Separate, But Equal

Now there's a loaded phrase, especially in the United States, fraught with hundreds of years of racial baggage.

I find myself using it a lot lately as I think about how it feels to be a woman in the Mormon Church.  My sister-in-law sent me Neylan McBaine's post about moderation that she wrote for Feminist Mormon Housewives.  My SIL told me it resonated with her, and that she really related to this more moderate way of thinking, which I completely understand.

I read through the post quickly yesterday, and I admit that this is not a thorough analysis, but rather my own initial reaction.  Neylan McBaine talks about sisterhood in beautiful ways, and her ideas of moderation do appeal to a part of me, but I am torn.  She makes so many good points in her writing, but I find myself thinking, "Yes, but...." when I read her words. 

Husband thinks it's dumb that we divide things by gender in the Church.  I actually really enjoy time with the sisters.  Relief Society was always one of the best parts of my singles wards.  I think having a space where Young Women can feel safe to share, without the tension of lots of male and female teenagers' hormones piled together, is a good thing. 

 

But right now I feel like there's a serious structural problem in the Church, based on the patriarchy.  When talks like "LDS Women Are Incredible" can still happen in 2011, and be considered an acceptable way to speak about over half of the membership of the Church, there's a problem.  I worry that if we keep things separate, if we create a very strong Relief Society, and bestow Priestesshood upon all women, it still won't be seen as equal.  Priestesshood will have lesser meaning than Priesthood and will still be subsumed somehow.  Women will lead the Relief Society, but men will still lead the Church.  I think men and women should lead the Church.

 

I would be thrilled to see a strong Relief Society, more in line with its original purpose.  A kingdom of priests like it was supposed to be.  A woman presiding at the head, through her Priestesshood.  That is a lovely vision.

 

I think Neylan McBaine's moderation is a good place to start. However, I fear that because of how the Church is now, settling for anything less than total equality in standing for women will doom us to a future of perpetual second-class status.  That's the problem with separate, but equal, versus just plain equal.

Legitimate Reasons

Before I was released as Young Women's President, sometimes I worried that saying I was having a faith crisis and feeling disaffected from the Church was just a cop out on my part.  Like maybe the real reason I was pouring over the inconsistencies of Church history, or studying the problems with scripture historicity, or fretting about women's roles and the Church's involvement with political movements, was because I was so worn out driving Young Women and planning activities that I was just looking for any excuse to get out.

Well, I can safely say that's not the case.  I haven't been Young Women's President for about 5 months, yet my issues with the Church remain.  I kind of figured, but it's nice to know for sure that I wasn't just looking for an excuse.

Because in reality, being with the Young Women energized me.  I might have dragged my feet sometimes to get out the door to go lead a Wednesday night activity, but I always noticed that at some point in the middle of the activity, as I was giggling along with the girls about something silly, I felt happy to be there, and revived by their spirits.  It wasn't always hearts and flowers, but I loved those girls a lot (still do) and thrived on their energy.

And I'm still looking for ways to serve them.  Last night, one of the girls came over to get SAT math tutoring from Husband.  While they worked on math problems, I started making her a grid of all of the colleges she wants to apply to and the pieces that we need to pull together for those applications so that we can keep track of everything.  Her mom is from Peru and doesn't speak English and wouldn't know where to start with trying to get her daughter into college, as much as that's exactly what she wants for her.  So we're here to step in and help. 

I'm planning care packages to send to my YW at BYU and her sister who is on a mission.

So, yeah, as worn out as my ward can make me, and as ready as I was to be released as Young Women's President, that's not anywhere near the heart of my crisis with the Church as an Institution.  I still want to serve, and I'm excited about the new opportunities I'll get as a member of the Relief Society Presidency (even if sometimes I might get tired and complainy).  I have seen truly Christ-like service occur in our ward.  I'm just a little skeptical of the motivations of the institutional Church.

New Calling

I feel like I just got called to be Gospel Doctrine teacher.  Oh wait, I did (just a few months ago).  I think Bishop ranks Sunday School teacher right above, maybe, Greeter, in importance in callings.  He seems to think it's not a hard calling at all, and it always gets easily pushed aside when he thinks someone should be in a more important (on his scale) calling.

So yesterday I got called to be the Relief Society 1st Counselor, which apparently in our ward is the counselor over Enrichment, which...I don't even know what that means.  It used to be Homemaking and now it's Enrichment, but I don't think regular Enrichment activities happen anymore, right?  Being in Primary for 2 years and YW for 4 years means I no longer have any idea how Relief Society works.

(I told Bishop that over 10 years ago I was the Homemaking counselor in my university ward to which he said, "Pssh, you're not that old."  Thanks, Bishop.  Actually, I got called to be Homemaking counselor 16 years ago, so the moral of the story is, I'm old.)

I'm meeting with the RS President tomorrow night to discuss what it is I'm supposed to do.  Against my unofficial Calling Difficulty Gauge, with YW President as a 10 and 27th member of the Welcoming Committee as a 1 (my last calling in my giant YSA ward), I expect this to fall around a 4 or so.  I rank being the sole Gospel Doctrine teacher as a 6, possibly a 7 during this year of Doctrine and Covenants.

So I said yes.  Later I asked Husband if I was being a hypocrite given my issues with the Church and he said he didn't think so.  My ex-Mo friend who is very supportive of wherever I happen to be at the moment, articulated it better when she texted me that as far as issues go, RS Counselor is pretty good because it's mostly helping and planning, right?

True.  Teaching Gospel Doctrine has been tricky, particularly this year.  If we had been studying the New Testament, no problem!  But I got thrown into D&C, and having to wrestle with Joseph Smith and now Brigham Young and all of the issues there, without being a complete hypocrite to my class and lying through my teeth every week has been a challenge.  As much as I dreaded this calling, it's actually wound up being a really good period of learning for me as I try to figure out how I feel about things.  I actually gained a little respect for Brigham Young this week.  As much of a misogynistic tyrant as he was, the man had organization skillz!

But helping and planning?  That I can do!  The whole helping and service aspect of the Church is one of the major things that keeps me there.  Yeah, I get annoyed when I feel taken advantage of, but I love genuinely being able to help someone with something they need.  For instance, one of the YW is coming over this week to get SAT help from me and Husband.  Something like that, where you feel like it matters and isn't just bureaucratic busywork, that's good stuff!

Bishop said to me yesterday to think about what I wanted to do about my Gospel Doctrine calling.  I know he wants me to keep teaching through the end of the year, because in our ward a new calling doesn't necessarily mean you get released from your old calling.   Also, for some reason, Bishop doesn't think being the sole Sunday School teacher is a hard calling.  I mean, it's not hard, but it is time-consuming.  I spend several hours every week preparing my lesson, and I teach EVERY week, and if I'm not going to be there, which I'm usually not at least one Sunday a month, I have to try to track down a sub, which can be quite a feat.  Whenever I tell anyone rational that I'm the only teacher, they think that's insane.  Don't know why Bishop doesn't see that.

So for the moment, I have 3 callings (I'm also Sacrament Meeting chorister.  That might be a 0 on the Difficulty Gauge...)  I think I'm going to tell Bishop I'll teach through the end of the year, but only part-time, meaning, get me a co-teacher, stat!  He may just decide if he's going to call a co-teacher, he might as well just call a new teacher and be done with it, so we'll see.

News Lately

Sunstone: What Is Authentic Spirituality? - I had Sunstone envy a couple of weeks ago as lots of people on my alterno-Mormon Facebook groups talked about attending various sessions.  This particular presentation resonated with me.  One key section:

When you’re religious but not spiritual, you’re very concerned with the outward appearance. You want to make sure the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. You want to show up with the right smile on your face, the right clothes on your body, the right words on your lips. But if those things don’t come from a genuine place, what you are doing is constructing barriers between yourself and God.

This is because God deals in realness.

