would listen. I’m proud of that.

What are some of the barriers and limitations of government that you’ve seen as a representative for your district?  

One of the biggest barriers, honestly, that limits the good that could happen is apathy. All activism starts with the citizens. Even if someone is elected that wasn’t your first choice, if everybody in the community is reaching out to that person and saying, hey, this is important to us, that would open their Representative’s eyes to what is going on in the community. 

For example, I send a weekly email to six thousand of my constituents, and about 20% get opened, which is great. That’s a lot of people. But that is certainly not my whole district of about 40,000 people. That means that I’m reaching about 1% of my constituents and I work really hard to reach them but there’s not a great way for Legislators to connect with their constituents. I don’t think that people realize that they can reach out to us. I don’t think that people understand the power of a democracy – a government built by the people for the people.

That is what I would like to change: people feel like they don’t have a voice so then they don’t raise their voice. But if enough people decide to be loud, everything would be different.

Exponent II focuses on the intersection of Mormonism and feminism. How do you relate to this? 

The intersection between Mormonism and feminism is just an intersection with a lot of car crashes. So, there’s not a lot of people getting through that intersection. Maybe it’s more like a roundabout with no exits. 

What would you like to tell the Exponent II community?

Thinking about women and voting and how many women hold office, I often hear that we shouldn’t vote for women just because they’re women, but I think that to make things equal, sometimes we should. It is important for all of us, men and women, boys and girls, to see women in positions of leadership. However, I have to admit there are some women I would never vote for.

Think of who you would like to run for office or to represent you in government, try to think of a woman, or even yourself, and then be part of the change you want to see.

The Benevolent Sexism of Russell M. Nelson’s 100th Birthday Celebration

(All images from Church Newsroom and churchofjesuschrist.org)

Top male church leaders frequently assure Latter-day Saint women we are loved and respected by the men in our church. But is simply saying that enough, if women are never given a permanent seat at the table with them? This is called benevolent sexism, and both men and women in the church have been socialized to believe it is the highest form of honor a woman could ask for – but it’s not. 

President Russell M. Nelson turned 100 on Monday, and a special birthday celebration broadcast aired from the Conference Center in his honor. I’m grateful to have called one of his granddaughters a friend for more than two decades (a relationship I first discovered while looking at her wedding photos and saying, “Hey – there’s an apostle in your family pictures!”). She loves her grandfather very much, and I have witnessed much of his rise in church leadership through her eyes over the years. She shared photos of her family participating at the Conference Center birthday event, which made me curious enough to find a link to watch it myself. 

To be clear, this man is very beloved to his family, and I don’t doubt his love for all of them in the slightest – and any man this loved by so many people has led a very successful life.

With that disclaimer, one theme kept popping up during this event that really stung for me –  the repeated assertion that President Nelson loves and respects women so much.

For example, in a very sweet tribute from his great granddaughter she said, “My great grandfather has a profound respect for women. I’ve been able to see just how much he loves me, his wife, his daughters, his granddaughters, and all of the women in his life…his respect for women is innate….He loves and respects men and women equally…Because he loves others so deeply, regardless of gender, he is able to love God. I have been empowered by his love and respect for women. I have never felt less around him. I am grateful for his understanding…of my powerful role as a woman.” I appreciate her sharing this point of view, but I actually don’t feel very respected by men who exclude women from all final decision making, their priesthood only meetings, and literally every single position of authority in the church. In fact, from my perspective there is nothing more disrespectful to me as a woman than locking the door in my face to any possibility of leading within my own religious community.

In a tribute from his daughter talking about the relationship between her parents, she said, “There were several years of Mother’s Day corsages for her (his first wife), and single carnation corsages for each of us (the daughters) honoring her as mother, and as daughters our potential to become mothers.” I’m glad that he loved his wife and daughters, but I wish their most important attribute in his mind wasn’t their potential to have babies.

Relief Society General President Camille Johnson spoke and said, “Thank you for helping us understand what it means to be covenant women of God…by expressing the crucial part women play in building up the kingdom of God”. Yet after this, she referenced God many times and referred to him by exclusively male pronouns. It’s clear she was only speaking about Heavenly Father, not Heavenly Mother or Heavenly Parents. Near the end of her remarks she said, “President Nelson, you have blessed the sisters of the church to feel loved, and precious, and necessary.” For me however, no amount of a man telling me I’m important and special to him makes up for the complete erasure of my existence and purpose in the eternities. (A painful erasure that he is in the unique position as a prophet to end through revelation.)

Finally, Elder Oaks and Elder Eyring both gushed over his love and respect for women:

Elder Oaks: “…when people enter the room, he almost always stands for them. But he *always* stands if there are women in the room.” Elder Eyring adds: “Always!”

I genuinely don’t care if a very old man stands up when I walk in the room or not. (I also don’t care if he holds the door for me, or tells me I’m special or pretty or sweet.) Rather, I feel like men in power say and do these things in an attempt to placate me, then expect me to sit obediently at their feet like a child and follow their commandments without question. When this happens, I feel angry and invalidated – like they view me as a beloved pet. I want the type of respect that truly values my insights and experience in the world as a female, and the type of love and admiration that encourages them to follow and learn from me in return.

