New and Everlasting Covenant: Elder Christofferson

General Conference, Saturday morning. In a talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson the everlasting covenant was mentioned, and I wondered what you all thought about this topic.

Click here to read the rest!

Fearlessly Facing the Latter Days

One of my favorite topics at the Exponent II feminist retreat was introduced by Victoria Grover of Maine. Victoria's workshop was intended to provide "the keys to surviving and thriving in the unknowable future." In this session, fifty women were entranced by Victoria's portrayal of the economic realities of the day. She explained pointedly the conditions of the U.S. economy since World War II and the exponential growth of debt.

The Bretton Woods agreement of was an attempt to stabilize money. After the Great Depression, developed countries met together to plan a post-war economic order. The United States wanted to make the dollar the standard in a world economy. In exchange for this, we agreed that foreign countries could exchange their dollars at a fixed rate for gold. This worked for a number of years. In 1971 in response to the Vietnam War and accelerated inflation, Nixon abolished the gold standard. Thus the dollar became unrestricted. U.S. debt has gone up dramatically since then, until we now have a deficit of over 9 trillion dollars. (Please follow this link to better understand just how much a trillion dollars is!) Victoria convinced us all that every civilization that has faced this type of situation has responded by inflating currency (devaluing the dollar). Societies can go through depression, she warned, but do not survive hyperinflation.

In addition to these problems, Victoria addressed the issue of finite resources. Peak oil is the rate at which oil producers can extract oil at the maximum level possible. U.S. oil production reached a peak in 1970. Some people believe that world oil production peaked in 2005. From now on, there will be less oil available for an increasing population. Victoria briefly covered each of the remaining options (Ethanol, Coal, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Animal energy, Firewood, and others) and why each of these will soon be exhausted or are not feasible at the present time.

This may all seem like doom and gloom to you. But Victoria actually presented this very matter-of-factly and with the idea that the decline of the U.S. was a foregone conclusion. After all, from 1900 to 1970, we had all the oil, and that was why we had all the power. Now our position is not so secure. It actually made me feel better to just accept that we are in for a depression. Now we can decide how to handle things spiritually and physically.

Victoria's conclusion is that the seeds of our present decline began in the early 1800's. This is when population began to grow exponentially, when we began to rely on industrialization, and when humans began to be the only species on earth who are a detriment to the planet. She sees the Restoration as the Lord's answer to how to navigate the problems that await us. The disasters will come slowly, a bit at a time, and we have time to learn how to conserve, to grow things, to form networks, to learn how to produce commodities.

As an illustration of her suggestions for us, she told of her family and a group of her neighbors who got together to buy an oil press from Europe. It fits in someone's barn, and the group plans to grow canola and rapeseed and make oils out of the plants. Right now these oils are mostly imported. By starting this business they will have a commodity to trade when the economy fails and a necessary food product made locally.

I appreciate Victoria's concise and valuable history lesson and her leadership in showing us how to be wise stewards and to navigate the Anthropocene epoch.

Boston Exponent II Retreat -- What I did last weekend!

Last week I had a marvelous time visiting my sister in Boston and then attending the Exponent II retreat. I just got back this evening but I thought I'd share some of my pictures of the event. I intend to blog about some of the workshops, so check back!

Gods in Embryo

If I had to pick my one favorite presentation at the Sunstone Symposium this year, this presentation by Hugo Olaiz would be it: "Are We Still Gods in Embryo? The Mormon Doctrine of Human Deification."

Hugo impressed me from the start with his presence when he realized that both the moderator and the respondent for his session, the illustrious Michael Quinn were not present. He began his own session and launched right in to his talk, which was brilliant. At the risk of vastly simplifying what he had to say, I'd like to just give you a few of my impressions and then urge you to order the full talk if you are interested in this topic.

Hugo explained that human deification (as expressed by the couplet "As man is now, God once was; as God is now, man may become) contains two distinct concepts, one that God has progressed and perhaps may still be progressing from some human form to a divine state; and the other that man may reach this state also. We often call this "eternal progression," but in this talk Hugo preferred to use the more specific term "deification." His paper discussed the observation that, although early Mormon thinkers had vigorously debated and elaborated upon this doctrine, there is a distinct change in how we approach it today. The first half of the couplet, the one dealing with the progression of God, has become nearly invisible, and while we retain the possibility of deification for man, it is reimaged as "eternal progression," with its bolder implications being tamed.

For those who have been in the Church as long as I have, this shift is remarkably clear. I remember the days when deification was actively taught in our church meetings. To me the shift to a doctrine more compatible with evangelical Christianity is quite clear.

After concluding his talk, Hugo opened the session to questions, then with just fifteen minutes left, Michael Quinn came sailing up the aisle, panting heavily. Although Hugo's talk was cogent and engaging, and would have stood quite well on its own, Michael's addition added emotion and drama to the proceedings. Michael referred to the history of Christianity and showed how early Christianity defended its doctrine of monotheism against outside threats with violence and bloodshed. He said that if we did not understand this history, we would not have a clear view of where the modern Christian world stood regarding polytheism. Now we have our LDS leaders and theologians seeking to ally themselves with the Christian movement and to deemphasize our early teachings. If we do this, Michael dramatically warned, we are trading our birthright for a mess of pottage.

Michael's speech was so stirring, it made me want to leap to my feet and applaud. Later, during the Q&A, he added to the defense of Joseph Smith's early teachings on deification by giving a beautiful word picture of Joseph opening window after window in a large room, bringing light flooding in, and leaving a legacy for later generations to formulate into unified doctrines.

So, what do you stand, readers? Are you comfortable with a milder form of our doctrine which aligns more closely with Christian thought? Or do you identify with Joseph and his bold but perhaps discomfiting proclamations on the nature of God and man?

BiV with Michael Quinn

Types of Spirituality--Sunstone Workshop

As I've said before, Susan Skoor, Apostle and member of the Council of the Twelve in the Community of Christ church (RLDS) is an exceptional individual.  She has a presence about her that is almost tangible.  She engages with each person she meets, and has the knack of making them feel heard.  My first day at the Sunstone Symposium was spent in her 3 1/2 hour workshop--it flew by like 30 minutes.

