Exponent II's Blog, page 84

Come Follow Me: 2 Corinthians 1-7 “Be Ye Reconciled to God”

Attention activity:

Give everyone paper to list trials they have experienced or situations where they aren’t sure of the best course. Assure them that their lists are private and they won’t need to share anything from the list unless they want to. Relate their lists to 2 Cor 4:8 “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;”.

Main quest: reconciliation, empathy, atonement

Discuss context: Paul had been planning on visiting Corinth on the way to Macedonia, but plans changed so instead he wrote a letter that we now know as 2nd Corinthians. Last time he visited, it ended painfully. We don’t know what happened or who caused offense, but Paul had written a different letter to the Corinthians “with many tears” to let them know of his love.

Read 2 Cor 2:1-10 where Paul explains why he wrote his previous letter. Talk about how Paul handled a hard situation and ask “How should we treat someone who has offended us?” Read and discuss Matt 5: 43-48, which discusses loving your enemies. Loving your enemies can be hard! How do we do it while still keeping ourselves safe?

Read 2 Cor 5:18-21 together. Note that reconcile means “restore friendly relations between” and “make one account consistent with another”. How did Jesus reconcile us with God? Do we always have friendly relations with God? What does it mean to be an ambassador for Christ?

Read 2 Cor 1:4. God can comfort us and that can teach us to comfort others. Have the class think about the trials they listed at the beginning of class. Does anyone want to share about a time they felt God’s comfort, or a time someone comforted them? Note that the word empathy which means “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another” has only been used in English for about 100 years, but the concept was taught in this verse. Talk about how the atonement, being at one with God, is related to empathy.

Talk about the symbolism in partaking the sacrament. Read 2 Cor 4:10-11. Representations of Jesus blood and body enter your body and empower you to act. When you take the sacrament, Jesus lives in your actions, or as Paul puts it the “life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.”

Side quests: These are passages that you could use if you have extra time. They all involve metaphor. You can discuss the symbols used, their meaning, and limits of the metaphor.

-Light Read 2 Cor 4:5-6. We don’t proclaim ourselves, we let light shine out of darkness.

-SavorIn other translations the word used is aroma, fragrance, or scent. Read 2 Cor 2:14-17. We should smell like Christ to God.

-Unveiled Read 2 Cor 3:12-18. Veils are used as a symbol of the old covenant. Unveiled means that you are transformed by God.

-Tent/tabernacle Read 2 Cor 5:1-10. A tent is impermanent like our bodies are impermanent.

Conclusion: Note that it feels really good to feel understood and heard. Encourage the class to talk to a friend, family member, mentor, or God about the challenges or trials they wrote down. Talk about how one of the kindest things we can do for another person is to take time to listen and try to understand them (even if we don’t agree with them). Share one or two of the quotes below and encourage the class to embody Christlike attributes.

“The greatest manifestation of charity is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, granted to us as a gift. Our diligent seeking for this gift requires that we not only are willing to receive it but are willing to share it as well. As we share this love with others, we emerge as ‘instruments in the hands of God to do this great work.’ We will be prepared to sit down with our sisters in heaven—together.”

Kathleen H. Hughes, First Counselor, Relief Society General Presidency
“ That We May All Sit Down in Heaven Together ,” October 2005 General Conference

“ Benevolent is a lovely word that we don’t hear very often. Its roots are Latin, and it means ‘to wish someone well.’ To be benevolent is to be kind, well meaning, and charitable…Our Savior taught us about and lived a benevolent life. Jesus loved all and He served all. Centering our lives on Jesus Christ will help us acquire this attribute of benevolence. For us to develop these same Christlike attributes, we must learn about the Savior and ‘follow in His ways.’ ”

Mary N. Cook, First Counselor, Young Women General Presidency
“ Remember This: Kindness Begins with Me ,” April 2011 General Conference

“…in this ongoing process of growing up unto the Lord, we will be asked to do all we can, in some cases, even more than we know how to do. The challenges may be formidable and the route sometimes unknown. But inevitable wrong turns notwithstanding, those who strive to be truly Christlike—with steadfast determination to serve others and a willingness to press forward in faith—can come to echo this grand spiritual truth shared by Nephi as he continued his shipbuilding: ‘And I … did … pray oft unto the Lord; wherefore the Lord showed unto me great things.’ To be shown ‘great things’—what a gift, what a blessing to those who have chosen ‘to grow up unto the Lord.’ ”

Anne C. Pingree, Second Counselor, Relief Society General Presidency
“ To Grow Up unto the Lord ,” April 2006 General Conference

“ When we take the sacrament each week, we commit to change our lives for the better. We should always be trying to become a new person who is more like our Savior Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul calls this ‘[walking] in newness of life.’ ”

Julie B. Beck, First Counselor, Young Women General Presidency
“ You Have a Noble Birthright ,” April 2006 General Conference

Hopes and Predictions for General Conference

General Conference is coming up in about a month. When I was a teenage convert, I was excited about it. I would go to a friend’s house and watch it on the local public access channel. (This was before it was streamed on the internet.) We ate cinnamon rolls, and the younger children played conference-themed games. In college, we would make it a social weekend, with potlucks and socializing between sessions. On my mission, it felt like a day off because I could sit silently in a dark chapel without having to interact with anyone for several hours.

Then I became The Single Lady ™. By my late 20s, I came to dread conference time. It ended up being two hours of men telling me I was womaning wrong and then 8 hours of men reminding me that I forgot to get married. Now that it’s been revealed that there are more singles than marrieds in the church, the anti-singles rhetoric has died down a bit. I still find myself feeling ambivalent about conference, though.

I still get invited over sometimes to watch with friends. And sometimes I stay home, put my earbuds in so I can listen on my phone, and give my house a thorough scrubbing.