The birthday celebration included pre-recorded greetings from other important religious leaders. There were ten male leaders: Elders Holland, Oaks and Eyring, Reverend Dr. Amos Brown, Reverend Dr. Andrew Teal, Professor Robert P. George, Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Carl B. Cook of the Seventy, Dr. Lawrence Edward Carter Sr, and BYUI President John S.K. Kauwe II.

As for women, there was only one: Sister Monica Kauwe. She is the wife of BYUI president John Kauwe and was only included because she was standing next to him in his video message.

No female religious leaders from afar were recorded based on their merit alone.

As a final example of this unseen sexism, I cannot think of a single scenario in the LDS church that would honor a female leader in such a grandiose way as we just did a male prophet. And if a woman was ever honored in a similar fashion, would we have ten female religious leaders record messages of congratulations from afar, and would the prayers admonish those in attendance to have the “courage and faith to adhere to her words and teachings”? (This is what Elder Soares said about the prophet in his opening prayer.) Women leaders are praised for their obedience to male leaders, but never honored for their own assertiveness and leadership skills.

I’ve tried in the past to explain the frustration I’ve felt as a woman in a benevolent patriarchy using my pets as an example. It can be hard to understand at first, but when you finally do see it you will never be able to unsee it – even at a birthday celebration for a beloved grandfather. 

***Did you know Exponent II is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization? Support Exponent II today.***

What Fifty Years of Exponent II Means to Me

Guest post by Amy Clark Freeman. Amy enjoys reading, hiking in the mountains, and learning alongside her three children and husband in Orem, Utah.

The book Fifty Years of Exponent II by Katie Ludlow Rich and Heather Sundahl has come at a time when I can really get excited and appreciate many of the women involved in this Mormon feminist organization. For 32 years I never learned about other women in the LDS faith who felt and thought like myself. It has been a gift and an awakening for me to have this book of history.

In early 2022, Katie sent me a copy of the Exponent II magazine, and as founding mother and first editor-in-chief Claudia Bushman describes, it was “like receiving a letter from a friend”—and bonus—it also came with a literal letter from my friend! I was immediately captivated by the quality of the magazine materials itself, and the artwork caught my breath. The obvious time and attention to the magazine made me take this lovely gift seriously and I wondered, “What is this Mormon feminist organization that I’ve never even heard of?” I devoured that first issue and wanted to see and read more. 

Thanks to the (also awesome) blog, I had a lot of reading material to soak up. Soon there were sign ups for the Exponent II retreat in New Hampshire. I registered to head out with two new best friends–author and blogger Katie Rich and blogger Natasha Rogers, and one I hadn’t met yet—current Exponent II Vice President Lindsay Denton. Little did I know this community would be one of my safe havens. As a person continually seeking places of love and learning, I found a home in Exponent II.

At the retreat, I was introduced to people from all over the country with varying experiences in the Exponent II sphere. I remember feeling particularly stupid meeting a few of the Founding Mothers, but I was just glad to hear them. After the weekend of rituals, camaraderie, education, laughs, and tears, Heather Sundahl asked me if I would come again. I replied, “Retreat is a non-negotiable!” 

We attended the retreat together again in 2023. I met some new people and reunited with others. The idea for the book was already coming to fruition and steamrolling its way to becoming a reality. Now, here it is. And for the fiftieth anniversary! I am honored to have been on the sidelines, cheering for my friends these past few years. While reading 50 Years, I felt so much joy seeing these newer acquaintances and friends’ names in the text, either with their personal writings or other contributions to Exponent II. 

In Fifty Years of Exponent II, Rich and Sundahl give a very approachable yet detailed history of how the women in Boston started the then-newspaper and its subsequent successes and challenges to the present day. The book includes a compilation of 103 newspaper, magazine, or blog entries paired with introductions from each editor’s era. You’ll laugh. You’ll cry. You’ll be in a state of wonderment. 

You. Will. Feel. 

In “The Founding Foremothers”(151), Susan Kohler said, “Let’s quit fooling around and get going… Let’s make it look as nice as we can with our limited talents; let’s put it on newsprint; let’s make it cheap; let’s just do it.” (153). I don’t know that any big endeavor like starting a Mormon feminist publication would be possible without Susan Kohler’s attitude and the willingness of others to take a chance and volunteer their time and talents. It reminds me of another piece titled “Creativity: A Constant Renewal (excerpts),” where Susan Howe writes, “Everything about creating requires humility…We have to … move to experiences that are not easily predictable, experiences at which we may fail.” (169). I see my friends who took a big risk using their time and talents to write this book with little to no monetary resources, and perhaps it proves that the spirit of our Mormon feminist foremothers is strong in the people who show up in and for this organization. 

I see the challenges that took place with constant differences of opinion among the board members through the years—having to navigate localized paste-up parties in the Boston area to using technological advances and decentralizing Exponent II contributors across time zones. It was also an adjustment each time a new editor or president took over, going from having a newspaper to magazine and adding the blog, then forming the Exponent II Facebook group and later making the difficult decision for it to be “paused indefinitely” (102). When learning of Suzette Smith’s (Exponent treasurer for six years) embezzlement, I was shocked at the resilience and grit the Exponent board members demonstrated as they regained their 501c3 status and slowly got the balance back up while also putting new safeguards in place to prevent theft from ever happening again.