Susan (In my reports of Sunstone, I'm going to use the first names of all the presenters, just to be consistent, and because there is a great feeling of comeraderie here) began her workshop with a short devotional.  She played a recording of a song with words by St. Francis of Assisi, lit some candles, had a prayer, gave a short sermonette on Jesus and social change, and ended with a rousing hymn complete with clapping and swaying.  Little did we know as she was leading us in the devotional, that she was modeling four types of spirituality about which she would instruct us.  There are

• Thinkers--who approach religion by study and research.  They love scriptures, sermons, being on time, order, planning, and worship services based around a theme.
• Feelers--are inspired by emotion, passion, testimony.  They emphasize conversion and transformation, and fellowship and relationships are important to them.
• Mystic--experience God in silence, contemplation, and meditation.  They have great sensitivity, are intuitive and experience leaps of faith.  To them, God is a mystery.
• Advocates--Theirs is a lived religion.  They feed the poor, do their home teaching, and focus on living the gospel. They tend to be critics, and their goal often becomes transforming systems.

In the workshop, we answered a series of questions to see what our predominant style of spirituality was.  We had a little fun with it, guessing the styles of some of the Community of Christ and LDS Apostles.  But then Susan cautioned us that the goal of this exercise was not to label people but to explore the good and dangers in all of them.  My first impulse as we were discussing the four types was to identify the LDS Church with one of these, but her point was that all 4 were found in Jesus' ministry.  This exercise could help to identify where we need to expand our faith journey.  It helps to recognize others' styles as legitimate and meaningful in the Church community, and to allow for all of them in our worship.

I especially liked Susan's speculations about the younger generation.  She said that the thinkers were leaving organized religion for science, the feelers were meeting their need for fellowship on the internet, the mystics were becoming detached and forming "the Church of the Bookshelf"--grabbing pieces of different systems of thought to embrace a spirituality that is uniquely their own, and that the advocates were leaving for politics and non-profits.  We spent some time developing plans for churches who have an interest in drawing these seekers back into organized religion and discussed ways to meet their needs in our congregations. 

This was an enlightening experience and I enjoyed working with the other workshop participants and hearing their ideas.  Soooo...what type of approach appeals to you out of these four types of spirituality.  What do you think I am?  (I'll let you know in the comments--it might surprise you.)

Spiritual Truths from the Temple and the 2008 BYU Women's Conference

I probably need to get over my aversion to these talks that have come along lately about making your home into a miniature temple, or Missionary Training Center. I need to channel those days as a newly married Molly, when I had uncontrollable urges to paint my bedroom all in off-white and gold, with vases on little tables and an oversized crystal chandelier above the bed.

The talk that set off my latest rant is the Thursday afternoon general session of the annual Women's Conference at Brigham Young University, given by Merrill J. Bateman of the Quorum of the Seventy and his wife Marilyn.


Elder Bateman suggested that our homes resemble the temple by speaking in soft, quiet voices, training children in their responsibilities like shifts of temple workers, beginning shifts with prayer, and keeping orderliness and cleanliness paramount.

Why do I think these talks are especially unhelpful for LDS mothers to hear? I can recognize the symbolism that connects the two. Homes and temples are both places of love and service. In both places, as Sister Bateman said, "we are engaged in the salvation of others." I agree, but at the same time I would like to immortalize the words of Chandelle who wrote in a comment at FMH:

"...a temple is tidy because it’s not populated by children who like to fingerpaint with their poop. because the ten-thousand people who go in and out of a temple do not eat three meals a day there. because dogs and their muddy paws are not allowed. because there are no beds to be made. because nobody goes there to study or read or sew or do pottery or play scrabble. because everybody comes in and leaves in the same clothing so there is no laundry. the temple is tidy because nobody lives there."

Actually, there is laundry, but volunteers and paid workers come in to do this work, to vacuum and to clean the toilets. I think it is unhelpful to take parents' attention away from the work of living and the salvation of their children to focus on superficial cleanliness or soft, quiet voices. Or even prayer. A pinnacle of frustration for me was a Ward Activity where a photographer was sent to each home to take a simple picture of the family kneeling in prayer. A nightmare of an hour passed during which the photographer never could snap a shot with everyone kneeling, closing eyes and folding arms at the same second. Our family simply could not pray in the true order of LDS family prayer!

I never experienced an enjoyable family home evening with my family of eight children until I finally learned that they would never sit quietly in rows listening to the lesson, like in the temple; and that that was not the goal of FHE. Probably the most spiritual and fondly remembered FHE we ever had was the one with the activity where all the small children piled on Dad and tried to displace him from his position lying on the couch. Totally spontaneous, loving and memorable. Quite loud. And not possible until Mom learned that home was different from the Temple in significant ways.

In her talk, Sister Bateman revealed that "Spiritual truths are not revealed to doubters. Faith is required to move forward." So, what is the spiritual truth behind the comparison between the home and the temple? How can we express this in a way that will be uplifting to families (especially women) rather than depressing? Those of you with more faith than I, help me out!

BYU Women's Conference--Lessons from the Past

I have some things I want to say about BYU Women's Conference. But I'm too tired to really think them out yet, so first I'll just tell a little story about my very first BYU Women's Conference. I think it was 1982. I was just off my mission and going to the Y and I was really full of myself. You know the type. I had purchased my ticket and had a little nametag and was trying to attend the most spirichal sessions I could--taking notes in a little spiral-bound book. Well, one of the sessions I wanted to attend was in a building with which I wasn't familiar, and I was a little late, and I couldn't find the room. So I asked one of those volunteer ladies who were standing around if she could help me find the session. I'm afraid I wasn't all that polite. In fact, as I recall, I treated her sort of like a maid, minion or lesser being. She was there to serve the patrons, wasn't she? But she was so dang nice. She told me she would walk me to the room, and the whole way she chatted with me, asking how I was enjoying the Conference, and if I liked so-and-so's talk and was truly interested in me-me-me. So I deigned to talk to her as we progressed down the corridor. And when we reached the door, I said Thanks, and I turned to go in, and as I did out of the corner of my eye I saw her name tag.

