Heavenly Mother at Real Intent

Anath sepulchral stela, Encyclopaedia Britannica

Have you ever wondered about Heavenly Mother?

Well, head on over to my post today at Real Intent and join our discussion about her. It's been lively so far, and very enlightening.

Truth Eternal Tells Me I've a Mother There

If you have questions about how to separate culture and doctrine submit a question here or over at Real Intent and we'll try to do a little research to get you started finding answers.

"Life doesn't come with a manual. It comes with a mother."

For those of you don't really care for Mothers Day, I offer this post by Cheryl at Real Intent: Learning to be Okay with (and Maybe Love) Mothers Day

Mothers' day was always a great day when I was growing up. I loved waking up early with my dad to make my mom breakfast in bed. I loved working with my siblings to make or buy my mom the perfect gift.

My mom is a great lady. I think the thing that impresses me the most about my mom now is how much she keeps learning. My mom is always learning something new. I remember when she asked me once how to copy and paste on our new computer (no more F keys - remember those old IBMs and Word Perfect on a blue screen?). Now my mom is a pretty proficient web designer. She knows how to build a website, which is crazy awesome. To give you a little taste of what my mom has been up to, you can check out our family history website that she has done an amazing job with: http://smithharper.org/

Now that I am a mother, Mothers' Day has a little more meaning for me. Unfortunately, my husband was out of the country last year on Mothers' Day, and he is gone this Mothers' Day, too. But he makes every day feel like Mothers' Day for me. He is always appreciating the job that I do as a mother, and that helps me feel good about the job I am doing.

And it is a tough job.

These videos have been floating around on the internet for the past few days, and I thought I would share them here if you haven't seen them yet.

So, happy Mothers' Day to all of you Mothers out there. And every woman is a mother, in my opinion.
How are you appreciating the mothers in your life this year?

GCBC Week 4: "We Are Daughters of our Heavenly Father"

This is a picture of me and my sister, Christy, when we were young (5 and 7?) When I turned twelve and entered the Young Women program at Church I couldn't wait for my sister to join me. I remember helping her memorize the Young Women theme and the excitement I felt that she was going to learn all the things I had been learning - which obviously wasn't much in just two years.

I knew of my divinity as a daughter of God long before I entered the Young Women program, but the fellowship of the other young women in the ward and my leaders helped solidify that knowledge.

I know a lot of young women were sad to see Sister Dalton go - probably similarly to when Sister Beck was released last year. I'm not sure how Sister Dalton got through her talk, knowing she would be released in the next session.

What were your thoughts about Sister Dalton's talk?

We are Daughters of our Heavenly Father - Sister Elaine S. Dalton

If you are new to General Conference Book Club, click here to find out more. The basic idea is to study one General Conference talk each week between April conference and October conference, and to chat about the talk here in the comment section. You can also link up (using the linky tool below) to your own blog post about this talk. The link up will be open until I post the next week's talk, but if you study this talk later and missed the link up, feel free to post your link in the comment section.

I Never Would Have Known

I have written before about feminist topics, and it's no secret that while I feel compassion for the women who have suffered because of the ignorance of men (and women) in the Church, I have been completely unimpressed and sometimes annoyed by the Mormon feminist movement.

Today, my feelings changed.

I have never been particularly concerned about what it meant to be a woman. I loved the Young Women's organization but was excited to be a member of the Relief Society where I could mingle with woman of all ages and learn from their wisdom. I knew that I had a lot to learn from such amazing women, women I wanted to be like - but if you had asked me what it meant to be a woman I wouldn't have been able to tell you. I may have said something involving service and motherhood and Relief Society, but I doubt I would have said anything about the priesthood, and I probably wouldn't have said anything about Heavenly Mother (although I was firmly convinced of her existence and love for me - as a lover of the hymns, my favorite lines of "O, My Father" are the ones that mention her - "Truth is reason, truth, eternal, tells me I've a mother there" and "Father, Mother, may I meet you in your royal courts on high?").

Then the Relief Society published the book Daughters in My Kingdom. At first I didn't read it. In fact, I  only briefly leafed through the pages. I was a busy mother of small children, and reading a book about the Relief Society didn't really interest me at the time.

But then something stirred in me.

Image Credit: epSos.de

I think it was around the time of the General Relief Society broadcast in September 2011, although my heart was being prepared during perhaps the year before that as I talked to my sister about starting a blog for LDS women, with authors in all walks of life - young women, young wives with children, young wives without children, those who had adopted, those who were infertile, older women, working moms, stay at home moms, retired mom, older women who had never married or had children. I envisioned a Zion for women.

Then I started searching for blogs for LDS Women. I eventually found and fell in love with Heather's blog, Women in the Scriptures, among others, but in my searching I also stumbled across some not-quite-what-I-was-looking for blogs. Like Feminist Mormon Housewives, and Mormon Mommy Wars, to name a few. As I read what other women were writing I realized that there were women who didn't understand what it meant to be a woman in the Church, and I found myself wondering if I really knew what it meant.

That was when something stirred in me.

I wanted to know, really know, what it meant to be a woman, a daughter of God. I knew what it meant to be a mother - I had been preparing for that my entire life. But I wasn't sure I knew what it meant to be a woman.

About the same time I was going through this quest for an understanding of womanhood, the Mormon feminist movement gained momentum. I am pretty sure a large part of that was fueled by questions about Mormonism surrounding the United States presidential primaries, since one of the most likely candidates was a Mormon. But every time I turned around, people were talking to women like Joanna Brooks - disillusioned, non-practicing Mormon women who had been hurt and oppressed by unrighteous men in their lives, and were taking out their frustration and anger on the Church. I became increasingly frustrated and annoyed with their presence in the media and their criticism of Church leaders. Where were the women like me?

Over the past few years I have learned a lot about what it means to be a woman. Most of my new understand has come, ironically, through discussion and articles prompted by the Mormon feminist movement. Today I realized that most of the things that I have learned and the perspectives I have gained I can attribute directly to the Mormon feminist movement - either because something they said prompted my own fierce studying of a topic, or because of the responses of other women who understand what it means to be a woman.

So, in hindsight, I am grateful for all the feminist commotion because of the things I never would have known.

Have you learned things because of something that originally annoyed or frustrated you? Has someone else's questions or concerns about the gospel prompted you to study the gospel more fervently, and resulted in a greater understanding?

Waiting for More Light and Knowledge

I was re-reading Sister Burton's talk from the most recent General Relief Society meeting and I loved what she said here:




The part that stood out to me, especially in light of recent events, was her final concern, "we feel [Heavenly Father] would have us work in unity with the other auxiliaries and with our priesthood leaders, striving to seek out and help those in need to progress along the path."
I remember sitting in the meeting and feeling as if Sister Burton understand and sees the struggle some wards have with counseling together, and specifically counseling with the sisters in the ward.
Her topic for the rest of the meeting was fantastic, absolutely needed, and of course the perfect foundation for discussing covenants and unity. But I found myself anxious to hear her speak more. That was when I realized that I hadn't even studied her first talk. How can I want more when I am not appreciating what I have?
So I am going to study Sister Burton's talk multiple times so that I will be prepared for the next time I hear her speak. I think she is going to have some inspiring things to say. I just wish I didn't have to wait so long for her counsel!
Patience. That thing I struggle with.
What are you excited to hear Sister Burton discuss? Have you studied her talk from September? If you could hear more from Sister Burton what format would you like to see? A podcast? A blog? Articles in the Ensign?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Of Action Groups and Sunday Pants

When I first read through the Facebook event description of the Wear Pants to Church Day event sponsored by the action group All Enlisted, I wasn’t particularly alarmed. Really, I agreed with most of their intentions. In fact, just last night I was talking with my husband about how most members of the Church frequently mistake Church culture for Church doctrine.