I don’t have any predictions for conference, but I have some hopes. I hope that nothing is said to attack any marginalized group in the church. I hope that Jesus features prominently. I hope that women speak authoritatively on doctrinally substantial topics geared to the whole church rather than just to women and/or children. And I hope I don’t fall asleep!

What are your hopes or predictions? What traditions do you engage in?

Guest Post: Barbie, Ruth, and the Feminine Divine

Photo of Ruth Handler

by Miriam Higginbotham

I have loved reading all the response pieces to Greta Gerwig’s Barbie movie. The movie does a great job of meeting viewers where they are in their experience and familiarity with feminism and the impact of the patriarchy on both women and men. I have found that the movie cannot help but spark thought and conversation. Its humor and silliness make challenging concepts accessible to audiences that have never attended (or would never attend) a gender studies class. The movie has also inspired stimulating discourse among Mormon feminists, and I wanted to contribute to the discussion before Barbie leaves the big screen.

I have been thinking a lot about the portrayal of Barbie’s creator, Ruth (which happens to be my grandmother’s name), and what she represents in the movie. Ruth is featured in three scenes. We first meet Ruth when Barbie discovers Ruth hidden within the overly masculine Mattel headquarters. Barbie enters a room while frantically trying to escape male Mattel executives, who are intent on putting her back inside her Barbie box. The scene shifts dramatically from chaos to peacefulness, as Barbie enters a cozy kitchen, bathed in warm light; drinks tea while she converses with Ruth at the kitchen table; and learns from Ruth that women “do more than work here.” When Barbie has to leave, Ruth directs her to a safe escape out of the building. Ruth appears again towards the end of the movie, when she announces to Barbie and others that she is Ruth Handler, creator of Barbie. Ruth is a good-natured figure who does not purport to be perfect (she has a “double mastectomy and tax evasion issues”). Ruth’s third scene follows when Barbie expresses uncertainty about what she wants for her ending, and Ruth asks Barbie to walk alone with her. In this last scene, Barbie shares her desire and asks for permission to become human—to be “a part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that’s made.” Ruth responds that Barbie does not need permission to become what she wants—this is within Barbie’s power, not Ruth’s.

I have long had an interest in portrayals of the feminine divine and the Mormon concept of Heavenly Mother. As a young woman, I eagerly looked forward to attending the temple, as I was certain I would learn more about Her there. I have a “Heavenly Mother” wall in my home office with different artistic depictions of what a divine female entity may look like. Which is why I was so surprised on my second viewing of the movie to realize that Ruth is intended to serve as a God figure. Somehow, I missed this the first time. Once I recognized her role, it seemed so glaringly obvious, with the soft, heavenly, surreal lighting and setting of Ruth’s final scene with Barbie. (A friend joked that the scene gave off “Saturday’s Warrior vibes.”) I suppose I just thought they were in heaven because Ruth was no longer alive.

With further consideration, however, it occurs to me that the reason I didn’t recognize Ruth’s role as a God figure (even though she is called the “Creator,” hello!), is because she is just so different than the internalized image I have of God, after countless church lessons detailing—in no uncertain terms—the nature of God. It is not surprising that I did not recognize God in a slight, imperfect, female figure, whose nature is supportive, proud, encouraging, and not controlling.

In her last scene with Barbie, Ruth says she does not have any more control over what her creation becomes, than she does over her own daughter. This statement presents a mind-blowing paradigm shift for me, because in Mormonism, God absolutely defines scope of women’s divine potential, and parents have the responsibility to ensure their children understand what God expects them to become. The Billie Eilish song during that scene asks a question I was never allowed to ask as Mormon woman: What was I made for? As a young woman growing up in the Church, I never questioned my purpose. I was taught that my one eternal purpose was the same as every other Mormon woman: to get married and have children. It was a narrow role that I could not easily fit and that I had little control over. It left little room for my own development, interests, and abilities. The idea, as expressed in Eilish’s song, that perhaps I was made for the purpose of finding happiness of my own making, is nothing short of liberating.

Despite my youthful hopes, attending the temple did not teach me anything more about Heavenly Mother. Conversely, the temple is my biggest source of religious trauma. Ruth’s final one-on-one scene with Barbie has been healing for me to watch. If I let myself go there—and I am not sure I am ready to do that—I can almost see that scene as a temple-like experience. Or, at least more what I needed the temple to be: a communion with the Divine, without cumbersome clothing, and the unfamiliar rituals replaced by a Heavenly Mother’s gentle grip, as she imbues me with wisdom helpful in achieving my desired (not predestined) potential. I can see that as a kind of “endowment.”

I realize my interpretation of this scene is nothing more than a wishful reimagining of my temple experience, but the Mormon version has been so engrained in me, body and soul, that even the permission to imagine something different feels like a gift. Each time I have seen the movie, it feels more like a spiritual experience. I understand it better—the way I was told the temple would make sense if I just kept attending, though it never did. The Barbie experience has also been a communal one: sitting with friends and family, often with tears running down our cheeks, as we witness a female God who drinks from delicate teacups.

I have been watching it again and again, just soaking it in.

Miriam is a work-from-home law school grad, with a brilliant husband, two kids who constantly challenge everything she knows about the world, and a very naughty dog who loves and is loved unconditionally. She has Mormonism in her bones and is working to figure out who she is in spite of that.

***
Featured photo Ruth Handler, executive of Mattel Toy Company, 1961. Originally published by the Los Angeles Times. Photographer unknown. Restored by Adam Cuerden.

Letting Go of Who I Wanted My Mother to Be

By Alma Frances Pellett

For much of my life, the examples I’ve had of womanhood have been aspirational. Mothers who took care of their families in and out of the home, who had passions, failings, and interests encompassing the entirety of life. My own mother was no exception to this, being my primary example of the kind of woman I wanted to be. She’s the reason I am proud to be a feminist, an example of how to survive the death of a child (twice!) and still manage to creep along, an explorer of wanting to learn about the world around her, just as I have tried to do in my life.