And it said, "PATRICIA HOLLAND."

Yup.
It was THE Pat Holland, wife of the then-President of BYU Jeffrey R. Holland.
An amazing woman, smart, capable, charismatic, attractive, and kind. A woman I had admired from afar (because obviously I'd never seen her close-up before!)

It's probably the first time in my life I can remember feeling truly humble.

I admit it, I'm really not a very humble person. I don't get humble when I get a new calling, because honestly, I know I can do a fairly good job at any calling I get. While I don't feel overly talented in any one area, I am blessed enough to be able to do most things without embarrassing myself. But this experience floored me. I realized that any peon I met on the street could very well be someone IMPORTANT. Someone really important. Like one of those Warriors of the Pre-existence or a Member of the Council in Heaven or Shakespeare's muse--and I wouldn't even know it.

Anyway, I don't have the notes I took at that BYU Women's Conference. I don't remember any of the speakers I heard. I'm not even sure what year it was. But I do remember what I learned from Pat Holland, who was nice and walked me down the hall to a classroom. Now, I often chat with the cashier at the checkout line in WalMart. I learn the names of the custodians at the University where I work. I'm polite to the taxi driver.

You just never know, maybe everyone is important.

How Julie Beck Introduced Me To Blogging

It was April 2, 2006 and I was listening to General Conference. Julie B. Beck, first counselor in the YW General Presidency was the token female speaker. She gave a talk titled An Outpouring of Blessings. It was the first I'd ever heard her speak. As I listened, I began to crawl out of my skin with frustration. Julie's thesis statement was that "through the blessings of the priesthood, we are all given equal partnership, gifts, and blessings." She developed this idea by saying that all faithful members are equally blessed by the priesthood. All babies, whether male or female, can be given a name and a blessing. Girls and boys both can be baptized. Women and men alike partake of the sacrament, receive priesthood blessings, patriarchal blessings, and the higher blessings of temple endowments. She went on and on in this vein and concluded that "through the infinite fairness and love of God, all men and women were given equal partnership, gifts, blessings, and potential."

What she carefully stepped around and never mentioned, was that MEN ARE THE ONES GIVING THESE PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS. WOMEN ARE PROHIBITED FROM HOLDING THE PRIESTHOOD. What was with all the "equality" talk??

I continued to stew all that day and the next. I had to talk to someone about my feelings, but I knew no one in my Vernal ward would have the least clue of why the talk might be upsetting. I was aware that blogs and chat rooms and internet groups were out there, but I didn't know if I could find anyone discussing this particular subject. I googled around for a while but all I could discover was a small thread on Dave's Mormon Inquiry about the Priesthood Session. Not knowing what a threadjack was, I made my first ever comment. Bored in Vernal was born.

OK, a little embarrassing, it wasn't exactly the greatest place to find someone with whom to commiserate. (I never did find anyone to discuss that particular talk with me!) But I just thought all my readers would be interested to know that you have Julie Beck to thank for my presence here exactly two years and many posts and comments later!

Sabbath-day Thorn in my Side

Stake Conference in our Stake is a bit different than in other places in the world. Because the units are spread out over a vast area, the stake leaders bring the conference to each ward. Members are warned several weeks before the Conference that it will be their chance to obtain a temple recommend. Interviews with the Bishop are held, and the Stake President is available after the meetings to conduct interviews. It is perhaps the only time members will see Stake leaders for 6 months or a year. Because of the difficulties in traveling and in women getting around, the wives of the Stake Presidency are called to be the Stake RS President, Stake YW President, and Stake Primary President.

I enjoyed meeting our Stake leaders, and I had a chance to talk personally with each of the women leaders. They were very nice, and I enjoyed our conversations. They are about my age, and I think I could be good friends with each one of them. However, I cannot contain my opinion of their talks. As I've said before, women leaders have a great opportunity when they speak in Conferences. It is their opportunity to have a voice in the administration of the Church. It is one of a very few times that they can appropriately give counsel and instruction to the general membership of the Church, including men, women, and children. Not surprisingly, I was looking forward to hearing what these women would say during our General Session and also during our Adult Session.


So what did I hear from our illustrious women leaders? None other than RECYCLED CONFERENCE TALKS!! It's the biggest Sabbath-day thorn in my side there is. I don't like when anyone gives recycled Conference Talks. I'm fine with themes are given to speakers, but I feel they should be developed by the speakers themselves, with personal experiences and relevant scripture stories chosen according to personal guidance of the Spirit. This way both speaker and listeners are enriched. A Conference Talk summarized again and again in Sacrament and other meetings loses its immediacy and power that it had when the message was received and given by the General Authorities. I and many other members of the Church read our Conference Ensigns and are quite familiar with the talks. Hearing them summarized in Church is boring.

None of the men speakers at our Stake Conference gave recycled Conference Talks. Every woman who spoke summarized a Conference Talk. None of the women even went so far as to include a personal experience or opinion on the topic. I'm extremely disappointed. By doing this, we women are diluting what little authority and influence we do have. For shame.

Mothers Who Know...What? A Response to Julie M. Smith

In her opening remarks of that infamous Conference talk, Julie B. Beck quotes 2000 stripling warriors as saying, "Our mothers knew it." To find out what it was that the mothers knew, we must go back to the story in Alma 56, which concludes in verses 47 and 48:

Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.
And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it.

Here we discover that which the mothers knew:
if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.
Sister Beck then states that more than at any time in the history of the world, we need mothers who know. "When mothers know who they are and who God is and have made covenants with Him, they will have great power and influence for good on their children," she says. I believe that the talk which followed Sister Beck's initial statement was one expression of what a mother is. She spoke of the following aspects of motherhood:

• The desire to bear children and to place the value of motherhood above that of power, position or prestige.
  
• Honoring sacred ordinances and covenants.
  
• Nurturing, which she equated with homemaking, particularly housecleaning and keeping an orderly home.
  
• Leading and planning within the home.
  
• Teaching in the home and never being off duty.
  
• Choosing carefully to focus more on family activities.
  
