MMM: Seeds of Unorthodoxy

I have a guest post up over at Modern Mormon Men, a group blog that I started reading 4 years ago. In fact it was some of their posts that prompted questions that led to my faith transition.

The story is over on their site: 

MMM: Seeds of Unorthodoxy

Joseph Smith's Multiple Wives: Why I Care A Lot

I have always been Mormon. I started with the primary basics and grew in faith and testimony. I was raised at the height of correlation - where only faith promoting stories were given to me as part of my heritage. There was once a moment in my life where I claimed that I KNEW every part and story of the Church was true, and I could not deny it. I saw everything in black and white; those who weren't for us were against us. I'd been taught that no leader could ever lead us astray and that when a leader has spoken, the thinking had been done. I was raised to not trust any source of information not published directly by the church. I passionately defended all of my beliefs from those out to destroy them with lies and misinformation.

In the fall of 2011 I received an answer to prayer that shook the foundation of my faith because my personal revelation conflicted with what the prophets had always said: womanhood = motherhood. I looked at the Teachings of the Living Prophets manual and wondered how the answer to my prayer had been so clear - and in opposition to what I thought I knew to be true: that prophets could not be wrong.  I decided to embark on more study, and I ran into some dirty details that had been scrubbed from the Church History I'd been taught. I felt betrayed, like I'd been lied to. For heaven's sake, even our artwork was a lie!  Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with his head in a hat! I discovered more and more, including that Joseph married teenage girls, sealed himself to married women, lied about his polygamy, and kept most of it secret from Emma. I was angry. They didn’t tell me about that! As I prayed and pondered over the matter I realized that possible errors and sins, even grievous ones, did not negate the fact that Joseph was the prophet of the restoration or that he restored the Priesthood to the earth.

This perspective required me to develop a complex faith and understanding of human prophets, a complex understanding of how revelation may or may not work, a deeper commitment of love and forgiveness to others' weaknesses and sins, and most importantly a stronger testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I recentered the foundation of my faith on the Gospel, not the church or any human who has come before, but the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. We may have had prophets that were deceived or even made mistakes in the implementation of God's will (Joseph's polygamy or Brigham's racist priesthood ban) and not even that can stop the work from progressing. God can overcome the greatest human frailties and weaknesses and bring about His will, despite our broken feeble attempts. If there is anything the Old Testament teaches us, truly it is that God uses imperfect, broken, fallible men to lead his people.
 
Learning, understanding, and embracing the hard truths of our history does not invalidate the fact that God uses men as instruments in His hands to bring about his will. Men. They were and are imperfect men, doing their best and sometimes making a hot mess of it. I finally understood what it meant to be led by fallible men. Maybe if we are required to forgive all men, I could forgive my past leaders whatever wrongs they committed. Could I also forgive church historians through the ages who hid or decided to teach only a faith building narrative form of our history? Yes, I could forgive those fallible leaders as well. Can I continue to sustain, support, love, pray for the success of, and forgive my leaders of today? Yes.

Do I believe that Joseph had a vision? Even though now I know that Joseph recorded several different accounts of the first vision - and the original saints would not have even recognized the one we consider official today?  Yes, I believe Joseph had a vision. Do I believe that every word and act and deed he did was from God? Of course not, he would have been translated if that were so. 

I thought back to ten years ago when I lived in the Nauvoo temple district, over several years I spent days and days walking where Joseph and Emma and Brigham walked.

I now unequivocally believe it's vital for us to know our history, and not just the things that make it easy for us to believe, but things that challenge us as well.  Do I now look back on my trip to Nauvoo differently?  Yes.  I walked where Joseph walked and I saw the statues and I stood at the window where he fell to his death - and now I know that a great part of his martyrdom was due to his polygamy and his ordering the Nauvoo Expositor to be destroyed because it published truths about his secret polygamy. 

I know Joseph wasn't perfect.  But looking back on Nauvoo - there is a cost to only accepting the easy, heroic story.  To understand the facts of polygamy (that many girls and women only entered into polygamy under promises of glorious exaltation for them and their families or under threat of Joseph's life; that women who rejected offers of Joseph's polygamy were gossiped about and called liars and adulterers) and then to see my fellow saints reject these facts brings me great sorrow.  To reject they are worth knowing is to say to those women, "Your stories, your lives, your voices do not matter."