But in these most recent years, as I have been applying my understanding to my own life as a woman, little things have appeared in the internal image I built of my mother. Some casual phrase here that hurts those I care about, a reminder of things in her history that were much darker, a bit of callousness seeping through. The deep feeling of love and pride is still there, and the encouragement to explore and live my own life, but those very human failings seem bigger as the years progress.

Communication has become sporadic, going to superficial or safe topics to avoid conversations that cause nothing but a feeling of loss in me for weeks afterward. I never minded my father being difficult to talk to, but my mother? This is far more personal. I don’t want to chance losing what little I have.

Most every woman I know has struggled with this at some point in her life, even more than those who have been surprised to see their mother in the mirror. Some have cut off communication altogether, including with anyone who expresses similar feelings. Some have stuck through, trying to be a source for others who might be in the same situation. Some have had no mother at all. But all are working at finding what is right for them, as a person.

But what will be best for me? I don’t yet know. I only know that I’ve managed to shape her in my image, the person I strive to be.

Will I ever get to know her, the real her? When at some point in the distant future I get to see all of who she is, good and bad, complex, deep, making her way through life having gone through some of the same struggles I now have, will I still love her? Will she still love me?
I think we will. It’ll just be a different kind of love, something much more real. But for now, the challenge is in simply letting go of the woman I wanted her to be.

Alma Frances Pellett is a software developer, writer, and mother to five autism spectrum children, working to be the woman she always wanted to be.

Sacred Music Sunday: Didn’t My Lord Deliver Daniel?

I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.

1 Nephi 19:23

When I was in high school, the choir I was in performed Didn’t My Lord Deliver Daniel?. It stuck with me because I was learning in early morning seminary all of the ways God delivered His people. The question from the refrain kept coming back to me – “then why not every [one]?”. God delivered Daniel from the lion’s den, Jonah from the whale, the children of Israel from the serpents, Lehi’s family from the destruction of Jerusalem.

If God can do all of that, God can deliver us. This deliverance won’t always be immediate, and it won’t always come in the form we expect or want. I’ve been in a harrowing trial for two years, and my deliverance has yet to appear. But my Lord delivered Daniel, so He can deliver me, too.

Come Follow Me: 1 Corinthians 8–13 “Ye Are the Body of Christ”

In my family, we keep family scripture study pretty short. We’re busy, just like everyone else. But my favorite scripture study nights are ones where we read a scripture or two and take a couple minutes to discuss it – maybe over the dinner table. 

A few years ago, my daughter (who is now 9 years old) started complaining that during our scripture reading we almost exclusively learned from men’s voices. The scriptures are almost entirely written by men and the quotes from General Conference were pretty solidly men’s voices as well. I started seeking more women’s voices to add to our nightly devotionals. 

The current lesson plan is designed for families like mine who are busy but would like to spend a couple minutes discussing God’s word and would like to include women’s voices in those discussions. I divided the lesson plan into segments and each segment contains a scripture from this week’s Come Follow Me verses, a quote from a woman highlighting the concept taught, and a few discussion questions that you can go over. You can also adapt it to use in individual study (maybe grab a journal to write down your thoughts) or in a church class that’s discussion based.

Though the manualized lesson covers 1 Corinthians 8-13, I’m going to focus on chapters 12-13 because I think there’s so much we can learn from these chapters. 

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has felt like I don’t belong at church. 

I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels like everyone there thinks and acts the same and I’m on the periphery. 

I’m sure I’m not the only one who wonders whether the church has room for people like me. 

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has had people within the church imply that maybe the church doesn’t have room for people like me or people I love. 

This lesson is for people who have felt like me. 

And also to recognize that, unknowingly I may have been someone who made others feel like me.

If we’re Christ’s followers, we need to follow His example of pure charity. That’s what this lesson is about.

Segment 1 Charity : 

1 Corinthians 13: 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor , and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind ; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up

Sometimes when I read these verses, I get nervous wondering how I can ever have all these qualities. I am comforted by a talk given at BYU by Carolyn Rasmus. She said:

“I don’t have time this morning to talk about all of the characteristics of charity mentioned in 1 Corinthians, but I want to examine the first one: Love is patient, or, in the King James Version, charity suffereth long. As I have thought about this, I have come to believe that our Heavenly Father is much more patient with us than we are with ourselves. We seem to have within us a drive for perfection, and sometimes we are not very patient with ourselves.”

Questions for discussion/journal/pondering:

When have I seen the idea of “patient love” exemplified (either by me or someone else)?How does Christ show patient love?How can I have patient love for myself?How can I have patient love for others?

Segment 2 Charity continued:

1 Corinthians 13:5 [charity] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

In these verses we see a list of what love is. In a BYU address, Cheryl C. Lant (then the General Primary President) summed it up more succinctly:

“Real love motivates us to be the best we can be.”

She went on to say:

“It is the most powerful force on the earth and can bring great joy and happiness. Pure love is a gift from God and is at the very foundation of His gospel. While God’s love for us is perfect, our love for Him is constantly being redefined as we learn, grow, and experience.”

Questions for discussion/journal/pondering:

What does it mean for me (personally) to believe that God has perfect love for me?What does it mean for me (personally) to believe that God has perfect love for those around me?In what ways does love motivate me to be the best that I can be?In what ways do I want my love to grow?