• Being the very best in the world at upholding, nurturing, and protecting families.

The introduction to Sister Beck's talk was pregnant with meaning, and full of promise. How does a woman become a "mother who knows?" How does she develop a firm faith in God's deliverance? However, Beck follows this introduction by continually stating that "mothers who know" are women who follow one model of motherhood. After reading, pondering, and praying over this talk many times over the past couple of weeks, I have come to feel that Julie Beck's model of motherhood is indeed one way that a woman can come to develop the type of faith exemplified in the mothers of the stripling warriors. It strikes a chord with many women of the Church, and it tends to justify women who have chosen to have many children, stay at home with them, and put much effort into creating a welcoming and organized home life. These women do not have much support in their choices. Indeed, the world does look down upon them for what they have selected to value.

I believe that where I have taken offense with this talk is that I mistakenly took her remarks to imply that women whose paths might vary from those described here are not mothers, or even women, who "know." This, of course, is not true. The testimonies of several bloggers witness to the alternate choices of women who were able to develop an abiding faith and raise righteous and productive families.
Matt Evans wrote that he "grew up in a rather unkempt and cluttered home. We did chores, but there was one mom and seven kids and Mom didn’t enjoy or appreciate housework anyway...But the spirit was there and we enjoyed and loved each other. As I look back on my experience growing up, I don’t look back wishing Mom had spent more time worrying about the house. I’m almost certain that’s not something she would change, either." Jana Remy wrote of her mother, a Stake RS President and mother of 5 who "kept her teaching credential active in each state where we lived, often taking night classes or taking re-certification exams. By the time her youngest child was in the upper-grades of elementary school, she worked full-time as a teacher and was earning her master's degree." After her husband died of cancer, this remarkable woman was able to
support the family with a good professional career and salary. "I guess the upshot is, if Mom had stayed home and had only been a remarkable homemaker, well I don't know that things would've turned out quite so well for her or for us," Jana concluded. Amelia wrote "am i to understand that mothering is the most important work i do, when easily 90% of my time is spent completely apart from children? what does that mean about the rest of my time? is it really all that much to ask that the value of my work and life be acknowledged without trying to shove it through a mother-shaped hole? ...please have enough decency to honor all the work women do, not just the work they do as mothers. don't tell me i am a mother in some misguided effort to make me feel better about the fact that i'm unmarried and childless. instead, look me in the eye and see me for who and what i am: a woman of god who is using the gifts she's been given to make as much beauty and goodness as she can."

Obviously, women in many diverse situations can develop great faith in the delivering power of the Lord, receive inspiration, employ spiritual gifts and attain the status of women who "know."

Although I spent many years pursuing the chimeral image of the woman that Julie Beck describes, I wonder now if my path was the most conducive to my spiritual and emotional health or even that of my family. I wonder what would have happened had I sought the Lord's counsel upon my path, rather than simply to follow the party line of having as many children as possible and staying at home and placing all of my energies there.

Now Julie M. Smith has begun a series of posts at T&S supporting the specific counsel President Beck gave and how to apply it. The first post deals with Homemaking. I'm glad that she has taken up this challenge. Apparently it will become quite popular around the Bloggernacle. But just as I have noted above, the appeal is limited to only a segment of LDS women. I do not read the "Mommy Blogs," and I find no amusement in discussions of childrens' poop. Neither does a detailed analysis of housekeeping skills interest me. I realize that for some, home organization may lead to a fuller spiritual life, but there are others whose testimonies might better be strengthened by a rousing disputation over the theology of St. Augustine.

Julie Smith has prefaced her post as follows: "If you feel the need to vent your dislike of [Julie Beck's] talk, I imagine that you might possibly be able to find a thread somewhere in the Bloggernacle where you can do just that. But you can’t do it here. The point of this series is to discuss the specific counsel that she gave and how best to apply it. All other comments will be deleted." I'd like to provide this space for women who know, women who don't know, and women who wish they knew.

If You Were A (Female) Speaker At General Conference

Today, Mary N. Cook of the YW Presidency spoke to the youth of the Church about what an influence they could be in their families and in the world. Now it's your chance. If you were a female and had the opportunity to speak at General Conference, what would you choose as your topic? Who would you address? What would you try to accomplish?

Because women seem to gather some criticism about their talks, what they wear, their hairstyle, etc, I've become curious about how others would handle this challenge. Additionally, I wonder how we would handle the high-profile women's callings in general. If you were RS President, what would your focus be? What would be your considerations in calling counselors or a RS board? What would you do first? How would you spend the majority of your time?

Now, the hard one: What would you do as wife of a General Authority? We see the wife of the President of the United States as being high-profile herself. She usually travels quite a bit with her husband and generally has a special project or emphasis that she champions. So, how would you use your influence as wife of our Prophet or wife of one of the Apostles? Are there special causes you would espouse? What would you wear in public? Would you change your hairstyle?

I have many ideas on the above questions, but I want to hear from some readers first. Feel free to send the readers of your blogs over, too. I really want to hear from some LDS women!

Fantasy Bonds in Eternal Marriages

This was another session I attended at Sunstone Symposium. It was given by Michael Farnsworth, EdD, an educational psychologist who recently retired from the marriage and family relations dept. at BYU Idaho.

The words "fantasy bonds" were, in my opinion, a little misleading in this presentation. Michael was using the terminology given by Robert Firestone to roleplays that husbands and wives develop in their marriages. Fantasy bonds are culturally defined duties that people begin to act out in their marriages. They can eventually become bonds which hold the couple back from intimacy.

Michael said that intimacy is an acquired taste--many cannot stand the passion that true intimacy brings. When we fear our own and others' energies, we can form fantasy bonds as a psychological defense to marital distress. Mormon women have a great tendency to slip into this role-playing behavior. Once a young wife enters into the pattern, all her decisions are made for her. She will have many children, she will not work outside the home, she will hold Church callings, etc. Michael warns of three dangers to this reaction, and I have observed these myself.

1. The relationship can become superficial
2. The marriage partners are embroiled in continual conflict
3. One of the partners surrenders their voice

Thus, Michael suggested that personal identity has to be established before relationship identity can be formed.