To ignore the unpretty parts of our story we must silence and ignore the lives and voices of countless women, women whose backs have been broken against our easy stories.  You must choose your comfort and ease of belief over the buried voices of the past. You choose the rose-colored glasses given to you in primary school over a mature kaleidoscope of faith. No one is asking you to lessen your faith, but they may be hoping for you to deepen it.

My testimony is built upon the foundation of knowing God lives and loves me, that He sent His Son to die for me, and that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved. I believe God used men to restore His church on the earth again.  I believe that I can love, honor, sustain, and forgive our leaders past and present for their ever imperfect offerings of their best before God. I pray that you can too. There is only one man I will ever sing praises to, and that is my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Polygamy Essays and Prophetic Revelation

So the new Polygamy Essays went live this morning at LDS.org here, here, and here.
 At first I only read the first one, which seemed general and ambiguous, but after I read the other two it seems a little ground shaking.  I'm in a facebook group that was discussing it quite lively, mostly over whether it's a fair historical representation.  I have my own quibbles about a few lines and presentations (hello coercion of 14 year olds . . . but that's for later) but I started a new thread with this:

So with the whole polygamy essay going live today..... I'm feeling in the minority -- anyone else out there believe our prophets can be a hot mess and still be instruments in God's hands, they can still be divinely inspired -- and even be dead wrong elsewhere? Joseph is still the prophet that Restored the Gospel. My personal opinion is that polygamy and racial bans aren't from God -- but that doesn't invalidate that was who God chose to do that work that needed to be done.

 and

I told my brother the fact that we can have a prophet that incorrectly restricts priesthood on race actually strengthens my testimony: that even a racist prophet can't stop the work of the Lord from progressing. It may slow it down, but God's still in charge.

 One of my friends commented about where we are getting the idea that our prophets are not a hot mess, that the OT is really consistent on that point.  And I'm still involved in that discussion hours later.  It's an interesting conversation of people wanting to hold our leaders to a higher standard, and perhaps the inevitable disappointment that will accompany when truth is revealed (hello, essays).  Even one of my tweets from general conference highlighted the tension between counsel we receive for personal revelation and following blindly that we were subject to in just one General Conference Session.  This challenge we have of sorting out the way forward is not unique to our generation -- every dispensation has had prophets that were imperfect and complex and each group of people had to deal with this tension.

A friend posted a link to Julie Smith's essay  at Times and Seasons that was posted during this online conversation I was having, and it's brilliant.  After highlighting about a dozen ambiguous passages from the essays about how our church leaders (prophets) were walking blind trying to figure the whole thing out . . . . she concludes:

What I see here is–intentional or not–the articulation of a theology of prophetic revelation that runs precisely opposite to the way that many Mormons (mis)read Amos to say that God will do nothing without first revealing his secrets to the prophets (Amos 3:7) and that whether by God’s voice or the voice of church leaders, it is precisely identical (D & C 1:38). Rather, this suggests that God reveals things line by line (a scripture frequently quoted in these essays), does not reveal all details at once, and leaves some matters to be worked out without divine mandate.

I think the odd confluence of 1950s American corporate culture, historical amnesia, and rapid world-wide growth led Mormonism to advance the idea that a CEO-like prophet got regular memos from God, bullet-pointed with precise operating instructions designed to maximize return for the next quarter. Diligent work by historians, now disseminated instantly and internationally, shows that that vision isn’t quite precise. It is understandable that some will mourn that vision–I know I’d feel much safer led by that bespoke-suited CEO, divine memo in hand, than by some guy with a leather belt eating locusts in the wilderness. And yet, we should thank those historians (some of whom sacrificed their careers, if not their very membership in the Church, in order to publish things very similar to what is hosted on the Church’s own website today) for helping us overcome the cultural conditioning that misled us regarding what prophets are and what they do. The glass through which we see today is a little less dark because of their work, not just on historical matters related to polygamy but also regarding what we should–and should not–expect from prophets.

