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

Moderate Mormon Feminist Wish List 2015

We saw a lot of feminist changes in the year 2014 in the LDS church, big and small. We saw women of color praying for the first time in a General LDS Meeting, CES policy changes of women with children at being able to teach as a full-time employee, and many more.  As a moderate Mormon Feminist, I advocate for baby step changes that help expand the understanding of the role of women in God's plan. This morning on twitter I put together a list of wishes of my own, big and small, that I'd like to see happen as a Mormon Feminist in 2015:

• Women may serve as witnesses in and out of the temple 
• Women can serve in Sunday School Presidencies (and eventually, as Clerks)
• Primary teachers will share stories of women from the scriptures for our young girls and boys to look up to.
• more depictions of biblical characters as not just white Europeans
• That I never hear another lds (wo)man say "I don't respect women who don't respect themselves by covering up" and instead respect all humans regardless of what they wear because they are children of God.
• That lds youth will learn principles of +body image in modesty lessons  
• never give up hope, be grateful and long suffering 
• We begin celebrating all the ways fathers nurture children
• a new policy that allows women to hold their babies for their blessing   
• No more Mormon LGBTQ suicides. No more homeless Mormon LGBTQ youth. 
• the #ldsChurch change the name of priesthood session during #ldsconf to "Men's Session"
• That mothers of children younger than 18 can be temple workers just like fathers can.  
• My daughter's activity day leaders will skip modesty shaming and have a career exploration day
• be grateful for baby steps and bear my Christ-based testimony more often
• a woman of color praying in a general session of #ldsconf 
• that wearing #pantstochurch isn't seen as a protest or statement, but just a valid choice for Sunday best
• when possible, replace "Heavenly Father" with "heavenly parents"
• the #ldsChurch curriculum department produces a "Teachings of Eliza R. Snow" for 2016
• more 8-11 yo girls get to participate in pinewood derbies than ever before 
• when teaching the law of chastity, we cover consent - what it is and isn't, and help a lot of people avoid a visit to the bishop's office this year

Change has got to start somewhere, right? Do you have any Mormon Feminist Wishes for 2015? Remember to be grateful for every baby step change, and remember that the core of what we want is to improve Zion with a heart full of love!

Obama's Amazing Speech Supporting Moms

(full disclosure, I consider myself a centrist, and have never voted for Obama)

Apparently there's a big crazy drama over Obama's latest speech where he talks about women in education and the workplace and the struggles and obstacles they face in balancing the demands of family and a job.   Many people are taking one sentence out of context and turning into outrage clickbait.   I have a question to you outraged reposters:  have you read the full speech?  Here it is, included a transcript word-for-word, from which I copied: 

And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that's not a choice we want Americans to make.

Guess what?  He's talking about my life!  And I agree with him 100%.  When I was pregnant with Ellie I left my dream job with Agassi Charitable Foundation so that I could stay home with her.  When she was 3 I started looking for part-time work to help make ends meet, and for the next four years I worked part-time in my field keeping my skills up to date.  Soon we moved and I *needed* to work full-time, me staying home was not an option.  Do you know what I found out about finding work after being home with a child?  Employers valued my education and experience less than  a newly minted graduate with a 4 year degree.  And when I finally did find work (Thank you, God) it was in an entry-level position at a wage less than what I had made 9 years earlier right out of college.  

It's a fact: taking a break to raise kids is devastating to your career.  A woman has to choose between working (and barely being able to afford insurance and daycare) or staying home and permanently handicapping your career if you ever need to work again.  And I agree with Obama:

"that's not a choice we want Americans to make."

I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. I was a SAHM and I loved to have the option, it was a luxury we were able to make work.  But not everyone is so fortunate.  The rest of the policies President Obama spoke about are family-friendly workplace policies, such as:

1. Higher quality pre-school programs available to those who need it most
2. Raise the minimum wage, the average mw earner is 35 and many are mothers supporting families.
3. Equal pay for men and women
4. Changing attitudes about employing mothers, such as:
• JetBlue's flexible work-at-home positions
• Google's 5-month paid parental leave
• Investing in programs to help women enter higher-paid traditionally male careers (engineering, STEM, etc.)  

Now, I 100% believe that you can disagree with his policy ideas, in politics you can find statistics to support either side of an argument.  That's okay to disagree with his thoughts about equal pay or minimum wage.  But there is no logical or rational way you can interpret his statements to be against SAHMs.  Let's get that straight. In fact, I think we should give the guy credit for understanding the challenges women have to face probably more than most men:

I was raised by a single mom, and know what it was like for her to raise two kids and go to work at the same time, and try to piece things together without a lot of support. And my grandmother, who never graduated from college but worked her way up to become vice president of a bank, I know what it was like for her to hit the glass ceiling, and to see herself passed over for promotions by people that she had trained. And so some of this is personal, but some of it is also what we know about our economy, which is it's changing in profound ways, and in many ways for the better because of the participation of women more fully in our economy.


One last thought from a recently divorced, single parent friend:
I just want to share that I'm thankful for anyone (even if it's a politician I didn't vote for) who recognizes the situation Obama described (I recommend reading a more complete version of his remarks that changes the interpretation significantly, I believe) because it describes where I'm at right now: a young (read: still developing professionally and slowly because I've been doing the SAHM thing until 3 months ago) woman who is in the process of divorce and is making hard choices about career development and child care, particularly in the context of my current salary (and benefits which I'm so blessed to have) not covering ANY level of child care, let alone child care that I would feel comfortable leaving my kids in. I'm completely dependent on the child support payments of my stbx who lives in a foreign country with which the US government does not have an enforcement agreement. So I sure hope he keeps paying so I can keep my job and my kids can stay in their fabulous day care situation which will allow me to over time, make up some of the lag I've experienced professionally as a SAHM that will ultimately make me less depending on child support. I'm not trying to get pity here, or whine. I just want to share that women are in lots of different situations, but the penalty we face in the workforce for prioritizing quality child care for our children (whether we provide it or pay through the nose for someone else to) is real. And I feel that is what Obama was commenting on---I do not feel his full remarks can be reasonably interpreted as a slam against anyone's choice to be a stay at home parent.

I'm tired, too

I feel like I'm just tired. I'm a little battered and bruised. No matter how much time I take off to recuperate from being on the front lines in mormon feminism (in my own way), I get bruised by misogynistic, sexist attitudes in american culture (FYI #Condi4Commish).  So I come back to the mormon community, and no matter how much we try to share that we think modesty will sink deep into our daughters' hearts if we teach the doctrine instead of application via hemlines; we still get that blasted harmful, inaccurate Jessica Rey video repeated in our newsfeeds and hundreds of white shirted young men telling us they NEED our modesty or trendy-wannabe-viral bloggers begging us to consider their husbands! The general response for my plea for doctrine based teachings is, "I can't believe those feminists don't believe in modesty!"