Segment 3 Everyone has gifts from God:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord , but by the Holy Ghost . 4 Now there are diversities of gifts , but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues : 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Recognizing that God gives all of us gifts is crucial to being able to love with pure charity. In a BYU address, Diane Strong Krause (an associate teaching professor of linguistics) taught that when we can recognize our own divine potential (which I think includes our spiritual gifts), we’ll be able to also recognize that of others’. She said:

“When we understand who we are, we not only recognize our own potential but recognize that others are also spiritual beings with their own potential. We understand that all persons are of infinite worth and that we are not superior or inferior to anyone, no matter their circumstances—whether they are wealthy or poor, famous or unknown, sophisticated or simple, learned or uneducated; whether they have physical or mental disabilities; or whether they are just plain difficult to get along with or not. We respect all regardless of race, color, creed, cultural differences, educational differences, and behavior. When we see through the eyes of our true self, we see others as who they actually are—spiritual sons and daughters of God. When we understand who others are, we act differently toward them. We become more compassionate and try not to cause harm to them.”

Questions for discussion/journal/pondering:

What gifts do I see in others?How does recognizing these gifts help me to develop pure charity?How does believing in my personal divine potential help me to see others’ divine potentials?

Segment 4 Everyone is needed within the church

The verses in 1 Corinthians 12 teach us that each one of us is necessary within the church. Or, as Janette C. Hales Beckham (then General Young Women President) said in a BYU address, “everyone is important—each one different, but we’re all part of the whole.”

In Corinthians this idea is conveyed as a simile: members of the church are like how our organs worth together:

1 Corinthians 12: 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body , whether we be Jews or Gentiles , whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? … 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you … 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer , all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ , and members in particular.

Questions for discussion/journal/pondering:

What do I bring to my church congregation that perhaps others do not?What would I like to bring to my church congregation? (is there anything stopping me from doing so?)How does recognizing others’ contributions help me to develop pure love?In what ways am I falling short in recognizing others’ contributions?Picture from: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/c...

Guest Post: Get Real Barbie

by Elizabeth Hammond

Hi Barbie!

In 2013 I wrote a post on Feminist Mormon Housewives called “The Mormon Priestess,” which made a splash at the time.

It started as a thought exercise in which I tried to understand the word “priestess” – a term very much present in the temple ceremony and very much absent from church, general conference, and modern theology.  If there was a Mormon Priestess as recognized in the temple, then what did that mean?  The Mormon Priestess essay explored the temple liturgy as a closed system with internal logic that was consistent with itself (and not necessarily with the modern church), and tried to pry meaning out of the words, symbols, movements, covenants, etc. of the temple.  The result was startling, and as I came to understand who the Mormon Priestess was, who she was not, and what she could be, I gave myself permission to step away from the temple story and forward into the rest of my life.

Temple changes came in January 2019, and at a regional Sunstone Symposium in Orange County, CA, I argued that the changes did NOT “fix” the issues argued in the Mormon Priestess essay.  The modern Mormon Priestess remains the same, but that fact is just hidden a little better now.

I’ve disengaged from discussing the Mormon Priestess since then.  But now?  Barbie.  Why would that coax me out of oblivion?  I spent the movie in a state of poignant and  transcendent laugh/cry.  Everything landed hard and also set me a little bit free.  I experienced it as a delightful mashup of The Good Place, The Lego Movie, Dolly Parton’s Dumb Blonde, Hey Girl memes from the years of my feminist awakening, The Matrix, Calvin and Hobbes, and as others have noted, the Garden of Eden.  And unlike anything before, the movie fiddled with a missing piece from “The Mormon Priestess.”

Oh, Barbie movie, what have you done? We can’t help being charmed by the beginning and the blinding aesthetic. Most reviews focus on “the monologue.” Recent analysis argues for an Eve narrative. And usually the ending of the movie, if discussed at all, is gently panned as its weakest part.  But as for me and my creation myth, the ending is the best part.

One question I expected to get a lot when I released “The Mormon Priestess,” but never did, was, what COULD the temple look like for women?  What is the story of eternal female destiny?  If Eve was not punished for her excellent choice, if the atonement worked as fully on her as on Adam, if she was not subsumed in her husband’s priesthood but came fully into her priestesshood, what would a priestesshood be?  How would we choose to re-imagine the temple?  Mormon Priestess Barbie has the answer?  Maybe not fully, but this movie offered a rare first glimpse of the possible.  I knew that the upgrades needed for a  woman-friendly temple would have to come from a woman, and maybe Greta Gerwig is the prophetess we need right now.  Let’s walk through it.

Barbieland is the spirit creation. That which is plastic is eternal, right?  Plastic does not degrade, cannot change, and is not alive.  Consistent with her plastic nature, Barbie’s quest initiates as an attempt to resist change.  “Plastic,” as I recall, is not even a word used in the movie, but the audience, well versed in play and the world of plastic toys, has an intuition about plastic.  In a beautiful irony, though, the eternal nature of “plastic” as unchanging is both true and not true . . . look it up, and you’ll find that the definition of plastic is:

“The adaptability of an organism to changes in its environment or differences between its various habitats.”

“Unchanging” but with the ability to adapt and therefore change. Eternal but with progression?

Enter Gloria (America Ferrera), the mother figure in the movie. She is of Latin American origin, and is the catalyst that penetrates Barbieland in what I perceive as being in the tradition of magic realism, which is very strong in Latin American literature. In an inverse parallel, it is Gloria’s Unmagic Realism, her inclination to build Reality into the dolls (Depression Barbie, Cellulite Barbie, Irrepressible Thoughts of Death, etc.) that challenges the eternal-plastic Magic of Barbieland and starts eternal-plastic Stereotypical Barbie breaking her moulded mold, as it were (flaaat feeet!).