 Beautiful.

for further historical readings on polygamy, Dialogue has a great topic page

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

Patheos' Religious Trends: Mormon Women (Highlights)

Right now over a Patheos (a widely read website hosting conversations on all faiths) there is a series about Mormon women highlighting 10 different perspectives.  I wanted to highlight some of these by sharing some quotes along with the links to click through to the direct articles. 

Especially this one, for I have heard every single one of these statements in this first quote!
"..[T]he expectations for Mormon women over almost two hundred years have caused significant confusion, especially over women's relationship to the Priesthood. For example, most Mormon women have probably heard, at any given time, and in no particular order, the following:
Women don't have the Priesthood. Women have always had the Priesthood. Women have the Priesthood in the temple. Women have the Priesthood through their husbands. Women will never have the Priesthood. Women don't have the Priesthood because they are spiritually inferior to men. Women don't have the Priesthood because they are spiritually superior to men. Women will have the Priesthood in the next life. Women don't have the Priesthood because they have motherhood. Not all women are mothers (literally). All women are mothers (symbolically). Mormons practice polygamy. Mormons don't practice polygamy. Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. Men can be sealed to more than one woman. Members will be required to practice plural marriage in the next life. Members won't be required to practice plural marriage in the next life. Women might exercise the spiritual gift of healing by the laying on of hands. Women cannot heal because it is an exercise of priesthood. Women can heal together with their husbands. A woman's prayer of faith is just as effective as a priesthood blessing. (But then why the need for priesthood blessings?)"
   
"My hope is that, rather than avoiding these discussions, members of all inclinations will be challenged to confront seriously their assumptions about gender, about the history and theology of women in the church, and to have real, sincere, and respectful conversations about what is at stake. Perhaps as traditionalists express what they fear to lose if their frameworks are shaken, and feminists express what they hope to gain if their frameworks are realized, and church leadership listens with sincere heart and true intent, all involved might begin to come to an understanding of how the full potential of Mormon women might be tapped, for the growth of the church, their families, and themselves."
"Traditionalists and Feminists, an Evolving Conversation" by Andrea Radke-Moss

I usually have a hard time with Valerie Hudson, as I feel she teaches her opinions and interpretations as doctrine, and I find that hard to swallow . . . but I love this quote from her essay:
"The Church leadership is pulling lots of weeds—it is uprooting beliefs and practices handed down from a time when women were viewed as inferiors—and they deserve our thanks.
We the membership must do our part as well. We must pull the weeds in our own backyard—our homes, our wards, our stakes—and be prepared to put our backs into it when the roots are deep. But there is more; in our homes we are planting the seeds of the future in how we raise our children. We need to raise them strong and true by sparing them the old and ugly misunderstandings about women that are so common in our culture. Our children could become majestic redwoods whose branches touch the heavens, if we do not hobble them with the bindweed of the "false traditions of the fathers" concerning women."
"Yard Work in the Kingdom of God: On False Conceptions about Mormon Women" by Valerie Hudson

Fiona Givens opines on the possible development of Relief Society as the promised priestesshood:
"However, the full development of the Female Relief Society was curtailed amidst the contention between the First Elder and the Elect Lady over the issue of polygamy. Brigham Young's daughter, Susa Young Gates observed: "The privileges and powers outlined by the Prophet in those first meetings have never been granted to women in full even yet." (See Cheryl L. Bruno, "Keeping a Secret: Freemasonry, Polygamy, and the Nauvoo Relief Society, 1842-1844," Journal of Mormon History [Fall 2013]: 176.) As a fuller, more accurate LDS history is excavated, there is an increasing feeling of loss and a consequent unease about women's position in the current church structure together with a hunger for the rights and privileges committed to Presidentess Emma Smith, and the Female Relief Society on Thursday, March 17, 1842."
 "Joseph Smith on Mormon Women and the Priesthood" by Fiona Givens

From one of the leading LDS scholars on the history of African Americans in Mormonism:
"As to the question of the day—that gender question—I predict, under no authority whatsoever, that we will see significant change and growth over the next twenty years. It will be slow, and those who will be a part of it must be patient and humble. I predict that we will see the ordination of women—but not in the way OW has framed it. I suspect that women will be ordained to a female order of the priesthood, and will be ordained—put into order–to carry out specific assignments."

