UPDATED: Mother's Day Talk - Eshet Chayil

(this is the updated version of my talk - after being crunched for time and incorporating feedback from others FYI)

Exactly eleven years ago my husband and I sat in the doctor's office as he told us our test results: unexplained infertility. He said the chances were less than 1 in 1000 that we would ever be able to have a child on our own. That Mother’s Day was not a easy day for me. Mother’s day is the source of pain for a lot of people, and not just the people who can’t have children; it was a difficult day for my foster kids as well and I know there are complicated feelings from my relatives whose mother is serving time in prison. It's even family legend that my grandmother with seven children came home from every Mother's Day sacrament meeting locked herself in her bedroom, cried, and wouldn't come out. There are so many ways for people to hurt on this day.  So I decided I wanted to talk about what I think is the highest and holiest calling we have: discipleship. I wanted to share two experiences that have helped shape my own path.

Rewind to 2002.   It's been six months of waiting for a baby and every month we buy those pregnancy tests: so excited!!!  Just kidding, false alarm!  I'm working as the receptionist at Pres. Bednar's Office on BYU-Idaho campus.  One Tuesday Elder Grow came for devotional and spoke a little about what a blessing it has been for his family to follow the prophet and have his wife stay home with the children and not work.  There are MANY working mothers in the admin building that I see every day on the second floor.  I observed as many of these women (some had to work, single moms etc) turned off the devotional or slammed their office doors as not to hear the radio, and some blatantly stand there and criticize his words, i.e. "He has no idea what he's talking about.  Ricks College would shrivel up and die if all of the mothers went to stay home with their children." etc.  I was getting a little riled up because at this point I would have given my left arm to be able to get pregnant and stay home with a baby and I literally wanted to stand up and tell them all, "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard!".  I wrote Pres. Bednar an email and explained the situation and asked him how you know when you should bite your tongue and how you know when to make a stand and let people know they are wrong.  Thirty minutes after coming back to the office from devotional Pres. Bednar asks Betty to have me come in to his office.  (Can I just add as a 10-year postscript after being a SAHM, part-time worker, and full-time working mother -- this issue is just a little more complex than my 20 yo mind could grasp).

Here I sit, a 20 year-old, lowly receptionist in front of Pres. Bednar.  And I will be grateful until the day I die that he took the time from his schedule to teach me a little about life.  First of all he asked how long we'd been waiting for a baby.  I told him, "Six months."  The man literally laughed in my face and said, "Well first of all maybe you need to learn some patience!"  His son and wife had been trying for over 3 years, he tells me.  One day he was alone with Elder Eyring and his son's problems had been weighing on him and he asked Elder Eyring about it.  What do you say to the couple who has done everything right, who has prepared themselves their whole lives for the day when they can build a family and raise children up unto the Lord, and they remain childless?  Elder Eyring told him that the Lord doesn't send children for us to teach them, the Lord sends children for them to teach us.  The point of this life is for us to learn how to become like Him.  Sometimes that is accomplished by having children.  And sometimes the Lord determines that is accomplished by NOT having children.  Do parents learn patience, long-suffering, service, and humility from having children?  Yes.  Do couples learn the same things from NOT having children?  Yes.  So the point is for us to submit our will to the Lord's to become all that he wants us to be - no matter the path He gives us to get there.

This lesson in becoming reminds me of one of Elder Oaks’ landmark GC addresses from October 2000 The Challenge to become

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become.  In contrast to the institutions of the world, which teach us to know something, the gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to become something.

We qualify for eternal life through a process of conversion. As used here, this word of many meanings signifies not just a convincing and knowledge but a profound change of nature.

