Women and Church Callings: Under the MAGNIFYing Lens

"We've called you to the nursery!"

 I was chatting with a friend whose very devout LDS mother-in-law told her a simple truth, "Women find value in church callings."  And I've been thinking about this ever since, because in the context of the conversation this woman was implying personal value.

This friend of mine is a lawyer; I'm a doctor. We don't derive much value from organizational* callings, to be quite honest. We were on this subject to discuss just that. Is it because we're cold-hearted career women? Ha! Do we love service? Yes! Do we want to dedicate our time and talents for good? Yes! Do we think that's best done within the stifling constraints of the patriarchy with the expectation that we'll use much of said time and talents to be a craft queen and the hostess with the mostess?** NO. So as we were discussing this she shared that quote from her mother-in-law, a stay-at-home mom. It came from the heart and with an explanation that so many LDS women forego education and/or career to raise a family without recognition. Church callings, this mother explained, give women like her a job to do with certain deliverables (my term, not hers) that garner public praise. In my experience these deliverables are often a seasonal banquette with impressive centerpieces and checked boxes for young women's activities. 

I love that this woman and so many other LDS women can find fulfillment like that. What I'm not keen on is the setup that makes these callings essential nourishment in a system that is anemic with female power. To be specific, several generations have passed during which LDS women have been exhorted/told/commanded to sacrifice their aspirations to support their husband's career, and instead accept callings that groom them to consistently double-check with a man. When a "good LDS woman has to work" (she'd never choose to, right?) too often she's made to feel contrite about it, and this is where church callings are accepted as penance. It's not a good look. And there are those who might interject at this point to say a woman always has the ability to decline a calling but, let's be clear, there's a lot of guilt built into that. The better thing to examine is if a woman can ever really give full consent to a calling when told the "offer" is coming from God and confirmed by a man whose power will always trump her own. 

This is not just a thought exercise for me and my friend. We're both at the age where childbirth is wrapping up, kids are nearly all school aged. For us this means we're more likely to be called to an organizational role (which was indeed the case for me).  For our same-age friends who find their value in church callings --let me be clear, this is not synonymous with staying at home-- I'm observing, hearing, listening to them explain a seismic shift to their world and their response to that, which appears to be either a doubling-down on church calling commitment and/or an honest reexamination of their life's choices to determine if they'd been true to themselves. A dear friend of mine determined sacrificing her aspirations had been the result of institutionalized shame, and this realization happened to occur when she was released from a calling. She described it as falling without a rope to hold on to. My heart broke for her. 

No woman should be led to feel or believe her worth rests in church callings. If you're reading that thinking no one is doing that intentionally, that's fine, but it's happening anyway and we need to stop that. At the same time, I do believe in helping where I can and accepting inspired callings that humble me because Lord knows I need it, and I know my worth isn't defined by my outward performance. And I share that as an educated woman who not long ago was chided for putting the "iron rod cheese stick in the Nephi fruit boat" as part of her calling. The struggle goes on. 

*i.e. "leader" versus teacher

**seems to be the cultural expectation

My Response to the October 2018 Women's Session

Letter to my Sisters After the 2018 Women’s Conference

Like many of you here I've felt something pour over the globe calling up women to step into the next chapter of our influence and abilities leading up to this General Conference. A few weeks ago I received spiritual confirmation that we would be weaned off Relief Society as we know it in order to create a society free to act in its own sphere. My impressions leading up to this session had to do with the gathering of the literal descendants of Israel, that the keys to ministering belong to women, and I felt an assurance that if we created an >>order of prayer<< we would be able to see as seers and thus identify whom God would have us serve.

The women's session *for me* confirmed that the male leadership of the Church can catch a glimpse of woman's grand role, but as others have pointed out the grand vision and steps forward will be under female direction.

In speech pathology there's an unfortunate term called "groping for words" in those who cannot find exactly the right thing to say, though conceptually they have an understanding. Pres. Eyring's use of "nurture" came across as groping to me. This actually pleased me because I recently wrote a letter to my daughter in which I explained that "nurturing" is the church's best estimation of what female seership is in action.

The Oaks' talk re-established what men know to be the strengths of women. We create life and take care of it. It is important to mother those around us. These are all true statements, but cannot be taken as the full summation of our purposes on earth. This brings me back to a somewhat irreverent quote from myself: "But if we as women are waiting for acknowledgement and further light about [Divine Womanhood] from The Brethren, that makes about as much sense as asking Boyd K. Packer how to insert a tampon."

When it comes to the Seer of the Church, I had higher expectations for insight into womanhood, and for me Pres. Nelson delivered. As hoped, he said that the changes to the church meetings and establishment of ministering were rooted in his observations of women. A few years ago I wrote about ministering and how this needed to take over our religion with women leading the way, so at this point in the session I was figuratively at the edge of my seat waiting for him to say something like "and now I turn the keys over to you, dear sisters..." but that didn't happen. It seems he got close, though. He also reemphasized the need for women to study the scriptures, and I have a firm testimony that women are to expound them.

So that's my long-winded take on Women's Session. I understand that for many the thought of being asked to do more is overwhelming, maybe even insulting. I appreciate that, I really do, but perhaps once we fast from social media (see what a great job I'm doing?) we'll find time we didn't know we had.