"As I have grown and now find myself in my 60th year, revelatory instruction has urged me to flee from argument, to hold out my arms to those who are hurting, to prove my love before I prove my 
point. I have not always succeeded, but I know that I have been so instructed. I have dealt with difficult circumstances as a mother, but have felt supported in all of my trials—not just so that I could feel comforted, but so that I could comfort my children and bear them up.  "
"Here I Stand. God Help Me, I Can Do No Other" by Margaret Blair Young

"Escaping the stagnation of entrenched ideologies and dueling monologues requires moral imagination and a willingness to engage in dialogue."
"Purity, Power, and Practical Pragmatism" by Patrick Mason

and I've never read or heard from her but it looks like Fiona Givens' daughter has an essay, and the Givens definitely trend more conservative than I am, but I liked this quote as it's been one of the ideas I've been advocating for: a way for members with structural Church questions and issues to communicate them to those in a position to consider and enact changes.  Local leaders are not in any of these positions to be productive.
"What emerges most saliently for me is the need to open up communication channels between members and the leadership in charge of doctrinal and structural decisions in order to overcome the unsurprising distance that grows between them in a church far larger and more global than the one Joseph Smith founded. Church leadership could "welcome sincere conversations" more directly, such as offering an email address where leaders could read the questions submitted by members"
 "Are Mormon Women Allowed to Ask Questions?" by Rachael Givens-Johnson

I'll end with a question I ask myself all of the time:
"The LDS Church espouses a doctrine of continuing revelation that by definition requires a belief that there is grand revelatory potential that will move our faith beyond the status quo. But if the only people qualified to receive institutional revelation are male priesthood holders, how do the spiritual experiences and insights of women function within this framework? As the organization is currently structured, a woman can never be considered a "faithful leader" [i.e. Brethren] of the Church, which raises the question of how women can meaningfully participate in institution-wide change that results from personal revelation without engaging in some sort of advocacy."
"Expanding the Conversation" by Aimee Hickman

Thou Shalt Have No Creeds Before Me

Hat tip to Junior Ganymeade for finding this little gem I stumbled across today:

Though Riskas puts quotation marks around “an abomination before God” as a Mormon attitude about all other faiths, he does not provide a source. Joseph Smith famously did use a different phrase in the 1838 account of his first vision. His actual statement is of a declaration that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (Joseph Smith, History, 19). Having misread the evidence, and therefore, missed the crucial clue, Riskas does not seek out Joseph Smith’s clear explanation of the problem with creeds even though he does list in his bibliography the source where I first read it, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings (“all of them have some truth”), but because “creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.”⁵⁵ Joseph Smith also explained that “the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”⁵⁶ The real problem with creeds is not their content⁵⁷ but their function. When in place, creeds place a person and a society beyond repentance, beyond change. Creeds box a person in and throw away the keys to further light and knowledge. If that is not abominable, what is?

Emphasis added. 

Namaste

Yesterday . . . . yesterday I burst into tears several times.  Sadness, hurt, loss.  Because of this I felt a deep longing for peace.  I have a friend in town and we did a yoga session at 10 pm last night.  In the middle of the corpse pose my mind cleared and I heard, "To find peace, you must create peace."

I feel connections to both members under church court right now - it is because of John Dehlin that I am still here and found a way safely through my faith transition.  I'm not an avid fan but he will always have my eternal gratitude.  He has always given audience to the whole spectrum of Mormon thought; from exmormons to never-had-a-question-a-day-in-their-lifers.  I found it heartening that wherever one was on the spectrum there was a community and an ability and invitation to stay.  It is true that without John Dehlin, I don't believe the new doctrinal essays recently published on LDS.org would have even come about.  There is great need for more transparency which he has worked to bring about. 