No matter how much I share about the things I have questions about, or that I would like you to try to walk in our pink moccasins (this even applies to women who disagree with my questions, read that plz); nothing ever changes.  Well one thing has changed. We're getting more pep talks! ZD blog has a great post that went up this week, Tired of Pep Talks, Zelophehad's Daughters:

For the last 5 years or so, I think we have seen a definite uptick in the number of pep talks us LDS women have been getting. We’ve been told how incredible (!) we are. How needed we are. How moral we are. How important we are. And it seems to me we can’t go even one General Conference (not to mention a single Sunday) without being told how equal we are 10 times. It is clearly a priority that we be buttered up.

Hoo-rah, sis-boom-bah, goooooo WOMEN! (My mom was a Rigby Trojan Pep Team Girl, in case you're wondering where my mad cheer skilz come from) You know I do think this church values women. It cherishes them. Holds them near and dear.  But there is only so long I can listen to people talking AT me telling me how incredible I am in one sentence and in the next to make sure I don't talk too much in meetings.  Part of the reason I can't just let this slide as the jovial harmless joke of an octogenarian is the paragraph he wrote in last month's ensign:

So Elder Ballard has shown a pattern of consistently saying: women speak up, we need your voice, but ONLY in an advisory capacity.  We are decision makers and we will decide if and when to listen and encourage your participation when we choose to and then we make the decisions.  That was what his joke was about. If men and women really ARE different, our thoughts and experiences and perceptions are different and should be considered as equally as the next.  (remember, I am not an advocate for female ordination. this issue could be remedied in a number of ways).  Men and Women are different.  And we can't have one in an appendage/advisory role without one gender's perception carrying more weight.

So there are women out there like me saying, "um I love this restaurant but I think there's a fly in my soup!"  And the response we get is, "God's purpose is for you to have that fly in your soup.  And oh, by the way women are the best customers at this establishment and we couldn't exist without you!  You play a special equal role in the running of this restaurant, and you are INCREDIBLE!"

Back to the ZD blog:

What I personally don’t think the church office building is aware of is how ineffective their pep talks are to the people they are trying to pep talk– the people who see problems and inequalities. They have a very effective echo chamber up there. Consider the time the church PR counseled with the women behind Mormon Women Stand to “discuss” women’s issues. I picture the PR team asking in concerned voices “Does the new book about women and the priesthood by Sheri Dew alleviate your concerns?! What about our talks in General Conference? Did they make you feel equal?!” Of course those women said yes, they were fine and felt totally equal and we can prove it by putting quotes about womanhood on pastel chevron backgrounds. They are a group that already agreed 100% with the status quo. They didn’t represent those that leave. 

So here’s my point: the clip of Elder Ballard is an absolutely perfect example of the problem. And I hope that church leadership watches it a lot and realizes that all the pep talks have got to stop as long as the follow up message to them is going to be *but not THAT equal!

Amen, amen, and amen.

Book Review: Women at Church by Neylan McBaine

Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact by Neylan McBaine
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is not most mormon feminists' favorite book. You may think with how I've been promoting the things Neylan has been saying lately that she is my favorite person and that her views match mine. They don't. She may understand and empathize with my position, but she is decidedly traditional and conservative in maintaining gendered spaces and continued complimentarianism within the LDS Church. There are definitely some pages and sections that I was uncomfortable with and are not my favorite; so take heart, ye non-mormon-feminists, there shall likely be much you like herein.

The book's basic premise is this:

1) the policies and structure of the Church will not change anytime soon
2) there is currently a group of women struggling with the status quo
3) why you should care about them, why are they struggling?
4) do our practices match our doctrines?
5) why shouldn't we make small changes that would help women who are struggling? what can we do locally to improve church experiences?

My basic conclusion is this: Neylan wrote a whole book without using the word "feminist." She wants to be able to have a conversation about women in the church without triggering haterz. She's not on my same page but she gets me. I can handle that. I don't think most people in my sphere of influence "get me." I consider her on the middle of a bridge between Mormon feminists and True Believing (never having doubts) Mormons (She was given FAIR Mormon's Award of Excellence 2014). The past few years have been an attempt at these two groups talking at and past each other. There has been very little listening or willingness for either side to make concessions (seemingly, I know I'm oversimplifying, but bear with me). Here is someone who is asking both sides to just listen. Slow down first, and listen.

Some of Neylan's small changes she suggests local wards/stakes might implement include: providing equivalent opportunities for youth, allowing YW to have a female companion in bishops interviews, preparing YW for church service, reviewing the rhetoric of how we praise women in general (instead of individuals), empowering female leaders with appropriate titles, using female sources of doctrine, improve how men speak at and to women, and providing more service/relief opportunities. Each of these can be done without any directives from SLC.

I appreciate how she continually points out that to orthodox members, why wouldn't we want outsiders and even our own "currently investigating" young women to see improved optics? It would only help in the long run, right?

I'm a moderate Mormon feminist who advocates for changes via baby steps. If I had my druthers my top 3 immediate changes would be to:

1) equalize structure and funding of youth programs (activity days)
2) replace all "mother/wife/woman" day worship with RS study and teachings of Christ (ie don't celebrate mother's day at church but use it to speak abt Eliza R Snow, or stories of female disciples during Christ's time, or just Him); in addition have Teachings of the Prophetess Eliza R. Snow for a RS/PH manual
3) recognize not all our daughters/sisters/YW will be wives or mothers, and structure our lessons and programs to focus on discipleship in whatever form it may take, without valuing one type of discipleship more than another

I suppose I could fit all of these changes into her categories, but my desired changes require change from the top down. The opposite direction Neylan suggests, she uses as her "muse" church member and Harvard professor Clayton Christensen's "disruptive innovation" theory that in large bureaucratic institutions, needed change often happens from the ground up. As frustrating as it is to acknowledge I don't see any of my first 3 desired changes coming any time soon - the only option I have left is following the pattern of #womenatchruch.

1) use this book to have uplifting and constructive conversations with friends, family, ward members, local leaders
2) do what you can, then let it go

I fear this is my only option. Yet it still gives me hope.

___________________
Further info:
By Common Consent Book Review
The Problem with Local Change, by Julie Smith
Forget Phood, some MoFems seek a middle way


View all my reviews

Let It Go!

Here we go:  another Mormon Mommy blogger riffing on the movie Frozen.  Where one Mormon blogger found the pernicious threat of Gayness to us all . . . I saw my own story, as I came out of the closet as a feminist.

It's been quite a year for me.  Those who knew me before I moved to Virginia in 2011 have a hard time recognizing me now.  My life (read: mostly work) experiences and personal revelation (something Mormons strongly believe in) were the genesis of a faith transition for me.  One in which I gained a different perspective on the relationship between the Church and the Gospel and myself and God, and figured out for myself there's not "One Right Way" to see the Gospel or to be Mormon Woman.

Nine months before I saw the movie Frozen, I moved to Rexburg and felt pretty scared to be myself.  I lived in fear of the hostility and rejection that would likely accompany my being myself and sharing my thoughts and feelings.  It was an unhappy time for me.  I wanted to surround myself in a community of like minded people who never carried the threat of rejection.  In such a condition it is easy to hide online and even to enter tunnel vision or an echo chamber . . . . and I was hesitant to find my next steps forward.  Last September I felt prompted to share my story blog-style, come out of the Mormon f-word closet and go public.  It was incredibly freeing to choose to be vulnerable and authentic (I had started reading A Blog About Love and became pretty converted to it's concepts), it wasn't easy - and yes, I believe it took courage.  I knew I was acting on promptings of the Spirit, but I didn't know why. 