I have mentioned earlier that I felt I had a faith transition; I had an answer to prayer that I wasn't supposed to be a mother again and it shook my foundation pretty hard because I'd always believed the purpose of womanhood was motherhood. I started rebuilding the foundation of my faith, and instead of building it on motherhood - I built it on Christ. I tested that foundation and it was solid, something that would never change. About this same time I found a excerpt from a book written by an evangelical woman who wrote about biblical womanhood and it helped me see a path forward for me:

Proverbs 31 is a well known poem about a housewife: "who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies". It goes on to describe the life of the perfect housewife. For a long time this passage has been seen as instructions on how to be the ultimate homemaker and a woman of God. This is understandable; in a culture that often downplays the significance of a housewife, it makes sense to do all you can to restore dignity to this thankless position.

Would it surprise you to know that Christian congregations may be misinterpreting this passage? This poem was originally written in Hebrew, and Jews have a different understanding of it. An evangelical woman wrote a book about biblical womanhood and she asked her Jewish friend about this chapter during her research. Her friend explained [1]:

    “[Proverbs 31 is] packed with hyperbolic imagery, the poem is an acrostic, so the first word of each verse begins with a letter from the Hebrew alphabet in succession. This communicates a sense of totality as the poet praises the everyday achievements of an upper-class Jewish wife, a woman who keeps her household functioning day and night by buying, trading, investing, planting, sewing, spindling, managing servants, extending charity, providing food for the family, and preparing for each season. Like any good poem, the purpose of this one is to draw attention to the often-overlooked glory of the everyday.”

This woman in Hebrew is described as an “Eshet chayil,” [eshet kile]  or woman of valor —

    “The only instructive language it contains is directed toward men, with the admonition that a thankful husband should honor his wife “for all that her hands have done.” In the Jewish tradition, it is the men who memorize Proverbs 31, so they know how to honor their wives. But often it is no longer presented as a song through which a man offers his wife praise, Proverbs 31 is presented as a task list through which a woman earns it. (In fact if you search for “Proverbs 31 woman” on amazon you’ll find dozens of Christian self-help books for women.) The details of the passage have taken precedent over the message of the passage, and somehow, through the centuries, we’ve managed to turn a poem into a job description.”

 It isn’t the woman’s household accomplishments that earn her honor and praise, but her virtues of wisdom and valor. There’s another woman in the Hebrew bible that is described as an “Eshet chayil.”  She was a foreign immigrant and manual laborer. She was single and barren, and she was dirt poor. She seems the opposite of the Proverbs 31 woman. Despite all this, Ruth is described as an “eshet chayil” before becoming the wealthy, influential wife of Boaz.

Clearly it is not what you do that makes you a woman of God, it is your character. It is your discipleship. As we all strive to “become” in our discipleship, I hope we can remember and honor the men and women of character who have influenced us. I especially hope that today we can all find a way to honor the “eshet chayil,” the Women of Valor in our lives who have influenced us.

My mother is an eshet chayil - she’s taught me a lot of valuable things. She’s taught me that my voice matters, to be brave, and to not care what other people think. She taught me to challenge myself, have goals, and do the best I can every day. Above all this, my mother is an example of discipleship. 

I was once at a stake conference where the Stake Pres described parents as archers and children as arrows. It is the duty of parents to sharpen their aim (develop their own discipleship) to enable them to point their children towards the target (Christ). I remember thinking that this perfectly described my mother. Her aim has always been steady and true in her path towards bringing her children to Christ. Isn’t this the ultimate goal of every mother in the Church? To bring others to Christ?

I hope we can all find a way today to honor the "eshet chayil"- women of valor - in our own lives that have brought us closer to Christ as we move forward in our own discipleship
[1] Rachel Held Evans, Women of Valor

Does Mormon Feminsm Hurt the LDS Church?

There was quite a popular post that made the rounds of the Internets lately, one called "Ordain Women: thanks for nothing" on Millennial Star, a conservative thought bastion of the Bloggernacle.  There is a wide divide of understanding of what people think OW is doing, and what they are actually doing, I don't want to focus on her misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of them, but of this quote:

However, what the OW have done is take their cause to the Court of Public Opinion. Innumerable news outlets have covered the story, painting a picture of courageous, marginalized women finally standing up against centuries of oppression from a religious institution bent on discrimination.