So true!  I'm still in the process of figuring out my relationship to God in a non-standard, non-correlated way.  I'm trying to find that genuine place for communication with the divine.  I know how to follow the rules, to say all the right thing, but I don't necessarily want to anymore, because I want to be real, and I believe God wants me to be real.

This also makes me think of the ongoing fixation with modesty, as the Church uses that term (aka, Hide Those Filthy Shoulders!), particularly the modesty of our Young Women.  Really?  Is that the most important thing to focus on?  Really?!


Faith & Doubt - Is it just me, or is everyone talking about the juxtaposition of faith and doubt lately?  Ever since my lesson with its great, student-led discussion, and the follow up emails between me and a member of my bishopric, this topic seems to be everywhere.  Though I'm sure part of it is that I'm hyper-aware of such discussions now.  Anyway, this blog post is an interesting discussion about how to approach someone in a faith crisis, and how to move through a faith crisis.  I'm taking some helpful pointers from this.

Lesson 32: To Seal the Testimony

After a couple of weeks off (yay, vacation!), I picked up with my Gospel Doctrine class again just in time for the death of Joseph Smith.  My initial thought was, seriously?  A whole lesson about the martyrdom?  Surprisingly, the lesson manual went in a direction I actually wanted to follow, which focused on the ideas/doctrines that Joseph Smith established in his 14 years as president of the Church.  When I started listing out all of the things that Joseph Smith wove into this religion, it was pretty interesting.

First, as always, we started with some history of how Joseph, Hyrum Smith, John Taylor and Willard Richards  came to be in Carthage Jail.  Rather than read the sanitized version from Our Heritage (they were put in jail for no reason!  Imagine!), I had us read from Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour Through Modern Revelations, courtesy of Mormon Stories Sunday School.  Usually Our Heritage isn't too bad but in this section its position as a publication of the Church came through loud and clear.  Not only did the reading I use mention the destruction of the printing press, but there were a couple of shout outs to polygamy (also, Joseph Smith's ill-conceived run for the presidency and his desire for a theo-democracy.  So much for inspired Constitution drafters.  Let's talk about some real history!)

Unable to persuade government officials to redress the wrongs committed against the Latter-day Saints in Missouri, Joseph Smith ran for the office of president of the United States. His campaign platform circulated far and wide in the early months of 1844. Dozens of campaigning missionaries stumped across the country. "There is not a nation or dynasty, now occupying the earth, which acknowledges Almighty God as their lawgiver," Joseph declared. "I go emphatically, virtuously, and humanely for a THEO-DEMOCRACY, where God and the people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteousness." In Nauvoo, meanwhile, Joseph continued to offer the temple ordinances to a few prepared Saints, and in March he gave the apostles the priesthood keys to perform the ordinances and a commission to carry on after his death. He also secretly practiced plural marriage. Joseph's growing political power ignited deep-seated resentment against him among non-Mormons, and a faction of alienated Mormons opposed the revelation on plural marriage. Apostates published a dissenting paper, the Expositor, on June 7, that publicized Joseph's private life and attacked his religious and political leadership. As mayor, Joseph led the Nauvoo city council to a decision to destroy the press as a public nuisance. The action seemed despotic to antagonists inside and outside of Nauvoo, and it gave Joseph's enemies an opportunity to denounce and prosecute him. As a result, Illinois governor Thomas Ford summoned Joseph to Carthage, the Hancock County seat, to answer charges of inciting a riot.

Although I don't think Joseph and Hyrum deserved to die, the fact is, there was a reason they were in jail.

Then we read Willard Richards's account of what happened that fateful night from the lesson manual:

A shower of musket balls were thrown up the stairway against the door of the prison in the second story, followed by many rapid footsteps. …A ball was sent through the door, which passed between us, and showed that our enemies were desperadoes. … Joseph Smith, Mr. Taylor and myself sprang back to the front part of the room, and … Hyrum Smith retreated two-thirds across the chamber directly in front of and facing the door.  A ball was sent through the door which hit Hyrum on the side of his nose, when he fell backwards, extended at length, without moving his feet.  From the holes in his [clothing], it appears evident that a ball must have been thrown from without, through the window, which entered his back on the right side, and passing through, lodged against his watch. … At the same instant the ball from the door entered his nose.  As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’

Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. … A ball [from the musket of one of the mob] grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him and some balls hit him.  Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before … , while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway. …

When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.  Mr. Taylor rushed into the window, which is some fifteen or twenty feet from the ground. When his body was nearly on a balance, a ball from the door within entered his leg, and a ball from without struck his watch … in his vest pocket near the left breast, … the force of which ball threw him back on the floor, and he rolled under the bed which stood by his side. …

Joseph attempted, as the last resort, to leap [from] the same window from whence Mr. Taylor fell, when two balls pierced him from the door, and one entered his right breast from without, and he fell outward, exclaiming, ‘Oh Lord, my God!’ … He fell on his left side a dead man” Elder John Taylor was shot four times but recovered from his wounds.

I let the class ponder that for a moment and discussed how devastating this must have been for these early Saints who had given up so much, been driven from place to place, and then ultimately lost their prophet who they had followed this far.

Next we read D&C 135, John Taylor's eulogy for the brothers Smith.

In the spirit of a eulogy, I told the class we were going to talk about all of the doctrines that Joseph Smith established and all of the things he did to create the Church as we know it today.

(As a side note, it's a hard balance to talk about "doctrines" and "restoration" and such when I'm at such a place of questioning the Church in my own mind.  I am very careful about how I say things, and try my best not to say anything I don't believe.  For instance, I might say something like "Joseph Smith said..." or "Joseph Smith taught...", rather than "Joseph Smith restored..."  It's tricky, but I'm trying to be honest.)

We read and discussed the following scriptures and quotes related to specific doctrines:

• Nature of the Godhead (D&C 130:22-23)


• Restoration of the Priesthood (D&C 107:6)


• Scriptures

While serving in the Quorum of the Twelve, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley said: “[Joseph Smith] translated and published the Book of Mormon, a volume of 522 pages which has since been retranslated into [many] languages and which is accepted by millions across the earth as the word of God. The revelations he received and other writings he produced are likewise scripture to these millions. The total in book pages constitutes the equivalent of almost the entire Old Testament of the Bible, and it all came through one man in the space of a few years.

• Baptism for the dead and other temple ordinances (D&C 128:18)


• Word of Wisdom (D&C 89:1-3)


• Articles of Faith

Finally, I asked the class this great question posed in the Mormon Stories Sunday School lesson notes: "How is your life different because of an obscure farm boy born in 1805 Vermont?"

Because no matter what my feelings are about the Church, there is no doubt that this one man's actions have dramatically impacted my life.  Several class members shared their feelings about the Church, and what they have gained from the Church, and it wound up being a nice period of sharing.

Finally, from Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, I read the following:

That is Joseph Smith's significance and his appeal: he revealed the answers to the ultimate questions.  Why am I here? Where did I come from? Where am I going? Is there purpose in life? What is the nature of the Fall? Are individuals accountable agents or are their actions predetermined? What is the nature of Christ's atonement? What about those who do not hear the gospel in mortality? And perhaps above all, what is the nature of God?  He thus died as a testator—a witness—and Doctrine and Covenants 135 declares that though a testator can be killed, his testimony endures forever.

ITNOJC, Amen.

Thinking in Black and White

In most areas of my life, I feel comfortable acknowledging shades of gray. 

However, this whole Church thing, specifically the Mormon Church thing, seems very either/or to me. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't.  Either the Book of Mormon is true or it isn't.  Either the Church is still led by prophets or it isn't.  President Gordon B. Hinckley said it himself:

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith... Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

 

Which is all well and good until you learn things like there are multiple versions of the First Vision account that included Jesus, God and Jesus, or an angel...  And that the First Vision wasn't really what Joseph Smith led with when he was telling people about this brand new religion, and didn't write down anything about it until years later.  People (apologists) chalk it up to bad memory.  Well, I've had some powerful spiritual experiences in my life, and I can tell you that they are seared in my memory, and none of those come close to actually seeing God (or Jesus, or an angel).  This is just one of the items that make black and white statements like President Hinckley's above problematic.