As I sat in the movie theater watching Frozen the scene that meant the most to me is when she was in her ice castle fighting away her attackers and someone shouts "Don't be the monster they fear you are!"

A light went on for me:  everyone has a caricature in the mind of what a "feminist" is.  I know it, I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh calling them Femi-nazis, angry and man hating.  I watched Elsa find the only way to bridge the gap of fear, love.  I resolved that was my path forward.

So imagine my surprise (and the irony) that the number one piece of advice I get from friends, family, and ward members is to "Let it Go."  From an outside perspective I know it may seem like I just can't let things go, that my feminism springs from my inability to heal from infertility.  The opposite is actually true, releasing myself from expectations of gender roles and purposes is what lead to the atonement healing the whole thing: the hurt, pain, lack of understanding, and jealousy, the baby hungriness....  All gone.  100% gone.  I move forward in an effort to improve systems that hurt my own path and to help and uplift others.

The hardest part is that other people cannot see things from my side:  they can't read the texts, comments, notes, and emails I receive from people who have been helped in one way or another by sharing my story.  I feel prompted to share and Heavenly Father has found a way to confirm to me that I am helping others.  It gets really really old when I continually get people telling me I'm broken and wrong-headed in thought and approach.  I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I'm trying to do good - and I have done good.  There are thousands of women and men in the church who have some (not all) of the same thoughts and questions that I do, and perhaps they may be in need of love and understanding.

So I have a request, will you help a girl out?  I want to craft a blog post of why I share, why I speak.  If I have helped you in any way, and if you feel like you can or want to share that with me -- will you fill out the form below with a short comment?  I also thought maybe this might help me to gather the messages in one place for me to have when I'm feeling particularly discouraged or crumbly.

Thanks in advance.

Dear Bishop

Man I am on a roll this week with my second guest post:

Dear Bishop

I was invited to guest post at the Bloggernacle Bohemoth, By Common Consent. Which is basically like Regina George asking me to be a Plastic for the day. Hoping they let me wear pink on Wednesday! Based on how this goes, they may let me sit with them again

OW and Gender, Part 4: Cultural Gender Identity

I've been thinking a lot lately about why people are SO deeply offended by Ordain Women.  I mean, there are some crazy things that some Mormons believe and we still welcome those members into orthodoxy.  For example, some people believe that polygamy is the status quo for eternity, and that as one young newlywed put it, "I can't wait til I have more wives so that when one is mad at me I can just go find comfort in another one." ugh, yuck.  I get that OW is vocal and you wish they would just shut up and go away, but even if they are less vocal and just blended in, they would still get this reaction from many members of the church:

Even though the definition of priesthood is keys, authority, and power from God (has nothing to do with gender) and even though throughout history the pattern of the priesthood eligibility has been one of steady expansion (I don't believe in a Church based on modern revelation that we have to assume all expansion is finished); this is what it comes down to:  in the modern Church culture, the identity of manhood is inextricably tied to the Priesthood.  The way a boy becomes a man is through priesthood patterns in our culture:   YM offices/quorums, stacking chairs, home teaching, phood session with other men and ice cream afterwards, missions, having others weep with emotion and gratitude for your faithfulness, etc.  Boys become men in our culture because of the priesthood -- they don't have the priesthood because they are men.  A male identity in our culture is inextricably tied in unnecessary ways to the priesthood, it has comixed in with the definition of mormon masculinity (cue Tim the Toolman Taylor grunts).  Whether right or wrong this is what Ordain Women is asking to change, these cultural traditions of gender identity, and we should acknowledge it as part of the conversation.   

It is not easy to be a man in this Church it's a lot of responsibility, and their path for life and most of their choices are already made for them: to be a good mormon man you do this, then this, then this, then mission, then marriage, then career, then provide, then father, etc.  They know exactly how they should  live to follow their plan on earth: the check boxes have been laid out before them.  Men are judged very harshly for varying from their check boxes.  I have heard family members express frustration at such harsh cultural consequences - even if they feel they have followed the Spirit in not walking the line.

A Christian man’s highest calling is not priesthood; a Christian man’s highest calling is to follow Christ.

It isn't easy to be a woman in this Church, it's a lot of responsibility, and women have a much more ambiguous path.  We only have two check boxes: marriage and children.  The focus of which has good and bad consequences.  As in my case, the over-emphasis in my life lead me to ignore God's will in my life in how I was to build His kingdom with all the talents and unique gifts He has given me.  There was only one way to be a good Mormon woman and all else was choosing the wrong!!   Those poor souls who are single or infertile - they just have to suffer through this life until they get their check boxes!  Those check boxes are the only thing that matters!!  And yet in my life, the atonement healed the hurt and pain of infertility when I was prompted to celebrate and embrace it -- to love that I get to follow God's plan for me a different way, and to reject the message that my Womanhood is found in wifehood and motherhood.  Those are very important ways to be a Woman of God, but is not how to define being a woman of God. 

In our modern Church we embrace religious complementarianism: which ties a female's identity and value only to that of a wife, mother, and homemaker (the 1950s June Cleaver).  The gender roles we currently have are not a result of ancient history of how the bible treated women (thank goodness):  Most do not want to return to a time when fathers owned their daughters and sold them to the highest bidder (Exodus 21:7; Nehemiah 5:5; Genesis 29:1–10),  when multiple wives and concubines were a part of everyday life (even for men of God like Abraham, Jacob, and David), when women were forbidden from owning property, when foreign virgins could be captured as spoils of war (Judges 21), when a woman’s lack of virginity could get her executed (Deuteronomy 22:11, Leviticus ).  We know we don't want to return to Biblical Womanhood, but even then If you follow the history of the Church, the scope of women has not always been so limited as it is now. And the timing of the rise of the complementarianism is exactly the same timing of the movement of Second Wave Feminism.

Here is where so many women get SO ANGRY.  Complementarianism is wonderful because it celebrates that a woman honors God in the home -- this is such a wonderful, beautiful, needed message.  Where the confusion comes in . . . is when it says that is the only acceptable way for a woman to honor God.  This is where I find Elder Christofferson's talk to be beautiful: because it doesn't say, women you have to only do one thing . . . it says, "women exercise moral authority in homes, classrooms, boardrooms, etc."