Sometimes, difficult or taboo topics addressed in the paper led to taking action. Sue Paxman (Booth-Forbes) was an editor and activist (1984–1997) whose contributions and activism really moved me as I read about her.  She started doing themed issues of the paper and “tackled topics ranging from homosexuality to adolescent drug use. One subject—the abuse of women and children—became a rallying point where Exponent moved into direct advocacy” (41). After seeing so many submissions of abuse to the paper, it became evident to Sue that advocacy was needed. In the book, you’ll see that even Stake President Mitt Romney got involved…

Amid the growing pains, dueling ideas among contributors, harmful Church policies, and hostile political environments, in addition to the newspaper’s rise and fall of subscribers dependent on current church events, “they chose connection and community over ideological purity” (xviii.) In my opinion, this is where Exponent II’s magic lies. Women and gender minorities have a platform where they can share their own experiences, where they might hesitate to share in a formal church setting. In Exponent II spaces, the connection runs fluidly among spiritual, matriarchal, and intellectual giants, and I am lucky to be a witness and play a small part in the story.

Head over to the Exponent II Instagram for a giveaway of a signed copy of Fifty Years Exponent II and a hand-made leather book holster.

The Secret Lives That We Don’t Feel Safe Sharing

On Friday night, I went to a friend’s house to watch “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.”

I hadn’t planned to engage with the show–I’m not offended by its existence, but I don’t watch much reality TV outside of cooking shows, I’m not on TikTok so I knew almost nothing about these women, and, well, I think so much about Mormon stuff in my “real” life that I’m not really looking for it in my entertainment. But my friend is deconstructing her faith as well, and she’d invited a few other women who’d moved fully out of the church in recent years. I figured, if nothing else, some goofy TV, some snacks, some hanging out with friends, I could be home by 10–why not?

As a bonus, I’ve had a bit of writer’s block and needed something to write about for today’s blog post. I thought this could be it. And it was–but not in the way I expected. What I found was a weird, uncomfortable camaraderie with these women with whom I have nothing in common. I laughed, sighed, definitely judged, while at the same time listening to my internal monologue whisper: But aren’t you pushing back against the same organization for telling you what to do and how to be? And isn’t it uncomfortable and aren’t you worried about people judging you?

Here are a few of my thoughts from the first two episodes:

As one character consistently sought out her mother’s approval, I was shaking my head–this woman is an adult! She has kids of her own! Why is she almost asking permission from her mother, why is she justifying her choices, why is she confessing things like a teenager who just got caught? And why had I, just a couple of hours earlier, been wondering if what was keeping me in the church was the fear of telling my mother–of knowing she would be devastated and that I’d feel terrible for letting her down? Why did I constantly feel like I needed someone else to give me permission to make choices for my own life?As I watched them interact, these women in their 20s acting like a teenage clique, I commented on how immature they all seemed–like they were still teenagers instead of adults with businesses and children and mortgages. And I thought about how stunted I feel sometimes–that the Mormon rites of passage like marriage never came and how I sometimes feel unable to move forward. Maybe these women, who all got married and had children very young, never really got to grow up either–they didn’t go to college or travel or figure out who they were as individuals. A culture that lays out one path for everyone will do that, since that is never anyone’s actual path.Or maybe, as one woman in the room with me observed, this was the delayed rebellious phase of women who weren’t allowed to rebel as teenagers because they had to be perfect–because they lived in a culture and belonged to a religion that pathologized teenage rebellion. It felt a lot like the visceral anger I feel at the church now, the pushback anytime something new is said or done. The fact that “I want a tattoo” is no longer a fleeting thought but a concrete idea. The fact that I went from mostly wearing garments to never wearing them as soon as Kevin Hamilton singled out women in yoga pants for not wearing garments, just out of opposition to doing what I am told. Perhaps it was the result of trauma that is hard to acknowledge, to look in the face of, because then I will have to reject certain things and that comes at such a high cost. I laughed in disbelief at a mother who called her daughter’s ex-friend to get in the middle of things. Boundaries, people! But the messages I took away from church weren’t about healthy boundaries, they were about railroading boundaries out of love. I think of the doors I knocked on my mission that had signs proclaiming this to be a happy Catholic household, but I knocked despite their clearly stated boundaries because we had the truth!–something I regret to this day. Because even if we had the truth, which I sincerely believed I did 15 years ago, it still was not OK to force it on people when they said no. Healthy boundaries are an act of self-love. I asked, exasperated, “why?” when one woman said she wanted to be back in the church. I wasn’t even coming from a place of judgment, but of wondering why she wanted back into something that just moments before (in TV time, so, you know–a year) she saw the rules as something that were keeping her out. You’ll be happier, I wanted to yell at her; take it and run. But I can’t take that leap either–for years, I’ve gone back and forth, sure that this one thing would be what pushed me off the fence to stay or go. And it never is. I no longer have a shelf–I have an attic, and I’m waiting for that one thing that will be what makes the floor collapse on me and it never comes, and even though I watch the floor sag and know it can destroy me, I can’t find the courage to just go. It is hard to let go of the culture and religion I grew up with, it’s daunting to know that a choice will irrevocably change family relationships, it’s nearly impossible to look at my four decades of experiences in the church, both good and bad, and try to pick up apart what I know, what I believe, what I can live with and what I must reject. How can I judge another woman who’s having a hard time cutting the same tie?

There was more–so much more. After two episodes, we got sidetracked talking about our own experiences in and out of the church, our struggles, who gave each of us permission to take control of our lives (Hint: It is you) and how hard it is to deconstruct–how it feels like you’re going against everything you know, everything that has grounded you. 