 

I'm willing to accept some shades of gray in my theology.  In fact, as I feel my spiritual perspective opening up through the faith transition I'm undergoing, I feel very comfortable with shades of gray, with not knowing all of the things of God, and with not being very sure what my eternal future holds.  I'm okay with that. 

 

What becomes a problem for me is continuing to be taught whitewashed history about the Church at church every week.  Another problem is the dogmatic insistence that the Church is the One True Church.  How is that possible when the foundation it is based on is so very shaky?

 

Husband is good at taking the good bits and just rolling his eyes at the bad bits.  The problem I have with this picking and choosing is that I don't think that's what the Church IS.  The Church wants everything from you - your time, your talents, your resources.  In return, it promises you Truth, with a capital T, and comfort in the knowledge that you are part of the One True Church.  Except for when you do a little digging, you discover the foundation of sand that the entire thing is built upon.

 

It's disconcerting, to say the least.

 

So my question is, how do you keep going to a black and white Church when your mind is full of subtle shades of gray?  How do you make it work?

 

 

Loaves and Fishes

Today on one of the alterno-Mormon Facebook groups, a few people were talking about the numbers of members in the Church, real versus fictional growth/membership numbers, motivations that the Church might have for not telling the whole truth about the history, the Church as an example or anti-example of charity and how that impacts members' donations.  Same old, same old in the alterno-Mormon world.

One person said something related to the discussion, but also about an interpretation of scripture that honestly had never, ever occurred to me before:

One is the fish and loaves model where the Lord simply gives all that He has directly to those in need without reservation/investment. That miracle I believe is founded on the power of a faithful example where the leaders send out all they have and in mimetic acts of faith others pitch in all they have and the baskets refill and refill to overflowing and all are fed.

Mind.  Blown.  (as the kids say)

This idea that the loaves and fishes story wasn't a miracle of heavenly intervention, but instead was a story of Christ's followers following His example of giving everything He had to feed his followers, and continuing to fill the baskets with what little they had is an angle that I had never considered.  I always thought the miracle is that the baskets never emptied because God kept filling them.  I truly love the idea that the baskets never emptied because the people kept filling them.

I wish I had read this before my lesson on building the kingdom of God because it perfectly illustrates how we as individuals have such an important role, and indeed a holy obligation, to care for each other.

Two Different Worlds

I was out of town the past couple of Sunday, so don't have any new lessons to report.  We were visiting Jason's brother and his family, who live in a very liberal area of the country and attend what is one of the most liberal wards I have ever heard of.  My in-laws really like their ward and the open-minded, progressive discussions that happen in their classes on Sunday.  The flipside is that any conservative comments are quickly pounced upon and torn apart.  Apparently my father-in-law (my most conservative in-law) had a bad experience once when he was visiting their Sunday School.

Their Sunday School lessons are a couple of weeks behind mine, so the Sunday before last we got Lesson 28, the lesson I taught that sparked such interesting discussion.  This Sunday School teacher stuck pretty close to the lesson in the manual, talking about the trials and tribulations of the early saints, and asking the basic manual questions such as "How did the trials strengthen the early saints' testimonies?" and similar.

The thing that was so strange for me was how abstractly the teacher talked about trials.  In addition to being extremely liberal, the ward is also extremely wealthy.  The teacher admitted he didn't really have any major trials in his life, but when he thought about hard things other people went through, he felt bad for them and admitted it was hard to understand why such things happened.  Someone else in class talked about not believing that God has anything to do with major atrocities like the genocide in Rwanda, and there was some discussion about God's role in those types of events.

At one point, the teacher asked whether anyone had ever experienced trials and would they like to share how they got through them, and how their faith helped them.  He didn't get much of a response, and we moved forward with more abstract examples. 

I would NEVER ask such an open-ended question in my class.  We would be there for hours, as the people in my class talked about all of their struggles just to meet their basic human needs of food and shelter.  Or the trials they have faced in their youths in war-torn countries, or the poverty they escaped back home, only to find a new kind of poverty in the US.  Someone in my in-laws' ward did mention a family that used to be in the ward and the trials they faced with their sick child, but it was all so other-focused.  Such a different experience.

I am in no way saying the people in this wealthy, liberal ward don't have trials.  Could be they just didn't feel like sharing in such an open forum.  But in my ward there is so much poverty and lack of education that the struggles people face are at a very basic level.  The struggles are there everyday, and for many of the members there is no conceivable way out of them. 

I am a big proponent of the church welfare system because I see firsthand how many people it helps.  Sometimes our bishop gets grief from the stake president for overspending our ward's welfare allotment.  To that I say there are hundreds of wards as wealthy or wealthier than my in-laws' ward and they are surely capable of picking up the slack.  We are supposed to be a Christ-centered church with His directive to help the least of our brethren.  I think my bishop must feel the same way, since he keeps overspending and the people in our ward keep having food to eat every day.

Lesson 29: Building the Kingdom of God in Nauvoo, Illinois

There wasn't a lot of extra material to bring into this lesson because it relied very heavily on historical accounts.  A good two-thirds of which we have already talked about in other lessons.  This is one of the problems with the D&C manual.  Because it's arranged by topic, it leaps all over the Doctrine and Covenants, and we wind up hitting on some of the same stories over and over again.

Of course, I'm pretty positive I'm the only person in my class who realizes I'm repeating myself since most of the time people don't retain what they hear in Sunday School.  I knew I didn't when I was just a student.  So I suppose it doesn't matter too much.

As I was prepping my lesson Saturday, I was in the middle of getting sick and losing my voice, so I decided that we would be doing group work in Sunday School.  Frankly, I had already been leaning in that direction because there was a lot of text in Our Heritage to read, and there's nothing more boring than reading from a book as a group.  Unless you're in 1st grade and everyone is learning to read.  Then it's exciting.  (Or was that just my nerdy six year-old self?)

So I broke everyone into 7 small groups and had them each read about an historical event and then report to the class on it.  Less talking for me, more interaction for them.  Win win.

I started out, though, with a long list of dates written on the chalkboard, starting with Joseph Smith's first vision, the founding of the Church, and ending up with the dates of the key events in Nauvoo that we were talking about in class (sending the 12 on missions, baptisms for the dead, endowment, founding of the Relief Society)  I told them what each date stood for up to Joseph Smith's imprisonment in Liberty Jail, and then referred back to the relevant date on the board as we discussed each of the Nauvoo events.

One man told me afterward that he really liked seeing the dates on the board and understanding the historical context of what we were talking about.  That's nice.  I guess I'll use that tool again in the future to keep everyone historically grounded.

I handed out the historical readings and told the groups they would be responsible for answering 2 questions: 1) What happened?  2) What were the experiences/roles of individual members?

Because even though we were talking about history, what struck me as I read through the key sections of Our Heritage was how the text shared so many individual stories, naming individual members by name.  Some of them we are very familiar with, like Brigham Young and John Taylor, but others are not as familiar, yet they were important to building the kingdom of God too.  I noticed the same thing while reading D&C 124 in preparation for the lesson.  Individual members are mentioned, and their roles in building the kingdom are discussed  (we'll just ignore for the the moment the problem inherent in Joseph Smith receiving a "revelation" that tells someone to build him a house.  We're not talking about the temple here, which is also discussed in section 124, but an actual house for Joseph Smith.  D&C 124:115)

Liberal feminist me thought maybe some discussion might get started from the following story, but I was wrong:

Not long after Addison’s departure, his young daughter contracted smallpox. The disease was so contagious that there was real danger to any priesthood brother who might come to the Pratts, so Louisa [Addison's wife] prayed with faith and “rebuked the fever.” Eleven little pimples came out on her daughter’s body, but the disease never developed. In a few days the fever was gone. Louisa wrote, “I showed the child to one acquainted with that disease; he said it was an attack; that I had conquered it by faith.”