I have said before (simply echoing Church leaders) that the doctrine of the Church is actually very limited. Anything beyond the true doctrine is policy, policy we believe is based on an understanding of doctrine and revelation. Policy we sustain in General Conference twice a year as we sustain the leaders who we trust to make the policies Heavenly Father feels are best for our time (which means they – the policies – do change).

The Fight Against Cultural Myths: A War Worth Fighting

Back to my first impressions of the Wear Pants to Church Day event. I loved much of what the sisters said on the Facebook page. I think what tempered the whole description for me was their first paragraph, the reading of which almost caused me to shout “Amen! Hallelujah!”

Did you know that church leaders have not discouraged women from wearing pants since 1971? … After many reports of overt or silent judgment, a group of LDS women decided it was time to stop the perpetuation of the cultural myth that there is something wrong with women wearing pants. (emphasis added)

I felt that they were actually acknowledging that the problem in the Church (judgment over women wearing pants/people wearing jeans/tennis shoes/colored shirts/etc to Church) is a cultural myth, rather than some Church policy. And before you start tossing out quotes from General Authorities counseling us to wear this or wear that, let me remind you of Elder Christofferson’s most excellent and timely talk in April 2012 General Conference during which he appropriately reminded us,

…it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.

So you can erase your comment with a quote from some apostle or prophet that said you should wear a white shirt while passing the sacrament. That’s great, if you have a white shirt. If you want to wear a white shirt. Owning a white shirt or having a desire to wear a white shirt is not a prerequisite to being ordained to any priesthood office, or performing any priesthood duty. If you feel like you should wear a white shirt to perform your priesthood duties, great for you. If you don’t think it matters, good for you. What matters is that you are worthy to perform those duties – which has more to do with the heart than the outward appearance.

The sisters describing their demonstration kept getting more and more points with me as the description went on –

“The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women’s or girls’ dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or other types of clothing.”--LDS Church Presidency (1971)

“Attending church is about worship and learning to be followers of Jesus Christ. Generally, church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the savior, but we don't counsel people beyond that.” –official church statement December 12, 2012

Why, this is most excellent! Someone is helping educate the masses about how dumb we all are for thinking that cultural norms (even Church culture ones) are somehow what the doctrine of the Church mandates. Or even Church policy. Obviously, women wearing skirts is not Church policy, and I thought these great women did an excellent job explaining that.

The Bait-and-Switch

I must have skimmed through the rest of the description because no red flags went off until I read the post a second time.

This event is the first act of All Enlisted, a direct action group for Mormon women to advocate for equality within our faith. … we do want the LDS Church and its members to acknowledge the similarities [between men and women]. We believe that much of the cultural, structural, and even doctrinal inequality that persists in the LDS church today stems from the church's reliance on – and enforcement of – rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality.

Wait a minute! You just told me that your goal was to correct a cultural myth, but you’ve just pulled a bait-and-switch on me! Now you’re telling me that you want “equality within our faith” and you see “doctrinal inequalit[ies]” in the Church, perpetuated by “the church’s … enforcement of … rigid gender roles.”

I had so much hope – this was almost a group I could stand behind. I was excited that someone was trying to address the cultural myths that seems to be endlessly perpetuated in the Church. These cultural myths are not perpetuated by the General Authorities, or by Church policy. On the contrary, I have heard the prophets and apostles constantly hounding us in General Conference, urging us to give up the culture and live the doctrine. It’s the members of the Church falling short of the counsel of the prophets that perpetuates cultural myths.

Stoning People for Their Sins

My thoughts went immediately to the new Church website, Love One Another. Nothing found on that website is news. There are some great personal stories, which I think are very effective in breaking down culture – when people can see what happens in cultures outside their little bubbles, they are more appropriately armed to take down the culture in their own bubbles. None of the doctrine on the Church’s new website is different from anything that has been preached previously. Since Christ walked the earth we have been counseled to love one another regardless of our differences, regardless of the sins of others. It was Christ himself who said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”, the adulterer.

It is not our place to stone people to death, literally or figuratively, for their sins.

A Misguided Discussion

The purpose of the Wear Pants to Church Day demonstration was not the only thing that bothered me about the entire situation. The comments that have been elicited have been equally as disturbing. Comments such as,

“What if these women have received revelation that this change needed to be enacted?”

“I'm offended you would ask me to wear a colored shirt, one that I shouldn't be wearing while performing priesthood ordinances.”

“maybe … the ones that have left will come back knowing that the church is finally putting action towards attitudes”

“the Lord has told us that dresses are a sign of reverence and he has asked us to wear them..its not a commandment … but we are to listen to the Lord and to our prophets”

“I feel sadness for the sisters that feel hurt and confused enough to feel they need to participate in this, because it means that they have not yet gained a true testimony of the divinity of womanhood in the Lord's plan of happiness, and how ESSENTIAL we are to that plan”

“To me, their reasons are that they don't understand the basics of the gospel. They don't understand the priesthood and womanhood. And that this is the Lord's church. They don't understand the symbolism of the temple.”

I have problems with all of these comments. People are either continuing to perpetuate the cultural myths by spouting their misguided understandings of Church policy (the colored shirt comment) or they are confusing culture with doctrine.

People who are helping to perpetuate cultural myths need to stop it, and people who are confusing culture with doctrine need to stop it.

And all of us need to stop judging each other. I said to my husband that it seems like the people who think you should only wear dresses are judging the women who would like to wear pants, and the women who would like to wear pants without being judged are judging the very women they accuse of judging them.

Let us please apply Uchdorf’s Hammer: STOP IT!

An Action Group For Cultural Change

Where does this leave me?

Wanting to form an action group for women who want to promote charity and the doctrine of the Church. Women who want to break down the cultural myths and replace them with kindness, love unfeigned, boundless compassion, and non-judgmental attitudes.

So I thought to myself “Why not form one?” An action group – dedicated to these very things.

Our motto would be “Charity never faileth.”

And then I remembered – there is already an action group for that.

It’s called Relief Society.

The Savior Himself has organized the women of the Church into an action group. One that should be at the forefront of breaking down cultural myths. A group that should be at the forefront of compassionate outreach to women who feel marginalized and pushed aside.