The existence of Ordain Women, I think, has brought about positive changes in the church that I believe would not have come without a little public agitation (broadcasting phood session,  putting pictures of women up, adding them to "leadership" page of conference ensign, and yes I even believe Elder Oaks' talk wouldn't have happened without it, etc.).  I don't think Ordain Women has necessarily made good choices as an organization and I think they have made mistakes.  But if all these women had ever done was only discuss questions and issues privately with their bishops I don't think we would be where we are at today.  I feel like there is a conversation because of them.  People are more willing (and the extremes are less willing) to respectfully consider and discuss and ponder over these issues.  And yes, that includes me - even though I have not come to a conclusion on women's ordination I find it such a gray murky area that begs for further revelation which I hope will happen in my lifetime. 

In the midst of all of my feelings, I also feel fear.   After a day to reflect all I can say is that I believe this action will quash discussions on women that have been happening.   Everything that has been said about K. Kelly has been said to me and my baby steps advocacy.  Can you imagine the responses I'll get now? If I found hostility before how can I expect to find understanding?  I am so lost right now.

And yet I have this overwhelming need to find and create peace.  If you see others tearing each other down (online or otherwise) without charity, please remember to do all we can to create peace.  Do not react if so doing will not bring peace.  Cutting these two members off of the Body of Christ does not solve any of our problems cleanly as a faith community.   There are so many lost and hurt right now, and crowing your "victory" and others' demise surely does not invite peace and love.  Please, find a place for your brother and your sister.  There are many right now eying the exit door wondering if you feel the same way about them. 

Namaste

Priesthood Keys, Authority, and Power

As I listened to Elder Oaks' talk about Priesthood this past conference there was one little bit that made me jump up and down and do a happy dance:

"We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?"

It immediately reminded me of reading Sheri Dew's book, Women and the Priesthood, which I reviewed and blogged a detail notes/summary/discussion.  I loved her description of the Keys/Authority/Power of the Priesthood, and it very closely echoed Elder Oaks' talk with a few exceptions noted below:

Understanding The Keys, Authority, and Power of the Priesthood
Only certain priesthood holders hold certain keys in the Church.  Keys authorize the ordinances, authority is required to perform the ordinances, those who receive ordinances have priesthood power available to them.  Those men with keys can give some women authority, in the temple women have priesthood authority.  After going to the temple, women have direct access to priesthood power.  Women don’t have keys but preside over organizations.  Sister missionaries and women in the temple have been given authority to perform works by those with keys.  Elders have power to baptize, but can’t unless given authority by someone using keys.  Ordinances and covenants are our credentials for admission into his presence.  With the exception of female temple workers, only men have authority to officiate in ordinances of priesthood.  Authority and priesthood are two different things, women have been given divine authority.

She was very clear in her book that women did not have priesthood power, but ACCESS to it.  She also was very clear that women only are given divine authority - whatever authority they hold, it is not priesthood authority.  Below I had a note with a sincere question about the difference between the two:

 (so if the priesthood means the Power of god, the Authority of God, and the Keys of God; and women receive divine authority (which is from God) what makes divine authority different?  It's a sincere question)

 I love how Elder Oaks talk further clarifies and builds on our previous knowledge and understanding.  

Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept

I've had some wonderful conversations with family members lately (more on that later) and it has come to my attention that in the process of sharing my story and my opinions -- I have not been the most efficient communicator.  It is very hard to convey my tone and purpose.  As I continue to share I plan on putting more effort into being more clear.

For example . . . when I say the word "question" what does it mean?  Especially when applied to our leaders?

One of the results of going through my faith transition, is that when I studied and pondered the Gospel, I found questions about my faith - I never doubted the core doctrines of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  But I looked at the appendages, I saw how they moved and changed and didn't stay constant (this includes teachings of our leaders).  In order to not allow questions to shake your anchor, foundation, or testimony -- one must expand the perspective and vision of what Truth is.  Whereas before I thought I had all the answers with certainty and everything I had been taught was 100% the whole, complete answer; instead I saw it from an eternal perspective from far, far away.  I see everything we have as a place on the path that a full and complete truth is being revealed, line upon line - precept upon precept. 