Essentially, dragging my beloved Church through the muck of spin and sophistry.  Some of the headlines are truly nauseating to me “LDS Church says Hugs and Heart-felt Conversations ‘Divisive’” “Mormons Exclude Women from All-Male Meeting” and endless articles more. If you choose to violate the useful maxim “Don’t Read the Comments” you will find hundreds of folks chiming in to damn the Mormon church, Christianity and all religions and belief systems of every kind. 

Allow me to pose a few questions. When a group decides to take an issue to the media, exposing it to scorn, ridicule and hatred, does it increase interest in the Church or decrease it? Will the media coverage inspire individuals seeking for the truth to look at the Church? Or to turn away in disgust?

I submit that the actions of OW and its subsequent media attention will make it more difficult to overcome the wave of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping our society, that it will inhibit the work of the Lord and the work of missionaries. In this way, it is contrary to building the Kingdom of God. 

Who stands to benefit from the clamor and calumny that result from OW? I’m going to go ahead and say it, Satan. Yeah, I’m sure that he is reveling in the disruption to the work of the Lord because of the methods of the OW movement. And in the resulting contention and war of words between church members because of it.

I have no doubt that Satan is behind the contention and hateful things being said about each other within the Church in this situation (both sides are guilty of a lack of Christlike, empathetic understanding - don't even get me started about the 'they are stoning my prophets' accusation . . . gag).  I do take issue that she represents the troll-hating comments on the internet as representative of the responses of people to the article.  Most people who are open-minded, thoughtful, interested people (1) don't comment (2) don't read troll-hate comments (3) if they do, they see them for what they are, hateful trolls who don't add value to a discussion.  That's just a part of the Internet, no matter what topic. 

I want to take issue with her assertion that public Mormon feminism hurts the Church.  Have you ever heard of the adage, "There's no such thing as bad press?"  First, let's examine another somewhat derogatory, very public Mormon spectacle at the moment:  The Book of Mormon Musical.  What has been the Church's response?  Advertising and using it as a conversion tool.  It's worked, we've had converts from people going to see TBoM Musical.  Second, has every single public coverage been nasty and negative?  I thought a lot of it was rather thoughtful and nuanced, even if it didn't favor the "traditional" viewpoint held by most members of the Church.  Especially the recent front-page NYT article about the growing role for Mormon women.  Seriously, you guys, you can't buy that kind of ad-space.

So why do I think all of the movements of public Mormon feminism isn't hurting the Church, but might actually help?  Well,  The SL Tribune recently ran an article about why did the nearly doubling of our missionary force numbers only produce a 4% increase in converts?  There are a variety of reasons, I'm sure.  One thing that stuck out to me was when I saw this tweet on Twitter.  I follow Neylan McBaine, an executive at Bonneville Communications and one of the brain-childs behind the "I'm a Mormon" campaign.  She also founded the Mormon Women Project.  I don't think she'd label herself a Mormon Feminist, but I love and respect her voice and the work she is doing to lift Mormon women's profile at the grassroots level.  She's amazing.  Back to the point, she retweeted this, which I think is telling, since she's basically one of the people over branding for the Mormon church.

I'm going to make a few assumptions here, but I don't think I'm going very far out on a limb.  I'd say that most non-Mormons closely associate the LDS church with socially conservative politics/the anti-gay marriage movement (prop 8), republicanism (Mitt Romney), polygamy (images of Big Love come to mind), conformity (white shirted missionaries all look the same, stepford wives), and the corporatization and $ the church holds (spent more $ building a shopping mall than on humanitarian efforts).