It is a worldwide sisterhood, but at the same time, it is a grassroots movement. Each ward has a Relief Society specifically and specially equipped to deal with the issues in that particular ward. Why? In my ward, the women in my Relief Society, the women who need my help, are my neighbors. I live, work, and play in the same places as them. I see them on a regular basis. If I am doing my job as a disciple of Christ, I am listening to the pain in their hearts. I can see if they are being ostracized by judgmental skirt-wearers. I should be observant and recognize when they feel left out because their husband is blessing their baby and no one gives them the accolades they deserve for gestating, laboring, and delivering that beautiful baby. If I am doing my duty as a real Christian, I will be reaching out to include the broken hearted, those who are different in whatever way – whether it be homosexuality, divorce, single motherhood, whatever makes them different, I can be the one who reaches out and helps them feel unity and love under the umbrella of compassion and charity.

So I have no need to start an action group. The Savior did that already. But I am renewing my membership. I am gearing up to be the best member of this action group I can be.

Who’s with me?

High Time

I was studying the Daughters in My Kingdom book this past week, anxiously reading so that I can finish it in time for the General Relief Society meeting on September 29. I was reading in Chapter 4 and the book started describing how the women of the Church boldly defended the practice of polygamy (the irony of that is not lost on me – especially given the amount of discomfort and desire to explain it away by women – and men – of the Church today). The book describes how the United States government passed legislation banning polygamy due to the opinion of the rest of society that Mormon women were degraded and abused under the law of polygamy. In January 1870, a group of Latter-day Saint women decided to speak to the world – for themselves – and let them know what active, faithful Latter-day Saint women were really like.

Image Credit: Daughters in My Kingdom p. 44

Eliza R. Snow said of the occasion:

“It was high time [to] rise up in the dignity of our calling and speak for ourselves. . . . The world does not know us, and truth and justice to our brethren and to ourselves demands us to speak. . . . We are not inferior to the ladies of the world, and we do not want to appear so.”

I have felt in the past several months that the world does not understand Mormon women. The world still thinks that Mormon women are oppressed, somehow treated as less than men in our Church, because we aren’t ordained to priesthood offices, and because a woman will never be The Prophet. And most of the people who seem to speak about what faithful Mormon want are not, in fact, faithful Mormon women.

Two cases to illustrate my point:

One of the most vocal Mormon women about the inequalities and injustices that Mormon women face is a woman who of her own choice (so she says) has never been through the temple, has never experienced the endowment of priesthood power given freely in the temple ordinances – and then vehemently argues that women should be ordained to priesthood offices in the Church (and that the Church should embrace same-gender marriage, among other things).

Recently, on the Mormon in America primetime special on NBC, the person they chose to interview about the temple was a Mormon woman who had left the Church and had never been through the temple – again, never been endowed with the knowledge and priesthood power that comes from the ordinances and covenants made in the Holy temple.

The loudest voices these days are women (and men) who criticize Church leaders, clamor for “change” in the Church structure, and describe most faithful saints as disillusioned, unintellectual, or somehow brainwashed. If you really knew anything, you would know that the Church needs some serious change to occur before it is actually the true Church. Oh, but the gospel is true. (says these people)

I have been feeling an increased urgency to stand up and speak out. To be louder than the dissenting voices. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and she made the observation that most women in the Church are not like the women (and men) who are the loudest voices of the Church. As blogger SilverRain put it recently,

“In this dichotomy [perpetuated by the loudest voices], there are two groups of women in the Church: those who see a problem with the way women are utilized and heard in the Church, have likely been adversely affected by it, and who therefore choose to “agitate for change;” and those who have never felt the pain a male-only Priesthood can bring to women, who don’t question the authority, and who therefore urge women to, essentially, “sit down and shut up” about it.

But there is another group, of women who have likely been mistreated or misunderstood by a member of the male-only priesthood in the past, or of women who have never been hurt but have still pondered these issues deeply, who would like to see hearts change, but who believe that the male-only Priesthood structure is in place at the will of the Lord, and who support the Lord’s authority structure and the Lord’s established methods for any change that will come.”

In my experience, the largest group is the third group that SilverRain points out. Also, in my experience, the most silent group is that third group. They are the women who are not writing inflammatory blog posts. Rather, they are writing stories of spiritual inspiration in their journals for their posterity who have been born in the covenant. They are not openly criticizing Church leaders or policies on very public news websites, newspapers, and news channels. Rather, they are silently sustaining those Church leaders by magnifying their callings, providing compassionate service in their wards and branches, and instructing one another in the doctrines of the gospel. They are not fighting for same-sex marriage, but rather they are ardently defending the family within the walls of their own homes, shunning pornography, protecting their children from the influences of the world, studying the scriptures, and praying with their families. They may be silent, but from what I have seen they are strong.

Image Credit: LDS Church News

We cannot be silent any longer. It is “high time [to] rise up in the dignity of our calling and speak for ourselves. . . . The world does not know us, and truth and justice to our brethren and to ourselves demands us to speak. . . . We are not inferior to the ladies [of the Church who speak out], and we do not want to appear so.”

Women of the Church – you faithful, righteous women. It’s high time to rise up in the dignity of your calling and speak for yourselves. Come join us. Come speak up with us. Come help us show the world what it really means to be a Latter-day Saint woman, a disciple of Christ.

How can you speak up in your circle of influence? How can you expand your circle of influence and be part of a “wide and extensive sphere of action”? Will you rise up and speak for yourself?

The Myth of Equality in the Church

I read a great article today from the 2012 FAIR Conference this past weekend (I did not attend, and this was the only article I read). This particular presentation was given by Neylan McBaine, the founder of The Mormon Women Project. I first came across the presentation on a forum I participate in where the presentation was linked to with the following quote:

I don’t think gender tensions in Mormonism are due to inequality in the religion, but due to invisibility of that equality. The equality is embedded, inherent in Mormon theology, history, texts, structures. Gender equality is built into the blueprints of Mormonism, but obscured in the elaborations.

This was actually a quote from Maxine Hanks, a member of the September Six who was excommunicated in the 80s and re-baptized just last year. Ironically, the main argument of the presentation by Neylan McBaine actually supports the idea that there is not gender equality in the Church structure, or even in the doctrine. She says,

[I]n the outside world, when you say men and women have equal leadership opportunities, you mean — at least ideally — that men and women have the same cleared path to advance to the same positions of influence and authority…

Is there gender discrimination in the Church? If discrimination means separation according to gender, yes. If it means delineation of opportunities based solely on gender, yes. Many argue that different opportunities based on gender is unfair, adverse, and/or abusive by definition. The Church does not satisfy secular gender-related egalitarian ideals, period; and our institutional behavior fits that definition of gender discrimination in several inescapable ways. We shrink away from accurately representing how we work, thinking it condemns us as a church. And in the eyes of the world it might. But the Church does not, and should not, operate according to secular concepts of power, status, etc.; and if we attempt to justify ourselves in this paradigm we will not only fail, but betray our own ideals.

McBaine’s argument here seems to be that there is inherently not gender equality in the Church – not in the way the world would like to define it, anyway – and that the Church should not try to pretend it fits into the world’s definition of “equality”. I tend to agree. A few months ago I shared with you a lot of my thoughts about gender and equality, and how the whole argument seems to be a little messed up and misdirected. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what I felt – I had only just recently started thinking seriously about gender roles and equality – and the doctrine we are taught about it. When I read McBaine’s presentation it finally made sense – there is not gender equality in the Church, the way the world defines it, and there shouldn’t be.