God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.  It is impossible for any human being to understand as He does and know what He knows. As He interacts with us, He chooses men to lead and guide His church on this earth.  As He inspires, instructs, and leads them I envision the following story as an example:

I have a 16-yr-old girl I volunteer with once a week. She wanted to learn how to make a cheesecake. I bought the ingredients and showed her how/helped her make it. The crust was burned and it was intensely lumpy. I could have fixed those things, but I didn’t want to, because she wouldn’t have learned as much, and I would have robbed her of the sense of accomplishment that is so important to her developing confidence in herself. I didn’t fix the problems because I have a vision that goes beyond cheesecake. I have a vision of her and what she has the potential to become. My understanding of God is that he works in the same way. He could fix all of the imperfections in our church [organization or] leadership right now if he wanted to. But his goal isn’t a perfect church, it’s perfected human beings. And to learn and grow and become perfected, we have to be allowed to screw up, and learn from our mistakes. In the end, the cheesecake still tasted really, really good. (Quoted from a comment at FMH)

 When I listen to the words of my leaders I'm not searching out lines and sentences that I am judging to be wrong.  But in the context of my Heavenly Father lovingly revealing truth line upon line, I imagine what the full truth will continue to be revealed.  I ponder the words of my leaders and love their counsel and guidance.  And as I ponder I wonder how these teachings will be built upon and expanded upon.  Sometimes when new truths are revealed, they show that our previous teachings were limited by our human understanding.  I wonder what truths will be revealed next? 

And as I read Elder Oaks' talk from Saturday night, that was my response: I rejoiced in the further light and knowledge that was revealed.  For the first time in my life . . . I heard taught from the pulpit that women are endowed with their own priesthood power in the temple (not access to it, and not through their husbands).  We have priesthood power.  The power of the priesthood is not limitied to being a male, and he taught that neither males nor females are more special or favorite to God.  Women aren't inherently better or special-er than men.  He also taught that those with priesthood keys grant priesthood authority to others perform certain tasks, whether male or female: again, not limited by gender.  WOW, you guys!  We have been living below our privileges!!  He also taught that the Relief Society is more than just an organization of women that holds classes, it is where women with priesthood power and authority are to work together to change the world in wisdom and order.  Women are not currently granted offices of the orders of Melkizedek or Aaronic priesthoods.  I wonder how this will play out and be revealed according to Joseph Smith's teachings that he "was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day— as in Paul[']s day"?  (Nauvoo RS Minute Book, Joseph Smith Papers)  Further analysis of that statement is found here.

So as I ponder his words, I wonder, "Hmmm, I wonder if there are other orders of the priesthood that could be established?"and "I wonder what further light and knowledge will build upon this line and precept we have been given tonight?"  I do not perceive our teachings as 100% the knowledge and truth of God, but a step in that direction. 

I heard Elder Oaks speak about how in this Church we should not be worried about rights but responsibilities.  I loved that!  One thing Neylan McBaine taught in her FAIR address about gender in the Church, is that she doesn't think that women in the church are in a power struggle; that we are in a purpose struggle.  I wholeheartedly agree with this perception.  Currently in our church we have a fairly narrow view of the purpose and responsibilities given to women.  This narrow view has hampered my spiritual growth, and I had to discover for myself God has an expanded purpose for women than I was trying to fill.  I imagine it being near impossible to heal from the trial of infertility if one cannot expand their definition of womanhood past motherhood.  General Relief Society President Linda Burton was quoted as saying that the church stands to benefit as “men’s vision of the capacity of women becomes more complete” (Citation)

As one Mormon Feminist explains:  "Expanding the definition of mother to encompass all women merely expands our concept of motherhood. It keeps the womanhood = motherhood paradigm intact.
I want an expanded definition of womanhood— one where motherhood is one of many choices we can make to express our divine femininity."

This expression does not demand sameness and equality - but hopes for further understanding of women in the plan of Salvation and in the life hereafter.  You have to admit our understanding of that is pretty limited.  We desire and seek for further revelation.  It is true I would like women to have more responsibility in building the Kingdom of God (not necessarily priesthood keys).  Not all women feel so and I understand that perspective, but I certainly have the ability and availability because of my circumstances to do so, and I feel my unique talents and gifts should be used to build the kingdom to the fullest respect possible.