And what could change people's stereotype perceptions of what a Mormon is, or what a Mormon has to be, than an article about how Mormon women wore pants to church? What if a woman is looking for a Church to join and wants to make sure she'll find one that will welcome her wearing pants?  But she's always thought Mormonism was part of the right-wing Christian political movement?  Maybe she'll take a second look because after reading that article she thinks she might be welcome there, that she might have been wrong about what Mormonism is.  Perhaps changing people's ideas of what a Mormon is needs to happen before they'll let Missionaries in and listen to what they have to say.  That, I think, may actually spread the Gospel.  But not the articles about how they received death threats.   Above the author says, "media attention will make it more difficult to overcome the wave of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping our society, that it will inhibit the work of the Lord and the work of missionaries."  I think one of the things fueling the anti-religious sentiment in our society is the awful, un-Christlike things said and done in the name of religion.  Maybe the hostility to different opinions on doctrine and perceptions of how to view the Gospel of Jesus Christ is what is hurting the message. In fact I find it telling that the people in charge of the 'I am a Mormon' campaign purposefully present as many of diverse and non-conformist profiles as possible. 

I haven't shared this publicly before, but I was interviewed by a freelance journalist who was doing an article on the complexity of Mormon feminism.  It's not an article about Mormonism, it doesn't want to teach you about our beliefs or doctrines or preach to you or convert you.  Originally The Atlantic planned to publish it and they dropped it in favor of a more controversial MoFem story - the journalist shopped around until he found a publishing space.  It turns out The Toast, a very secular feminist website, agreed to publish it here: "Like Wearing Pants to Church".  I didn't share it before because right next to my article was one on transgender issues - and that most people I know will NOT be comfortable on this website and the things they say or discuss.  If you do choose to go read it, I want to ask you to then read the comments and hear what secular humanist feminists have to say about how it changed their stereotype of religious or Mormons.  This is a good thing, I think.   Is there only one way to be a good Mormon?  We're supposed to spread the Gospel to all the world, but are we going to screen out all progressives, feminists, etc. because they won't be welcome here?  Do we really want to put ourselves into this situation? 

This is one of the reasons I have not joined the Facebook Group "Mormon Women Stand."  Like Lisa Downing, a conservative convert to the Mormon Church living in Texas, in a post about her conversion  on her blog "Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt":

A new Facebook page, Mormon Women Stand, has gained broad appeal and describes itself as a group of “LDS Women who, without hesitation, sustain the Lord’s Prophet, the Family Proclamation as doctrine and our divine role as covenant women for Christ.” In the Guidelines on Discussion and Tone, we find, “Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God.” The passage then states: “With this in mind, anything contentious, contrary to or criticizing the teachings, doctrines or leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this page will not be welcome.”

I’m not sure how to react to this. If this group holds strictly to this platform, I, as a teenage investigator, would have had no place there. I (and my comments) would’ve been rejected for the very doubts, criticisms, and questions that lead to my testimony.  In fact, I don’t think I’m welcomed there now. I continue to have questions–real doubts about some things. Yet, I don’t feel my questions call into question my devotion to the Lord, my commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or my willingness to sustain the current president and prophet.

There are a lot of men and women who feel alone, ostracized, and so afraid to share their thoughts.  Because it's not kosher for people to talk about questions or doubts, even how those lead to increased faith . . . there are many in our culture who need understanding so they don't feel they have to leave.  There really is a cultural belief that you are not a good Mormon if you have doubts or questions.  I know because consistently, several times per month, I get notes, messages, comments, or emails from people I have or haven't met thanking me for sharing.  For being a voice to throughts that they are terrified to say, because they see the reaction and abuse that members get who do share.  There are members of OW that receive the same types of notes.  Here is one note I received yesterday.

 I just wanted to tell you thanks for... all you post on Facebook and your blog. It's hard to find people who have similar views and even more difficult to find those who will share them. I think you are articulate, well reasoned, and brave. So thanks. You've helped me more than you realize.

You have fellow saints around you living in fear, and it's not healthy.  It needs to be acceptable for people to say, "I don't know.  I don't know if that's true but I'm studying it out and pondering it in my mind.  I'm going to give myself room to think/study/ponder/pray about this topic/quote/subject."