The respondent to this talk was Ronda Callister, PhD and professor of organizational behavior at Utah State. She presented the point of view that developing a resilient identity is the work of a lifetime. She said that had she waited until personal identity was established before she was married, it would have been a very long time! Then she shared some steps she had taken in developing a resilient identity and encouraging intimacy in her marriage.

I enjoyed this presentation but I found it very difficult to listen to, since I neither see myself as having a very well-developed sense of identity nor much intimacy within my marriage.

Blake Ostler on Spiritual Experiences

Blake Ostler's presentation at the Sunstone Symposium went a lot different than I thought it would. I didn't expect Blake to be as understandable, down-to-earth, and personal as he was. Blake spoke about LDS testimony and spiritual experiences--and he wasn't dry at all. In fact, near the beginning of his talk, he told of an experience he had when he was age 15. Sitting in the high school gym, a girl he didn't know well sat next to him, and he was prompted to tell her that God wanted her to stop thinking about suicide. This turned out to be an important message, since she was already planning the act. Blake argued that spiritual experiences are real. (Well, he actually says, "attacks claiming that such experiences are not trustworthy because they are merely ephemeral emotions are based on a caricature and unjustified reduction." It is Blake, after all.) Blake testified that it is not irrational for us to believe and trust our spiritual feelings. He also preached a "radical inclusivism," where we are called to be open to the spiritual experiences of others, including evangelicals. He cautioned that we should recognize that our experience does not mean that we know anything, that we should not feel morally superior because of it, and that we should remain open to doubt. He explored the idea that spiritual experience cannot be produced at will. He concluded that religious experience has no meaning without a life lived in pursuit of this knowledge.

Blake's presentation seemed to generate a great deal of controversy among the audience. The respondent, Bill Heersink from Salt Lake Theological Seminary, praised Blake for his "holistic view of humans that doesn't try to divorce the mind and soul," but nevertheless disagreed with his definition of spiritual experience. Several of the questions at the end likewise asked for further clarification. One young man in particular questioned Blake's view of spiritual experience. The young man told of an experience of his own in the MTC. He prayed to know his status regarding a girlfriend and was given a strong confirmation that he would marry the girl. When she later "Dear Johnned" him, it was devastating.

I was quite surprised to hear Blake respond that the young man's experience was not a valid one, since it had later been proved to be false. I thought Blake's answer went against his explanation of "radical inclusivism" earlier in his talk. Blake saw his own experience in high school to be valid since the girl was actually thinking of suicide, but the young man's experience was different since he did not end up marrying his girlfriend.

I believe this is a problematic way of looking at spiritual experience. Encounters with the Divine tend to be nebulous and not easily interpreted. I would be much more willing to see the young missionary's experience as a real manifestation of the Holy Spirit, sent for comfort and aid at a difficult time. Perhaps the interpretation was in error, but the experience was undeniable.

I appreciated and agreed with the points in Blake's presentation. I found it comforting to hear such an erudite and intellectual assertion that we can "know with a surety" the reality of the Spirit in our lives. However, I was quite put off by the application of his own principles in his response to the young returned missionary. I would like to see a greater acceptance of spiritual experience within and among religions.

Especially for U, Snarky--Sunstone Slideshow

Snarker, be Damned: Another Sunstone Testimony

I finally have internet access again (!)and Snarker be damned, I am going to post my little heart out about how wonderful and spiritual it was. I believe that the types of talks and panels at Sunstone have the power to touch the questioning and questing among us in a way that speaks to our souls.

On Thursday, the Mormon Women's Forum presented a panel titled "Image and Reality: The Many Faces of Mormon Women. Janice Allred led the panel and explained that the concept of face invites us to consider several contrasting pairs that define face: appearance vs. reality, public vs. private, open vs. hidden, engaged vs. withdrawn, present vs. past, and ideal vs. real. Each of the panelists addressed how Mormon women negotiate the tension between the ideal and the reality of their own lives. Since I was one of the panelists, I'll post my remarks here for your edification!

Virginia Woolf wrote: "a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction." I identify with this statement because I realize that in order to accomplish great things, one must have the means and the space. I sometimes wonder if, within Mormonism, a woman can find "a room of her own." From the time a Latter-day Saint girl or boy is very young, words of testimony are whispered in their ears. They memorize all 12 Articles of Faith and are taught songs of faith and assurance. The Young Women stand each week and recite a motto describing the ideal girl. An active teenage girl who attends Church services, Mutual, and Seminary goes to Church 10 or more hours a week. She is interviewed by her Bishop twice a year to assess her worthiness. Often, this young woman will marry at a fairly young age and begin Church and family responsibilities before she has ever really lived on her own.

These can all be wonderful influences. They tend to produce women who have lived clean, decent lives; who have not mired themselves in addictions. These women are trained and prepared to keep clean and organized homes and to raise upstanding families. Are they missing anything from never having had a room of their own?

I think our strength as a culture is that we tend to develop the public face of our people superbly. As a young wife, I had learned how to present that face to the ward and to the world. I was well-spoken, well-groomed, energetic. I had the skills to run a Parent-Teacher Organization or to speak in public. This picture shows 6 of my eventually 8 children. As you can see, I sewed matching dresses for these girls. I did it three times a year: Christmas, Easter, and Pioneer Day.

But the public appearance was very different from the private reality.

At times I found friends I could share the tough realities of my life with. But in my experience, the Mormon world was not conducive to such confidences. As a Latter-day Saint, I felt compelled to put on a good face for the world. To my non-member friends and neighbors, I felt that I needed to show them how happy being a member of the Church made me. I couldn’t reveal any marital problems, for that would put a bad light on our “eternal family” rhetoric. I didn’t feel free to complain about the pressures of having 8 children, because it might invalidate my reasons for having such a huge family. Among the other LDS women, I felt some competition and equal pressure to maintain the image of perfection. Especially when I was a young mother, I didn’t realize that other Mormon women might also be struggling.