What were your takeaways?

Dear Daughter, Here's What's in Store

Dear daughter,

In my previous letter I told you the Church is not for you. So what is? Where is your place on earth? Where can you turn for peace? Where can you unveil your power? As it turns out, the answers have been there all around you this entire time.

Before I dive into my suggestions, I should review the Gospel according to your mother. This is my version, take or reject as you please:

Women came to earth with premortal endowments; the temple endowment (on earth) is not their first, in fact if you listen closely you’ll hear it referred to as woman’s “further endowment” in the initiatory. After much study and prayer I am convinced we have been ordained to the patriarchal priesthood, which is a poor name for something that symbolizes our divine origins, our ancestry, our patria. We also derive power from the angelic hierarchy to which we have shown ourselves true and faithful with pure and honest hearts.

If and when you are sealed to a righteous man, your stations and priesthoods will stack on top of each other making a virtual ladder towards heaven. You will climb the rungs of the Aaronic Priesthood to the Melchizedek to the Patriarchal. Principalities and powers will bridge the gap between archangel (Adam) up to virtue (Eve); you will be able to obtain the tree of life when you pass the dominions and thrones together.

Considering all that, you will not wait on a man’s church to empower you. You will not consider the temple endowment to be your capstone ordinance, but rather a buttress to what you already have. You will not allow men to patronize you into feeling like your work within their lower offices is fulfilling the measure of your creation.

Instead…

Exponent

Strive to be an exponent, one who expounds and interprets the scriptures. This is a latter-day calling given to women (see Doctrine and Covenants 25) because as we seek to make ourselves holy we ourselves will become an urim and thummim to our families. When I was pregnant with you I read that Christ’s “bowels” would be filled with mercy and I was able to see this word as it was intended to mean womb, as Jesus did deliver us. I brought this to a Jewish scholar and he confirmed that the original word was Racham meaning uterus. This cemented for me why we sometimes call Jesus our father (see Book of Mormon), for in our limited language this is our best approximation to “male mother.” These kinds of interpretations are something we can do more of, it takes practice and preparation.

Seer

There is no greater power. Only one man on earth can be a seer for the Church, its president. Righteous women, however, can be seers for themselves, their families, and communities.

Have you ever tried explaining the color pink to someone who is colorblind? It’s futile and frustrating (for both parties). You can expect this same reaction if you were to try to explain seership to someone who does not have this gift, and especially if they feel threatened by women. How then does seership play out? Warn those to whom you have stewardship of events that will affect them. Spot those who need your help and act immediately. Serve with love.

Another part of seership has to do with noticing the spiritual gifts and birthrights in others. Rebekah did this for her son, Isaac, but you can do the same for anyone (blood relation or not) in whom you see a talent that needs cultivating. (The Brethren refer to this as “nurturing.”)

Daughter of Earth
How great is Mother Earth! Jesus and his servants used Her feminine power to give sight to men, whether it was clay applied to blind eyes, rocks giving light in a dark ship, or stones used to interpret the gold plates. All these things have been done in similitude of Her enlightening powers.

Protect the environment, fight for her. Also retreat into nature to gather strength. It is no coincidence that the First Vision occured in a forest. One chosen to be the prophet of the Restoration knelt in a grove, likewise the daughters of Eve should commune in an order of prayer in nature*. The day will come when men will join them in the truest form of communion, but until then this should be our practice.

(I haven’t tried this yet, but I suspect weather and quake forecasting is a skill we should also tap into.)

Necromancer
This too is terrible nomenclature, but I invite you to study the so-called Witch of Endor who could summon the dead. My grandmother was an altar-keeper for the deceased, as am I. As seers we can see and “hear**” the departed in a way most men can’t. I have used this to facilitate family history work.

Ratifier

Women can and must ratify tokens and signs if Adam is to progress, if he is to know the “why” behind his performing the rites of the Church. Read Moses Chap 5. I feel so certain that Eve counseled her husband in an angelic, transfigured state such that Adam’s eyes opened and he could finally see what his wife sees. Moreover, Eve was able to hear God the Father and have the words from her lips reach His ears. –This is an old Hebrew saying with major implications! Men seeing + women hearing Gods = proximity to Heaven. That solution is achieved only when woman interprets and man listens to understand. So choose your companion wisely!

In Closing

Remember that as part of the Fall Eve’s curse indicated that Adam would preside (i.e. hold the ecclesiastical keys), and nevertheless the daughters of Eve would desire that church. The curse also ensured that the power to see and understand symbols (i.e. conception) would eventually multiply to be inclusive of not only our daughters, but also our sons. These two facets of Woman’s curse are indeed bittersweet: The Church offers us ordinances of salvation and exaltation, as well as limitations that can lead to self-doubt; Inclusive power (unlike the exclusive male priesthood) can bless all generations, but may leave us feeling as though what we have is not special.

Please, daughter, do not listen to those who say this or that gift is not divine womanhood because they know a woman who lacks the talent and a man who has claim on it. That argument does not refute the power nor its feminine origins! There may come a time when my descendents are all male, and should that happen I want my gifts, my blessings, my power in the priesthood to be upon them so that these can go on for all eternity. (God grant them the health to keep my line going.)