To resist change and stay the same forever, Barbie and Ken journey to the real world. This I interpret as the Fall. Based on the way space and time work in this sequence, I’d argue it is a vision, a revelation, a bridge of consciousness between worlds, a veil of the temple, where the spiritual and physical can interact.  It is the bite at the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, when the realization comes upon them that both good and evil exist.  In their travels, Ken and Barbie witness both, and in a delightful twist I never considered, this Adam and Eve often can’t tell good apart from evil and need to learn the difference through time and experience.  From patriarchy and sexism to the hard truths of meta-Barbie-dolls’ good and bad impacts on girls and women, they discover that existence is complicated, dangerous, and that even though Barbies and Kens depict the fantasy ideals of the world that created them, Barbies and Kens are not actually welcome in that world.

On Barbie and Ken’s return to Barbieland, the Barbies and Kens get to decide what they will believe about the nature of reality. Different voices come to the Spirit-World-Barbieland to prophetically witness “reality” to the Barbies by those who have seen the vision of that other existence, and our War in Heaven (or perhaps the Temptation) ensues.

Our prophet/witness Ken preaches patriarchy, and in a beautiful fashion, he ultimately exposes patriarchy’s inherent violence and becomes a victim of it himself. He later tries to revert to innocence and Barbie will prod him on his own journey to, hopefully, someday, know better and do better. His story is left without an end, as is apropos, since patriarchy still needs to deal with itself. These worlds are mirrors after all.

Our prophetesses Gloria (the Mother) and Sasha (the Daughter), who each represent opposite ends of the spectrum of the Barbie scale, preach the gospel of Lived-Female-Experience. Their words are born from their unmagic reality, which was the catalyst that infused all this change in Stereotypical Barbie in the first place. They present the paradox of Existing While Female. The hows and whys of people loving and hating Barbie dolls distill complexities of hows and whys of women operating in unrelenting paradox in the real world.  Gloria and Sasha testify and speak truth, this is scripture, it is simple,  it is powerful, and when spoken every woman in the audience can feel the truth of it in mind and body.

The monologue, and the wonderful extensions of it spoken by Gloria as they kidnap and deprogram each Barbie, as well as Gloria’s “honest barbies,” and Sasha’s speak truth to power zero room for BS attitude, demythologize patriarchy and its fetishization of “womanhood,” setting the Barbies free.  The sequence centers female power as the restoration of Agency, the most precious of all gifts, and powerfully represents WHY we all need to progress past innocence and not just stay in the Garden forever.  The Garden is no ideal haven.  The Garden, it turns out, is dangerous too, especially for Innocent Barbies and Kens.

There is no deprogramming monologue for the Kens, and they succumb to patriarchy as surely as the Barbies did.  The Barbies hatch their plan to take over Barbieland Eden, not with fists, but by leveraging the Inherent nature of patriarchy.  In patriarchy, the drive to dominate, own, and control is key.  The Barbies resist domination and control by performing interest in other Kens, and the Kens turn from trying to dominate/control the Barbies to now dominating/controlling the “other” Kens (so they can dominate/control “their” Barbies).  A dangerous recipe for resistance perhaps, but also an instructive one.

The Battle of the Beach plays out and patriarchy destroys itself while Matriarchy votes in democracy and destroys the Ken-dom. The Spirit World is restored and makes a bit more room for the Kens. The film acknowledges that matriarchy has its harms (it practically dares the Kens to complain of their treatment, inviting the conversation if anyone is brave enough to have it) . . . and also the movie seems unapologetic in suggesting that matriarchy is still better than patriarchy.  It also delightfully promises that the Kens will progress in power in parallel to women’s progression in power in the real world, suggesting that as patriarchy decreases, the Kens will rise.  Those with ears to hear, hear.

But that’s not the ending. Barbie and Ken getting together is not the ending. Ken finding himself is not the ending. Even Barbie finding herself is not the ending.

The ending is . . . the beginning.

And here is why I love the ending. The new narrative of creation.  A vision of what a temple story could be for priestesses.

Barbie gets to meet God. And have a word.

In good scripture parallelism fashion, Barbie does this three times.

First, she meets Mattel, or dare I say, the False God, kind of like Jesus being tempted by Satan when coming into his ministry. The all-male board, the polished surfaces, the pink-washed speeches, the pedestal-ism of women and girls (“in the most non-creepy way possible”), the naming of female agency as glitter (pretty but insubstantial), the lies and hijinks to put Barbie back in the box, the stale and sterile heaven of it all screamed Corporation and it was too perfect and echoed loudly through the universe. Does an institution minister or ad-minister?  Does it count souls or dollars?  Does it extort or exalt?  Barbie thought Mattel created her, that they knew her and her needs, that it had her best interest at heart, that it would protect her (in her box), and so did Mattel. My stomach clenched as Barbie lowered her hands into the ties.  I know in my memory what it is like to do that.  I also know in my memory from opening Barbie dolls what it feels like to undo those ties – they are fiddly and sharp but yield to the muscles of my little-girl fingers.  Barbie’s hard-earned progression from innocence to insight sets off the red flags, and her new agency kicks in. Barbie sees through the falsehood.  Barbie runs away. Go Barbie go!

Barbie, emerging from this Outer Darkness, finds the true Creator, Ruth Handler (is there any more perfect name?).  The Creator is not polished or perfect;  she is a business woman but with problems, old, “with a double mastectomy and tax issues.”  Like Gloria, the mother figure, Ruth is “. . . weird and dark and all the things you pretend not to be.”  She is not the doll that she created and doesn’t pretend to be.  She is complicated, relatable, imperfect, real.  Mother.  We trust her.  And we feel Barbie’s pain as she struggles through the most subversive tea party ever filmed.  A human playing with her doll, her doll trying to play human.

Later, the third divine encounter.  In an empty place, an in-the-beginning, a crossroads, a temple, Barbie calls the Creator there, and Creator comes.  Barbie asks Creator to help her understand herself. This is Barbie’s vision quest, her self-actualization, her revelation on the nature of her reality.

The origin story.