I’m not going to tell you to watch or not watch “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.” I don’t know if I’ll finish the series. It did make me think more deeply about issues that I’ve been skirting in my mind, intentionally or unintentionally. It elicited some uncomfortable truths within me that I’m not sure I can avoid any longer. I owe it to the teenage girl who never felt able to rebel to be a little rebellious now.

(Read more about polygamy and swinging on the blog, as well as what it means to be called a Mormon woman.)

Top photo: Salt Lake Temple at night, by Michael Hart on Unsplash

Is Anything Actually Mormon About The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives?

(Main image from Kristina Flour and unsplash.com)

Guest Post by Rebecca Lucero Jones

Ever since the trailer dropped for the secret lives of Mormon wives, I have seen social media posts filled with enthusiasm and disdain for this upcoming show. Some people are excited to indulge in their guilty pleasure, reality TV, and others have voiced offense and concern that the word “Mormon” is being used as a descriptor for the women portrayed in this show. I think this online discussion begs the question, “How Mormon is the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives?”

First, I think we have to acknowledge that six years ago, in 2018, President Nelson, the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints requested that members no longer use the word “Mormon” as a descriptor of either themselves or the church. In the aftermath of this decision and recommendation, other groups feel that this change allows them to claim the “Mormon” title that the church intentionally sought to eradicate as descriptor. Sunstone, an educational foundation that includes all people who have descended from the original church established by Joseph Smith, has coined the motto “More Than One Way to Mormon.” This catchy motto promotes inclusion and understanding among different sects and individuals who despite differences, connect with their shared history and religious origins. Is the show “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” an inaccurate descriptor when “Mormon” is no longer used by those who identify as part of the Brighamite* sect of the LDS faith tradition? Could these women just be Mormoning in their own way? 

The title of the show does not use the church’s full name or the acronym LDS, which are terms that have been designated by President Nelson as more appropriate descriptors for members. The show’s title also doesn’t use a word like “average” or “ordinary.” The descriptor “secret” suggests that this is not typical and there is something to be uncovered. I acknowledge that the word “secret” is not descriptive of the possible scope. However, most reality TV is based on drama and captures outliers. Clearly there is something unique about these women because they rose to popularity on TikTok and they now have their own TV show, which alone demonstrates that they are anything but run of mill LDS women. But LDS women (many of whom are devoted members) have built a significant reputation in the blogger sphere. In fact, some may argue that LDS women founded blogging and were the original influencers. While it is probably true that most LDS women do not have a blog, LDS women are represented disproportionately on blogs, social media, and TikTok as influencers. On this matter, the women in the show capture the interesting phenomenon of immense success among female LDS and Mormon influencers. 

I think those who are LDS and bothered by show’s title are most likely concerned that the show portrays the women all matching. Just kidding! But, we all have to admit that we don’t coordinate outfits with 5+ other friends. In all reality, I think LDS women are most likely concerned that these women dress immodestly (according to LDS standards) and are swinging, two behaviors that are explicitly forbidden in LDS practice. However, I think many faithful LDS may be unaware of how many of their peers aren’t wearing garments or may be experimenting with swinging. Jana Reiss recently conducted research in 2022 and 2023 and found that younger generations wear garments less than older generations. Where 84% of boomers responded that they were wearing their garments, only 36% of millennials and 41% of Gen Z responded that they were wearing their garments. These stark differences show a new trend of younger generations showing less compliance with garment wearing and possibly with dress standards. While a good amount of LDS members still wear garments, the women in this show may be representative of a generational movement away from the church’s prescribed dress codes.

The show’s portrayal of swinging is most understandably upsetting for faithful members. With a history of religiously prescribed polygamy, LDS members are often faced with correcting outsiders’ understandings of when and how polygamy has been practiced within the Brighamite* tradition of the faith. Generally, I would argue that the church’s history of polygamy is a fairly uncomfortable topic for the modern monogamous LDS woman. In fact, it is often misconstrued and avoided because it is considered to be a marital practice of the past. But is it in the past when President Nelson and President Oaks will have two wives in heaven because each of their marriages is eternal? Is swinging that weird when eternal polygamy is still practiced? Is it strange that LDS women feel immense pressure to be beautiful and get plastic surgery when they will be the only woman their husband has sex with and he always has the option to meet a second, or third, or fourth wife after their passing? The LDS wife lives in constant threat of becoming one of her husband’s wives in the afterlife. Some women acknowledge this when they tell their husband “I don’t want you to remarry after I die.” Whether a woman chooses to acknowledge these doctrinal realities, this could become her reality, without her consent, without her knowledge. 

Is it strange then that LDS women or LDS raised women might experiment in social media as an attempt to elevate and advertise their attractiveness or experiment sexually with swinging, a practice that also allows them to choose additional partners? I think it may be easy to dismiss the women starring in this show as vapid or shallow. It may be more comfortable for us to judge them or put them at arm’s length and declare, “They are not our people!” However, I think it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge that the doctrine, teachings, and/or culture in the church has sexually repressed individuals who operate in a system that puts immense pressure on women to become perfect or be abandoned or demoted in the most intimate of relationships, marriage. 