When I think about possibilities like that I often wonder if in the premortal councils we took such things into account. Perhaps we knew the Fall would create an exclusive priesthood, where only a tiny drop of men in the bucket of humanity would have it, and we decided sisterhood would be greater than that. I supposed we figured that priesthood lines from father to son would eventually break, but inclusive feminine gifts would last forever either through our seed or from nurturing such things in others.

Yes, we were so clever and today we continue that tradition by thinking outside the Church box.

Love, your mom.

*Trees are so symbolic with their roots in the earth (the resting place of man) and their branches pointing towards Heaven. Study the scriptures so that you can draw parallels between the tree of life and our Mother in Heaven.

**Seeing and hearing are complicated topics we will surely discuss in more depth

Dear Daughter, The Church is not for you (An Open Letter)

Written September 22nd, 2018

Dear daughter,

By now I’m sure you’ve noticed. When you walk into the chapel you will not see women sitting on the front stage. They will not lead the sacrament meeting. They will not consecrate the bread and water. They will not collect the tithing or govern church business. Women do not bless and name the babies. Stories about women will be few and far between in the scriptures. When they say men/man/mankind/son/sons you have to hope and assume women are included. You have been told you can become like your Father in Heaven, and that you must pray in church only to Him (not Her).

You know that when this imbalance of power, focus, and worth becomes too much you can come to me and I will acknowledge your pain. But be aware that if you open up to others about this you will inevitably hear that your feelings are unfounded, unwarranted, and unreal. Worse yet, they may tell you that to point out the patriarchy is to teeter towards apostasy.

I want to explain to you why people react this way.

Cognitive dissonance is, of course, a thing. A lot of people don’t want to hear observations that make them take a look at inequality. It’s uncomfortable for them for the following reasons divided by sex:

Men

1.      They are the beneficiaries of that inequality and don’t want that power threatened

2.      They are able to identify so strongly with God the Male that they will not tolerate the mere suggestion His church runs on sexism (though it literally does, see the dictionary entry)

Women

1.      They have internalized misogyny to the point of not being able to see what you see

2.      Their world would collapse if they tugged at this string and followed where it went

Both men and women will tell you to have gratitude, which I agree with in the right context. In the image above I am showing you two groups of women, A&B. Group A women (purple) are grateful to be able to speak in church, make covenants alongside men, and to teach classes because they marvel that women would be allowed to. Group B women (green) are grateful for what they have, of course, but faithfully inquire about a greater calling and destiny. Theirs is a larger vision for womanhood.

I can already tell that you and I are Group B, and that’s a bittersweet thing because it means our place in the Church will always bring revelations as well as heartache. Up until this point I was content to teach you a “grin and bear it” approach to church survival, but recently I’ve landed on another conclusion: I want you to know the Church is not for you.

No, I’m not saying you shouldn’t continue to make and keep sacred covenants. I’m not saying you should stop attending your Sunday meetings, either.

What I am saying is that by accepting that our Church was in fact built for men you can liberate yourself from the impossible task of excavating all divine womanhood from it. This freedom will allow you to put less stock in the often well-intended but indeed harmful platitudes offered to women to make them feel better about their secondary status and keep them there.

You still need the Church for its saving and exalting* ordinances, to serve as a literal meetinghouse for the gathering of saints with an eye towards unity. But daughter this cannot be your everything. Your keys work elsewhere.

Navigating a life that is patient and participatory with the Church while honing your spiritual skills mostly outside of it will not be easy. In another letter I will give you my insights about where female power lies. In this letter I wish to focus on the battlefield that awaits you as you continue to walk through the doors of your chapel, and how to avoid traps set to bring about your destruction. While the ways in which our fellow saints can dampen our godly aspirations are many, the four greatest threats are 1) So-called Temple Prep and 2) The Third Hour 3) Leadership worship 4) Family worship. 

“Temple Prep”

My daughter, church members think they are doing a service to women by telling them that the temple is “the great equalizer.” We tell them they will be endowed with power, but we skip that part about that power being unto the husband. And we definitely don’t prepare them to give themselves to their husband, and not expect him to do the same. Knowing that this is the setup ahead of time will not only give you the agency to decide if these are covenants you wish to make, I believe it will also help you to put the presentation of the endowment in its proper context. What you will see acted out in front of you is a world created for Adam without mention or depiction of Heavenly Mother, and a silent, submissive Eve after the Fall. In other words, you will see how true it is that the Church is not focused on women, at least not Type B ones.  I actually appreciate the temple’s honest depiction of things as they truly are currently. And while I’m able to pick up hints revealing feminine characters and virtues in the endowment, my point of sharing these insights is to spare you from the common practice of hanging all your worth on a ceremony that was retrofitted to include women.

The Third Hour

Hands down I think the third hour of Church has caused as much damage to women as polygamy. As you know, Relief Society was not established to be a one hour block of time once a week. It was meant to be much, much more. (I could go on, but I’ll spare you.) Not only is this a supreme loss, what we do in that third hour is an awkward dance of trying to pretend male and female roles in the church work in parallel, and our grasping at straws to produce 3rd hour lessons has produced pseudo-doctrines that will have negative effects on women for ages. While we’re telling the young men that they have power in the priesthood offices, we’re teaching young women their bodies are so powerful they need to cover them up. As we outlined priesthood duties for the elders, we dove into sociopolitical commentary to convince women that their equivalent pastime would be staying home and out of the workforce. Such lunacy. (Mark my words, if and when the third hour is done away with, the daughters of Eve will be freed to gather into their order of prayer and good works.)