Putting forth a good face is also an inherited trait in my family. To illustrate this, I’d like to share a story my mother wrote in her family history. She tells of going to see a Broadway musical review with her sisters. Since they knew someone in the production, they were invited to go backstage. They left their seats during the final number and were ushered back behind the curtains to watch the chorus line finale. They saw the dancers with big, bright smiles upon their faces while they faced the audience. But when they turned their backs on the crowd, the girls’ faces would relax into a frown or a scowl of concentration. By the time they turned back around, they had their smiles pasted back on. My mother compared this chorus line to her family. She said that in public, they always had to have their smiles on.

I wrote a poem (some of my blog readers will remember this!) which expresses the liminality I have felt as I have attempted to please my family, my Church, and especially my husband without being able to fully celebrate the nontraditional parts of myself. It’s called, “I Put on Black.”

I put on black,
My head I bow.
You like me now.
You like me now.

I put away my chartreuse scarf,
And colored things I used to wear.
My second piercings now are bare,
I gel down my unruly hair.

I do not have a lot to say.
My makeup now is quite subdued.
I seem to cook a lot of food,
I don’t go swimming in the nude.

I nod and murmur when I should,
I shut my mouth, my thoughts I still,
My questions and my quirks I kill--
My secret longings none can fill.

The ward is suddenly so kind.
I’m not as different now, you see!
A call has been extended me
To teach Relief Society.

Sedately I walk down the aisle,
The Bishop’s wife sits by my side,
She nods at me; you smile with pride,
I feel a tearing deep inside.

I clean the toilets and the hall,
Read stories to my sweet sunbeams.
We never argue now, it seems.
I wonder where I put my dreams.

Your temple marriage now is safe,
You hold my hand that wears the ring.
I never dance, I never sing,
You would not notice such a thing.

I’m all in black,
I’ve kept my vow,
You like me now,
You like me now.

But this is what
You do not see:
I don’t like me,
I don’t like me.

When my family moved to the small, provincial town of Vernal, Utah two years ago, I discovered blogging. I felt I had found “A room of my own,” where I could present my innermost thoughts and feelings, ideas I’ve long held, but didn’t always align with the perfect Mormon woman. On my blog, I call myself “Bored in Vernal,” a feminist, pacifist, disgruntled, yet fully active Latter-day Saint. I’ve found the cyberworld to be a place where I can explore the real me among those with a Mormon background. I’ve found that I can’t leave the Church behind. It is a deep and inextricable part of me. Yet there are some policies, procedures and doctrines that, in order to be authentic, I must take exception to. Even at the ripe old age of 47, I’m still trying to find myself. Right now, it’s almost like I live a double life. I find myself saying things at Church, then saying the polar opposite on my blog. Which do I really believe? At the time I say these things, I feel I am representing myself accurately. I’m so confused. What are my true feelings? Who am I?

One of the objectives of this panel was to explore how Mormon women negotiate the tension between the roles and expectations of Mormon culture and the reality of their own lives. I pondered this as I read a recent novel entitled “Snow Flower and the Secret Fan.” The book is about nineteenth-century China and a group of women in Jiangyong, a far flung area in the rural countryside. These traditional Chinese females experienced the binding of the feet at age 7, early marriage, and a secluded life thereafter. While embracing the expectations of their culture, the women of this community developed practices which enabled them to survive. To meet their needs for community, the women contracted with other females—either “sworn sisters” or “old sames.” The novel is based on factual evidence that these women developed a secret system of writing by which they could communicate. It was called “nu shu,” and was kept secret for over a thousand years.

I believe that women such as myself who find tension between traditional Mormon roles and their own personal paradigms must find some way to relieve the strain. What practices will they develop which will enable them to survive and flourish? Will it be online communities such as blogging, or email groups? As wards become more accepting of diversity, will they find kindred spirits within the ward with whom they can commiserate? Or will these women find fulfillment in jobs outside the home, retaining their cultural roles only while at home and at Church?

Through the Proclamation on the Family, the Church has shown its commitment to traditional roles for women. Within our illustrious history, though, there have been some few opportunities for women, even within this type of culture, to find “a room of their own.” I’m thinking of women such as Ellis Shipp, who was sent back East by Brigham Young to obtain a medical degree. She practiced and taught medicine in Utah while bearing ten children. Women like Minerva Teichert, who went to Chicago to take art lessons as a “set apart” missionary of the LDS church. She married, raised a family, cooked and helped with the ranch while painting prolifically throughout her life. I’m thinking of Relief Society sisters who collected grain for humanitarian service, wrote their own manuals, maintained their own budgets and buildings. I urge that we continue to draw upon these, and many other examples of women who embraced their cultural roles within Mormonism yet broadened the definition of womanhood to find a room of their own from which to reach out and touch the world.

Stay tuned! I'll be posting much more of my experiences from Sunstone.

The Scarlet "S"

One of the most interesting things discussed last weekend was that of singleness in the Church. Suzette and Julie, our speakers at the Retreat, are both returned missionaries in their late 30's. Several topics were brought up that I thought were pertinent. Foremost in my mind was the comment that a single person lacks legitimacy in a married Church. We do have a coming-of-age ritual in the form of a mission. But even after serving a mission, in the Mormon society one is not fully grown and a member of the "adult" class until they have been married. This results in strange behaviors, such as speakers who will come into singles wards and talk down to them as a group, though several of his audience may actually be older than he.

In our discussion, one woman mentioned that she has noticed that married couples without children also struggle with lack of legitimacy.

Singles in married wards are often treated like teenagers, and seldom receive leadership callings. They are sometimes asked to babysit instead of joining in the activities that married couples are attending without their children. Julie spoke of some notable exceptions she has seen, such as a Boston singles ward which was given much responsibility in the Temple. They also were called upon to organize and lead a Youth Conference. In addition, Julie had two single Relief Society Presidents in her family ward in Northern Utah. These things lift the entire Church as we utilize the now-dormant strengths of many additional adult members.

I know that Sister Barbara Thompson, newly called Second Counselor of the General RS Presidency is a single woman. I wonder if she will have an influence in being a role model for women or effect any change in the status quo for singles. I don't hold my breath, since our last General RS had quite a low visibility in the Church.