After sharing this story, the Liberian man who related the story to the group told his own story in his limited English about the time he had chicken pox and his roommate called the hospital and he got help and he only had a few pox on his back.  Just like this story!

Ummm, okay.  Not exactly the point I was hoping would be gleaned from the story, but, you know, a nice story for him.  Not spiritual or anything.  Nothing to do with blessings or Priesthood or women giving blessings.  But, nice story for him...

This is what I mean when I say that our ward is pretty apolitical and the majority of the members aren't aware on any level of the potential political and historical issues that could come up in class.  In some ways it's a blessing because there are a lot of different perspectives coming in, and more often than not we talk a lot about God and Jesus and very basic principles of goodness and service.  We don't get caught up in conservative politics that might make teaching very difficult for me.  Nobody spouting John Birch Society propaganda here. 

At the same time, the potential import of a story about a woman giving a blessing showing up in Our Heritage, the church-sanctioned companion book to this year's Gospel Doctrine class, is completely lost on the majority of my class.  Unfortunately, we were running out of time by the time we got to that story, and I didn't want to make a bigger deal out of it without sufficient time to talk about it.  Also, I'm not sure if the meaning still wouldn't have gotten lost in translation...

After we had shared all of the historical and individual stories, I wrapped up the lesson by pointing out how individual members played an important role in building the kingdom of God in Nauvoo.  Today, we each have our own role to play in building the kingdom of God, no matter how small.  The service we give to other people helps to bring a bit of God to those around us.  ITNOJC, Amen.

1st Complaint/Concern (or, I Must Be Doing Something Right)

I wrote about this a bit on one of my alterno-Mormon Facebook groups and got a lot of awesome feedback.  Moments like this make me truly love the internet and the connections I've made in so short a time with other Mormons who are struggling with official Church policy and history.  Also, I'm pretty sure Husband likes not having to listen to me go on and on about this stuff because he's 1 of only 2 people I can talk with about it.

So, as I wrote previously, last week I gave a lesson that wound up turning into a lively discussion about faith and doubt.   Friday morning I opened up my email at work to find the following email from a member of our Bishopric:

I took some time on this before coming to you.

I want both understand your perspective and elaborate further on what I shared in class on the topic of doubt. I was surprised that you responded that you disagreed with my comment. I probably didn't explain well.

What I said in class is that when speaking about doubt it is important to separate in our minds the concepts of being inquisitive and being doubtful. I paraphrased scripture "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you" to emphasize the Lord's desire that we question and learn. I also said that faith and doubt are opposite to one another, and that we should not be doubtful, but only faithful and inquisitive.

Doubt is a natural part of our experience in life, but the gospel of Jesus Christ does not encourage us to doubt (or accept doubt). Please review the topic "doubt, doubtful" in the topical guide and take a sampling of some of the scriptures there. Note that the antonyms are "belief" and "faith" and the synonyms are "unbelief" and "unbelievers." In the scriptures you'll find that the Lord invited those He blessed to believe and not doubt. He invited those he taught to replace doubt with faith (which is why I commented that doubt and faith oppose one another). Think of what He said to doubting Thomas when he appeared to His disciples following His resurrection...

Additionally, we are not taught in the church to respond with doubt when we receive a blessing, follow leaders' counsel, pray for answers and guidance, study the scriptures, etc. We are taught to be faithful, believing, trusting, and hopeful.

Doubt is a frustration to progress and it is a tool of the adversary. He is the father of lies and seeks that we stumble and remain confused. Doubt is not an attitude of questioning to learn, it is questioning because of mistrust or confusion or sin. God has no part in doubt.

It is also important to recognize that we are learning line upon line. This requires patience that we do not know all things, like sister _________ commented. But which person will learn more quickly, he(she) who doubts because of what he(she) does not know, or he(she) who presses on in faith, believing that truth will eventually form a unified circle in his(her) mind? No matter who we are, doubts will come, but we must quickly replace them with faith or we shall stumble.

Doubt often implies mistrust. Heavenly Father does everything to inspire faith within us. All things in the gospel are set up so that we learn to whole heartedly trust in Him. He leads us along the way with blessings and enlightenment. The scriptures provide real answers to life's questions and trials. He reveals His will to all those who come unto Him with a broken heart and contrite spirit. His plan is to exalt us because of the love He has for us. Who is more deserving of unwavering faith and trust (James 1:5-6)?

You said you disagree with what I said. I've searched the scriptures carefully this week and I feel to stand by my comment.

Please make sure that teachings in gospel doctrine are supported by scripture and words of the prophets. There are many new converts and often we have investigators. You have a strong testimony and set a great example of faithfully seeking the Lord, but we have many who are tender and just starting out. I hope you can see the danger concluding that it is okay to doubt, which was the conclusion that I took away from the class.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. You are highly appreciated for your willing service and contribution. Your leadership in gospel doctrine has proven most effective and helpful in inspiring gospel learning.

Again, the sure and safe way is to support teachings with scripture and words of the prophets. My intent in approaching you is more out of concern for what our new and tender students are taking away from the class if too much time is spent on opinions.

Please forgive me if I'm coming off bold. I hope you know I love you and appreciate what you do. Gospel doctrine is not an easy class to lead, especially when students come unprepared and opinionated.

Thanks for considering my thoughts. Feel free to share your perspective and I'd be happy to meet with you to discuss further if you wish.

Best regards,

Good thing my boss was away and I didn't have too much to do because I was able to spend a little time crafting a response.  I understand what he's saying, of course, I just don't see it the same way he does.  I've known this guy for a few years, and he's nice, with the best of intentions, and gives his all to the ward.  He is excessively earnest.  I appreciated his hedging his comments by saying I shouldn't take it as a personal attack, and that he does want to understand my perspective.  I did not appreciate the implication that my methods might lead others astray.

I wrote something, sat on in for a little while, edited it, and wound up sending this toward the end of the day:

I knew you were not pleased by what I had to say in response to you. I'm sorry if my comment came off as harsh toward you, that wasn't my intention, though sometimes it's easier to be blunt with someone I'm more comfortable with. The reason why I couldn't just nod and agree with what you said is because I believe that doubt and faith can co-exist. I can tell you that they co-exist in me right at this moment, and I am pretty sure I am not alone.
 

Perhaps that is not the ideal state of being. The ideal state, as you said, and as the scriptures say, is to banish all doubts and to just have faith. Sometimes that is much easier said than done, and our purpose is to work through our doubts and struggles and to strive for that ideal. The concept that I was trying to get to when corralling everyone's opinions, is that ultimately we have a God who loves us and a Savior who died for us, and when we start with that foundation, we can move forward from there despite whatever doubts or struggles may plague us. I've always seen a testimony as a wave, ebbing and flowing. Sometimes we are so absolutely sure and secure in the Gospel. Other times it is more difficult, to use a familiar metaphor, to see the iron rod for the mists of darkness. We work to keep our testimonies at that strong and secure level, but it's not always possible, and sometimes we falter.
 

One of my goals in teaching is to try to let people know that they are not alone and that they are welcome even though their knowledge and trust in God or the Gospel is not absolutely sure.
 

I believe you left before the end of the class, thought I may be wrong. If you did, then you did not see how it all wrapped up with my thoughts on trusting in the Savior in times of hardship, and how in the end all things, the good and the bad, will help us to become more like Him and will work for our good (D&C 98:3, Romans 8:28, D&C 90:24).

 

I read something about doubt and faith a couple of days after that lesson that really resonated with me, and that I wish I had read before the class, if I had had any idea the class would take the direction it did:
 

"We also need to stop thinking of doubt and faith as diametrically opposed to each other. I believe that doubt and faith are opposed in the same way our thumb is opposed to our fingers; they work together, testing and trying each other, pushing faith to seek a witness beyond itself, to become humble, and to find that there are answers not yet considered. We must teach how to process through the complexity and to see the beauty in the nuance."
 