Update October 6th, 2018: The parenthetical last line of the above paragraph was added after I wrestled in the spirit with God. I had concluded I would take a break from attending church and a chill came over me, followed by a wave of comfort and reassurance that the third hour would be done away with, and that I should hold on. Now, today, it has been announced in General Conference that we are down to 2hrs. As I understand it there will still be Relief Society rotating through the second block, but I’m optimistic we’re heading down the right path for the right reasons (unleashing female power).

Leadership Worship
I know you know this, but Church leaders are fallible. Joseph Smith even went out of his way to correct a line of scripture to teach that, yes, sometimes people called to prophethood do lead others astray. This was obviously an important lesson to teach. In contrast, when I see mothers laminating pictures of church leaders and quizzing their children on which bald bespectacled white male is in front of them it's hard for me to not let out an exasperated sigh. Only Jesus will never fail you. For anyone else please have respect for the office they hold, for the work that they do, but do not take their words for unquestionable truth. Do not look to them as superstars, worthy of such adulation. When you hear something out of Salt Lake that confuses you, it's your duty as a faithful Saint to wrestle with it. Whether or not you have to accept it is between you and the Holy Ghost. 

Traditional Family Worship
The Book of Mormon has so little to say about marriage and nothing to comment on homosexuality. And yet Church members seem to want to focus a majority of their lessons on these concepts. When clean homes are preferred to the dirty feet that come from ministering onto society's rejects we have a problem. 

Closing Words

Daughter, let me reemphasize: This letter isn’t meant to burst your bubble. Nor do I intend to keep you from having your own experiences and drawing your own conclusions. But if my years of trying to warp feminine impressions to fit male standards can spare you from the pain and frustration of doing the same, this is my attempt at that.

I know that Jesus Christ lives and that He established His Church on the earth, giving some apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers. And that, as far as we know, the leaders at the very top were all men. When His Church was Restored, men were again called to lead the way. They hold the keys to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods today. I am very glad to be on the receiving end of those blessings! For the remaining 165 hours in the week I invite you to seek even more, and I know you will find it as you focus on the Gospel. Bring that back to your companion and children and all will be better for it. In this I have faith and leave you my blessing.

With love, your mother.

*technically speaking the Aaronic Priesthood can exist outside the Church through lineage

Cover and Hide?

By now you may have heard about the woman in Utah who is being disciplined for refusing to stop breastfeeding uncovered in her church chapel.

Disapproval of the breastfeeding mother in this case stems from the same reasons given to condemn women in general for their natural, God-given bodily functions. The expectation, mostly from men, is that the breast and vagina must work in secret, behind the scenes, and under volitional control. In effect, when these body parts are not being used for their sexual pleasure, these men do not want to be bothered by them.

Most of us know about the absurd statement by a lawmaker that, when it comes to getting pregnant by rape, women’s bodies “have ways ... to shut the whole thing down.” Similarly, there was a recent case in which a woman was fired from her job because her uterine fibroids produced excessive vaginal bleeding as to cause leaks at work. Her (male) employer, and many others, could not understand why she didn’t wait to go to the bathroom to bleed.

Part of this problem, of course, is a lack education for men. The main cause of that is the expectation for women to “do their business” away from the public consciousness, especially since the biological aspects of womanhood have long been considered unclean (i.e. disgusting). I recall watching a woman give a grand rounds presentation and stop mid-sentence, grimace, and then explain that she was experiencing a menstrual cramp. While that might fall in the “TMI” category for some people, she felt it was important to explain what was occurring instead of giving the impression that she was under-prepared to speak on her subject matter. For many in attendance it was the first time they realized that in the background of life women are juggling the demands of their glands.

Now we have plenty of people, especially men, saying that this breastfeeding mom should have held in her milk and waited to go elsewhere to do her business out of sight. They don’t know what it’s like to get a sudden letdown of milk that is actually NOT under their control, and only intensifies as the child cries to be fed.

To them it may seem a short distance to the mothers’ room (AKA breastfeeding hut), but the time to get there has caused many a mishap. —Which I know from personal experience. (FYI, getting one’s dress covered in milk, and/or publicly squirting one’s fluids through their clothes is not fun.)

It’s also not fun to suffer from social isolation at church. —Especially when your week is already marked by it. Sitting alone in the mother’s room can feel terribly lonely, and even unsafe. To be forced to do so adds a level of shame.

I’ll never forget the day I decided I was never feeding in there again. I had rushed to sit down and feed my child (as one does) and realized the switch to the speaker was beyond my reach after the baby had already latched. It was then that the pungent smell of a dirty diaper wafted over to me. There I was feeling stuck, seemingly punished and excluded from sacrament meeting all because I was performing the so-called “highest and holiest calling” as a mom.

When the mothers’ room is well-attended there are other factors to consider. This space is often used to calm down children who are tired and overstimulated by 3(!) hours of church. If you thought moms could still tune in to the sacrament talks you’re mistaken for this reason.