Creator made Barbie, for her daughter, Barbara. Creator names Barbie a creation, and with the name Barbie, a kind of daughter by proxy, a co-creation with her human daughter. Creator also identifies Barbie as an idea (eternal, plastic), something that lives forever. Barbie uses that pesky agency again.  She doesn’t accept this as her reality any longer . . . she was handled by Ruth, by Gloria, by Mattel, by her role as stereotypical Barbie, and by Ken – all made her a plaything, all ultimately involved harm, and she has outgrown being handled. Barbie wants to be her own The Handler.

Creator capital-H Hears Barbie and enforces her agency. Even Creator didn’t know what Barbie would become – imagine a temple ceremony where you are able to surprise God!  Creator shows Barbie a vision of what it is to be human, her next step, so that Barbie is making a real choice and NOT simply falling into mortality via ignorance.  She chooses her humanity in full awareness.

There is no serpent, no savior, no husband, no sexual innuendos, no gender roles, no priest between Barbie and Ruth. No punishments, perfection, promises, or polygamy.  There is only courage, choice, consequence. For a moment Barbie asks permission . . . as we so often do . . . but in the end, it is not needed.  Agency, girl.

Time to Get Real, Barbie.  Queue the second creation, the physical creation.

Agency, and now life.  The Handler formed her once, but now . . . .  That heaving bosom! Not as sexual, but perhaps as physical sex, “a girl,” a new woman, of her own volition, taking her first free breath.  I will never unsee it.  Female creation is not confined to motherhood – Barbie is not birthed (and Barbie is no baby doll!), she was made, then co-made, then self-made, and she chooses to draw breath on her own terms. That bosom suggests she “has all the parts” as will later be confirmed, and though she has already created herself, she also has the capacity for motherhood. She is plastic to plasticity. She is the doll choosing to be the girl. From idea/role/trope/fantasy/stereotype to flat feet, cellulite, blood, bones, and a vagina . . . as well as irrepressible thoughts of death, depression, danger, and paradox. Maybe Get Real Barbie won’t be welcome in this world, or even happy, but she knows from experience that idea/role/trope/fantasy Barbie isn’t welcome there either.

Barbie is wise now.  She knows that being an idea, a doll imagined by others, is not enough to do the things that Barbie was “made” to do – to “make” the world better for women and girls. She has faced and overcome patriarchy before, and the real world, steeped in its darkness, needs her most of all.  She chooses to fulfill this measure of her creation and “love women” and understand them more than a toy or a toy company ever could, by going to live among them as a woman herself, and do what she can do.

Hopefully Barbie will confront her literal life with safety, unconditional love, art, and the ability to heal from the wounds that await her. Her ending is also not resolved, as she will write it herself.

P – Pockets!

I – pInk!

N – paNts!

K – Agency!!!

And on the seventh day Barbie named herself Barbara Handler, declared herself Real, and saw that she was good-enough.  And God looked upon her creation, and saw that she was just-right.

Elizabeth Hammond lives in California and works as an Academic Coach, helping students apply executive functions to school. She gleefully spends her Sundays living her Barbie Dream Life: reading, gardening, beekeeping, hiking the redwoods with dogs, sailing, winemaking, drumming on the beach, thinking about the kids away at college, working on her stupid car, and hanging out with her epically imperfect Ken.

Guest Post: Willful Girls

Guest Post by Miri. Miri is a Canadian student and newlywed exploring her roles as a wife, daughter, and spiritual being through writing. 

Acrylic painting by MayBeth Timothy

Last April future in-laws’ learned that I might not be taking their last name and that my future husband might instead be taking mine. My father-in-law was particularly unhappy with this. The ensuing conversations I and my mom had with him demonstrated many tools of power I was then not able to put a name to. The forces at play were influenced by tradition, religion, and class. They shaped how conversation surrounding the subject ensued. During this conflict my mother and I were placed in the role of “willful girls”, a term I came across during a university course on feminism I took a few months later. The course put a name to something I had been experiencing particularly within church and family.

My then-fiance “James” and I were unsure of what surname we would use after we were married. We were considering several possibilities at the time. My future in-laws, “Mark and Kaylee,” became aware of mine and my fiance’s uncertainty with which name we would be using when my mom mentioned to Kaylee that we were leaning towards using my name at the time. Mark began incessantly calling and texting my mom. He accused her of pushing her opinions on us and reminded her that it was not her choice or place to influence us. Within our parents’ ward, my mom is known as an outspoken and progressive person and it is likely due to this reputation Mark assumed she was behind us considering non-traditional name options. He urged us not to decide anything yet and to speak to him and Kaylee first.

It was odd to me that Mark thought my mom was out of line for expressing an opinion on the subject yet wanted to meet with us to be a part of the decision making. Later he repeatedly said that this was a “family decision” and not one James and I could make alone. This is when it occurred to me that my mom and I may be under the label “Willful Girls”, a term I learned in class that describes the infantilization of women who “step out of line”. Mark was, unconsciously, or consciously, using tools of oppression to quiet us. James and I arranged to meet with Mark and Kaylee to discuss this.

Mark spoke about the tradition of a woman taking her husband’s name dating back to Abrahamic times, though this tradition did not actually start until much later in medieval Britain. He also valued the tradition having value and following a patrilineal line of achievement. He emphasized the pride he took in his family’s name and things his ancestors had done that he was proud of. Mark wanted his future grandchildren to carry this name and go on to add more to this legacy. My counterpoint to this was the many things my maternal grandmother has done. She is known in her community in her own right for her outspokenness and service she freely provides to her ward and community. However, this led me to a realization; my grandmother’s name is the name of the family she married into, not the family she was born into, my mother’s name is not her mother’s name, and should I take my fiance’s name, my name will not be either of their names. While we often look at a patrilineal legacy, women are never viewed according to their maternal line or legacy. Men’s achievements contribute to their family name while women’s achievements are viewed individually and do not contribute to the legacy of a family line. The tradition of women taking their husband’s names emerged as a symbol of husband’s taking on ownership and responsibility of a woman from her father. Interestingly, though my father-in-law said he valued this only as a tradition and did not view me as someone who is owned, he spoke almost exclusively to James and frequently cut me off to instead question my fiance. I had prepared some things I wanted to say during this confrontation, but I spoke very little. This experience made me understand more how women in my ancestry had stayed silent as I was now experiencing how useless it felt to speak when no one wanted to listen.