Many of these doubts and questions concern our doctrines, practices, and history or past.  I think anytime I'm presented with a perfectly clean history or hero (or even Church organization), a little bit of scrubbing has been done.  One thing that may have been stumbling block was that a some non-Mormons knew more historical facts about the Mormon church and Joseph Smith than a lot of Mormons.  For example, Joseph translating part of the Book of Mormon by putting his head in a hat and looking at a seer stone.  It's a historical fact, and the Church has been wont to publicize anything it doesn't think will build faith - recently it's been taking steps towards transparency, even acknowledging work with the seer stone in a series of essays it's been publishing to make our history more transparent (The essays include the Book of Mormon Translation,  Multiple Accounts of the First Vision,  Race and the Priesthood, Polygamy, DNA Studies, and the refutation that we believe we'll Become Like God and get our own planets).  I mean, they're not having bishops read the essays from the pulpit (I wish) but at least publishing them is a step.  Yay for steps.  This could actually be a step towards retention and new conversion!

In conclusion, I want everyone to get rid of the notion that the only thing good for the Church is to only have one perfect, conformist, foot forward.  The story of the bible is rife with imperfect humans and prophets and their story of their attempting to communicate with God and rise above this world.  You guys, the Bible is a mess!  We find ourselves in their weaknesses, and we know if they can do it, we can too.  Anytime you want to accuse Mormon feminists of being divisive and hurting the Church, I want you to remember the quote I shared from Rachel Held Evans on my own blog post about On Being Divisive and Becoming One:

I suspect Paul combined this call for the Body’s unity with an acknowledgement of the Body’s diversity because he knew that unity isn’t the same as uniformity.
We’re not called to be alike; we’re called to love.
We’re not called to agree; we’re called to love.
We’re not even called to get along all the time; we’re called to love each other as brothers and sisters, as people united in one baptism, one communion, one adoption.
Maybe we need these differences to be animated, to be alive, to mature. Maybe friction isn’t a sign of decay, but of growth.
The world is certainly watching. But this doesn't mean we hide our dirty laundry, slap on mechanical smiles, and gloss over all the injustices and abuses, conflicts and disagreements, diversity and denominationalism present within the Church;  it means we expose them. It means we talk about them boldly and with integrity, with passion and with love. I suspect that talking about our differences is better for our witness than suppressing them, and I'm sure that exposing corruption and abuse is better for our witness than hiding them.
And when it comes to injustice, a far more important question to me than "What will the world think if they see us disagreeing?" is "What will the world think if they don't?"

On Being Divisive and Becoming One

I've mentioned before that one of my passions is for unity in the Church.  I've posted that's one of the reasons I have real concerns about Ordain Women, is that it seems a breeding ground for contention. I'm going to come out and change my stance.  Because in the last six months I've studied so intently in and out of the temple and had such wonderful spiritual experiences, especially with my husband in the celestial room, that were prompted because of Ordain Women and the questions and discussion they are raising.  I no longer begrudge their existence.  I do think it makes my job harder, as a moderate mormon feminist, advocating for policy changes instead of ordaining women.  But I think they need to be there, even if I don't agree with their actions or their tone. 

And it starts me thinking about our commandment to become one, as the Body of Christ.  I cited that in my newspaper article in the Standard Journal.  Unity does not equal uniformity.  How can we become Zion?  By everyone exercising their free agency in only the way that makes you comfortable?  Is it possible that by having diverse opinions and thoughts and perspectives on how we are to build Zion, that it strengthens the church.  Are people who are different only welcomed in our culture and in our Church, so long as eventually they step in line and act and think and dress like the majority?Elder Uchtdorf says, "Brothers and sisters, dear friends, we need your unique talents and perspectives. The diversity of persons and peoples all around the globe is a strength of this Church." 