By now I’m sure you’ve read and been told why covers don’t always work (and can in fact bring MORE attention and exposure to the breast). You may have also been told why some women need to expose more of their breast as this depends on baby's ability to latch, mom’s tissue density and propensity for blocked ducts.

Source
Satan's plan would have us run and hide our bodies in shame.
God's plan endows us with power and agency.

But ultimately those details should not be our focus. We should be more concerned about the unrighteous dominion of this woman’s priesthood-appointed leaders. We should be bothered by the fact that breastfeeding has become so sexualized. When my husband went on his mission to France during one of his first Sundays there a woman got up to bear her testimony, her baby cried, she exposed her breast to feed the infant, and continued on as normal. Was that shocking to him? Sure! But guess what, he got over it. If anything, those concerned about triggering porn-addicts have got it all wrong (as usual), because seeing women as more than their parts is helpful to establish healthy relationships.

So to me, what this issue boils down to is men feeling uncomfortable with having to acknowledge women’s power. The power to perform so many tasks at once, to give and nourish life, and dare to do so without shame, without hiding. Once you see the power struggle for what it is, you will not be surprised that a man wants to exert his authority to prevent her from claiming more power (in the temple). You will understand why some men will side with her bishop and stake president, while those confident in their manhood and armed with appreciation will stand with her.

Are Women Born to Transgress the Law?

It might not always look like it, but I'm a legal beagle. I'm a rule follower. I'm all about exactness.

But I also notice things. I cannot tolerate social injustice. I appreciate nuance. 

As I have pondered the scriptures and reflected on temple blessings, I have asked myself why the task of discernment is placed squarely on the shoulders of women.

Adam saw a forbidden apple; Eve debated right and wrong, truth from error. She ultimately transgressed the law for the betterment of all mankind. 

Likewise, Rebekah tricked Isaac. Ruth seduced Boaz. Esther deceived the King. Mary became pregnant out of wedlock. Elizabeth broke tradition by naming her son, and not after her husband.

Getting $#*+ done.
(source)

Could it be then that men are meant to uphold the law in black and white, while women are entrusted to break it when God's purposes call for it? If so, does a woman remain spotless while she faces consequences like disfellowship and even excommunication? Some Jewish scholars have said Rebekah was punished for deceiving Isaac and directing Jacob to steal Esau's blessing. To me it would seem she was still clean every whit in God's eyes (see John 13:10), but perhaps needed to be absolved of her "sin" from the Church perspective. 

If this setup is correct, then there should be unofficial (at least as the Church is concerned) societies of women seers among us, honing their powers of discernment and acting within bounds the Lord as set, which might not be the same as the exact law given to our Institution. When I think of Satan's counterfeit to this society, the Gadianton Robbers come to mind. --I used to skip over those parts of the Book of Mormon, but now I'm curious to revisit them and contemplate what the opposite organization would look like. 

Allow me to let my mind wander...

Could it be that somewhere out there there is a group of women blessing and naming babies whose parents are gay? Women who lay hands on each other to bless them with healing? Daughters who pray to their Heavenly Mother? And other such "naughty" things?

Just curious. I realize this blog is public, so y'know, I would never do such a thing or promote any rule-breaking... Unless compelled by God!

High on the Pedestal

Source

A few weeks ago I was pounced on by feminist friends who didn't appreciate my observations about the temple. Specifically, I said the temple was based on the premise that women came to earth with "unique endowments that are not common to man." I was told that I was pedestalizing women, putting down men, and that God is not a jerk like that.

But, what if He is?

I mean, if your definition of a "jerk" is treating men and women differently, then I gotta say you're setting God up for a rough review. This is, after all, the eternal power who authored menstruation for women and wet-dreams for men, y'know?

His ways really aren't our ways. Always.

At this point in my ponderings, I think God endowed women with His greatest power, but we are in the chapter of The Plan where outward things are focused on the male-driven offices of the lesser Aaronic and Melchezidek priesthoods. I have hope that further light and knowledge will come so that the awesomeness of women can someday be realized and acted out in the open.


I realize that's terribly unsatisfying for the present time. This is why, when I share my insights, I typically get one or all of these reactions:

1. "You're making stuff up."
2. "I reject the temple as it is the product of sexist men."
3. "If men don't acknowledge our power, what's the point?"

Regarding the first reaction, I can tell you I'm not lying. Go to the temple, hear that the temple endowment for women is our further endowment, and note how Eve is portrayed as a wise, mature, and upright woman alongside the newbie Adam. (If you try to Google this you won't find it.)

As for the second, I will say that a word change here and there would go a looooong way to improve woman's temple experience. Just as important, I think such changes could be in line with how God really sees us. That being said, I'd like to pose a question in response: Without the temple what do we have? The eggs of equality, if you will, would then rest in the singular basket of us being ordained to the Aaron and Melchizedek priesthoods and I can't help but feel that is beneath us. To me it would feel like we were selling ourselves early for a lower price than what we're worth, precluding the possibility that something much greater lies in store. Which leads me to the third item...