In society, the world calls that “separate but equal” – and so far it seems that the Church has tried to go along with that – which gets us into problems, because the last time “separate but equal” was used it ended up before the Supreme Court and eventually in the Senate, where judges and lawmakers in the United States ruled that separate is inherently not equal. Which is true. Separate is not equal. We shouldn’t pretend it is.

Equality Where it Matters

There are fundamental doctrines of equality in the gospel of Jesus Christ. All are invited to come unto Christ, and he denies none.

he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

We are all spirit children of our Heavenly Father, and as such have infinite worth.

we are the offspring of God (Acts 17:29)

Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God; (D&C 18:10)

The atonement of the Savior was for all men.

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; (D&C 19:16)

Men and women are to work together as equal partners

In these sacred responsibilities, [men and women] are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

It’s clear to see that there are definitely facets of equality in the gospel of Jesus Christ – and in my opinion, they occur where the equality needs to be. Women are not more valuable than men, neither are men more valuable than women. This doctrine is clearly illustrated in the highest ordinance possible in the gospel of Jesus Christ – the sealing ordinance. This ordinance can only be obtained by a man and a woman together. No woman can obtain exaltation alone, and no man can obtain it alone. We are “all alike unto God”.

Embracing ‘Inequality’

But what about the inequality? It certainly exists. Men are ordained to offices in the priesthood, and preside over the Church, and women preside over organizations in the Church, but will never preside over the Church itself. One interesting note to make (that doesn’t make it less unequal, but is important to understand that the equality of gender importance extends to these types of inequality) is that a man who is not married will never be ordained to the highest priesthood offices. Any man who serves in an authority position in the Church is married to a woman.

McBaine discussed a Washington Post article in which Michael Otterson, the Public Affairs director for the Church, had a hard time getting across what equality really looks like in the Church (which is to say, equality in the Church really looks like inequality). She said,

The prompt suggests women do not hold leadership positions, therefore women are inferior. I suggest we argue it is true that Mormon women do not hold an equal number of global leadership positions as men, but that is not because they are of lesser value. It is because we believe we are working in an eternal paradigm in which roles and responsibilities are divided up cooperatively rather than hierarchically. Mormonism is a lay church so the members are the ministers, and this is a completely different organizational structure than traditional Christian priesthood or ministry, which is defined as an exclusive or trained clergy…

The prompt’s logic doesn’t adequately leave room for our organization’s cooperative structure of service, where no one person is paid for his or her ministry or deemed of greater value than another and where each brings unique resources to his or her responsibilities…

[I]n a cooperative structure where people are rotating positions every few years and no one is materialistically rewarded over another person, that hierarchy is a flimsy currency on which to base one’s value.

Nowhere does the Lord intimate that various callings and responsibilities are intended to give one person power over another. In fact, the words “lead” and “leader” appear nowhere in this section, and similarly, the word “leader” appears no where in the Book of Mormon. Even that book’s most admirable leaders, like Captain Moroni, are described as “servant[s]” and “righteous follower[s] of Christ.” This emphasis on organizational stability, on the specific roles and responsibilities of various parties to act as facilitators within the larger community, is, we believe, of divine origin and eternal value.

Lastly, the world calculates in terms of top-down power; God’s calculations are exactly opposite. In the divine kingdom the servant holds the highest status, and in the Church every position is a service position. Given the obvious parallels between the Church’s administrative channels and a business organization, it’s easy to mistakenly assess the Church as a ladder-climbing corporation with God in a corner office at the top; but in this line of thinking we only reveal our shoddy human understanding of power.

I loved this break down of what power and authority really mean in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think that McBaine explained it better than I have ever heard it put – and she was very concise. I feel that her explanation of what she calls a “cooperative paradigm” perfectly illustrates what our prophets and leaders have stressed for centuries – that men and women work as equal partners, that the sisters “provoke the brethren to good works in looking to the wants of the poor” (Joseph Smith in Minutes of Relief Society Meetings), and that presiding officers should ask for and seek out the council of sisters in the ward (here).

What Women Really Do in the Church

In a post I wrote about women the priesthood, I mentioned a BYU Devotional by Sister Julie B. Beck in which she discussed how Relief Societies are basically priesthood quorums for women. The devotional is very good, and I encourage an in depth study of her words to help you understand what it means to be a woman in the Church, and what the Relief Society is really about.

McBaine mentioned this in her presentation. She said,

An appendage is “a thing that is added or attached to something larger or more important.” Are not the offices of elder or bishop or teacher or deacon appendages to the priesthood, and not the priesthood itself? Are these so different from the female organizations, which we routinely call “auxiliaries”?

According to Sister Beck, our Relief Societies, or “auxiliaries” are indeed not very different from the “appendages” that are priesthood quorums. And as women, we need to understand that – and when we do understand that position of the Relief Society we will be able to fully unleash the power that President Kimball promised was available to us when he said, “There is a power in this organization that has not yet been fully exercised… nor will it until both the sisters and [the brethren] catch the vision of Relief Society.”

Embracing the Inequality

McBaine concluded her presentation with suggestions ward leaders could implement (which are in keeping with current policies of the Church) to help women catch that vision. Some of my favorites were having Young Women assigned as companions to Visiting Teachers, as Young Men are assigned as home teaching companions. Or at least encourage adult women to bring Young Women along with them on visiting teaching assignments. Having more visibility of women in ward and stake leadership positions. My personal favorite – addressing Presidents of organizations as such “President Johns” rather than “Sister Johns” for the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidents (and I would add the Quorum presidents in the ward priesthood organization).

And for heaven’s sake, let’s teach our children the real doctrine about the priesthood and prophets. I was shocked at how McBaine seemed surprised to hear that her great-great-grandmother was referred to in her patriarchal blessing as a “prophetess and revelator”.

Can you imagine using such language of empowerment to describe the female leaders in your wards? If we grew accustomed to hearing our women leaders speak as authorities, as prophetesses and revelators, and referred to them that way ourselves, perhaps there would be fewer among us who feel the need for a soda or bathroom break when the female speaker comes on the screen during General Conference.

Why, yes I can, Sister McBaine. I have thought of my mother (and myself, and my aunts and my cousins, and the Relief Society and Young Women’s presidencies) as prophetesses since I knew what a prophet really was. It’s probably the reason why I don’t have a problem with men being ordained to priesthood offices. I’m sure it has something to do with the reason why I have always enjoyed hearing the General Young Women’s, Primary, and Relief Society presidencies speak. And I know it’s the reason why I am so confident that there is nothing in this gospel that I can’t have and a man can. The only things I can’t get on my own are things that a man can’t get on his own either.

Have you ever tried to “explain away” the inequality in the Church? How do you feel about embracing it? Do you believe that, in the ways of the world, there truly is an inherent inequality between men and women in the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is it really inequality in God’s plan? Do we need to abolish all differences between men and women in order to truly be “equal”?