Suzette said that marrieds might have an image of singles as having a wild and crazy social life, playing Ultimate Frisbee every afternoon with a group of cute guys. This makes them reluctant to invite singles to socialize or join them in their comparatively boring activities. "I'm in my late 30's, and I like to do things that other people my age do," she pointed out. Unfortunately, there is usually a "Great Divide" among the single and married members of a ward. Suzette observed that since the predominant culture in the Church is a "family," it is incumbent upon the married members to open a way to integrate the singles.

Our two presenters gave married members several suggestions to help integrate singles into the culture. One of the most poignant was their plea not to try to "fix" singles as if something were broken. Many church members feel a vast discomfort with single members and sense the ambiguity with our doctrine which necessitates marriage for progression and Godhood. They try to probe the psyche and discover what is wrong. The single member must be gay, or too picky, or too intimidating.

In what ways have you seen the Church making efforts to integrate singles? Where do you stand on the "Singles Wards versus Married Wards" controversy? If you've experienced time as an adult single member of the Church, please share any insights you have gained.

The "Real" DAM Women

The first DAM Women were the Denver Area Mormon Women (no relation to the DAMU), who 15 years ago started a Retreat in the mountains of Colorado. This year about 40 women gathered to congregate, share their stories, and learn about Mormon women bloggers. FMH Lisa gave a fabulous presentation on blogging and women's issues, and graciously showed everyone around the Bloggernacle. Several women bloggers attended the Retreat, including one of the DAM founders, Paula of the Cultural Hall and several email groups; myself (Bored in Vernal); IdahoSpud; Amelia, Caroline, and Brooke of Exponent Blog; and Lisa and Emily of Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Male Bloggers whose names were used in vain at the Retreat were John Dehlin (we're waiting on your pink Stories!) John Remy (collective sighs all around, and inspection and approval of your pic!) DMI Dave (tour of your blog) and The Snarker (sorry, no sighs, pics, or tour of your blog.)

Also featured on the Retreat Program were a panel of women with "Unequally Yoked" stories based on last year's Sunstone Panel "For Better, For Worse," and two presenters speaking to a "married Church" culture on integrating Singles.

I have several blog posts worth of material from my weekend away, but I need to recover a little first. I hate to miss anything, so I'm always the last to go to bed and the first to rise. For some reason I felt compelled to prove that a woman of a certain age could still do the splits. I was nervous at meeting so many new people, so I was way too animated, shrill, and consumed too much chocolate and Diet Dr. Pepper. Thus the five hour drive home was rough, and I'm going to go crash now. Here are some pictures to pique your interest. Check back for more fascinating updates!

Counterpoint--A Place At the Table

The most difficult and poignant session at the Counterpoint Conference dealt with the question: “Is there a place for our gay brothers and sisters in the eternal family?” Though it wasn’t mentioned at the conference, Carol Lynn Pearson’s recent book “No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons Around Our Gay Loved Ones” was on my mind. I had just read the press release announcing the book with this quote by Rabbi Harold Kushner:

“Thank you, Carol Lynn Pearson, for reminding us that the task of any religion is to teach us whom we’re required to love, not whom we’re entitled to hate.”

I wish all of you could have met these eminently lovable children of God who addressed us at the conference.

Tina Hatch intelligently and emotionally described her attempt to integrate Mind/Body/Spirit. She explained that truth production in Western thought is centered on white, male, middle-class, institutional point of view. Differences are misunderstood and feared. She has found through much struggle and spiritual confirmation that happiness is possible outside of the traditional hetero experience. Said Tina, “I am whole the way I am. God created me and told me I am good.”

Hugo Olaiz spoke about the position of the LDS Church on homosexuality. He claimed that the position they have taken in the Proclamation is very recent. He said that it is not based on the teachings of Joseph Smith, but rather a tactical effort to combat homosexuality. Hugo nonetheless believes that leaders are more willing to admit there are genetic factors. He says there is no need to rewrite our theology, but calls for the following actions:
1. Call them what they are.
2. Stop endorsing support groups promoting changing orientation
3. Stop condemning same-sex families.

Kathryn Steffensen, the mother of a gay man, found little support when her son came out as gay. “When he came out of the closet, we went into the closet.” Kathryn says that there need to be more positive gay role models. She founded Family Fellowship to meet a need for support. She decided in her journey never to overtly challenge the institutional Church—they have the power to keep people out of the Church. Instead she vows: “we’re going to make the world better for you.”

LeGrand Olsen bore a powerful testimony of his spiritual convictions. He discovered he was gay in spite of his strong witness of the Church. “There is no peaceful dealing with this,” he lamented.

Another Speaker gave a personal account of her experiences as a lesbian in the Church. She and her partner have been excluded from many family events. They have made a place at their table for all who desire friendship. She sees no similar inclusion for gays in the Mormon Church.

I am glad to see a few slow changes in policy toward gay members of the Church. No longer do leaders excommunicate members who come out as gay simply for their orientation. Some few gay members hold callings in their wards. I realize that change has been very slow. I wonder if Carol Lynn Pearson’s new book will be as widely read as Goodbye I Love You, and if it will stimulate the changes that she hopes it will.

Counterpoint and Excommunication

I never finished blogging about the Counterpoint Conference—life got in the way—but I intend to finish. It just won’t be as fresh news as it could have been. One portion of the Conference that stirred me was the keynote speaker, Gay Blanchard. Gay was awarded the “Eve Award,” a recognition by the organizers of the Mormon Women’s Forum which honors those who have made contributions to enrich the lives of Mormon women that may not be noticed by the community as a whole.

Gay, a sweet white haired woman in her eighties, stay-at-home mom, wife, musician and playwright, began at midlife to diverge doctrinally with her local leaders on the subject of the Atonement. As I’ve been following along with some of the discussions lately occurring on Atonement Theory, I realize that the Mormon Church does not teach a comprehensive Atonement Theory. In fact, there has been considerable latitude in the doctrine that LDS leaders have espoused along these lines. Apparently, Gay began to reject a salvation by works paradigm.