 

That's not from scripture, or a current leader of the Church, but from another faithful member of the Church who also struggles now and again with doubts.
 

 

It's heartening to know that doubt holds no place in your heart and mind, but I cannot say the same. Yet I am faithful. I have faith and continue to do my best to turn to God when I do feel doubt. I admit, I am not perfect and sometimes doubts can be at the forefront of my mind. But I continue to come to church and serve my brothers and sisters because that's what I feel called to do.
 

I was thrilled with the discussion that we had on Sunday and think it does point out the varying levels of testimony, belief and knowledge that people in our ward hold. I was told by many people after that class that they appreciated the discussion, and I think for some people, knowing that they're not the only ones who don't know with an absolute certainty, is comforting. It means there's a place in the Church for them even if they are new, or if they struggle. Sometimes as a body of members, we can present ourselves as a monolith of certainty, and that can lead people who struggle to think that there's no place for them here.
 

I hope that even if you and I sometimes disagree on some of the finer points, that you will continue to offer up your comments, because I truly believe that our faith can be strengthened when our assumptions are challenged. Mulling over the idea of faith and doubt over the past week, which I have been doing as well, has helped me to explore my feelings about it. Honestly, I don't think our perspectives are so very different. I also believe that it is important to have faith, and I believe that it is important to work through doubts with faith. I think we can both agree with Elder Holland's talk from the last conference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng#5-10785_000_51holland, particularly his mention of the scripture in Mark: "Lord I believe; help thou mine unbelief."
 

 

Best,

 

 

Saturday morning, I had this response from him:

 

 

How about if explained this way...?

 

Faith and doubt are opposite attitudes in an approach. It is not possible to respond to something with faith and doubt simultaneously. Faith and doubt produce two different outcomes in the same circumstances. Lehi's sons quest for the brass plates in the BoM teaches this rather clearly.

 

Faith and doubt are equally accessible to us at any given moment, and in that light I agree they coexist. The same can be said of good and evil. But you can only choose one at any given time. You get to choose which attitude rules in your approach. You can even start by using one and then changing to the other before seeing the thing at hand through, but only one can work at a time.

 

I agree that if we measure the entirety of our lives that we would conclude that we have acted in doubt and in faith. Is that what you mean?

 

What struck me the most about this response is that he's trying so hard to reconcile our points of view.  He really is a nice guy, and I'm sure it's troubling to him that I just didn't absolutely agree with his initial email.  He's concerned because to a correlated Mormon it's probably very important that we see things the same way.

I haven't responded yet, but will probably write something like "Yes, that's a good way of looking at it" and be done with it.

When I sent him my initial response, it occurred to me that I didn't really care what happened next.  Unless he wanted to meet to discuss my wayward thinking, which would have been boring and not something I would be interested in at all.  But, really, the options are (1) we agree to disagree slightly (2) he feels the need to reconcile our points of view so that he can feel comfortable that there is no disagreement, which is kind of what he did in the email, and I'm not interested in continuing any sort of argument, so that's likely where we'll stay, or (3) he recommends that I get released, which seems a bit extreme for him, and also is not likely something our bishop would agree to, if for no other reason than we're short-staffed as it is, and there's no one to replace me.  Also, because Bishop likes me (though he is completely unaware of my issues with the Church, so maybe he would like me less if he knew that).

So this was a pretty mild (and extremely earnest) complaint.  I received a bit of a boost on Friday night, though, when I went to a party and a couple who had been in my class told me how great it was and that they were still talking about it.  I mentioned to them that I had gotten an email complaint about my faith and doubt comment, without telling them in any way who it was from, of course, and they were floored.  They assured me they enjoyed the class.  I suppose you can't please everyone, it's just too bad when the person you don't please is the bishopric member overseeing Sunday School who thinks it's then his responsibility to correct me.  Hopefully there won't be too much more of that.

News Lately

I'm going to try to do a semi-regular/as it occurs to me post collecting the articles and other links I've read lately about Church matters.  Some of these may be critical of the Church, some not.  Some may be merely observational.  But for whatever reason these links impacted me.

So here we go.

1/8th of an Inch - Are we really using our resources in the best way possible?   (SPOILER: No.)


New Scripture Mastery - As I commented on someone's post about this, with the removal of some scriptures that highlight how we see ourselves as unique (stone rolling forth, baptisms for the dead, other sheep not of this fold, seeing Jesus standing on the right hand of God) I see the Church continuing its trend to make itself seem more like mainstream Christianity.  Someone else noted that memorizing a bunch of scriptures isn't "mastery" per se, but I would argue that although I don't feel like I've mastered the scriptures by a long shot, those 100 scriptures that I learned in Seminary have stuck with me.  To the degree that even in my current scriptures, purchased well after I graduated from high school, I have highlighted those scriptures.  By de-emphasizing certain elements, the Church isn't saying that those things aren't part of the doctrine anymore, just that they're not our focus anymore.  Weren't we supposed to be a peculiar people?  Personally, I'm fine with focusing on Christ and not necessarily the Church and its peculiar doctrines, I just think it's an interesting shift.

My Faith Crises - This really resonated with me, as this author, like me and so many others, feels vastly conflicting emotions when it comes to the Church.  Sometimes I want to just throw up my hands and ask, "What is the point of all of this angst?  Why do I put myself through this?"  Yet, here I am, in the Church, active, teaching.  For now.

Going to the Temple

On Saturday I had the opportunity to go to the temple as the escort for one of my fantastic former Young Women who is leaving on her mission next month.  Her sister went through at the same time and it was such a nice experience being there with them.  I felt so incredibly honored that she asked me.

For the briefest moment I hesitated, though, because of my issues with the Church in general.  Truth be told, I hadn't been to the temple in awhile, except to shepherd youth to do baptisms.  I actually worked in the temple for 2 years, and have a lot of good feelings associated with the temple.  When I went through for the first time, my favorite part was the initiatories (and this was pre-revisions).  I had no problem with what went on, but just felt extremely blessed.  The endowment was also a positive experience for me, and I left that first time bubbling over with a happy feeling.

I got very interested in genealogy and have a stack of blue and pink slips of paper representing my ancestors.  I don't really think that I literally need to have their work done for them.  However, I love the idea of creating this connection across many generations of my family.  As I've become more cynical about Church and the need for temple work, one of the things that has given me cause to mourn has been the loss of the urgency to do this work and connect with my ancestors.

The 2 years I worked in the temple wound up being such a saving grace for me.  A few weeks after my first shift as a temple worker, my longtime boyfriend and I broke up.  Plus, I was having a really hard time in graduate school, not exactly sure what I was doing there.  Working in the temple 2 Saturdays a month gave me a solid 10-12 hours where I could get out of my own head and focus on the patrons at the temple.  I saw that calling as an opportunity to ensure that the people I came into contact with were having a stress-free, uplifting experience.  In the process, I felt uplifted too.

There are, of course, problematic issues in the temple, which I have become more keenly aware of as my critical analysis skills have become more honed, and I've learned more about the troubling history.  I actually knew a guy in one of my singles wards who was an adult convert and came from a long line of Masons.  He said he had no problem with the similarities in the ceremonies, because they both came from ancient sources.  (Of course now I know that's a problematic argument since the Masonic ceremony isn't really all that old.)

I kind of like the idea that the whole endowment is more metaphorical than literal and that the point is to remind us of our covenants.  Still problematic for me, which I'll talk about a little later, but still a better argument than "This is literally what you will need to know to get past the guards at the gates of Heaven".

Despite all of this, I have been thinking that I should go back to the temple and see how it feels now, with my new angst and less starry-eyed view of the Church.  So when I woke up on Saturday morning, I felt excited.  It also seemed like a good opportunity for me because I would be doing exactly what I always liked so much about the temple, which is helping other people have a good experience.