We Are All BORN BRAVE {CD Giveaway!!}

The last time I did a giveaway on this blog was almost a year ago(!) in celebration of me writing the 100th blog post for this blog. Since then I have written nearly 200 more posts and the readership of the blog has grown at about the same rate! I’d say it’s definitely time for a giveaway, and thanks to YourLDSRadio.com, I’ve got a couple of great CDs to give away this month.
YourLDSRadio is an online streaming radio station that provides constant uplifting music, mostly from LDS composers and artists, although I was just listening and they played I Hope You Dance by LeAnn Womack, so it looks like they throw in some other stuff every now and then. If you’re looking for some nice background music you know is safe to listen to with the kids around, this would probably be it.

If there’s one thing you should know about me it is that I love music. Now, I am not your average music lover. I love music. I get emotional when I am listening to music – just about any music. Seriously, The Itsy Bitsy Spider can get me choked up. I don’t know what it is, but music speaks to me in a way that nothing else ever has or probably ever will. It may be the reason why I end up being the choir director in every ward I attend. I am passionate about music. I believe that music is a very spiritual thing – and can be used to uplift, or to tear down.

When YourLDSRadio contacted me and asked if I would like to review a few CDs for them, and give a few away on the blog, I jumped at the chance.



The first CD I listened to was Katherine Nelson’s new CD, Born Brave. I popped it into my CD player and pressed play. At first I almost cringed. Country? I’m not a huge country fan. A few of my favorite songs these days are a little more country, but I’m still not all about the country music. But it didn’t take long for the catchy tunes, pick-me-up beat, and uplifting words of Katherine’s songs to get me moving. Her album is officially my first country album, and it’s probably my favorite album (of all of them).
The feel of Katherine’s music reminds me a little bit of Kelly Clarkson’s the “girl power” songs. But much less angry. Each song I listen to on this album makes me feel more empowered. I feel like she really gets what it means to be a woman – and that there are so many different faces of women who need to feel empowered.


You know how you listen to an album and you usually have one or two favorites from the album? Not so with Katherine. I love every single one of her songs. The ones that move me the most (remember, I cry when I hear music) are “Good for Me” and “What’s Mine is Yours”.

The lyrics for the chorus of “Good for Me” are especially poignant for me. I studied math and physics in college. I always thought I would be an engineer. Or maybe an accountant or businesswoman. Some days I thought about going to law school after my undergraduate studies. I would have been a “courageous woman out there in shiny shoes and business suits.” But there was something else I needed to do – which doesn’t mean that there aren’t women out there who should be out there in the world. Good for them. But there is a significant work to be done in homes, and if people think that a woman who “gives up” a career in order to raise a family is “doing it all wrong”, my house isn’t a place to do it – I’m doing it all right. And good for me.

“Here’s to courageous women out there in shiny shoes and business suits
Good for you
But hats off to the women in the kitchen who run the world
Raising boys and girls.”

The story behind, and in, “What’s Mine is Yours” is about infertility, pregnancy and infant loss, and giving up children for adoption. I’ve never personally been in that situation, and I honestly don’t know if I would be able to survive such a trial. My heart feels like breaking when I hear of the heartache of others who lose children, and I just can’t imagine going through it myself. I am positive I would die of a broken heart.
However, the chorus of this song seems to go beyond that for me. It is about giving up what we think we want for what God really wants for us.

“What’s mine is yours
It’s always been
What slips through my hands has your fingerprints on it
I’m letting go
Remembering
Though Heaven’s doors feel shut they’re wide open
What’s mine is yours”

I think about Emma Smith and how everything she had she gave to the Lord – what’s hers was his, and she understood that. I want to have faith to be able to truly say to God “What’s mine is yours”. That is definitely a brave thing to do.

Speaking of Emma Smith, one of the songs on this album is about Emma, who was probably the bravest woman who ever lived, except maybe Mary, the mother of Christ. I had actually heard this song on The Nashville Tribute Band’s CD “Joseph: A Nashville Tribute to the Prophet” that I won in a giveaway last summer, and it quickly became my favorite song – especially because I was going through a particularly hard time in my life when I felt like I “couldn’t let the world see [me] cry”, and “Every time your life turned a page, It seemed like your heart might break.” Now I don’t want to compare my trials to those of Emma, but we all have times in our lives when that is true – when each turn of life’s pages seems like it brings more heartache and sorrow, and we wonder, when will be our joy?
The line of Emma’s song that really does a number on me says, “And I’m sure your heart breaks When some people still say Somewhere down the line you lost your faith.”

It’s a really powerful song, and is one I’ll listen to on repeat for hours (okay, maybe not that long, but you get the idea). I actually like the Nashville Tribute version better, sung by Mindy Gledhill, but perhaps that’s just because it was the first one I heard. I think it has more to do with the instrumentals than with the vocals (the Nashville Tribute’s instrumentals are more robust than Katherine’s). But the song is just as powerful – and almost more powerful because it’s coupled with all the other songs on this amazing CD.

(random interesting tidbit – I wanted to listen to Katherine’s CD while I wrote this review, so I typed in “Katherine Nelson” on iTunes so it would bring up her album. Who would’ve known, she also sang two of my very favorite EFY songs from my EFY days! I love it when I find out amazing people wrote or sang my favorite songs.)

Want a chance to win this amazing CD? Well, here’s your chance, thanks to Your LDS Radio. I’ve got one copy of Katherine’s new CD to give away – so you can rock out to some uplifting “girl power” music!

To enter the giveaway, leave a comment on this post telling me about a time when you or another woman you know showed that they were BORN BRAVE.

The giveaway will end on Monday August 13, 2012 at 11:59pm. The winner will be chosen by a random number generator at random.org. I will post the winner on Tuesday, August 14 so check back then to see if you have won!

This giveaway is closed.

GCBC Week 19: The Vision of Prophets Regarding Relief Society

I know I wasn’t the only one who knew in the back of my mind that the Relief Society presidency was going to be reorganized at April General Conference. I’m positive I was the only one who had to choke back tears when I lifted my hand to thank Sister Julie B. Beck for her service as General Relief Society President. Sister Beck was called to the General Young Women’s presidency shortly before I graduated high school, and I remember feeling a kind of connection with her when she spoke. I am sure that Sister Beck’s calling to the Relief Society presidency was divinely inspired, and that God’s timing was perfect.

So when I heard that Sister Beck was going to be speaking anyway in General Conference I almost cheered. One more talk from this elect lady! I was ecstatic.

And then I readied my pen and my ear. Whatever she had to say I was sure would be profound. And I had long begun my journey to find out what it really meant to be a woman – a journey I felt guided on by Sister Beck herself.

I am thrilled to discuss this talk with you! So, ladies (and gentlemen, if there are any lurking out there), let’s get to it.

The Vision of Prophet Regarding Relief Society – by Sister Julie B. Beck

I appreciated Sister Beck’s comment that “Just as the Lord’s prophets have continually taught elders and high priests their purposes and duties, they have shared their vision for the sisters of the Relief Society.” Too often we whine and complain about how little the prophets give the sisters direction – that usually they just pat us on the head and tell us we’re amazing. I agree with Sister Beck – there is a lot more direction and instruction that we realize, and I think we’d be better off actually searching for that direction rather than whining about how little exists.

Not to mention that whenever our leaders discuss fulfilling priesthood responsibilities, they are talking to sisters as well. Not being ordained to the priesthood does not exempt us from our priesthood responsibilities. The Relief Society was organized after the pattern of the priesthood. Sister Beck has taught us that the Relief Society is our equivalent of a priesthood quorum, and we should treat it as such.