I want to be clear, there are absolutely clear differences between the average LDS woman and these women, but these women walk the same tight rope that all LDS women walk. They too attended church youth activities where they tried on wedding dresses. They too listened to lessons on how they could become the best wife and mother. They too heard leaders tell young men that if they were faithful on their missions, that they would get a hotter wife. They too heard the line “modest is the hottest,” but witnessed that hottest was the hottest. They too heard lessons where they learned sex is a reward for those who enter the highest degree of heaven. They too may have been perplexed by the many rules that required one to overcome or repress sexual urges, only to hear that sex was the reward for righteousness.

Rather than airing grievances that these women used a title that the church disowned, I think the kinder, wiser action is to recognize the complexity and diverse ways that women cope with objectification, the church’s history of polygamy, and the current threat eternal polygamy poses for the modern LDS woman and her felt sense of safety in her marriage. Their story may not be your story, but I think it is possible that this show will demonstrate one of the ways women Mormon in our modern world. 

*The term Brighamite refers to the Utah-based LDS Church and is a term used to distinguish this branch of the LDS church from other branches.

Read more on the topic of this new Hulu show and polygamy practices on Exponent II blog.

Guest author Rebecca works as a professor and marriage and family therapist. She resides in Texas with her husband and three children. She enjoys spending time with her family, walking with friends, cooking, and traveling.

 

 

Religious Practices as a Way to Fight the Comfort Crisis

A modern orthodox Jewish acquaintance of mine recently said he realizes the world is really complicated and that no one faith tradition can really make sense of it all. But he still wears a kippah everyday. Studying the Torah, praying, and keeping a kosher kitchen are important to him. These things are not convenient to do, but he finds them worthwhile. And while he has more progressive views than most people at his synagogue, he still values connecting with his community. Despite all its clumsiness, one of the strengths of religious life is how it can provide structure, form, and meaning to life.

It is easy to overlook what religious practices can contribute to our lives. In recent months, I questioned whether I wanted to continue some of my personal faith-based habits. Like so many other women, I’ve been uncomfortable with messaging from leaders about the temple garment. Leaders’ words led me to feel like they intended for my wearing the garment to become about me submitting to their authority and adhering their interpretations. I have also felt ill at ease realizing how a large segment of tithing money is going to pay for things like temple chandeliers that cost the same as a large, nice house. And my chronic boredom and dissonance during messages at church has made me lose much of my motivation to attend.

It seems giving up these things could be a healthy way for me to differentiate and detach myself from leaders whose words have left me feeling unseen, infantilized, and unsupported. But another part of me would feel grief. In my case, abandoning these practices would prevent me from living the kind of principled life I have always planned to live and still want to live. 

In his book Comfort Crisis, health journalist Michael Easter writes about how one of the obstacles to well-being today is the “comfort crisis.” He explains that our ancestors spent most of their time laboring hard to obtain basic necessities like food and shelter. They lived highly social and physically active lives out of necessity. In a mostly uncomfortable world, humans developed instincts to opt out of non-essential efforts so they could rest and recuperate. 

But today when much of what we need is one click away, the human impulse to opt out of discomfort can harm our well-being. One of the examples Easter uses is that while many people don’t get enough physical exercise, only 2% of people opt into taking the stairs when they have the option. His website “Two Percent” encourages individuals to intentionally seek out uncomfortable things, including opportunities to move, to interact socially, to go deceive-free, or to expose yourself more to the natural elements.

It’s not intuitive to seek out the path that takes more effort, especially in a society that is increasingly individualistic and capitalistic. But if we get more steps in and choose to do things we value despite whatever the extra exertion, we can become healthier and happier. 

Dissonance or fatigue at church can easily activate impulses to quit religious practices. Yet might opting into them contribute to my overall well-being?

If I stopped attending church, this would lead to a yet more socially isolated, challenge-free, and digitally-centered life. In my case, I don’t need more of this. With my streaming services, online shopping, food deliveries, and hours alone in a chill office full of plants I don’t even have to take care of, I already have too much ease. In fact, the lack of physical and social effort required to keep the basics of my life running sometimes contributes to depression. Spending time in my crowded church building where people speak 60 native languages and there are 100 visitors each week demands endurance in a way few things do. The benefits of getting out of my comfort zone only increase when I do things like leave my phone at home. Church is also the only regular opportunity I have to dress up or to take part in a big group of people trying to form a community. My life has been largely emptied of formal occasions and rituals outside the Sunday block. And church gives me the chance to meet people across socio-economic groups and backgrounds that I simply can’t access through other parts of my life.

If I stopped paying tithing, I foresee that my intentions about my own money would become more about my own ego and my wants such as travel and personal purchases and less about my faith-based values. Even if it meant giving a tithe to charities instead of a church, I want this practice in my life. My sense with the garment is comparable– giving it up feels like giving up a part of my identity and sense of shared familial and communal meaning that I still value, even in the face of all my dissatisfaction with current Church policies, leadership structures, and uses of power and authority at Church.

In “Anthem,” Leonard Cohenn sings, 

Ring the bells that still can ring

Forget your perfect offering 

There is a crack in everything

These practices aren’t perfect, they are cracked and flawed. Sometimes their meanings are faint. But since they can still ring with meaning that is in line with my values, they can still be worth doing. I’m choosing to treat them as things that empower me to resist individualism, social dissolution, consumerism, and body objectification in my life. They help me assert to myself that my life is about much more than my personal wants, ego, or needs for money, pleasure, or status. They help me stay connected with values and hopes I have upheld throughout my entire lifetime as a Mormon. 