Once we got to the temple (late and full of some drama, which isn't vital to this story, but which was proof to my YW's mom that the adversary was working against us), the first part of the day was lovely.  My YW and her sister were interviewed briefly by a member of the temple presidency to make sure all of their information was correct.  Then we were swept into the dressing room by several women temple workers, who prepped the girls for the initiatories.  I told my YW to listen to the blessings promised and told her that was my favorite part on the day I went for the first time.  Afterward, I helped her get changed into her dress and we all met with an assistant to the Matron, who gave the girls instructions about the garments.

(Note: According to our temple, the new official Church policy is that bras (and regular underwear) can be worn over or under the g's, according the the member's individual discretion.  I don't know if that really is being taught everywhere now, but she said that's how they have been told to instruct.)

Then the endowment session.  Which hit me with a big *clunk*. 

I've been through sessions, if not hundreds, then probably A hundred times, so I know it all pretty well.  Even though I felt moments of peace and what I would call The Spirit, so much of it seemed so odd.  Also, boring.  Also, "hearkening to my husband?"  As so many other women have stated, I don't need an intermediary between me and God, thanks.

My husband confessed to me before we went that it had been years since he had done a session because it just bored him and he thought it was weird.  I could relate to his position on Saturday.  Being there with my YW and helping her made it less boring for me, but when I think about going again and sitting there for 2 hours so bored, I just don't know if I can.

If it is all metaphorical, surely there is a less boring, shorter, and more efficient way to be reminded of our covenants and connect with our ancestors.

Afterward, when we were all in the Celestial Room, hugging and chatting quietly, I felt that peace again.  I truly believe that there is peace to be found at the temple because it's a place set aside as a holy space, for quiet reflection.  I have felt the same sense of the sacred and holy in a beautiful cathedral, and when we were in Ireland a year ago I felt a touch of that at Newgrange.

So like most things related to Church lately, I came away from the temple on Saturday feeling conflicted.  It was mostly a lovely experience.  So that's something, I suppose.

Lesson 28: O God, Where Art Thou

I still need to write about Lesson 26, and I didn't teach Lesson 27 because I was out of town last week, but I wanted to write about this one because it wound up being a really interesting discussion.  I know I'm not going to be able to capture what everyone said, but I want to write about it while it's fresh in my mind.

This was a hard lesson to prepare, not because I thought the church history or the Doctrine and Covenants sections used were uncomfortable, but because it was basically about suffering, and why we suffer.  I read a bunch of blog posts, articles and talks, and watched a couple of TED talks with suffering as a theme. Of course they all had strong lessons of rising above, but immersing myself in other people's pain is hard.  I spent some time crying this week.

I started out, as I always do, with some history, courtesy of Mormon Stories Sunday School.  Basically I read the first page from the Mormon Stories Sunday School reading notes, which itself quotes from Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour Through Modern Revelations.  The excerpt talks about 1838, which sounds like a rough year for the early Saints.  While Joseph Smith and 5 other leaders languished in terrible conditions at Liberty Jail all winter, the rest of the Saint were driven from Missouri.  It was a lot of text to read aloud, but I wanted to lay the foundation and really paint the picture of how dire things were for the early saints and Joseph Smith.

Then we read D&C 121:1-6, the pleading prayer of Joseph Smith: "O God, where art thou?"

Next, the initial part of the answer, D&C 121:7-10

The goal is to keep the perspective of the eternities.  It's hard to hear "thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment" when we're right in the middle of them.

Our entire Sacrament Meeting had been about the Plan of Salvation, so I referenced that a couple of times and gave this quote from Neal A. Maxwell:

"Trying to comprehend the trials and meaning of this life without understanding Heavenly Father's marvelously encompassing plan of salvation is like trying to understand a 3-act plan while seeing only the second act."

I discussed how that's where we are, in the second act.  The 1st act is the set-up, the 3rd act is the resolution, but the 2nd act is where all the drama happens.

Next we read D&C 122:7-9

The next step in my lesson was going to be talking some about the Savior and how to approach adversity.  But here's where it got interesting.  One woman, who has had a tough year fighting cancer, talked about how the most important thing is not to doubt and to hold onto the iron rod.  To which a man in the back raised his hand and essentially said, "Yeah, I don't agree.  I doubt.  I have a lot of doubts."

Thus ensued an extremely lively discussion about doubt, about whether it's ok to doubt, what does it mean to doubt, etc.  It was fantastic!  I told them all, I have doubts too.  But here I am.

(Later on, I told my husband, "Maybe we should have him and his wife over for dinner and talk about doubting...?")

I said two things that might have ticked off a couple of people, but oh well.

One man (who's now in the Stake YM presidency) talked about how important it is to always remember a couple of things when we have doubts - the church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet.  As long as you remember that, you can go forward from there.

Ha!  Given the angst I've been having lately about Joseph Smith, I just couldn't let that lie.  So I basically said, I think for some people, you might even need to be more basic than that.  For instance, something as basic as "I believe in a God who loves me," and go from there.

At one point, our former EQ President said something about not thinking that doubt and faith could co-exist.  That we can be inquisitive, but that's different from doubting.

I said flat out that I disagreed with him.  I told him that I liked the nuance of calling it being inquisitive, but I definitely think doubt and faith can coexist.  (He clenched his jaw and didn't seem thrilled about that, and soon left the room, though that may have been completely unrelated.  Hard to say.)

There were so many good comments about how to approach your own personal searching.  I did my best to corral everything generally in the notions of, we're all on our own paths, if we are open to the Spirit we will find our course.

At that point I had 10 minutes left and was way off my lesson plan, but I was so glad we had that discussion.  Discussions like that make it clear that everyone really is at their own spot in belief and faith and, yes, doubt, and we can all learn so much from each other.

So I turned to the end of my lesson and asked, "What's the point?  Why do we have these struggles and doubts?  Why do we suffer?  To use a trite phrase, why do bad things happen to good people?"

I fully admitted that I do not have the answer, at least not a satisfying one.  But I have a couple of ideas.  I think part of it is so that we can be like the Savior.  He suffered and died for us, and he understands like no one else the pain that we go through.  The experiences that we have in our lives give us the ability to look to other people who are suffering and to give them empathy, and to reach out to them.

I read a quote from Anne Morrow Lindbergh, as quoted in Neal A. Maxwell's talk "Enduring Well".  First, I explained who Anne Morrow Lindbergh was, and how her 20-month son was kidnapped and killed.  She said:

"I do not believe that sheer suffering teaches.  If suffering alone taught, all the world would be wise, since everyone suffers.  To suffering must be added mourning, understanding, patience, love, openness, and the willingness to remain vulnerable."

This is such a powerful lesson. You can suffer, but the goal is to learn through that suffering.  To come through the other side and see your fellow human beings suffering and reach out to them because you understand.

We read Doctrine and Covenant 90:24 and I focused on the phrase "All things shall work together for your good."  All things, both the good and bad, ultimately work for our good. They make us the people who we are.

I closed by quoting a gospel song from the 1950s:

Well, I started out travelin' for the Lord many years ago
I've had a lot of heartache, I've met a lot of grief and woe
But where I would stumble, then I would humble down.
And there I would say, I wouldn't take nothing for my journey now.

I wouldn't take nothing for my journey now.  ITNOJC, Amen.

Priesthood and Gender Issues

On Sunday, Sacrament Meeting was all about Priesthood.  I told my husband thank goodness it wasn't the previous week because I would have just stood up in Sunday School, said "Ditto" and instructed everyone to talk amongst themselves for an hour.  Also, surely the Youth are sick and tired of The Priesthood by now.

Anyway, the final speaker was a guy I like a lot, and have worked with in the Youth program before.   He's married with 3 kids and always seemed to be unconcerned with gender issues, and deferential to my years of experience in YW when he first got called to YM.

However, at the tail end of his talk, he said, "Some people have asked me why women in our church don't have the Priesthood."

'Oh no...", I thought.