The amount of teachings about Relief Society and our purpose and responsibilities as women has surprised me as I have sought out those teachings from prophets and leaders. I am anxious to learn more about Relief Society and really understand what it is, and what I should be doing as a member of Relief Society.

Sister Beck reminded us that, “Relief Society is not a program.” And it isn’t. It’s a priesthood organization to which women belong, and we have sacred responsibilities as members of that organization.

What stood out to you in Sister Beck’s talk?

The Beginning of Better Days {Book Review}

The first thing I thought of when I slid this book out of its envelope was “But it’s so small!” I was a little disappointed – the book that was supposed to contain Joseph Smith’s divine instruction to women was barely over 100 pages. Imagine my further surprise when I flipped through and saw that the first 80 pages or so were actually essays about his sermons by Virginia H. Pearce and Sheri Dew. I guess I just didn’t know exactly what I was getting myself into.

However, my excitement at being able to read the minutes from the first Relief Society meetings overpowered my surprise at their brevity, and so I started reading. I was enjoying Sister Pearce’s essay when I thought to myself “I should go read the minutes first.” So I skipped to the back and read the minutes from Joseph Smith’s talks. In my haste to finish the book for this review, I didn’t take the chance to study the minutes in depth, but I plan on keeping this book close by over the next several months to study those minutes. Chances are it will find a permanent home next to my copy of Daughters in My Kingdom.

Our Stake Relief Society presidency has challenged the sisters in our stake to read the entire Daughters in My Kingdom book by the General Relief Society Broadcast in September. I think adding these minutes to my course of study in preparation for that meeting will yield some great spiritual results.

After I finished the minutes themselves I turned back to Sister Pearce’s essay to read what she had to say. I found myself really enjoying her essay. Sister Pearce had done a lot of study of the history of the Church to give some context to the instruction from the prophet Joseph Smith, and I appreciated the background. I always like to know the historical context in which divine instruction is given – I feel like it helps me understand how to apply it to my life. My favorite companions to my scripture study are often the Seminary and Institute manuals for that reason – they give a lot of historical context, but social history and Church history. Sister Pearce’s essay was pretty personal – she mostly talked about the things she learned from the minutes, and what effect they had on her personally. In fact, her essay reminded me a lot of this blog – just an LDS woman trying to figure out her place in this world, her place in the gospel, and her place in God’s eyes, and recording that journey for all the world to see.

Sister Pearce also included several great quotes from modern General Authorities – and a particularly good one from President Eyring.

Sister Sheri Dew’s essay was about twice as long as Sister Pearce’s essay, and a little preachy. I would read one sentence from Sister Dew’s essay that I was a little uncomfortable with, or disagreed with, and then the next sentence I would want to shout “Amen!” or underline. It was a little strange, finding so much I loved among so much that I didn’t quite agree with.

I did appreciate that Sister Dew addressed nearly every concern women in the Church could have – and she addressed them all head on. In response to possible criticism that it took 12 years for Joseph Smith to organize the women “after the pattern of the priesthood” she pointed out that “it took nearly fifty years from the organization of the Church for all the saving ordinances for the dead to be implemented”, referring specifically to the fact that the temple endowment was not performed vicariously until 1877 in the St. George Temple.

It was Sister Dew’s comments about the priesthood that made me a little uncomfortable. While I don’t think she was preaching any false doctrine I was a little taken aback with the finality of a lot of her statements about women not holding the priesthood of God. I liked Virginia Pearce’s observations on the priesthood better than Sister Dew’s, but like I said, she didn’t say anything wrong. She just seemed to be narrow in her interpretation. But I guess it is a fair juxtaposition to Sister Pearce’s essay. More perspectives are better than fewer.

My favorite part about Sister Dew’s essay was how she referenced several scripture passages that she had studied, without really telling us everything she learned from those passages – which I took as an invitation to study those passages myself, something I plan on doing in the near future. She lists several sections in the Doctrine and Covenants that she studied to learn more about the priesthood, and included other lists of sections which she studied to understand the temple. Both of these are areas where I have room to understand more (don’t we all?) and so I plan on following her example and studying the sections she listed in her essay.

After I finished reading The Beginning of Better Days, I went online to the Joseph Smith Papers project and looked up the Relief Society minute book. The book in its entirety online is 153 pages. Obviously not all of that is instruction from the Prophet Joseph Smith, but I imagine there is a lot of gold in the minute book, and I plan to find all of it.

I am glad to have the words of Joseph Smith extracted from the minutes in this book, The Beginning of Better Days and I plan on studying his words in depth, along with the essays from Sister Pearce and Sister Dew. I can’t believe that these instructions have been here all along (I’m pretty sure the minutes have been available since the 1980s) and I am just barely learning about them. And I always enjoy reading other people’s insights about the gospel – it’s why I read blogs, after all!

This book is something I have been looking for – people talking specifically about women in the Church, doctrines in the Church about women, and teachings of the prophets specifically about women. I have been devouring any book, talk, article, or other resource I can find that addresses women and the gospel – specifically women’s roles, and the priesthood as it relates to women. This book does a lot of what I was hoping for – including address (albeit it briefly) a lot of those “hard” topics. I thought Sheri Dew did a pretty good job of taking those topics head on, even if I didn’t always like how she said things. But more perspectives are always better than a few (or none). Reading this book felt like I was lapping up drops of water falling off a leaf in the rain forest.

In a recent trip to Deseret Book I scoured the shelves, looking for something, anything that could help me better understand what it means to be a woman. The closest thing I found was a small pamphlet about Eve by Camille Fronk. The pamphlet was nice, but what I was looking for was this book, The Beginning of Better Days.

I was just a few months early, but I am glad I found those drops of fresh water.

What I am really looking for is a fresh spring, but parched as I am, I’ll take the drops of water from the rain forest leaves any day.

The Beginning of Better Days was released on August 2, 2012 and is available for purchase through Deseret Book.

{Disclaimer: I was provided an advanced reader’s edition of the book The Beginning of Better Days by Deseret Book for review purposes. This review is my own honest opinions about the book and my opinions are in no way affected by the company providing the book.}

Girly Men and Manly Girls

I have a three year old little girl who absolutely loves the color pink. I am sure we influenced that in some way because we buy her a lot of pink clothes. We don’t do it on purpose, I think it has more to do with what’s available than with what we would prefer for her to wear. I don’t think we have a preference for what color she wears.

I also have a five year old little boy who up until a few weeks ago refused to use the pink plates, cups, and bowls because “Pink is a girl color.”

Now, I don’t think those words have ever come out of my mouth, and I definitely do not feel that way. I am pretty sure he came to that conclusion on his own. He is very aware that there is a significant and inherent difference between girls and boys, and he knows that his little sister is very much a girl (a fact she, at three years old, is also acutely aware of). I think he just put two and two together – J wears pink, J is a girl, therefore pink must be a girl color.

Every time he says “Pink is a girl color.” We say, “Pink is a great color. Boys can use pink things. Boys can even wear pink clothes!” or something of the sort.