"A common refrain among Christians is that “motherhood is a woman’s highest calling.” I must have heard this 1,000 times growing up. While men can honor God in varying capacities through work, family, and ministry, a woman’s spiritual aptitude is measured primarily by her ability to procreate.  I understand that many pastors elevate motherhood in order to counter the ways contemporary culture often dismisses the value of moms. This is a noble goal indeed, and the Church should be a place where moms are affirmed, celebrated, honored, and revered....[yet]

A Christian woman’s highest calling is not motherhood; a Christian woman’s highest calling is to follow Christ. And following Christ is something a woman can do whether she is married or single, rich or poor, sick or healthy, childless or Michelle Dugger.  (Rachel Held Evans, Women of Valor)

Ruth is a beautiful example, because she was a foreign, dirt poor, single, childless, field gleaner who is praised for being a woman of valor before she ever married - eshet cheyil - just as our Proverbs 31 homemaker is.  Being a woman of valor is not what you do or what your role is -- it is who you are.  It is our character and virtues that define us and make us Women of God: honesty, chastity, faith, divine nature, knowledge, integrity, accountability, good works, humility, kindness, patience, diligence, charity, temperence, purity, modesty, meekness, discernment, cheerfulness, mercy, courage, brave, protective, compassion, understanding, forgiveness, love, etc.  These are all virtues that define our character.  {Tangent: quit using the word virtue as a euphemism for sexual purity.  It is a misuse of the word.}

You can be a woman of God as a homemaker or as a congresswoman.  As a former working mother myself -- working in no way lessened by focus, love, or dedication to my motherhood, it did broaden the definition of my womanhood.   Increased responsibility in my life did not lessen my motherhood -- it required that my husband and I, due to our circumstances (in following the family proclamation) adapt and find a way to continue to raise a family with a Christ-centered home that honored our fatherhood and motherhood.  This can be done in many ways, and it is important for us to consciously choose the way that works best for our family and own the consequences of this decision and honor and support others in their decisions. 

I do not mean to imply that men and women are exactly the same, but could we challenge ourselves to enlarge our vision?  That there can be more than one way to be a Good Mormon Man or Woman?  To realize that being a Mormon Male is more than Priesthood Holder; that Mormon Woman is more than Mother?  That if this idea is threatened it doesn't mean we value the priesthood or motherhood less?  Can we unlink our gender identities from a role we perform and link our value instead to being like Christ?  Who exhibited what we consider both masculine and feminine virtues (leadership and nurturing, strength and meekness, courage and submission) that both men and women should develop? 

OW & Gender, Part 2: Why I Disagree With Ordain Women

ORDAIN WOMEN

First of all, if you haven't yet, please go read Ordain Women's FAQ page and a handful of their profiles.  Now, whether you agree with these men and women or not, please acknowledge their bravery and courage for taking the risk of putting a profile up.  The consequences these faithful members face is real in their lives.....wowza, right?  Looking at those profiles, I am filled with a confirmation that these are my brothers and sisters sitting next to me in the pews and holding callings with me and leading and loving my children in their callings, etc.  I don't want them to leave!!

One of the reasons I am not an OW member is because I look around and see easy changes that could be made in the church organization via policy changes, I enumerated on some in my first blog post:  equal funding and structure of boys/girls programs, an improved conversation regarding modesty and sexuality in the Church, female representation on decision-making boards in the Church, eliminate gender restrictions on callings that have nothing to do with priesthood rituals: stake auditor, Sunday School presidency, etc.  These are specific issues that are important to me based on my life experiences as a Relief Society and Primary President and as an accountant.  Other women have other issues that are important to them.  To me these things seem like obvious, low-hanging fruit that may take years to change and have NOTHING to do with priesthood ordination, but if no one says anything about them, nothing will continue to be done.

For example, in Elizabeth Smart's advocacy for human trafficking and sexual abuse, "Smart said she "felt so dirty and so filthy" after she was raped by her captor, and she understands why someone wouldn't run because of that alone.  I thought, 'Oh, my gosh, I'm that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of gum, you throw it away.' And that's how easy it is to feel like you know longer have worth, you know longer have value."  She was referring to the abstinence only object lessons she received in the church (no one wants a licked cupcake, chewed up piece of gum, manhandled flower bud, or any other really poor, awful, objectifying things that equate a woman's value with her virginity).  Many people criticized her for publicly criticizing lessons she received in Church about her abstinence-only education that caused her harm.  But listen, if no one ever stands up and publicly talks about how "chewed up piece of gum" is a bad, harmful way to teach chastity -- we are still going to get people teaching those lessons. 

How Ordain Women sees things is this:  for decades Mormon feminists have been asking for the low-hanging fruit.  And they've been punished and excommunicated and marginalized for publicly advocating for things like: women praying in general conference.  So Mormon feminists can continue to just talk amongst each other -- but nothing will ever change until women are actually in a position to enact the changes.  They also reason that the MoFem community is alive and well on the internets, but if all we do is just talk on the internets nothing will happen - the Church has shown that they can easily ignore FeministMormonHousewives.org and let them have a community where the complain and explain and listen to others mansplain (ha!) and not really acknowledge their existence.  But the internet created tools of advocacy too, in the case of petitioning the Church for an official policy on menstruating women and Baptisms for the Dead (policies were all over the place and haphazardly enforced to the detriment of many women) or to the action of "Let Women Pray."  (How Social Media Revitalized and Enlarged a Movement, www.academia.edu).  Because of the historical precedent established between Mormon feminists and the church organization, Ordain Women strongly believes ordination is the only answer to solving many issues.  What they see is the Church becoming more like Zion.  They sincerely have this belief that it is the only way to move forward, I do not agree with them.  The public affairs letter referred to their end goal as non-negotiable, I think the Church would be surprised how many OW would go along with an alternate solution revealed from God.  And I disagree with the Public Affairs letter that since they have a certain opinion on the way forward, that their voice is damaging to the discussion (and shouldn't be listened to).  ALL voices should be a part of the discussion, yes even these OW ladies. 

TONE AND ACTION

Kate Kelly is the founder of Ordain Women, and I have found her to be a little rough around the edges.  I have seen her easily dismiss opposing opinions and not conduct herself in a . . . well, a way that we teach our women they should act, she's a bit brassy :-)   If I think about it I'm not surprised, a woman with enough chutzpah to start this thing has got to be filled with so much passion and determination and fearlessness that she's probably the only type of woman who could have done such a thing.  Kelly is a human rights lawyer, and she observed that when working towards rights that in Africa, action received a response.  When women had a peaceful protest and quietly asked for a right which they were due -- they ended up being handcuffed and dragged away.  But the thing that began changing minds is that the men having to drag these women away were now their friends, neighbors, and family members looking them in the eyes and seeing their pain: and they could no longer ignore those feelings, they had to be addressed.  So Kate comes from a political activist background which I believe frames what she does and the words she uses (ie Equality, more on that later).

There are many members of the Church who support women's ordination (many, many of them male) who are not members of OW.  They don't agree with how she does things either or how she responds to their suggestions or correction or criticism.   Most people who are in this camp also disagree with the actions the group takes.  For example, the peaceful "action" being held during Priesthood Meeting is a point of a lot disagreement.  I do not believe it is the best foot forward, but I can empathize with them and their pain -- and I do see OW as a group that needs to be included in conversations about women's issues.