The final point is where we come together. I don't like the imbalance of power either! I really resent that we as women have so much to offer and it's constantly overlooked. I feel sick when men who note what I have observed use this insight to speak to women in a patronizing way. –I.e. "Ladies, let us run the whole show, because otherwise you'd be too great a force to reckon with. *wink*"

From where I stand, I think there's only two ways out of this rut. We need to pray (literally pray) the president of our church seeks and receives the messages Father promised to send us, and in the meantime stop resting our worth on acknowledgement from men. I see this playing out as we attend church for the ordinances (not the people), call out sexism wherever we see it, and start discussing women in the scriptures and in the modern church. I noticed the Young Women's presidency is starting their research into this and that gives me a lot of hope. 

What I'm suggesting requires a ton of patience and long-suffering. The current Church setup is not just, nor is it merciful to women who find themselves out of place. When I die, and if I'm fortunate to meet God face to face, the second thing I will ask them about is why we had this power dichotomy. (The first question, of course, is going to be about menstruation. –WHY?!) 

A Modern Parable

While the temple ordinances have changed, the hurt felt by many women lingers and I'm leaving this here as a testament to that reality. I can do this and be grateful for the improvements at the same time.

#WhataProphetessLooksLike

Huldah was a prophet,
last one that we hear about

In the medical world there's a big push to represent women in the field. Too often people assume a woman couldn't possibly be a MD/DO and defer to calling her 'Miss,' instead. Part of the campaign to change these preconceptions is to show women doctors in their element and share that imagery on the internet under the hashtag #whatadoctorlookslike. (This also applies to doctors of color.)

A while back I posted about roles for women in the Church and I included prophetess among those. I had written a bit about this, but cut a chunk of it out and put it aside because the original post had gotten on the long side. I just came back to this and thought I should bring these ideas back to light with the theme #WhataProphetessLooksLike, because we are sorely lacking their representation today.

So here we go!

What Does Being a Prophetess Look Like?

Here are some examples:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks in his talk, Witnesses of Christ (1990) explained that Anna, a prophetess, had spiritual confirmation that Jesus is the Christ and thus had a "prophetic duty to testify to those around [her]." We can then envision her sharing her convictions with power and authority. Likewise, Mary, the mother of Jesus, shared bold revelations about what was to come into her life as she bore testimony as recorded in Luke.

Rebekah is an interesting case because she prophesied that it was Jacob, not Esau, who should receive the birthright, and she took matters into her own hands --even deceiving Isaac-- to make things so. Similarly, Elisabeth prophesied that her son would be named John, and she came to this conclusion independent of her husband. Keeping this pattern, Hannah knew to dedicate her son, and only child, to the Lord in His temple as he would later become a prophet. In all three cases, I believe it's important to note that when future generations hinge on foretold knowledge, it is woman's distinguished place to set things right.

In the temple account, Eve is contrasted to Adam in the garden as one who has a recollection of many things and has profound insights not afforded to someone who is starting out life from scratch. As a prophetess, she can easily discern who is of the Lord, and who is of the devil. She can warn Adam.

As an aside, I believe we often overlook the term "helpmeet." So often people think this means that Eve and her daughters have a duty to stand out of the way of the righteous "priesthood holder" while keeping things afloat with dinner ready and clothes washed. Such notions miss the point entirely. A helpmeet, as I see it, is like a tutor. And a tutor is someone who has already passed certain tests and can offer her knowledge accordingly. She is lifting up, not keeping up. 

In 2nd Kings and Chronicles, we also learn of Huldah, who is petitioned by the new King of Judah (Josiah) to clarify scripture. At this time, the covenant people had largely become ignorant to the things of God and so it came down to the prophethood of this one woman to get things back on track and foresee danger tied to not keeping the commandments. (Imagine if all women today thought of themselves as preservationists of truth and righteousness while they search the scriptures.)

During times of war, women like Deborah and the mothers of the two thousand stripling warriors could prophesy battle outcomes contingent upon faith. Today, we see men receiving priesthood blessings prior to deployment, but it is unclear to me how many receive prophetic counsel from their mothers, too.

OK, We Have Prophetesses, but What's the Point if No One Acknowledges Them?

Though we casually state that Mary was the first to see the risen Savior, we rarely reflect on the fact that she was charged with informing the Peter and the other disciples about this (see). In most depictions of this moment, we see Peter, James, and John hearing Mary's words and then racing to the tomb to see what's actually going on. It's as though her word means little, so what was the point of her heralding the occasion? And yet, could you imagine a woman today going up to the First Presidency and informing them about the Lord, and being in the right to do so? Having her revelation (which granted is not the same as prophecy, but in the same "presidential package," if you will) confirmed, too?

So often I feel that being female is like being able to see color while the rest of humanity is colorblind. Just because it's hard to explain what it is we're seeing, what it is we've been blessed with, doesn't mean the gift doesn't exist. The gift is, in fact, quite astounding. Now how do we get others to accept that?

I don't have that answer. But I do know what needs to get addressed first...

Can we, as a church, handle nuances? "Capital P versus little p" priesthood. The prophet, not prophetess. If I commend my friend Laura for being a righteous prophetess, will people know that I'm not trying to undermine Thomas S. Monson? Will others say we should be satisfied with being mothers in Zion and not "seek" for something more?