I do believe Elder Oaks' teachings were mostly in response to the Ordain Women movement.  And I have expressed I do not mind them existing.  I do not agree with their actions or choices.  I'm grateful these issues became vocal and part of the public conversation, and not just private conversation . . . I believe it played a part in the receiving further light and knowledge we received this weekend.  Sometimes we do have to ask to receive more.  They may continue asking.  I will continue asking for further light and knowledge, because:

"I Believe God Will Yet Reveal Many Great and Important Things Pertaining to the Kingdom of God"

Now, in regards to why certain people have issues or questions or wish for changes, I wanted to share a comment given on my facebook page:

I am not sure there is a more beautiful expression of faith than when we show obedience even amidst questions. That is sustaining.

I loved the talk from President Uchtdorf a few sessions ago when he said, "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you." I think we would all be wise to apply those same words of advice now... "Don't judge me because I QUESTION differently than you."

We all have questions throughout the journey of mortality. That is simply part of agency, and an important tool in building our faith and making us truly converted. Sometimes our questions are deeply personal, private struggles. And sometimes there is a community of our brothers and sisters struggling with the same question.

Those questioning now deserve the same respect, support, and love that I deserved when I was struggling to reconcile my infertility with my understanding of my divine purpose as a woman, or when someone else struggles to understand the principle of tithing, or forgiveness, or with the temple, or to understand a story or principle in the scriptures or church history, etc. The questions may be different, but the way the person questioning should be treated is not.

President Monson's words today about love touched me deeply. "Love is the very essence of our gospel and Jesus Christ is our exemplar." As disciples of Him and members of His church, we should always strive to love as He would. We know that He would love those who question or struggle, because He lived that way. He would not accuse, or judge, or belittle. And He would certainly never tell that person they didn't belong in His church. He left the 99 to find the 1. He wept with those who mourned. He extended compassion to those who doubted. He forgave those who sinned.

He needs us to do the same now. We have been commanded to love one another, even those—especially those—that may question differently than we do.

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.

The Beauty of the Ocean and Following our Leaders

The knowledge of God and the Gospel is like the ocean.  When we enter the waters of baptism we dip our feet into the crystal clear waters near the shoreline.  We have oceanographers who are the few experts to help us navigate the waters.  The regularly hold classes to help us learn and understand what is around us.   As we enter the water there are family and friends who help teach us how to swim.  We are surrounded by those we love.  It is beautiful.  As we get to be better swimmers we can venture out and even learn to tread water in the deeper parts. 

Being as we are all different individuals it doesn't make sense that we all enjoy the ocean in the same way.  Some people feel closer to God by keeping their feet on the ground, others enjoy all the beauty and splendors found in the clear water but they like to go out deep and scuba dive, and some people get into the water and bring some tools to measure the salinity.  There are some parts of the ocean that have cloudy waters.   There have even been discoveries made by people wondering what's in all that darkness.  People asked questions and our Oceanographers brought back something we didn't think could possibly exist, ever.  Those waters aren't off limits, we're welcome to study different parts of the ocean.   It is important to remember that all we ever need for salvation is actually found in shallow, clear waters.  Some people find their love for their creator is strengthened by the clear waters.  Some people find their love strengthened in cloudy waters.  Our Oceanographers have always encouraged Oceanic study, and welcome questions that we bring to them.  

 When you're in the cloudy waters you find a lot of questions.  Where is the bottom?  Does it drop off?  What animals live in these conditions?  How many?  How do they survive?  What about plant life?  Almost any answer is possible.  We don't even have the tools to find the answers to all of our questions.  When I think about the cloudy waters, I am in awe of what God has done.  It strengthens my testimony of His Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence.  I think there is beauty in the possibilities of what we can't see with our mortal eyes.  The wonder of the ocean sometimes requires our imagination.

I find beauty in a question and in saying, "I don't know the answer to my questions.  The possibilities are sometimes endless, for only God knows all things." 

There is danger when through our own reasoning we think we know more than the Oceanographers.  That when someone goes treading in cloudy waters they think they know where the bottom is, even though they've been told otherwise by Oceanographers.  They may have even found out through their own study where the bottom is.   Does that mean the Oceanographers are no longer your guide?  Do you doubt their place as our leaders? There is also danger in assuming to know something about the ocean does not exist, that it won't be discovered later on, or that what we know about the ocean is everything there is to know.  Those are two extreme sides of a completely acceptable journey in the ocean. 