I think it has started paying off. A few weeks ago my son picked a pink cup out of the drawer for his drink and proudly proclaimed, “I’m going to pick the pink cup!” It was as if he had realized how silly he was being for refusing to use pink dishes and was pleased with himself for being man enough to pick the pink cup. He also has a best (boy) friend whose favorite colors are pink and purple, and I think the exposure to his friend has helped, too.

On Sunday night my husband and I were having a great conversation about various topics, including gender roles and homosexuality. We were talking about the stereotype that men who like “girl things” must be gay. There is a term I have been hearing a lot lately -

ef·fem·i·nate    /iˈfemənit/

Adjective:   derogatory. (of a man) Having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.

I am glad that this definition points out that it is a derogatory term. But I have seen people use it who were simply using it to describe how they are (in a non derogatory way). In fact, most recently was in a post by Josh Weed, a gay Mormon who is married to a woman and came out on his blog a few days ago. He said (emphasis is mine)

*Why did a girl ask me that question in junior high? Because a bully actively spread a rumor around the entire school that I was a “woman trapped in a man’s body.” This was unbelievably horrific and traumatizing, and I was harassed every single day about it, often by perfect strangers. I was more effeminate, played the violin, didn’t play sports, was never interested in girls and didn’t hang out with guys, and so people glommed onto that rumor and ruthlessly harassed me for the entire year, culminating in a yearbook filled with breathtakingly insensitive taunts. Being the gay kid is really, really hard in junior high. If you know a gay kid in junior high, give them a hug and tell them you love them. I assure you they could use it.

I was startled when I read that he described himself as effeminate, because he was LDS, and the gospel doesn’t really support the stereotypical gender roles of the world. The gospel, in fact, encourages all men to be “effeminate” – submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, etc. (Please note that I am fully aware of the fact that there is a difference between the gospel and the Church, and there is an even bigger difference between the gospel of Jesus Christ and Church culture).

The Wikipedia article for “Effeminacy” states

Effeminacy describes traits in a human male, that are more often associated with traditional feminine nature, behavior, mannerisms, style or gender roles rather than masculine nature, behavior, mannerisms, style or roles.

It is a term frequently applied to womanly behavior, demeanor, style and appearance displayed by a male, typically used implying criticism or ridicule of this behavior (as opposed to, for example, merely describing a male as feminine, which is non-judgmental). The term effeminate is most often used by people who subscribe to the conventional view that males should conform to traditional masculine traits and behaviors.

I acknowledge that this term can be used non-derogatorily and that it gets the point across when you are describing a man who, by the world’s standards, does “girly” things or is “girly”. But, notice that the article also mentions that “merely describing a male as feminine … is non-judgmental”. I think that both descriptions of men are judgmental and offensive.

I think that the world’s (and members of the Church’s) gender stereotypes are hogwash. Malarkey.

In a previous post about gender I mentioned that the Church’s Parent’s Guide is a great resource to help us understand that our divine gender identity is not founded on the world’s stereotypes of what men and women should act like.

There are many patterns of behavior that are appropriate for all people. Everyone, male and female, is invited to examine the character of Jesus Christ and emulate him … Among the traits Christ revealed as proper for men and women alike are faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, kindness, godliness, humility, diligence, and love. These virtues transcend gender. They are Christlike attributes to which both sexes should aspire … Spiritual gifts, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 46, are not restricted to one gender either. Included are gifts of knowledge, belief, administration, organization, healing, and discernment.

You should provide opportunities for your children to develop talents in various directions unhindered by improper stereotypes … Teach your daughters and your sons to seek opportunities to learn and to exploit every such opportunity fully … Boys must learn basic domestic skills, and girls must be able to earn a living if necessary. (emphasis mine)

We should be and should raise our children to be unhindered by improper stereotypes. I believe these improper stereotypes are a way that Satan confuses us about our divine gender identity. Either he tells us that “gender doesn’t matter” and we can “choose” our gender identity, or, using the stereotypes, Satan would have us believe that if a man “acts like a girl” or a girl “acts like a man” they must be homosexual, or they must not really be a man or a woman – as if how a person acts somehow changes who they actually are. Even someone who lives contrary to the commandments of God can never change the fact that they are, indeed, a child of God.

As parents I think that we have a very significant role in shaping our children’s perspective of what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman. I am still figuring out exactly what it means to be a woman, but I can tell you that I know what being a man/being a woman doesn’t mean.

Being a man does not mean being able to change a tire, having huge muscles, being able to bench your weight (or more than it). It does not mean being able to “take someone” in a fight. It definitely does not mean “controlling your woman” or being “in charge” at your house and in your family in an unrighteous-dominion kind of way. It absolutely does not mean loving football (or any sport for that matter), or not ever crying, or being able to “take it” (physical OR emotional pain). It in no way means that you have to ignore your children, that you can never sing a lullaby, or kiss a boo-boo. It does not mean that you cannot be in a play, do ballet, play the flute, or paint.

Being a woman does not mean that you are tender hearted and sweet. It does not mean that you adore children and babies. It doesn’t mean that you like the color pink or purple or some variation of the two. It definitely doesn’t mean that you like scrapbooking, or that you like to cook, or clean, or blog. It absolutely does not mean that you “submit” to every thing your husband ever wants you to do. It in no way means that you can’t like monster truck rallies, the rodeo, or fixing cars. It does not mean that you keep out of the wood shop and stay in the kitchen. It in no way means that you can’t play the tuba or the double bass or sing tenor. It doesn’t mean you have to wear makeup or a dress or never have a job or not get an education. There is nothing about being a woman that says you can’t clean 200 lbs or bench more than your own weight. Being a woman does not mean that you cry over every sad movie or love story. It doesn’t even mean you like love stories.

Manhood and womanhood are not defined in these ways. Right now I can’t tell you exactly what defines manhood and womanhood, but I am absolutely certain that it isn’t those things.

All of the things I mentioned are characteristics, personality traits, and hobbies that are not gender specific, no matter how badly the world wants to claim they are. There is nothing innately feminine about being meek and submissive or crying. There is nothing innately manly about being strong and charismatic or fighting. Nor do those things make you a man or a woman. In fact, except in very rare and extreme circumstances, the only thing that really does make you a man or woman is the second chromosome in your body.

There are Christ-like characteristics and there are non-Christ-like characteristics. We should all, men and women, be seeking to develop Christ-like qualities. We should not make men feel like “less of a man” because they are developing those qualities, or make women feel less womanly because they don’t innately have Christ-like qualities.

What improper gender stereotypes do you see around you? Were improper stereotypes embraced in your family? In your ward? By your friends? What problems do you see developing from gender stereotyping?

Mother in Danger

(Image Credit: veni markovski)

What does it mean to be a woman?

This is a question I have been pondering a lot lately. I was talking to a friend the other day about how I believe things are black and white, but I am not very sure that I know what is black and what is white, if you know what I mean. This question about what it means to be a woman is a manifestation of that problem I have – not knowing what is black or white, but believing there must be a black and white.

I believe in God’s absolute truth (as opposed to relative truth) and I believe in prophets and I believe in agency. Sometimes I can’t always figure out how those three things work together.

But I digress.