Belonging and class were the two most controversial terms in our discussion. Mark did not want to use the term ownership, though I felt the way he spoke reflected a belief that surnames symbolized a form of ownership. He saw the situation as me leaving my family and joining his, and so my name should reflect that transfer in belonging. He was also operating in a sort of class system. My maiden name is a widespread and old name within our region, when I tell people my last name I am usually answered with “X! Are you related to so and so X?” and I usually am. Mark converted to the church at eighteen so his wife and children are the only ones with their name in the Church. He only has two sons who could have more children that would carry his name and grow it in the Church. This shows that women’s voices were not being considered in this discussion by first considering women to belong to the family they are born into and later the family they are married into, and through silencing ancestral women by only considering patrilineal lines. My value, and women’s value throughout our church’s history, was being reduced to how we could grow and further the patrilineal line we were assimilated into.

The power we held as individuals in this conversation was greatly different. The voice most missed was Kaylee’s; she said very little and I know very little about her feelings on the matter. Because she was a woman in a male dominated conversation, she did not fight to be heard and therefore she was not heard. Mark held the most power as the patriarch in the conversation.The fact that men “preside” over their families and everyone can receive personal revelation means that men often receive personal revelation that trumps their wife’s and children’s revelation. Any argument I made could ultimately be defeated by Mark saying he had received divine revelation that was contrary to my opinion. Through reading Willful Girls in my textbook months later I was shocked to read the story of a willful girl who is punished by God for her rebelliousness. It was the first time I really internalized the idea of “God” being weaponized against women systematically. As one who is beyond scrutiny, anything attributed to Him is viewed as automatically right. Though I was aware of this being used historically on a grand sale for justifying colonization and moral crusades I had not previously considered this an issue in my personal life. I thought that since my church came after the colonizing and moral crusades, our version of Heavenly Father was never weaponized this way. This instance showed me how men in my life employed “God” as a tool to make their opinions have greater weight than women’s.

When a conflict arose between myself and my future in-laws, my father-in-law treated my mom and I as “willful girls”. Through this I realized that we had been both historically and culturally set up to either become willful girls or be lost in our silence. The idea of “God” is systematically employed to push willful girls into line through silencing and superiority tactics as was demonstrated in this surname disagreement. My now husband and I decided to hyphenate our names with mine coming first. Though we do not engage in arguments about it, we do not answer to the name James’ family occasionally calls us by.

 

Sometimes Finding God at Church Takes an Awful Lot of Effort

Woman reading, 2003. Seattle Municipal Archives, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

It takes a lot of courage to be honest at church. It takes even more courage when the words you need to say contradict someone in authority. Years ago, I bore a testimony on Fast Sunday that did just that. I emailed my words to a dear friend later that day. I found that email recently and wanted to share this experience because it illustrates the difference between having faith in the gospel and having faith in the church. I hope that this post is useful as a gentle example of why faithful people sometimes struggle with church.

This is what I said over the pulpit at that testimony meeting:

Last month during testimony meeting a few people said how church is a wonderful three hours of spirituality and isn't it great how refreshing it is. And I thought: that's not usually how I experience church. I wish I could experience church that way. More often for me church is physically and emotionally exhausting.One of the more recent examples of this was stake conference. The presiding authority taught that it's not enough to have faith. We need to have exceeding faith. I had never considered that this is something that I should want. It's hard enough to have faith. What would I even do with the extra faith? Then several of the people who were asked to bear their testimony said that they *had* exceeding faith. This made me feel very isolated. It sounded like everyone already had something that I hadn't even thought to want.This really bothered me, but it also caused me to reflect on what words I would use to describe my faith. I have occasionally felt that my faith was sufficient. There's only one verse in the scriptures that talks about sufficient faith, and it's in 3rd Nephi. Christ visited the people in the Americas and was about to leave when he looked around and saw that the multitude did not want him to go. He said that he could see that the people had sufficient faith to be healed. So, he stayed and healed their sick. He prayed with them, and the words were so marvelous that they could not be written. He took each child one by one and blessed them. Christ's joy was so full that he cried. And then he gave them the sacrament. There are wonderful experiences for people who have merely sufficient faith. I have had a few experiences like that. Amen.

I remember being so anxious about saying those words out loud that I had that whole thing memorized. I experienced an awful lot of cognitive dissonance while processing the area authority’s teachings. My conclusions were not what he intended to teach. That stake conference gave me a window to what it may have been like to listen to people worship on the Rameumpton (Alma 31:8-21). It seemed to me like the area authority was asking the congregation to look beyond the mark (Jacob 4:14). What I witnessed was a church leader creating a space where there was in immense amount of social pressure for people to profess a prideful ideal that contradicts values from the Book of Mormon that I treasure.

At the same time, I appreciate that contemplating the whole experience taught me in a powerful and personal way. I was not a lazy learner: I reflected on my experiences. I searched and studied to find knowledge. I felt compelled to share what I learned, and I spent a lot of mental energy figuring out how to communicate what I learned in a manner appropriate to the setting. My actions were internally motivated; no one told me I needed to do the work. This is exactly the kind of deep learning that any teacher would want for their student; this is the kind of learning that God would want for me.