From some of her writings available on the internet, I obtained this quote by Gay: “the whole purpose of the Law of Obedience is to convince us that we can't keep all the contradictory rules required of us by religious leaders over the centuries. Trying to do so is truly an education. We grow in our understanding of ourselves and of others; we assume responsibilities; we learn about the gospel. If we are awake, we learn painfully our many limitations. We work and work and work at trying to perfect ourselves one thing at a time, at trying to make ourselves worthy, at trying to work out our salvation. But we do not progress into higher law.” Gay says that for most Mormons “their journey stops here: working at trying to be obedient to the whole letter of the law.” Once we discover that we are unable to keep all of the commandments, we become open to experience a mighty change of heart and begin to rely on the grace of Christ to save us. This sounds not so different than some recent LDS authors, notably Steven Robinson. However, several decades ago, these thoughts were not so acceptable.

Because of Gay’s teachings on this subject, she was excommunicated from the Church. The decision was later appealed and changed to a disfellowshipping. However, much damage has been done to Gay and her family through this action. Of a large family, only one of her children continues to be active in the Church.

Lavina Fielding Anderson and I discussed this briefly in the hallway after Gay’s speech. “It might be easy for me to remain active in the Church after an excommunication,” she said. “But it’s different for the children. I don’t think I could stand a Church that did that to my mother.”

I grew up in a church that did not excommunicate or disfellowship its members. I find it a difficult policy to accept. Why does our Church feel the need to cut off members who continue to desire to belong? Even if there is sin, or doctrinal misunderstanding, it seems to me that these things would be corrected more easily from within than from without. I would prefer to leave it as the Lord’s prerogative to cut the sinner off from his presence.

I would love to hear some of my readers’ thoughts on excommunication.

Counterpoint Conference/Session I

This is for any of the curious who were not able to attend the Counterpoint Conference sponsored by the Mormon Women’s Forum at the U of U on Saturday. I’d like to give some of my perceptions on the talks. But first, I must laud and honor the amazing presenters who gave speeches at this event. Months ago, I volunteered to “help in any way” with this conference, and was promptly assigned a spot on the program. But as I discovered Saturday, I was very, very outclassed, and I think next year I will ask if I can help set up the chairs. The first group of women who spoke were so striking and articulate that I never recovered from a case of severe intimidation. Although I have warned my children many times never to begin a talk with an apology, I had to bite my tongue hard not to start my speech by blabbing how much my knees were shaking, I wasn’t prepared, I had a cold, I’d only received the assignment two hours ago…
Anyway, my notes won’t do them credit, but here’s a taste of what was said in the first session.

On the topic “How well does the LDS Church support real mothers?”

Jennifer Moore, senior attorney with US Securities & Exchange, was married to a gay man. On 9/11/2001 her world came crashing down and her divorce became final. She spoke on the difficulties of having her circumstances define her in the Church. She feels that though the Church does a good job of supporting most mothers, it does not support all mothers. For her, Church became a place where she felt an acute personality crisis. She was equally uncomfortable in a family ward and a singles ward (which she named “the Church’s answer to a bar.” She now laments segregation in the Church according to marital status. Through telling her story, Jennifer called for the Church to “build a structure that supports me instead of who I wish I could have been if things had been different.”

Kristy Finlayson, pharmaceutical representative, grew up hearing beautiful words of the prophets honoring motherhood. She developed the desire to be a mother and have this type of influence on the world. In time she came to discover that a pedestal, like any prison, is a confined space. She spoke of her budding feminism and realization that she had been trained to defer to male authority instead of develop her own spirit. Kristy discussed the lack of importance of women in eternity. She herself would never willing be cut off from the lives of her children, and wonders why this seems to be the case with a Heavenly Mother. In view of statements by Pres. Kimball—pattern and role of mother prescribed before foundation of the world—and Pres. Woodruff—motherhood can only be done by mothers—Kristy firmly believes that a mother will still claim this divine role in the eternities. She does not believe the Heavenly Mother could be as uninvolved in our mortal lives as our theology reflects. Because of this exclusion, women are left without a clear vision of what we may become.

Sarah Ray Allred, a postdoctorate neurobiologist and stay-at-home mother of 2, discussed how Church rhetoric compares with actions. She noted that support of mothers varies with each ward. How does the Church characterize value? Motherhood would seem to have more value than anything else, offering more opportunity to develop Christlike attributes. Sarah offered several suggestions to enhance the Church’s support of mothers:
Stop pairing motherhood/priesthood. The current juxtaposition of motherhood with priesthood is unnatural.
Create callings to support mothers such as mothers group coordinators
More reaching out by individual women.

Marguerite Dreissen, former professor of law at BYU, spoke of the ambiguity she has encountered in the church as a result of her race and compared it with what we face as women. There has never been a time in all of history when people actually lived what was taught. There is much angst over the grand chasm between the promise of what can be and where we are. Jefferson stated that all men are created equal, but at the time the phrase “all men” only included free white property-holding males. Our understanding of those words have expanded with time. So will our understanding of woman’s place in the Church. The seeds are there.

After listening to this session I was left with the impression that the women who spoke basically saw the existing Church structure as being supportive of women. Our organization and underlying doctrine contain potential to strengthen mothers. Several problems which may exist:

1. Difficulty in reaching out to and socializing with those with perceived differences. There is still a void in the socialization of married and single mothers, and employed/nonemployed mothers. Isn’t this something that can be ameliorated by the efforts of individuals? Is there indeed any organizational change the Church could make that could make a difference here?

2. Lack of clear doctrine and teachings on the Heavenly Mother. There still exists an unwillingness to strive for revelation more aligned to the concerns of women and mothers, though the seeds for these teachings are there. Individuals can do little to effect change in this area, since we are strictured in our very relationship with the Divine Feminine. For example, we are asked not to pray to her, write about her, or theologize on her nature.

3. The motherhood/priesthood juxtaposition. Most people I have heard express opinions on this agree that motherhood coincides with fatherhood and priesthood with priestesshood. I believe that as Church leaders put more thought into this, they will gradually discontinue the practice of equating motherhood and priesthood.

More to come…I’ll continue later with my thoughts on the Keynote Speaker and the other two sessions in this Conference.