Ordain Women and Gender, Part 1: A Response to the Public Affairs Letter

I have had 48 hours to process The Church's Letter to Ordain Women.  As I have stated before, I am not a member of supporter of the movement, and I generally disagree with their tone and methods.  So as a non-OW Mormon Feminist, I'd like to share with you my perspective on some of the contents of the letter:

1. You are a small minority and your position is extreme.   What does this have to do with the price of rice in China?  Is the fact that a smaller number of women have felt pain, marginalization, and sexism and has questions about policy and practice in the Church negate their experiences?  It's validity?  Do only the experiences of the majority matter?  And citing the Pew Study numbers are problematic, as the question it references is actually quite a loaded question in Mormon culture.  Again with marginalizing them into a fringe radical group.
2. Your position detracts from the helpful discussions Church leaders are having with women in and outside of Church Leadership.  While I am not a member of OW, I do participate in WAVE (Women Advocating for Voice and Equality) and I'm A Mormon Feminist communities.  For years and years (chronicled back to its establishment almost 10 years ago) WAVE has sought a way to start a discussion between women who have issues with practice and policy in the Church and leadership.  They have been thwarted right and left, and told the only way to address the Church is through the proper structure: bishop, stake president.  Not one member of any of these groups has been allowed to speak to a leader of our Church with any influence or authority to affect any changes (above a SP).  In fact often many of these women have been released from callings and been given probationary status and punishments for meeting with leadership and discussing their concerns and views.  This has created a culture of fear of addressing these issues.  So, whatever conversations are actually happening with women in the Church, they are not with women who actually experience pain and marginalization and hold these actual concerns enough to belong to these communities.  It makes no sense to me to say, "We hear that some of you have issues, so we are only going to consult with women who don't have any issues in attempting to resolve them."  The reason Ordain Women is engaging the Church in a public manner is because they have asked and asked and asked for a meeting with leaders to discuss their concerns and all attempts at addressing these issues privately have been ignored.  There is a pattern established in scripture that members are able to petition their leadership to prayerfully ask questions of God on their behalf (Zelophehad's Daughters, basically all of D&C, etc.) and they are attempting to find a way to follow this pattern.  If the church has a problem with the publicity of it all -- it could easily be solved by making it a private matter of conversation.  Would there be harm in creating a Women's Group that discusses matters that has GAs on it, AND that has women that represent the full spectrum of Mormon Womanhood (Ordain Women, Non-OW Mormon Feminists, Non-Feminists who would like to see change, and Women who support the Status Quo). The reason the activism continues is because they have not been engaged, and the church has a history of directly engaging with marginalized members in the past (Genesis group), they just to refuse to do so in the instance of Mormon Feminism. 
3. Ordination of Women will never happen.   Says who?  Even Elder Anderson, when addressing the question in Conference in October, said that we have no idea why things the way they are.  There certainly are enough indications in scripture and apocrypha (female priests and prophetesses), church history (Emma's ordaining, turning of keys to RS), GA quotes (McConkie on women among noble and great ones who created the world), and the temple (all genders are to prepare to officiate in the priesthood etc...are you not listening in the temple?) that make the matter quite complex.  Now I don't know when these revelations will be fulfilled or received - in this life or the next . . . but living in a certainty that we already have the answer actually precludes further revelation from being received. It IS a possibility.  A defining feature of our Church from all others is that we do not live by creeds.
4. Attend the Women's Meeting.  I support a general women's meeting.  I don't think we should get rid of gendered spaces in the Church -- but if we have a women's meeting the other meeting should be called a general men's meeting.  Actual priesthood or even membership in the church has no bearing on if you are allowed to attend and enter -- just maleness, so call it what it is.**Ordain Women has stated if it were the General Men's Meeting there would be no reason for them to try to attend.  The only reason they are there is because it's advertised as a place for prospective priesthood holders to receive counsel from their prophets.**
5. Take your protest to the free speech zone.  Ah, this broke my heart.  As Uchtdorf indicated, we are to respect all honest seekers of truth.  Whatever your opinion of these women, I invite you to see them as your sisters and not as enemies.  Sisters in need of comfort and a listening ear and love.  Sisters who have questions.  It is not a crime to have questions.  Again, reread Uchtdorf - they are welcome with us.  I do not see anything in OW plans that is not peaceful.  It certainly is uncomfortable for the Church and public relations to have to turndown a crying woman asking for entrance into an overflow location with standby tickets even though there was room for them.  What would really be the harm of publicly stating, "Sisters, we disagree with you insistently.  But of course if there are extra seats in the back of the Tabernacle overflow after all men are seated we will let you enter."  Their mere presence would not "destroy" the meeting if people are in tune with the Spirit, any more than a man or husband being granted entrance into the Women's Meeting to sit on the back row would destroy the meeting.  I agree with the quotes in the SL Tribune article:

           The church "has regretfully upped the ante," says Steve Evans, a Salt Lake City attorney and Mormon blogger. "The repeat of last year’s activity was not destined to gain as much press as before, but now things have changed. If it not only refuses entry to these women but also forces them off of Temple Square, the church may inadvertently send the message that it feels threatened by the Ordain Women movement."  Mormons need to see that their church "is open to serious, faithful conversation about the role of women in God’s organization," says Evans, a founder of the LDS blog, By Common Consent. "This response probably sends the wrong message."

           It’s also a "PR disaster for the church," says Kristine Haglund, editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. "Goliath is never going to get better press than David — the optics are terrible."  And unnecessary, she says, given that Ordain Women had announced that April’s conference would be the second and final time the group planned to seek priesthood tickets.

I want to challenge every person who disagrees with OW not to think of them as enemies, but as sisters.  Sisters that you have been commanded to love and comfort.  The relegating of women with questions who are seeking ways to engage the leadership of the church to the status of anti-mormon, garment burning protesters . . . it hurts me deeply.  Because while I am not a member of OW -- I am like them.  I have questions.  I hope for change and engagement and to be listened to by leadership.  I am like them.  I have seen them called apostate and I personally have been called apostate as well.  While I cannot speak for all of OW, at first when I was antagonistic towards them I despised their existence.  And then I sought to understand them.  I engaged them online and listened to their experiences via podcasts and posts.  I heard their hearts and understood, yet felt the Spirit confirming a different answer for me. So who are these so called apostates that everyone enjoys hating on? 

Mormon feminists are not exclusively female; 19 percent of those surveyed were male.  Seventy-nine percent were aged 40 or younger.  Ninety-five percent lived in the US, and 91 percent identified as Caucasian.  Eighty-one percent attended church three times per month, and 70 percent currently hold a calling.  Eighty-seven percent reported having been baptized at the standard age of eight years.  Seventy-seven percent reported levels of belief that were consistent with those of mainstream Mormonism.  Ninety-one percent of married Mormon feminists were married in an LDS temple, a sign of faithfulness and orthopraxy.  The majority of respondents were parents (62 percent).  Fifty-nine percent believe that women will be ordained in this life or the next, a further 26 percent believe that women already hold the priesthood, and 16 percent believe that women will never hold the priesthood. (I Am A Mormon Feminist", 2013 Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion)

From Joseph Smith:

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” [2]  WoJS, 183-84.

 This is not an instance to celebrate the separating of wheat from the chaff, as I've seen in family members and on online forums.  This may not be a test for Ordain Women.  This may be a test for us as how we respond to them.  Does not the Lord leave the 99 to seek after the 1?  Yes, the Lord would comfort them and weep with them.  Of this I am sure.