My husband and I glanced at each other and husband whispered to me, "Why would he even go there?"

He proceeded to then talk about different roles and how his wife is a better nurturer than him, etc., same old, same old.

I said to husband, "And he's not doing a particularly good job with it..."

We both sat there, a bit uncomfortable.  Thankfully, he finished quickly.

But seriously, why would he go there?  For the people in the ward who are content with women not having the Priesthood, it didn't do anything except confirm their own feelings.  For those of us who are not so content, it was just annoying, patronizing, frustrating, [fill in your own adjective]. 

It's not a satisfying answer to say men and women have different roles.  OK, that's fine, but the problem is, women have no real leadership roles.  Women have no real say in the way the Church is run.  I don't need to be a Prophet(ess), but I would like to know that a woman could.  Just like I don't need to be President of the United States, but I guarantee I will probably shed a tear when a woman is finally elected to that office (no matter how much I gripe about what she does or doesn't do in the following 4 years).

It's not about power, it's about women's voices being heard.  Really heard.  Without the knowledge that any decision made by a woman could be trumped in 5 seconds by a man in a higher position than her because he has the Priesthood.

A lot of people, a lot of liberal people even, will say we need to wait and figure out what Priestesshood means before bestowing it upon women.  That it's not useful to give women a male Priesthood.  While that may be true, it's not my biggest concern.  My biggest concern is equality.  As long as women do not have the Priesthood, institutional gender inequality will be a part of the Church at its most basic level.

In other religions male and female pastors and priests do not minister in the same exact ways.  (For that matter, 2 individual people of the same gender do not minister in the same way.)  I'm sure there were some growing pains in those churches when women were first ordained, and there probably still are in more conservative circles.  But the point is, all opportunities are open to women in those churches.  I want a church where I am equal, not separate but equal.  I'm so tired of the linguistic gymnastics that are required to explain (not very well) why "preside" doesn't really mean "preside".  Somehow saying a man presides, or a man is the head of the household, doesn't mean the man has the final say and the man is in control?

I call BS.  That's exactly what it means.  And some bad men have taken that so seriously that they have become domineering tyrants with their Priesthood.

I realize those men are not using their Priesthood correctly, but when I have enlightened female friends of mine getting involved with good Mormon boys who DO think that Priesthood means they are in control, even here in the liberal northeast, then I start believing those sorts of power grabs and unequal relationships are more common than I think.

In our Church we're taught that men have the Priesthood and women do not.  Men preside and women do not.  Men can be prophets and women cannot (except, you know there were prophetesses in the Bible, right?). 

I've noticed the inequality more and more as I progress in my career.  In the real world, men and women are finding a way to treat each other as equals.  There is still a long way to go and things are by no means perfect, but I am respected for my work and my intellect regardless of my gender.  I have been in rooms where I am the only woman or one of a few women and have felt treated as an equal.  If I work hard enough, I could be a Partner, a CEO, a President.  The glass ceiling exists, but at least it's not institutionally enforced like it is in the Church.

I fully admit I don't know what Priestesshood means.  Part of me thinks there shouldn't even be a delineation in duties, because it would be a way to throw the feminists a bone, but keep real power in the Priesthood, rather than in both the Priesthood and Priestesshood.  Like, for example, in this past General Conference.  Yes, 2 women prayed (whoopty doo.  Part of me marveled at how ridiculous it was that we were so excited that 2 women said a prayer in Conference).  But then a lot of the rest of Conference was spent telling the feminists to simmer down.

Yeah, that's how you lose people.  That's why the Church is hemorrhaging members, particularly young female members who have been raised in a post-feminist society where they can be whatever they want to be.  Except at Church.

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 25: Priesthood, The Power of Godliness

I told my husband recently that even though being the sole Gospel Doctrine teacher can be a pain and can be tricky with my current Church issues, for the first time ever, the 2nd hour of church is interesting to me.  Maybe everyone else is bored, but since it's my show, I have to be on for the whole hour.  As a pretty solid introvert, it's definitely never boring for me.  Exhausting, yes.  Boring, no.

That said, I warned him that this week's lesson would probably be pretty boring.  I took a very standard approach with this lesson, even utilizing the manual for some bits (shocker!).  I blame the fact that we were out late Saturday night.

First, I put the timeline of the restoration of the Priesthood and the offices of the Priesthood from the manual on the Board, then went through it quickly with the class.  One thing I've noticed more and more is how true the "line upon line, precept on precept" concept is (And now you have that Saturday's Warrior song in your head.  You're welcome.)  Really, though, with this Priesthood restoration timeline, or the Word of Wisdom implementation and enforcement timeline, it seems that there really is an order to things and that God's expectations of us are gradual and measured.

(The cynical side of me whispers, "It's just more bureaucracy and an effort to more fully control the members!".  Or "They're just trying to cover their tracks when they realize something doesn't work/want to exert more control!"

At this moment in time, I prefer to be optimistic, so I'm going with the line upon line explanation.)

Next, we talked about the differences between the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, and the responsibilities of each (D&C 107:1-6, 8, 13-14, 18-20).  I then broke the class into groups of 2 or 3 and had them read scriptures and then teach the rest of the class about the responsibilities of the offices of the Priesthood, from Deacon to Prophet.  The manual suggested we do this for the First Presidency, Quorum of the 12, and the Seventies, but I thought it would be good to discuss for all of the offices.  As a non-Priesthood holder, I realized that I'm not really aware of the duties of the various offices.  I figured that my class of mainly recent converts probably wasn't either.

After that, we read and briefly discussed the oath and covenant of the Priesthood (D&C 84:33-44), and then the lovely verses in Section 121:34-46 about the responsibilities of the Priesthood (ie, serve others, no unrighteous dominion).

So that was it.  Pretty plain vanilla.  At the end I bore my testimony of Priesthood holders who really do magnify their Priesthood.  I talked about how in our ward especially I have had so many opportunities to observe men who take the responsibilities of the Priesthood and truly serve others and do their best to act on behalf of God.  I talked about the examples that they are to me.  ITNOJC Amen.

I feel that as a middle-class white woman from a traditional nuclear family it has really been a learning experience serving in my ward, mostly made up of people below the poverty line, immigrants in various stages of legality, and many single-mom households.  At times it has been exhausting, but I know there are many men in the ward (my bishop for one) who give everything they can to help others, and I believe those men really do see their Priesthood as a call to serve. 

Of course, the women in the ward also do the same.  I guess that's just because we women are angels already and don't need to Priesthood to inspire us, right?

I found myself thinking about the feminist issues as I prepared for this lesson.  Someone in one of the alterno-Mormon Facebook groups I belong to challenged those of us who had this lesson this week to counter any Motherhood/Priesthood comparison with the question, "But what about Fatherhood?"  Since I'm the teacher, initially the thought of doing this made me feel queasy.  I'm vocal about my confusion and doubts to a very select few people, and I felt like saying something like that would cross a line into an uncomfortable place that I'm not quite sure I want to go to yet.

Also, my father-in-law (from Utah!) was visiting...

I thought about it a lot during the week, and finally decided that I would be comfortable saying essentially the following if the comparison came up: "That comparison doesn't sit well with me, because it leaves out the role of fatherhood. We have a Heavenly Father, not a Heavenly Priesthood-holder. I think that fatherhood is just as important as motherhood. Also, it's problematic because not every worthy woman has the opportunity to be a mother, but every worthy man can be ordained to the Priesthood as young as age 12. Some women never have children because they either don't have the opportunity to get married, or due to issues of infertility, or myriad other reasons. Ultimately, I think the answer to the question of 'why don't women have the Priesthood' is, we don't know. The Church has been set up in this fashion for now, and that's the system we operate under."

I also thought about throwing in examples of women giving healing blessings in the early church, or mentioning that in the temple women do use the Priesthood, but wasn't sure I felt comfortable with that.