As a Mormon Feminist, I often end up sharing my opinions that may be different than others'.   I often am told that I shouldn't care about the things I care about, that I'm looking beyond the mark, that I'm being ungrateful, that I don't value what I've been given, or that I should just focus on loving and serving others (as if my having a different opinion on Mormon culture or church policy makes it so I'm not loving and serving others).  I've also been told I should just keep my questions, experiences, and opinions private - that putting them in public is dangerous and wrong, mostly because it shows that a member of the church doesn't agree with how some things are being done.  That I'm disagreeing.  And we shouldn't disagree in public. 

Rachel Held Evans, an Evangelical Feminist, does the same thing in a much more widespread manner than myself, she has her own post up about how she is accused of being divisive all the time, below I've quoted my favorite part of her response.  Please go read it in its entirety at the link above:

But when I began writing about gender equality in evangelicalism, it became apparent to me that no matter how careful my tone, no matter how reasoned my arguments, no matter how gentle my critique, my work would inevitably be characterized as “divisive.”

“How dare you challenge a man of God?”

“The world can’t see us disagreeing like this; it hurts our witness.”

“We should be talking about more important matters.”

“Let’s just focus on what we agree on and let these minor issues go.”

“Can’t this be settled privately and not publicly?”

"You need to calm down and stop being so emotional."

“Stop being so divisive. Jesus wants us to be unified.”

One of the easiest ways to discredit another Christian is to label their questions, concerns, or calls for justice as too "divisive."  I don’t like being divisive. Believe me. But I don’t like being silenced either.  There has to be a way to discuss controversial, difficult topics—even on social media—without resorting to outright hostility on the one hand or sanctimonious silencing on the other.  And I wonder if it begins with acknowledging that friction doesn't mean division.   We Christians suffer under this rather fanciful notion that no one in the early church ever argued about anything, that the first disciples of Jesus sat around singing hymns and munching on communion bread, nodding along in perfect agreement about how to apply the teachings of Jesus to their lives.  But the epistles would suggest otherwise. 
The epistles would suggest that when you throw together a group of people from vastly different ethnic, religious, socio-economic, and religious backgrounds there is going to be some serious friction. Within the early church raged debates over everything from the application of the Mosaic law, to whether Christians should eat food offered to idols, to how to handle the influx of widows in the church, to disagreements around circumcision, religious festivals, finances, missions, and theology.

So when Paul urged the Ephesian church to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace,” he followed this with an acknowledgement of the Church’s diversity, in which there are “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers…so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

This Body is still growing, so there will be growing pains. 

But if we love one another through these growing pains, “then we will no longer be infants…instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.  From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

I suspect Paul combined this call for the Body’s unity with an acknowledgement of the Body’s diversity because he knew that unity isn’t the same as uniformity.
We’re not called to be alike; we’re called to love.
We’re not called to agree; we’re called to love.
We’re not even called to get along all the time; we’re called to love each other as brothers and sisters, as people united in one baptism, one communion, one adoption.
Maybe we need these differences to be animated, to be alive, to mature. Maybe friction isn’t a sign of decay, but of growth.
The world is certainly watching. But this doesn't mean we hide our dirty laundry, slap on mechanical smiles, and gloss over all the injustices and abuses, conflicts and disagreements, diversity and denominationalism present within the Church;  it means we expose them. It means we talk about them boldly and with integrity, with passion and with love. I suspect that talking about our differences is better for our witness than suppressing them, and I'm sure that exposing corruption and abuse is better for our witness than hiding them.
And when it comes to injustice, a far more important question to me than "What will the world think if they see us disagreeing?" is "What will the world think if they don't?"

I love that last line.  What will the world think of us if we are always of one opinion, thought, perspective, and dress?  It may not reflect our doctrine that free will is our most important gift that we treasure above all else.  If we create circumstances where there is only one way to be a good mormon, to use your free will in only one acceptable way, I believe that is when we may be looking beyond the mark.  This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  All are loved and welcomed at the table.