I am sure because Jesus wept with Mary.  In John 11 Lazarus had died and Jesus was returning to help.  Mary went out to meet Jesus:

 32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

 34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

 35 Jesus wept.

You see, Jesus already knew Lazarus would rise from the dead.  Could he have upbraided Mary for lacking faith?  For not already seeing the end from the beginning?  Or did he feel her pain and share her sorrow.  He wept.

What is Feminism? Part 2: Modern US & Global Feminism

Modern American Feminism
Feminism doesn't mean women and men are the same and have to be treated exactly the same, it does mean they shouldn't be treated less just because they are female.  Women don't have to be treated equally - but they should be treated equitably.  Studies have proven that men and women are different, but there are more variances within a gender than there is variance between the two genders.  

The image below shows the suggested results in Google when I type "women should" or "women shouldn't".  Google suggestions are items that are frequently searched for. 

Which is why today's feminism is founded on choice, because there is more than one way to be a good woman.  There shouldn't be a set standard of what a woman looks like or does.  A woman can choose her path in life, and there shouldn't be anyone telling her she can't do something. 

Women are able to make their own choices.  She can choose to work or she can choose to stay at home.  She can choose to be an engineer or she can choose to be a stripper.  She can choose to be a mother or to not have children.  She can choose to dress in all skirts and makeup or she can choose to dress in pants and short hair.  She can like gossip mags or she can like comic books.  She can choose to use contraception or not, she can choose abortion or not***.  Where do men fit in?  Wherever they want, the beauty is that feminism seeks to empower expanding choices for men and women, as an acknowledgement that some men are better nurturers than women, because we are individuals first.  He can to choose to be stay-at-home dads or to work.  He can choose to be school teachers or nurses or welders.  He should have more support in custody cases where fathers rarely win.

But, but -- women are choosing bad things, you say?  Like being a stripper or working or not having children?  Or by choosing no-fault divorce just because you fell out of love (when no other abuse is present)?  Sure, by gaining the freedom for women to make choices, some of them will make poor choices.  Some of those poor choices harm families.  But does that mean we should restrict and take their choices away from them?  Go back to the days when women suffering in abuse couldn't escape?  That they weren't considered for employment positions by being female?   I don't think so.  I also don't think that by making choices outside of cultural expectations (short hair, no makeup, pants, working PHd in bio-nuclear engineering) that it precludes me from raising a family in love.  Being a good woman has everything to do with your character and who you are on the inside. 

***p.s. I'm going to save this topic for another post (abortion)


Modern Global Feminism
Has there been and does there continue to exist a systematic oppression of women, a restriction of their choices in life, and ability to empower themselves to succeed?  You know that women still can't drive a car in many countries because it would require them to uncover their face and leave their homes?  Um, have you seen Half the Sky?  Two journalists whose mission is to spread the word about the worldwide, under-reported oppression of women.  You don't have to be feminist to care about the plight and suffering of fellow humans (all statistics taken from their website):

1. Economic Empowerment: Women comprise 70 percent of the world’s poorest people and own only 1 percent of the titled land, according to a U.N. report. They suffer not only from unequal access to education and training, but also from discrimination by their employers. For every dollar a woman earns, she invests 80 cents in her family. Men, on the other hand, invest around 30 cents and are more likely to squander money on alcohol and other vices.
2.  Education:  Today more than 75 million primary school-age children are not in school. More than half of these children are girls and 75 percent of them live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Of all the primary-school age girls globally, 20 percent are not in school, compared to 16 percent of boys in this age group. That’s 1-in-5 eligible girls worldwide who aren’t going to primary school.
3. Forced Prostitution:  Economic necessity, a lack of employment options, drug addiction or coercion by family, pimps or traffickers are all factors that can force women into sexual slavery. Paradoxically, it’s the countries with the most straitlaced and sexually conservative societies, such as India, Pakistan and Iran, that have disproportionately large numbers of forced prostitutes. Since having sex with girlfriends may not be an option for most men in these cultures, prostitutes have become an acceptable solution.
4. Gender Based Violence:  A leading expert on safety and violence, Gavin de Becker, says, "Men's number one fear is that a woman will reject them.  Women's number one fear is that a man will kill them." In fact, women aged 15 through 45 are more likely to be maimed or die from male violence than from cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined. This violence can take many different forms, and is constantly mutating into new forms, be it acid attacks, bride burnings, rape or domestic violence. Surveys suggest that about one-third of all women globally face beatings in the home. Another major study found that in most countries between 30 and 60 percent of women had experienced physical or sexual violence by a husband or a boyfriend. The figures for female murder by male partners are also astounding: Up to 70 percent of female murder victims are killed by their male partners, according to the World Health Organization. 
5. Maternal Mortality. Around 1,000 women die from pregnancy- or childbirth-related complications globally every day, according to the World Health Organization. That’s one every 90 seconds. Some 99 percent of maternal deaths occur in poor countries, particularly in Africa and Asia.  A majority of these causes are easily preventable with access to basic health care.
6. Sex Trafficking.  Far more women and girls are shipped into brothels annually now, in the early 21st century, than African slaves were shipped into slave plantations each year in the 18th century.  And the problem of sex slavery is getting worse.  Trafficking for sexual exploitation is one of the fastest-growing organized crimes, generating $27.8 billion each year. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and Indochina, which opened up markets for commercial sex, and globalization have added to the problem. So has the fear of AIDS, leading some customers to prefer younger girls, whom they think are less likely to be infected. Some men target virgins, believing the girls can cure AIDS.

There are many different kinds of feminists.  Yes some are more radical and militant than others - but that doesn't mean we limit the definition of the term to loud outliers and extremists.  Please, before judging a feminist, try finding out what issues they care about and are passionate about.  It may surprise you that one-on-one, you have more in common with a feminist than you think you do.

Why I Wore Pants

I wore pants to church today.  I did not participate in the pants event last year, the stated purpose last year was "to bring attention to gender inequality".  This year the purpose is to "celebrate the inclusiveness of the Gospel" and I decided to this year.  I cannot control what other people think about me, or why they assume I do the things I do -- that is out of my control.  But since I did receive a question about my motivations today, I thought I would share.

(I saw someone else share their reasons this way online so I wanted to borrow it)  Here are NOT reasons that I wore pants. 

1. Because I think women should be ordained to the priesthood.  No, I do not believe this.  I do believe women already exercise Melchezidek priesthood authority in our temples, which proves that priesthood is not gender exclusive.  I also believe there is more to be revealed regarding women and the priesthood, and how the priesthood functions in the next life.  But I do not support the Ordain Women movement.  There may be women who believe this that are wearing pants, I am not one of them.
2. Because I think there are no innate differences between men and women.  No, I believe there are essential physical and spiritual differences and gifts to men and women.  I don't believe those are best described by the words "leader" and "nurturer" -- but I believe there are differences and I have no problem with gendered organizations and meetings, ie Priesthood Quorums, Relief Society, etc.  I also believe that perfection in Godhood is realized by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother becoming one.
3. Because I want to protest at Church and be in everyone's face about an "issue".   No, I'm not protesting anything.  I came to church to worship God and partake of the sacrament.
4. Because I'm a liberal/democrat Mormon.   No, you may be surprised to know I've never voted for a democrat, although I would describe myself as politically centrist.
5. Because I have a lot of friends all wearing pants together as a group.  No, I was the only woman I know of in Rexburg-land wearing pants.  I'm sure there may be others.  I saw hide nor hair of them today.
6. Because I think all women should stop wearing dresses and skirts to Church and wear pants.  No, we should wear what we all decide is best for us to church wear to church.
7. Because I wish I were a man.  No, my nine-year-old self used to feel this way when I was forced to wear my first training bra; but no, I'm very happy being a woman.