In the end, the issue never came up.  Of course, as the teacher, I could have steered it that way, but I really wanted to verge on controversy only if it came up organically.  My ward is pretty apolitical and most of the political issues involving the church aren't even on most members' radars.  I should have figured it wouldn't matter, but I'm proud of myself that I came to a point personally where I would have been comfortable saying something a little rebellious, something slightly scandalous.

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 24: Be Not Deceived, but Continue in Steadfastness

Wow, did I hate this lesson upon first reading.  Basically, this lesson asks us to talk about the reasons people leave the Church and get all judgey about how silly those people are, while we shake our heads and make tsking noises at their shortsightedness.  Seriously, 2/3 of the lesson asks us to talk in painful detail about well-known apocryphal stories from Church "history", highlighting the myths that people leave because of pride, because they're offended, or because they want to sin.

Except, the stories in this lesson are either not true, or at the very best could be called half-truths.  

And, of course, the lesson doesn't express the real reasons people leave the Church, because that would mean actually talking about those reasons. (A friend of mine told me she used some information from the Why Committed Mormons Leave presentation, and I really need to ask her for details about how that went down.)

I put a lot of thought into what I would teach because I knew I needed to get outside of the manual and figure out a different direction to take in order to not feel like a complete hypocrite by the time I was done teaching.  My first stop was the Mormon Stories Sunday School blog and podcast, where I printed off a bunch of talks, plus the reading notes that Jared Anderson prepared (Thank you!).  After reading through the materials, I decided rather than talk about apostasy, I would instead talk about discernment and personal revelation.  It's really not a big leap, given the actual scriptural texts in the lesson, and it was something I felt comfortable doing.

If you're looking for a more direct discussion about deception and apostasy, without skirting the issue like I did, fmhLisa prepared a great lesson outline for By Common Consent.

I wrote out my lesson in meticulous detail, because I wanted to stay focused and I didn't have a printed lesson to rely on. (Also, there are a couple of very vocal people in the class who don't always stay on topic, so I wanted to make myself a clear road map.)

Since I started teaching Gospel Doctrine a few weeks ago, I always like to start with a little history to place things in context.  I read the following,which I poached from the Mormon Stories Sunday School reading notes, after first explaining that Levi Hancock was a recent convert to the Church:

Then one day three elders—Edson Fuller, Heman Bassett, and Burr Riggs—visited the home where Levi was working. He had not met them before. They preached and baptized in the area. Then the three elders began receiving revelations and seeing angels while falling down and foaming at the mouth. Burr Riggs jumped up and down, swung from the roof's crossbeams for a few minutes, and then fell down as if he were dead. After an hour or two he awoke and prophesied about what he had seen while unconscious. Edson Fuller fell down and Heman Bassett imitated a baboon. He testified that an angel had given him a revelation, and he read it to his companions. Levi was confused. These things seemed ungodly to him, but he had never experienced such dramatic manifestations. He concluded that perhaps he was not as pure as the other elders. He didn't dare question them for fear that would be doubting the Holy Ghost. Similar experiences continued through the winter of 1830 and 1831. Oliver Cowdery had led his missionaries to Missouri. Joseph remained in New York. He had sent John Whitmer to preside over the hundreds of new converts in Ohio. Even so, they lacked experience and leadership, and it showed. Whitmer was bewildered at what he found: Saints pretending to fight with Laban's sword or sliding across the floor like snakes, saying they were on their way to preach the gospel to the Lamanites. When he returned from Missouri, Parley Pratt visited the branches of Saints in Ohio and saw some swoon, fall into what he called "ecstasies," make unnatural gestures, and claim revelations and visions that did not teach anything sanctifying. "In short," Parley wrote, "a false and lying spirit seemed to be creeping into the church." He recognized that this infection had occurred while the Church in Ohio was without discerning leadership, between the time he and his companions left and Joseph arrived. Harper, Steven C. (2010-11-01). Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour Through Modern Revelations (Kindle Locations 3229-3255). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

I discussed these odd manifestations briefly with the class, and highlighted that Levi Hancock didn't question them initially, even though he felt uncomfortable, because he was new to the Church and thought the other men knew better than him how to discern things of the Spirit.

Then we discussed Joseph Smith's resulting inquiry and the revelation of Doctrine and Covenants Section 50, which has the following introduction:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, May 9, 1831. Joseph Smith’s history states that some of the elders did not understand the manifestations of different spirits abroad in the earth and that this revelation was given in response to his special inquiry on the matter. So-called spiritual phenomena were not uncommon among the members, some of whom claimed to be receiving visions and revelations.

We read verses 1-24 of Section 50 as a class, which is a big chunk of scriptures, but important to the idea of discerning the things of God.  Then I pointed out that all of the members of the Church who experienced these manifestations were probably good people, who thought they were being guided by the Spirit.

The big question is, how do we know what is good and what is evil?  Or, how do we know what is good and what is better?  How do we know the things of God?

I opened these questions up to the class, who responded with answers like prayer, scripture study and the Holy Ghost.  I then read the following quote from President Uchtdorf:

"You actually have a powerful companion and trustworthy guide in this ongoing search for truth. Who is it? It is the Holy Ghost. Our Heavenly Father knew how difficult it would be for us to sift through all the competing noise and discover truth during our mortality. He knew we would see only a portion of the truth, and He knew that Satan would try to deceive us. So He gave us the heavenly gift of the Holy Ghost to illuminate our minds, teach us, and testify to us of the truth. 

The Holy Ghost is a revelator. He is the Comforter, who teaches us “the truth of all things; … [who] knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.” 

The Holy Ghost is a certain and safe guide to assist all mortals who seek God as they navigate the often troubling waters of confusion and contradiction. 

The Witness of truth from the Holy Ghost is available to all, everywhere, all around the globe. All who seek to know the truth, who study it out in their minds, and who “ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, [will know] the truth … by the power of the Holy Ghost.” 

And there is the additional, unspeakable Gift of the Holy Ghost available to all who qualify themselves through baptism and by living worthy of His constant companionship."

We had just had a confirmation in Sacrament Meeting an hour before, so I was able to point that out and discuss receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.  

Next, we read Moroni 7:15-17 and discussed testing our choices by the results they give.  Does something ultimately bring us closer to Christ?  Then that's the path to follow.

Question: What do we need to do to receive personal revelation?  How can we prepare ourselves to receive personal revelation?

D&C 112:2-3, 10 (Have humility)

Ether 12:27 (Have humility and faith, acknowledge our own weaknesses)

D&C 64: 8-10 (Forgive others, be in the proper frame of mind to be open to the Spirit)

Quote from Elder Nelson:

"To access information from heaven, one must first have a firm faith and a deep desire. One needs to “ask with a sincere heart [and] real intent, having faith in Jesus Christ.”   “Real intent” means that one really intends to follow the divine direction given. 

The next requirement is to study the matter diligently. This concept was taught to leaders of this restored Church when they were first learning how to gain personal revelation. The Lord instructed them, “I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

Finally, I circled back to the Levi Hancock story about the visions of some of the early members of the Church.  Some of those members claimed to be receiving revelation for the Church as a whole.

D&C 43:1-3, 5-6 (Only the prophet can receive revelation for the Church as a whole)

Per Elder Oaks, Joseph Smith said, when asked how he could govern such a diverse group of Saints, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Elder Oaks goes on to say:

"As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules…. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."

I'm not saying we should look for exceptions to rules.  However, Heavenly Father knows us best.  He knows our own unique circumstances.  If we take our concerns and struggles to Him, He will help us.  I truly believe that Heavenly Father loves us and wants us to turn to him, even in all of our imperfections, rather than just give up.  We can take our struggles and questions to Him in prayer, and He will help us discern the things that are good and of God.  ITNOJC, Amen.

So, yeah, not too much about personal apostasy.  But I felt good about this lesson as I was writing it and as I taught it.  A couple of people came up to me afterward and told me they enjoyed it, so I figure that's a good sign.  We're supposed to teach to our class, right?  That's what I'm trying to do.