In short, I’m intentionally, independently opting into some of the discomforts of religious life. Another facet of this is that I don’t want my relationship with my faith tradition to be dictated by my reactivity and anger at the follies of mortal, temporary leaders, such as their ongoing failures to support adults in an age-appropriate manner in their spiritual and moral growth and development. I don’t have to consent to the relationship they want me to have with them. If I continue practicing something that they happen to act anxious and controlling about, this does not have to be treated as a signal of my submission to their terms. What really matters is my personal intention. My religious life is not about them. My practices are about my spirituality and relationship with God and the principles I want to live by. Much of my choices are based simply on the recognition that I seem to best tolerate being human and living on this earth when I cultivate faith and hope that the world can become a better place and that there is more to life than what we can see now. Religion is a backbone in my life that empowers me to have better mental health. 

Saying all of this, I do not judge those who have decided to drop or set boundaries with religious practices. People have different needs, experiences and situations, and there are many good reasons to drop or adapt practices. Different “bells” ring for different people at different times. My intention in sharing all this is only to strengthen others who value their personal practices and who are also seeking ways to assert greater personal authority and self-determination in their religious lives. 

The Secret Lives of Mormon Prophets’ Wives

(Main image: from hulu.com and “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives”, and some of Brigham Young’s wives and daughters from churchofjesuschrist.org.)

Top Mormon male priesthood leaders in the 1800s led very sexually promiscuous lives. We’ve always called it polygamy and said it was commanded by a loving Heavenly Father, but I don’t believe that. Men who were already married with children continued to take more and more women and girls as additional sexual partners under the claim that God had told them (or their prophet) that they were free to do so. Women were rewards given to men for their obedience and loyalty to the church.

The new Hulu show, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives has raised opposition from modern church members who are uncomfortable with how Mormons are being portrayed because of what they perceive as immoral sexual behavior that doesn’t align with their values. But are these women really that bad? They are adults after all, engaging in sexual activities with other consenting adults, and no one is underage or coerced into doing something they are uncomfortable with. Sure, marriages ended and I don’t think swinging is a good idea for most people. However, on the grand scale of things, twerking in Tiktok videos and having consensual sexual relationships is not illegal or predatory.

These are the women acting immorally that everyone is upset about. (From the Hulu.com website.)

I, on the other hand, am a member of the LDS church and I would like to condemn what our male church leaders did in the days of polygamy. Married men, with or without the permission, approval, or even knowledge of their first wives (thanks to the “Law of Sarah”), took additional girls and women as sexual partners under the premise that it was commanded of them by God. The higher up in the priesthood line of authority they were, the more women they were rewarded with for their obedience and loyalty. Men who reached the highest ranks in Mormon church leadership (prophets and apostles) were married to dozens of wives and fully intended to be sealed to many more in the eternities. Joseph Smith began the practice of polygamy by taking around 40 women as secret plural wives, including about 14 who already had living husbands.

Plenty of men have claimed to be prophets throughout history. Occasionally these men have successfully convinced large groups of people to believe and follow them. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that many of these prophets have also told their followers that God commanded them to have many wives. Accumulating women seems to be a standard practice for men who find themselves in positions of power. As a whole we brush off the prophetic claims of 99.9 percent of these men and conclude they were acting out of a selfish interest for power and sex, but if it was our own leaders who did it – we believe them when they say God commanded them to do it. 

This doesn’t mean the modern-day church can’t have a good influence in the world. It doesn’t mean someone can’t stay an active member and find value in that. It also doesn’t mean individuals can’t use the LDS church as a beautiful way to connect to God. A person’s church experience does not have to be tainted or ruined by the bad behavior of men who are long gone and dead.

What I hate is that we continue to hold up truly grotesque male behavior towards women and girls as something to be respected or emulated. These men coerced women into marriage and had sex with teenage girls far too young to give consent, yet we create entire lesson manuals based on their teachings and quote them in General Conference. We build universities in their honor and put statues of them up for public recognition. 

I’ve heard men in my conservative Utah community joke about wanting to clean a gun in the front room when a teenage boy comes to take their teenage daughter out for a date. There are many reasons this is not funny at all, but those aside – would these same protective fathers be okay with adult male missionaries from a religious sect recruiting their teen daughters to be baptized into a church, then quickly married off to a 55-year-old bishop? Based on their desire to protect their daughters with threat of violence from any male who might make a sexual advance, these men in my ward today should also theoretically have been the ones leading the charge to tar and feather Mormon prophets and apostles in the 1800s.

There are (unfortunately) many stories of underage girls marrying older men with high leadership positions, and I will share one example that especially pulled on my heartstrings.

 

This is Martha Ann Hughes, who was 14 years old when she was given to 68-year-old Zera Pulsipher as a plural wife. In researching her life, it was hard not to think of the parallels to Brian David Mitchell, the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart.

 

Both of these men took a 14-year-old girl as a spiritual wife while being significantly older and already married men. (Zera was 68, Brian was 48.) Elizabeth Smart was freed from her relationship after nine months, but Martha Ann Hughes bore Zera five children before he died of old age. They both claim that God commanded them to do what they did.