In my heart of hearts I know that there is something to gender. There is a reason that we are male and female, beyond simple genetics and “chance” of nature. I believe there is something about men and women that is more than just our physical and biological attributes.

The prophets have said, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” and that “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.” (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World) But that isn’t very clear, and while it does give the “primary responsibility” for mothers, it doesn’t really come right out and say what it means to be a woman, although I think the implication is maybe there.

As I have been studying and praying and asking Heavenly Father for more wisdom and understanding, I think I can say (with at least some conviction) that being a woman means being a mother. *

I have been reluctant to say it that way because of the women I know (and admire) who either have not had the opportunity to be married (like my great aunt Lavina) or who have not had the opportunity to have children (my neighbor and wonderful sister in our ward, Amy). As I have studied gender identity and womanhood, I kept resisting this notion, that being a woman means being a mother. I felt that it wasn’t a fair explanation. That by linking the two we leave out millions of women who will never be “mothers”.

And then as I was running with my husband the other day I realized that it doesn’t matter.

In God’s plan, the imperfections of this world do not matter. I don’t want to minimize the trial or heartache that I am sure is felt by those who never marry or never have children when that is the greatest desire of their hearts. That is hard, and it does matter – both to the person experiencing the heartache, and to God. He cares. He really does. And it is important to Him.

But all the imperfections of this world will never change eternal truth. And I feel like the eternal truth is that women are to be mothers.

If this explanation suddenly conjures up images of ignorant, oppressed women bearing child after child after child let me interject that there is no honor or glory in that, and that image is not God’s plan. After all, the glory of God is intelligence (Doctrine & Covenants 93:36).

This explanation is simply to give us somewhere to go – if being a woman means being a mother, then the real question is not “What does it mean to be a woman?” but rather “What does it mean to be a mother?” – which question is almost as difficult to answer as the first one. But we have something significant telling us what I means to be a mother, and that is the line from the proclamation I quoted earlier: “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”

I would go into more detail about how I arrived at the conclusion that woman means mother but I will save that for another post. Suffice it to say that I have done a lot of searching, pondering, and praying about the priesthood, women and men in the Church, Eve, and mothers and fathers, and somehow from the middle of all the words and thoughts and feelings, this thought emerged, almost like silver from a refiners’ fire.

I want to go back to the image of the ignorant, oppressed, womanized, eternally pregnant woman.

That is not what God wants a woman to be.

What does God want a woman to be?

 

I believe He wants a woman to be intelligent and educated.

We want our women to be well educated,
for children may not recover from the ignorance of their mothers.

                                           Spencer W. Kimball

I believe He wants a woman to be strong, steadfast, and immoveable.

In order to do our part as women under the Lord’s plan,
we must stand strong and immovable in faith,
strong and immovable in family,
and strong and immovable in relief.

                                            Julie B. Beck

I believe He wants a woman to be a leader in her home and in the world.

It is not for you to be led by the women of the world;
it is for you to lead the … women of the world,
in everything that is praise-worthy, everything that is God-like,
everything that is uplifting and … purifying to the children of men.

                                           Joseph F. Smith

I believe He wants a woman to have the power of the Priesthood.

The Prophet Joseph Smith put the sisters in the position to receive all the gifts, blessings, and privileges of the priesthood. We need never confuse the idea of those who hold the priesthood in trust, with the priesthood. The priesthood is God’s power. It is His power to create, to bless, to lead, to serve as He does.

                                           Julie B. Beck (emphasis added)

Most importantly, I believe that God wants women to be mothers.

I will say the priesthood duty of sisters
is to create life, to nurture it,
to prepare it for covenants of the Lord.

                                           Julie B. Beck

Why do I say “most importantly”? Because that is the most important role we have as women. I love how President Beck put it – that the priesthood duty of sisters is to create life. It’s interesting that she did not say “to bear children.” It may seem ironic that our primary role as women is to be mothers, and yet President Beck did not include bearing children as our priesthood duty. She said our duty is “to create life.” Does bearing a child mean you are creating life? Certainly, in the sense that there is a spirit in a body and there is a heartbeat and all that. But let me take you to the orphanages in Romania and other parts of the world where lives sit in cribs their entire lives and become almost zombie-like. Is that a life? Is that life? Did the man and the woman who created that child physically also create that child’s life? I don’t think so. Creating life is so much more than bearing children (although I will add here that I do believe bearing children is important – and part of the duty to create life). Creating life is something that any caring, loving person can do, but it is specifically the duty of women.

I love that President Beck didn’t stop at “creating life”. Being eternally pregnant is not one of our duties as women. President Beck continues saying that our duty is to nurture life and prepare it for covenants of the Lord.

Being a woman means being a mother. And mother is in danger.

Mother is being attacked from every side in the world today. She is being attacked from the economy – a woman “has to” work to make ends meet (i.e. in order to keep up with the Jonses – I want to add that I do believe in some circumstances it is necessary for the mother to be in the workplace). She is being attacked from the “intellectual” community – a woman should travel, gain success in a career, and “live a life” before she “settles down”, gets married and has babies. She is being attacked from within her own home – it is so hard to be a mother, children are a bother, children are boring, children are ____ (fill in the blank with your favorite complaint – I already listed mine).

As I was running with my husband and feeling this impression that yes, being a woman means being a mother, I realized that the reason for all the confusion was because I didn’t want my identity to be defined by motherhood. But I am gaining a completely new perspective of motherhood. It is my priesthood duty “to create life, to nurture it, and to prepare it for covenants of the Lord.” Yesterday as I was doing chores with my little ones (five and three) and thinking about how difficult it is to teach them to work and help out around the house I was hit with a realization that I am raising people. I don’t know why I didn’t really get it before – back when I whined a complained about motherhood (it’s hard, it’s boring, I’m isolated, my children are whiney, etc etc). But I am starting to really gain a testimony of the sanctity of motherhood. I have always known that motherhood was sacred and that what I am doing in my home is the absolute most important thing anyone anywhere can ever do. But I just didn’t feel it. I dreaded it.

When I asked myself why? I realized that it is because mother is in danger. I grew up being loved and nurtured by a great mother who never complained about motherhood. In fact, right this minute I could not tell you her least favorite part of motherhood. Probably because she doesn’t have one. But the world attacked me. The world yelled at me from every side. Careers enticed me, media hypnotized me, my fellow mothers’ voices echoed “It’s SO hard. Children are SO hard. They are SO whiney.” Their bad attitudes and negative remarks slowly ate away at my soul.

In my heart I still knew what motherhood really meant, but my actions we contrary to my beliefs, and motherhood was hard. It still is. But a mission is hard too, right? Did you spend your whole mission complaining about every last little thing? Probably not. You just served the Lord and taught people the gospel. I have talked before about the Mission-Motherhood Parallel.

We’re doing the Lord’s work here in the trenches of motherhood, and it is hard work. But this work is God’s work.

And Satan hates it when God’s work goes forward.

So rise up women, mother.

Let’s fight the good fight.

 

* I would say the answer to the question “What does it mean to be a man?” is “It means to be a father.” So this isn’t about women and the priesthood, this is about how our most vital roles as children of God is to be parents to other children of God.