It is true that past Oceanographers have taught things about the ocean that turned out to be false when new understanding and technology came.  But our current Oceanographers are always the most world-renowned experts in Oceanography.  They know more than has ever been known about the ocean.  Still, it's impossible that they know everything.  The Ocean is so deep and so expansive our minds can't even comprehend its size and weight.  It doesn't change the fact that they are who God has chosen or lead, guide, and teach us.  God hasn't promised that his Oceanographers know everything about the ocean, but he's promised that if we listen to them we will never be in danger. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think you guys can see where I'm going with this.  It can be taken in a million different ways.  Right now I see a lot of people in the Ocean angry with each other.  There is contention instead of meekness and humility.  Sometimes I think God may be prompting the ladies of OW to test our hearts, to see how we respond to those who do not agree with us.  I know their activism, which I don't agree with, has led me to uplifting and sincere study in the temple and out of it.  I'm grateful for that.  I also believe we received words specific for our situation today from our leaders in General Conference.  And no, I didn't see a "feminist smackdown" as my cousin purported. I did see that our leaders love and care for us enough to address our concerns.  I added some of my favorite quotes in an appendix below. 

To wrap this baby up, I just want to say I'm a big time believer in modern revelation.  In acknowledging that the understanding of man is limited in understanding the knowledge of God.  I believe there is a lot more revelation coming down the pike the next few generations.  That the temple ceremony will likely change as much in the next 100 years as it has in the last 100 years as we receive further light and knowledge. 

If we feel that there is a teaching out there that may be subject to change in the future, what do we do?  I'll tell you what I do, I follow Elder Hafen:

My experience has taught me always to give the Lord and his church the benefit of any doubts I may have when some such case seems too close to call. I stress that the willingness to be believing and accepting in these cases is a very different matter from blind obedience. It is rather, a loving and knowing kind of obedience.

That when it comes down to it, if there's a question for me -- I say, the teachings we have for today are the teachings for today.  I accept them.  I follow the Prophet.   I leave open the possibility that God may change how he's running the show in the future, and it may simply blow our minds.  

Or in the wise words of Jerry Seinfeld regarding authority, "Pants always beats no pants." **


**This reference could be construed as deeper meaning of who gets to wear the pants.  It's not.  Literally we trust doctors because they have training.  We trust leaders because they are chosen.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below you will find some of my favorite thoughts and moments from last weekend.  

Elder Hales opened conference by speaking about speaking in General Conference.  It was very meta.  But it was almost as if the Lord was giving us a preface before we jumped in with both feet this time: 

President Harold B. Lee taught: “The only safety we have as members of this church is to … give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet. There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your [personal] views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; … and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory’ (D&C 21:6).”¹⁰

Immediately after Elder Soares speaks about the importance of being meek, humble, and teachable in responding to others and not just our leaders.  Most of the anger and hate I've seen is towards the small group of women who has a different opinion than the majority. 

What about when people disagree with your ideas, even though you are absolutely sure that they represent the proper solution to a problem? What is your response when someone offends you, critiques your efforts, or is simply unkind because he or she is in a bad mood? At these moments and in other difficult situations, we must learn to control our temper and convey our feelings with patience and gentle persuasion.

I love the story he finishes his talk with, about the man in South Africa who is kept out of the church even though he believes it.  It's not right that he's kept out, it's an injustice.  And he responds in love and meekness in asking the window be opened so he could partake of the Gospel until years later when he is baptized.  There are similar stories in the scriptures, too.

I love this teaching from Lorenzo Snow that I've been pondering for a while.  My first read was that he was saying when we hear something we don't disagree with we should pray for a witness that it is true. But it's actually saying that we can pray to know of their motives and interests.  We can feel their love for us.

There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise.^[9]

 Of course I loved Elder Uchtdorf.  For someone whose very nature is to question and to ask why, and whose testimony has been strengthened by finding questions or imperfections -- the man is an answer to my prayers.  

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, build faith in others.  And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.