I hear people say, “Things were different back then and girls just got married younger.” The thing is, Martha (the 14-year-old plural wife) didn’t live thousands of years ago in a completely different culture, place and religion. She and I were born 138 years apart and her youngest son was still alive when President Russell M. Nelson was in high school. She died in Utah 74 years before I was born here, and only 37 years before my dad was born. She worshiped the same God, read the same scriptures, studied the words of the same prophets, and lived in the same state that I did. We are not that different. 

I feel confident to speak on behalf of all (current and former) middle school girls when I say that yes, 14-year-old girls are interested in sex. They are not, however, interested in losing their virginity to men who are pushing seventy. They have crushes on other 14- and 15-year-old boys, and unless someone is in a very famous boy band or a sexual predator who has worked hard to groom the girl, almost any man over the age of about 25 is considered old and gross. I don’t believe Utah Mormon teenage girl preferences evolved so much between Martha and myself that she wanted a boyfriend 50 years older than I did in 8th grade. I feel sick at the thought of her wedding night, and I want to reach back in time and save her from the horrors that were sold to her by old men as the will of God.

So now in 2024, a silly Hulu reality show intended to sensationalize Mormon women is being denounced by church members as misrepresentative of the values and sexual ethics of our religion.

Yet at the same time we have a university named after a 43 year old man who sealed a 13 year old girl to himself for time and all eternity, sing hymns in praise of a 38 year old man who took a 14 year old girl as a bride in secret from his first wife, and a lesson manual dedicated to a man who married 6 out of ten wives as teenagers with the biggest age gap between him and a wife being 46 years, and later sealed 267 dead females (including a 6 year old deceased girl who had never even been baptized) to himself as birthday gifts on his 70th, 71st, 72nd and 74th birthdays. The man famous for baptizing a prophet was 68 years old when he married a 14 year old girl and impregnated her five times. No amount of revelations from God written by the same men doing bad things to teenage girls will ever convince me it was okay.

So from here on out, instead of being horrified by adult women making consensual choices regarding their own sexuality while teaching primary songs about sexual predators, let’s swap the two. Be horrified by what famous men in our church have done instead.

(I’ve written on the topic of Polygamy and Sex before, by the way. Feel free to click and read about the worst sex dream I ever had!)

***The blog is free to read, but not free to host! Check out our donation page to support our site.***

Safe Spaces

“Ok, I can see you’re getting overwhelmed. Let’s try going to your safe space and see if that can help your body regulate.”

I sat on my couch in my virtual EMDR therapy session experiencing flashback after flashback, feeling like my mind was no longer connected to my body, like I wasn’t in the room at all. I was back in the hospital, hooked up to the monitors, doubled over in pain. 

My therapist was doing her best to stay with me, help me come back to my body and the present moment. Knowing I would be trying to process intense, traumatic experiences, we had talked about using my “safe space” if I ever got too overwhelmed. I knew what she was asking me to do and I tried my best to bring the images of my safe space into my mind.

But there was a problem. Every time I thought of my safe space, my body got even more anxious and the flashbacks got worse. I kept trying to picture the forest I had pictured hundreds of times before when I needed a safe space to go to in my mind. I had used the image of this forest during multiple childbirths, marathon training, and the terrifying medical events I experienced this year.  Every other time it had brought me an immediate sense of peace and security. This forest was the safest, calmest place I could imagine and my brain loved to be there. But this time, it wasn’t working. The forest felt scary, too. 

Seeing that I was still dysregulated, my therapist suggested various grounding techniques instead and gave me time to work through them.

“Notice 5 objects in the room around you.” “Put both of your feet on the floor.” “Drink some cold water.” 

Finally, I was able to help my mind come back to the therapy session and felt my body calm down. Once I was calmed down, I was able to start processing what had happened and why my safe space “failed.” And I had a profound realization, my safe space was no longer safe. 

Unfortunately, because I had used the imagery of this safe space to cope with many hours of intense pain and life-threatening medical events, my mind had formed a connection between the pain and the imagery of that space. So now, when I brought the image to mind it felt scary and unsafe, my body remembered the pain. 

Forcing A Safe Space

Sometimes I hear members of the church talk about how much joy and security it brings them. For many, many people- the church is a “safe space.” They attend their meetings, go to the temple, read their scriptures and these actions create a sense of fulfillment and peace. They feel at home.

But for others, the church can be more complicated. There may be aspects of the church that feel safe and bring them peace, but other parts do not. And they struggle to reconcile their feelings of safety with the discomfort and dysregulation they feel. “Why does it feel so good when I’m singing the hymns on Sunday and then I feel like I want to crawl out of my skin when I sit down to read the scriptures?” 

This type of dysregulation can also come with a good dose of guilt- “I shouldn’t be feeling this way. I should feel good about all of my involvement with the church.” And that guilt is often perpetuated by church culture and rhetoric that vilifies negative feelings such as fear, discomfort, and sadness and claims they are products of a lesser testimony or Satan’s temptations. There is an assumption that we can force people into better feelings or more conviction. That if we preach at them enough, give them our perspective, send them just the right conference talk, they will feel better and feel the peace we feel.

But if there is one thing I have learned through my personal traumas and that of many clients in my therapy practice, you cannot force someone to feel safe. It’s just not possible. Safety is something that must come from within.