To me it seems that since 1830, Church efforts have been spent on restoring and preserving the priesthood structure. Now that it's settled and fortified, perhaps we can unwrap the untold story of women. I desire this word 'prophetess' to come back into our lexicon, not for the power is connotes, but for the potential it has to raise women from being in the shadows to having a divine role. In this, I believe, the family unit can be glorified with both Father and Mother ruling righteously as a presidency.

Cherubim and a Flaming Sword

So manly, right?

Having been raised Catholic I was exposed to imagery of Michael the Archangel and had in my mind his being the ultimate warrior. Recently, however, I came across this post about women being described in the Old Testament as 'ezer,' Hebrew for God-like power and oft used in military-speak according to the author. Given the elevated status granted women (as I propose) I began to wonder if a higher ranking in God's army applied here. too.

In case you're not familiar with it, here are the orders of angels from highest to lowest in the Christian tradition:

1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominions
5. Virtues
6. Powers
7. Principalities
8. Archangels
9. Angels

For some reason, I honed in on the order of Virtue. We associate women with virtue with great frequency. Yes, we talk about this in connection with chastity, but a virtuous woman is described as so much more than that in these precious verses: Proverbs 31:10-31.

This made me speculate that women previously fought in that great battle against Lucifer either at the level of a Virtue or were appointed to that title after having proved themselves strong and brave in the fight for good against evil.

J. Kirk. Richards

If that's the case, I suggest the following, because you know I'm big on woman and man ascending up the orders of priesthood, tokens, and now angelic hierarchies together to return to the Celestial Kingdom:

• With the Tree of Life under guard of cherubim, and supposing Eve represents Virtue and Adam comes from the archangel level, then the in-between or missing orders need to be filled in for exaltation to be complete. "Angel," I believe, is covered by saintly living here on earth as defined by LDS doctrine. That is to say that those who do the will of God may be considered angels. This leaves Thrones, Dominions, Powers, and Principalities. Those orders of the angels would need to be added to Adam and Eve through a priesthood that straddles heaven and earth in a binding ordinance. --If I'm on to something, that is.
• Eve is closer to the Seraphim*, which are purportedly nearest to God. This, to me, would mean that at some point she will do as they do and teach Adam some or all of these ways as they travel upward. What we know from Isaiah chapter 6 is that Seraphim can fly, they cover their feet and faces, and call upon the Lord in repetitions of 3. They also cleanse lips with hot coal... Can't wait to try any and all of that sometime!
• The cherubim seem mighty in their own right, I'm not sure they need a flaming sword. Are the cherubim meant for Eve and the sword for Adam? Maybe.

In closing, I can't help but think that perhaps the greatest gag played on humankind was getting us to think cherubs were rosey-cheeked babies when they were quite possibly Amazonian warrior babes who didn't mess. The worst gag, perhaps, is getting us to conflate virtue with female chastity as we do today.


*Makes me wonder if President Faust was holding back from titling his talk as, How Near to the Seraphim Angels.

Where in the World(s) is Heavenly Mother?

Feminists be like...

Irony is wanting to leave the Church because it doesn't reveal much about Heavenly Mother, and then realizing there's even less said about her outside of our religion. This problem creates a lot of frustrated feminist Mormons, and plenty of converts to paganism.

So what's the deal with Mother in Heaven? Where is she? What's she up to?

There's three big schools of thought on this:

1. Shhhhhhhhhhh. We don't talk about she-who-shall-not-be-named.
2. She's home with the spirit children while Daddy checks into work here on earth.
3. Something else.

Let's entertain number 3 here, okay?

I have heard and read countless testimonials of outreach to Heavenly Mother and Her interactions in response. They're beautiful, touching, and of course real. 

Yet that isn't enough for many of us. Countless church members want to hear more about Her on Sundays. They want Her included in talks and prayers. 

If the question is should Heavenly Mother receive more acknowledgement at church, then the answer is an easy yes, in my opinion. (Who else recites, "We are daughters of our Heavenly Parents, who love us and we love them...?")

But if we as women are waiting for acknowledgement and further light about Mother from The Brethren, that makes about as much sense as asking Boyd K. Packer how to insert a tampon.

(Oh yes, I did just say that.) 

Because, dear sisters (and dudes who read this blog) the errand of angels is given to women, and part of that calling is to know Her and share Her goodness with others. We can do this in abstract ways, like giving glimpses of what She must be like as we render service to others. Or we can disclose information about our relationship to our Mother in sacred spaces.

Why did I take this in the direction of being a private matter? Because if I learned anything from the temple it's that knowledge regarding female divinity needs to be worked for, not casually received. There's implied intimacy and in many ways a parallel to a mother's birth story. 

There's also a neat challenge to be like Eliza R. Snow who inserted a pearl about Mother in a hymn titled "O My Father," which is sung my men, women, and children alike. To me this strikes the perfect balance of treating our Eternal Priestess and Queen with respect, while reminding others that women are the purveyors of Her love for us. 

Orientation II

I have continued thoughts after my earlier post, Orientation (I).

Thinking about the temple as a place where we receive only and all those things we lack, which are needed to enter the Celestial Kingdom, continues to astound me. It puts to rest so many of my troubles concerning temple ordinances that had previously seemed so off-putting and frankly anti-women.