I am a practical girl at heart, I wear what keeps me warm, comfortable, and happy.  Any fellow Rexburgians out there can attest to the fact I wear my large furry Russian winter hat indoors and out whenever I feel cold - even throughout the whole ward Christmas dinner.  Because cold.  So there are many reasons why I wanted to wear pants - these are listed as items 3-7.  The reasons why I chose to wear pants are 1-2, because when it comes down to it, I truly am a practical pragmatist.  

1. Because it is so, so cold in Rexburg.   Truly, I am more sensitive to cold than most people I know.  I wear jackets in 70* weather and don't wear shorts until it's 80* outside.  Last week I also wore pants when it was -20* windchill and exposed skin was at risk for frostbite.  I wore pants again today at 22* and it wasn't too bad.  I think from now on my personal rule is if it's below zero, the pants come out.  
2. Because in Primary sometimes I'm crawling on the ground.  As a Primary Chorister it is easier for me to feel confident I'm not flashing anything to anyone.  I have friends who serve in nursery who find it infinitely easier to live the principle of modesty while doing their callings in pants.  As an aside, I also think sister missionaries should be allowed to wear pants because it's often cold and they ride their bikes.  Who thinks it's safe, appropriate, or modest to ride a bike in a skirt or dress?  Yikes, the stories of accidental flashings and bike crashes!
3. Because I'd like to celebrate and create inclusiveness in the LDS church.  Because there is not one right way to be a good Mormon woman.  Because I'd like to support those who have ever felt excluded at church for whatever reason.  This reason hits several points for me.  First, I have never felt like an outsider until I was not able to have children, and then end up living in a ward with many young mothers.  It was often awkward, painful, and frustrating.  Especially when it seemed every RS lesson would start with, "I know today's lesson is about "faith" (or "prayer" or "tithing") so I decided to teach my lesson about how to teach your children "faith" or "to pray" or "to pay tithing".  There are a myriad of reasons to feel like you do not fit into LDS culture, be you single, working mother, childless, liberal/democrat, feminist, black, LGBT, etc.  Over the past year since feeling prompted to start my blog about my "feminism" I've been called apostate, told that I was destroying others' faith, that I'm not qualified to teach youth lessons on priesthood, that I'm attacking the Prophet, etc.  Last year some women received death threats for wearing pants to church.  This is one way for me to support others and love and include others and say all are welcome here. 
4. Because I personally have come to realize there is a difference between LDS cultural expectations and the pure Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The only reasons I had NOT to wear pants to church is because (1) what other people would think of me and (2) because "it's not what girls are supposed to do".  In other words, it's a cultural expectation or norm.  I do not believe I have to wear a skirt or dress to be feminine.  All angels and people in the afterlife in LDS art and movies are depicted wearing robes, regardless of gender.  Our Savior challenged the social norms of his day.  He interacted and loved people the religious leaders shunned: women, prostitutes, publicans, Samaritans, lepers, etc.  He often broke rules that others considered sacred, that weren't based in scripture nor the Gospel.  He fought against the religious people whose outward dress and behaviors were supposed to measure their spirituality.

   The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.

   Hugh Nibley, Waterman, Brian and Kagel, Brian Kagel. The Lord's University: Freedom and Authority at BYU. Signature Books. 1998

5.  Because I want to live by the principle of wearing my "Sunday Best" to church, and I don't think that requires a dress or skirt.   I consider my nice pants to be dressier than quite a few of my skirts and dresses.  In the past when I needed to be warm at church I wore my really long, ankle-length jean skirt (looks kind of pioneer style).  My black pants are much more "Sunday Best" than that skirt.  Also pants are not a masculine form of dress.  During the week when I wear pants I'm not dressing like a boy, pants are now gender neutral in our culture.  So factoring in that I don't think wearing pants is any show of disrespect in sacrament or Sunday - and there is no rule or guideline that women must wear pants, it all just comes down to a decision between me and the Lord about what is appropriate.  Based on my beliefs on modesty I shared earlier, if I feel Heavenly Father accepts what I wear, I don't need to worry about anyone else.     p.s.  Scott Trotter, an LDS spokesman, responded to last year’s event by saying “Attending church is about worship and learning to be followers of Jesus Christ. Generally church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the Savior, but we don’t counsel people beyond that” (Dec. 11, 2012). 
6. Because even though I believe in differences in gender, I don't believe gender roles should be taught so exclusively.  I've shared before that my life was infinitely blessed when I realized we are all sent here as individuals to use our talents to build the Kingdom of God and NOT just to fill our roles as men and women.  For most people that includes men providing for their families and women raising the children and that is wonderful.  Personally, for me, it would have been easier to follow God's path for my life if I had not believed in gender roles so fervently; but if I had been more open to the fact that God very often leads you on a path that is different than the norm.  That it isn't a bad or negative thing to experience, only to be endured to the end, that it can be embraced and celebrated.  That we should spend more time teaching about how to receive and recognize personal revelation in our lives, and less time already assuming what God's will is in our own and others' lives. 
7. Because I feel that is another step of me being who I genuinely am.  That I can outwardly dress and share who I am and what I believe on the inside.   Others don't have to share my opinions or thoughts.  But I should be who I am, and I shouldn't hide or hesitate or apologize.  I should not be abrasive or in your face, but loving and kind and open. 

So that pretty much sums it up - because it's not an easy answer . . . there are many reasons.  There may even be more that I haven't articulated even to myself yet, but I'll stop there - for all of our sakes.
Remember, Love each other!

Calling a Truce to the Mommy Wars

Recently Matt Walsh, a popular conservative Christian blogger, authored a viral post: he defended stay-at-home-moms (SAHMs), and lit up a firestorm of controversy.  Matt, welcome to the Mommy Wars: the she-should-be-at-home/what-do-you-do-all-day female judgment-apalooza.

src: radicalhousewife.com

He is truly baffled by the criticism he's receiving, because it's true: SAHMs need more props.  The problem, when you defend them in a way that holds it up as the one true way things should be done?  Yeah, you might ruffle a few feathers.  A few short years ago I would have agreed with him.  That's how I was raised.  Good mothers stay home.  Mothers who choose to work and doing irreparable damage to children.  They are choosing to work for unnecessary extravagances of life. Of course if you have to work, you have no choice, so that's your out.  Pages and pages of quotes from leaders in my church can be found over the last few decades echoing the sentiment.

Yet I have found my experience to be different.  I feel I have some authority to speak in this area, as I've worked full-time, part-time, and been a SAHM as well.  I will tell you that being home full-time is so psychologically draining sometimes I just wanted to stab myself with a spoon to make it stop.  It is very, very hard with little ones and messes and potty training, etc.  Just learning how to manage the tornado of life with little ones afoot is a sheer act of superpower. 