So what happens when you try to force it? What would’ve happened if my therapist said “No, Callan, you must think of the forest. The forest feels safe to me so I’m sure it’ll be great for you, too. Just think harder, try harder to feel peace there.” For my therapist, images of a forest might have peace and safety tied to them. Those same images had always felt safe to me in the past, too. But then I went through something very painful and it changed those images for me. That context matters and my personal experiences matter. My therapist knew to honor my personal feelings of safety. She knew that safety could only come from within me, so she encouraged me to try to find it another way and stayed with me in the process. If not for that understanding, the flashbacks would’ve continued and gotten worse and this session would’ve been its own retraumatizing event. It could’ve eventually led to me feeling like therapy itself is not safe.

Trying to force family or friends to feel safe in the church will only increase dissociation. They will either become more disconnected as a way of coping with the discomfort or their feelings of unsafety will increase. It could cause them to either become more numb to their body’s safety cues or become so overwhelmed by their body’s cues that the church as a whole feels unsafe.

Instead, when someone is telling you that the safe space of the church no longer feels safe, listen to them. It’s likely that the loss of safety is due to discomfort or pain. Some kind of principle, procedure, or process no longer feels safe to their body and they are doing the hard work of listening to those cues. Be with them in their discomfort and let them find their own way through it. It’s possible that your no-pressure presence and understanding can become the temporary safe space they need to work through the painful pieces and reestablish their own church safety.

But what if they leave?

Sometimes even your openness and understanding will not be enough to create the safety a family member or friend needs in the church, and that’s OK, too. It’s possible their personal experiences have been painful and uncomfortable enough that the church as a whole has become unsafe for them. As hard as it can be, trust that they can follow their own body’s cues of unsafety. Let them know you trust them and believe them when they say they are unsafe. This will go much further in helping them heal whether that’s in or out of the church. Remind yourself that you cannot force them to feel safe in a place that doesn’t feel safe to them and be compassionate to your own feelings connected to that. Try to focus on remaining a safe space for your friend or family member, regardless of their church involvement. 

I’m working with my therapist on creating a new safe space, one that doesn’t have a connection to the trauma itself. While that’s possible to do in my mind, it’s not always physically possible in our day-to-day lives. We will encounter many circumstances that trigger feelings of unsafety and we can’t always avoid it. But the more we notice and care for our safety needs, the more our bodies will trust that we are OK. And that trust will take us to the safe spaces we need. 

On Sheep and Shepherds: A Parent’s View of the Updated Trans Policies

When my son was four, he saw a picture of Jesus Christ as a shepherd with sheep. He pointed and proclaimed, “Jesus saves us…from the sheep!”

Out of the mouth of babes, right?

Allow me a brief moment of motherly sentimentality as I describe this kid1. He’s 11 now. His nightstand prominently displays a picture of Jesus Christ in the nativity. I didn’t give it to him or place it there. He decided that picture was important to him.

Once when I was cleaning out some old boxes, I set aside a gold foil picture of Jesus Christ from my YW days. It seemed like it was time to let that one go. Instead, my son fished it out of the donate pile and set it up on his bedroom shelf.

Last year, when the primary kids were asked to be in a nativity for Christmas, they also asked the kids to share their favorite nativity character and explain why for the program. My son chose Mary because she can do hard things.

This kid was genuinely disappointed that we didn’t go to church on a fourth Sunday linger longer day. He really wanted to linger longer.

Seems like a pretty upstanding, spiritual kind of kid right?

My son, who uses he/him pronouns, also wears a dress to church, maintains long hair, and rocks his favorite pair of heeled ankle boots. Since he was three, when he said he wanted to be a girl, he has gravitated toward gender nonconformity.

In that primary nativity scene at the ward Christmas party, he portrayed Mary in the manger scene. While there was some worry this would ruffle a few feathers, our then bishop kindly and carefully coordinated with us to ensure all was well. If someone wasn’t happy about it, I’m grateful they kept it to themselves.  

As my son’s parent, I’m just a passenger on his journey of gender expression and identity. While his pronouns and his wardrobe are always his choice, as we move through The Puberty, I don’t know how he will evolve. I do know that I love this kid and support him, full stop.

While we attend church (in a messy middle kind of way), this exceptionally lovely child isn’t baptized, by our choice as his parents. He’s a perpetual visitor in our ward. I and some other ward members wear pride pins on Sunday. At the local member level, our small ward supports and loves us. He’s never…yet…been made to feel unwelcome.

I look ahead and wonder when that streak will come to an end. All it will take is one overzealous, overstepping bishopric or stake presidency, one bad round of leadership roulette, to wreak havoc on our safe little bubble, emboldened by the harm the handbook advocates.

At school, his teachers love him fiercely. His friends nominate him for awards and his classmates cheer him on. When there are instances of bullying (and there definitely have been instances), he has had a strong network of adults in place who have protected him and supported him.

At church…I guess this innocent child could need an escort to the bathrooms? Could never be allowed to attend an overnight activity? Could remain a perpetual visitor because baptism would subject him to potentially abusive and harmful practices?

It’s mind boggling to think that Jesus Christ wants any of this.  

To know my son is to love him. To know him is to know he is a beloved child of God who arrived on this earth exactly as he is.  To know him is to know that our church leaders have shamefully set him to the side.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus loves my son. Jesus has saved him too. I can only hope that Jesus also saves us from the sheep.

Photo Credit: RosaryTeam, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

My son and I read this blog post together. My sharing some of his experiences has a seal of approval, but he does want me to share the comments with him. We agreed that I wouldn’t share harmful messages, just “positive comments and suggestions” in his words. ︎