I want to extend grace to that area authority. Maybe his words were what someone else needed to hear and they just landed on me in an unintended way. I want to allow others to grow from mistakes, just like I hope others do for me. Leadership is hard. If my struggles with that stake conference had been an isolated experience, it would not be a big deal. However, I have had numerous such experiences over the years, and I know so many others have as well. I often feel like I have to think about all things church-related upside down and backwards. It’s exhausting. I’m reminded of Cunningham’s Law, which says that “the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question, it’s to post the wrong answer.” There are a number of reasons why relying on this “law” to learn is not helpful or edifying, but I find it’s potential to spread lies the most insidious. I don’t think the leader was intentionally “preaching falsehood to know the truth”, but the paradox applies: grappling with a leader’s words I find to be false undermines their authority, yet the grapple spurred by those words can still lead me to God’s goodness.

The talk that the area authority gave set the stage for the individuals asked to bear impromptu testimony afterwards. It is completely predictable that people want to look good in front of others. After a talk about the necessity of exceeding faith, it would have taken noteworthy courage to stand up and say “I’m not sure that my faith is even as big as a mustard seed”. The environment created at that meeting did not invite honesty or openness, so the people who stood up did not embody those qualities. I wish church did more to help me embody traits I value.

I don’t mind if church is occasionally challenging. More often though, I want to be nurtured at church. Sunday is supposed to be a day of rest, and (two-hour block notwithstanding) going to church is still generally physically and emotionally exhausting for me. I have a friend who does her best to make her home a soft place to land when her kids come home from school. It seems to be working for her: her teens talk to her openly about all sorts of difficult things. I wish that church was like that more often—a place where it is safe to share our challenges and be supported as we work through them. I believe in a God who will meet us where we are. When we say “I believe; help thou mine unbelief”, God will be there with willing hands, kind words, and big hugs.

Just as I was getting ready to schedule this post, I ran across a poem that fits nicely with everything discussed, so I’m sharing it here too.

Orthodox Friends, Please Don’t Run Away From Me

Dear Friend,

We have been friends for a few years, maybe even a decade or more. We may have met in a church calling or through our children, depending on the friend reading this. We have shared fun times together with an unspoken understanding that we had a similar relationship with the church. In the past few years though, you may have noticed that church is not the same for me. Perhaps you noticed this through small comments or perhaps we have had some conversations about it. I have noticed sometimes that you seem confused/scared/curious about how my relationship with the church has changed. I acknowledge that it can be unsettling to see my relationship to the church change because we now no longer have the same shared understanding with this institution that brought us together.  I value our friendship and so want to share some thoughts that you may find useful so that you do not have to be scared of me.

Let go of the word struggle

“Struggle” is a word commonly applied to people who no longer have the same relationship with the church as they once did. While change does sometimes require strenuous effort, typically I see the word struggle applied in a pathological way; it turns the person who is changing into a victim to be helped. If only this person would read the scriptures more/pray more/read more conference talks, etc. etc. they would be ‘cured’, stop struggling, and go back to their old ways of viewing the church. Dear friend, just like a butterfly can’t become a caterpillar again, the ‘old me’ is not coming back. Instead of struggle, try using the word change or even growth. Which leads to the stages of faith.

Become familiar with the stages of faith

In the church, we sometimes hear the phrase ‘enduring to the end.’ While enduring is commendable, what if life can also be about growth? Growing to the end. Thomas McConkie wrote about the stages of faith as applied specifically within the LDS tradition – see https://mormonstages.com/ Understanding that people can be in various stages of faith may provide reassurance that I have not caught a communicable disease that you need to be afraid of or try to cure with conference talks. We can be in different stages, not understand each other, yet still honor each other’s differences and still be friends. Along with stages of faith, another critical item to be aware of is religious trauma.

Religious trauma is real and can cause physical symptoms

A simple way to explain this is that I have been harmed by some teachings I received at church. One significant event was when I went to a bishop for help, as I was taught, when I should have gone to the police. I didn’t get the help I needed, and, after burying this for a decade and a half, along with all the seemingly small papercut types of harms adding up, I was a mess. Our spirits and bodies are connected. My body screamed at me with anxiety, depression, stomach aches, and prickly skin. I started going to therapy with a Jungian trained psychologist yet continued going to church even though it would take me days to recover from the physical reaction I had to church. It took being bluntly warned about the serious medical effects of continuing attendance, did I finally realize I needed to take a break. To let go of the need to perform exact obedience. There is much more I can say here; please know that it is not being a lazy disciple or a lax learner. To me, labels such as those are easy ways to dismiss people instead of taking the time to understand a person’s experience with the church. I say the church because the church is separate from God. I can’t say this next part enough.

My relationship with God is separate from my relationship with the church

What you see from the outside is that my relationship with the church has changed. It is easy to make assumptions that those changes are synonymous with changes to my relationship with God. They are not. One of the most beautiful aspects of separating God from church is that I now get to experience God directly – no church in between God and me. I get to contemplate the mystery that is God. I found the Divine Feminine. I still believe in Jesus – eternal gratitude to the teacher who introduced me to a feminist Jesus who values women. I am in awe that I can communicate with the Divine. 

In the end, the church is an institution that I believe exists to support people in their faith journeys. We need each other; we need community. Sometimes though our individual needs mean that for a short time, a long time, or permanently, this church is not the place for us. For me, I am working on creating what Christian Kimball described in his book Living on the Inside of the Edge: A Survival Guide  as an adult-to-adult relationship with the church as opposed to the child-to-adult relationship we are trained to have with the institution. So far the process has been far from simple. I am willing to talk anytime though. I value our friendship no matter what direction our faith journeys take us.

Oh, p.s., it is obvious when you garment check me. Either stop or trust our friendship enough to ask me if I wear them or not. I will tell you if I want to discuss it or not.