I also just finished working-full time while my daughter was in first and second grades.  It was a completely different kind of stress.  It is a very different kind of hard, a very different kind of not-one-moment-for-yourself and burdened by the needs and expectations of everyone in your life.  The amount of time we had to do the important things was extremely condensed . . . and yet I still fit in the important things. 

I have also worked part-time and I must admit it is entirely preferable.  In a perfect world I would have would still be an Asset Management Analyst for 30 hours a week.  I know Sheryl Sandberg would be disappointed with my brand of Leaning In, but it truly would have provided a perfect work/home balance.  Kids and moms need a break from each other.  There is such a thing as too much kid time and not taking care of yourself, and there's such a thing as kids having moms meet their needs too much. 

While I was working I attended training in Cincinnati the week my daughter started second grade.  It was a tortuous decision for me to go.  Guilt laden.  And you know what?  My daughter was better for it.  She didn't need her mom that day: her dad curled her hair and got her ready and pulled me up on Skype so I could say goodbye and watch her get on the bus.  There were times she had to attend day care.  It was good for her.  My daughter relies far too much on me, and getting out of the car and going to day care where she didn't know anyone was a hard thing.  She had to learn how to do a hard thing.  And she was better for it.  Part of my job as a good parent is to slowly teach my child that they do not need me, so that by the time they are 18 they have all the tools to be successful without me.

While I was working I was surrounded by other working mothers.  Their kids were loving and obedient and smart, their marriages were happy, and they have found a balance that truly worked for their families.  They were good moms with good kids.  I finally came to a realization:  there are good mothers who work and good mothers who stay-at-home.  There are also really crappy mothers that work and really crappy mothers who stay-at-home.  The home/work split is not where the definition of 'good mother' is found.  As another woman discovered as she researched the principles of biblical womanhood, if you want to be a woman of valor, it is found in your character, not in your role. 

So why this either or dichotomy?

src: 123rf.com

I know mostly it was how I was raised.  When I was home it made me feel like I was making the right choice when others were wrong about theirs.  It reinforced my decision and made me feel better in all the hard moments - like the day when I was covered with three different body fluids from three different children.  I felt better when I thought what I was doing was the one right way, but I figured something out.  There is not one right way to be or live your life or manage your family.

I have a friend who teaches the online Family Proclamation class for BYUI while her husband stays at home.  Recently Segullah, an online literary journal for LDS women, ran a series about working mothers, their stories, and how the Spirit prompted them into the workforce.  One woman is a cancer nurse, another an engineer. The engineer ended her story with this advice, "If there was one piece of advice I could give a young woman it would be to follow the Spirit. No matter what you think your life should be, no matter your dreams, always be willing to follow promptings of the Spirit. They will lead to happiness and usually something better than you have dreamed for yourself."

If personal revelation to do what is best for you and your family has been the answer all along, what about all those quotes over the past five decades from the prophets?  Has there been a time in the past where it was okay for women to work outside the home without destroying the family?  I decided to do some research (my favorite thing).  Brigham Young was a conundrum - at times portrayed as feminist and sometimes anti-feminist.  In the 1978 study "A Woman's Place in Brigham Young's World", the author shows that both are correct.  He taught that men are to be masters over their wives because the curse that came upon women in the Garden of Eden for them to be dependent upon men (yikes).  But later on he turned out to be a champion of female education and women working outside the home to build the kingdom.  Granted, after the end of the Civil War in the 1860s the telegraph and transcontinental railroad came to Utah, as well as non-members with a promise to settle and overwhelm the Mormons at the ballot box.  So when gentile doctors and accountants showed up in Utah, he felt compelled to provide those things within our own community as a form of self-reliance.

“I do not know how long it will be before we call upon the brethren and sisters to enter upon business in an entirely different way from what they have done,” Young postulated at April conference in 1867.  The following December he announced, “We have sisters now engaged in several of our telegraph offices, and we wish them to learn not only to act as operators but to keep the books of our offices.”

Brigham Young was a particularly strong advocate of women's education. "We have sisters here who, if they had the privilege of studying, would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; and we think they ought to have the privilege to study these branches of knowledge that they may develop the powers with which they are endowed," he said. "We believe that women are useful, not only to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or [medicine], or become good book-keepers and be able to do the business in any counting house, and all this to enlarge their sphere of usefulness for the benefit of society at large" (Journal of Discourses, [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854–86], vol. 13, p. 61).

In 1873 Bathsheba Smith reported that “the President had suggested to her that three women from each ward be chosen to form a class for studying physiology and obstetrics.” A few weeks later Eliza R. Snow declared that “President Young is requiring the sisters to get students of Medicine. He wants a good many to get a classical education, and then get a degree for Medicine. . . . If they cannot meet their own expenses, we have means of doing so.” For several years Young had been teaching that women should attend to the health of their sex. With the influx of educated gentile doctors following the Civil War and the coming of the railroad, Young realized the Latter-day Saints would need professional doctors in order to remain self-sustaining. Romania Bunnell Pratt, the first Mormon woman to get professional training under this program, returned to Utah from the Woman’s Medical College in New York after her freshman year there. Her finances were depleted and so she paid a visit to President Young who instructed Eliza R Snow to “see to it that the Relief Societies furnish Sister Pratt with the necessary money to complete her studies.” This encouragement came in spite of the fact that Romania had to leave her young children with her own mother in order to complete the training. “We need her here,” said Young, “and her talents will be of great use to this people.”

So if Brigham Young built the Kingdom by having women work, what to do about the gender roles we are currently taught?   I find it instructive that two years ago in Conference Elder Packer called the Family Proclamation a "revelation from God", but in the text released from the Church, they reworded his description to "a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and follow.”  It's a guide, and if we follow the Spirit, Heavenly Father will guide us on a path that we are supposed to follow, regardless of whether it fits into "how things are supposed to be done."  How are things supposed to be done in my life?  I'll tell you I have no idea.  I know I'm doing my best to follow the Spirit.  I feel like I had been so converted in my life to the teachings of gender roles and what I was supposed to be doing - Heavenly Father had to smack a brick up the side of my head to get me to go to school and finish my degree.   I've felt the most peace when I wasn't trying to have a baby.  Recently I received an impression based on some things in my Patriarchal Blessing that I should get a job so I can help prepare for the future.  So, this week I start a new part-time job: I can be reached at kanderson@searlehart.com.  I feel like Heavenly Father's had a plan and a path for me this whole time, and He's frustrated I haven't been open to other possibilities other than the 'ideal'. 

So for the love of all things beautiful, I call truce.   

We need to stop.  Stop the mommy wars.  All mothers need support.  All good mothers need praise.  This is the problem: judging.  When we feel judged we want to lash right back.  And it's not just about whether we stay at home or work, we also receive judgment about a million other things. We don’t need to go around devaluing others based on our own choices.  It’s a simple matter of appreciating everyone…every parent who contributes to the proper raising of a child to the very best of their abilities. If you find that you get some contentment out of putting down others based on their life decisions; I would suggest therapy.  Because I have a secret, everyone is doing the best they can in this beautiful, messy thing we call life.

src: debiehive.blogspot.com