I know that I am at risk of telling myself what I want to hear, of doing "mental gymnastics" to get to a happy ending, but the more I come back to this viewpoint the more I see that it has precedent and holds up against what prophets have said and done:

Take the Baptism of Jesus...

John the Baptist is feeling super awkward at the start here because, in his own words, "I have need to be baptized of Thee." Nevertheless Jesus gets baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Clearly He who is without sin is lowering himself to undergo this ordinance because it is a necessary step to take for all mortals to return to God.

Likewise, women are asked to receive temple ordinances even though they have previously received their own endowment prior to coming to earth, and the invested power given pre-mortally is from a higher station. We as women do this to fulfill all righteousness, even as the Savior did.

Then there's this quote from Brigham Young:

"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.” (Emphasis added)

People, he didn't stop at "necessary;" he adds a "for you" separate from the subject described as walking back to the Father. Why is that important? Because if you use my template for the sexes, this means you go to the temple to receive the things that you as a man or woman are lacking and nothing more. So if you have already been ordained as a priest(ess) to the most high God, this will not be given again. But if, like Jesus, you need to receive a blessing at a lower station (because it had previously not applied to you), then the temple is the perfect place to fill in the gaps.

So, should we call it Ordained Women?

Based on what I've just shared, one might conclude that women must have received "The Priesthood" previously. That's kinda true, but I maintain that we're not talking Aaronic and Melchizedek.  Instead, I've written about women coming from a higher level of priesthood power here.

And now you might be thinking, Monique, this throws a wrench into your template. If the temple is a place where missing steps are completed, then why aren't women ordained to the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods there?

Good question!

My answer is that priesthood power expands from the highest level one has attained, and covers all those beneath it. With that, women ordained to power at the patriarchal level have no need for ordination to the Aaronic and Melchizdek priesthoods since that's already encompassed by their order level. We see that relationship outlined here in D&C 107:17.


My template, you guys, it's lookin' pretty robust, no?

Orientation

This week has been all about the employee on-boarding process. The hiring department requested a list of my vaccinations and I was informed I could receive whatever injections were deficient in my case (none, thankfully). I was also reminded of which online training modules were still pending completion. Once I have everything I need, I will be able to walk through the doors of my hospital as a full-fledged employee and have a sense of belonging.

Had I shown up and been asked to repeat my already completed courses, or re-inject my vaccines I would have been confused. Instead the orientation process is, thankfully, only about getting me what I need to move forward. The temple is the same way.

Think about it. Wouldn't it be weird if in the temple we repeated our own baptism and confirmation? If that happened we would likely ask ourselves why we were doing them over. We might even ask ourselves if our first baptism and confirmation had been invalid or incomplete.

And yet so often we go to the temple expecting its rituals to represent and/or recreate our entire life's experience. Besides that being a false standard, it sets us up for despair when what remains needed for completion is different between men and women. –Just imagine if during employee orientation we felt someone else was already the stand-out or favored one because he was given several booster shots, a chest X-ray, and many more training modules. That would definitely be the wrong interpretation, even the opposite conclusion as one could easily argue that employee was way behind his counterpart(s).

Below I have created a table of the "series" of gifts bestowed in and out of the temple. I think it serves to highlight the dichotomy between the sexes that would make holding the temple ordinances as all-encompassing to be misguided:

With this in mind, I wish to discuss an insight I had recently. Well, several insights, actually. The first continues with the theme of re-envisioning the temple's functionality.

In the above diagram I'm showing my current interpretation of priesthood power(s). When I think of them, I like to imagine literal offices in a building. In blue we see the "Melchizedek," written in quotes because this is a name given to avoid the overuse of the name of the Lord. (The Aaronic priesthood is not a separate entity and is thus shown as an appendage.) Above the blue building is the yellow skyscraper with its ever-growing levels of glory. This represents the Patriarchal Order of priesthood. Though "patriarchy" conjures up male-only imagery, I have concluded that this actually equates to "of the family." It is in this category that the definition of God means male AND female. The green section depicts the highest office in the Melchizedek priesthood, which overlaps with the Patriarchal Order, and can currently be accessed only in the temple setting.

Since the part in blue represents the power of Christ, and the yellow section is the only place where female divinity exists in its fullness, we see God the Son as being the link between the two as represented above.

Going back to the "building" diagram, I think it important to add the component of keys as represented here by the asterisk. They open up the doors to each office on its respective level in the priesthood. I have also added stairs to the highest level of the Melchizedek priesthood to signify an ascent to a higher order within it where another, final door remains.  Along these lines, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk once using a parable about keys and vaults. He seems to be touching upon the Patriarchal Order when he describes a man and woman turning their keys at the same time to inherit their greatest treasure (shown in my diagram by the door on the left with two asterisks, keyholes for the priesthood keys). He adds that woman shouldn't be troubled that man has two keys when she only has one... And to that I say absolutely!, especially since I offer that that man's second key was  received from woman. Yes, his greatest power stems from her.

Also, I have added "House of Israel" and "Many Mansions" to describe the extent of each building. If woman is coming to earth from royal birth (so regal you must stand when she enters the room) she is, among many things, not lacking in inheritance when it comes to real estate. In contrast, man has a single, relatively modest house. To meet in the middle (green section), she must be appointed (read: anointed) to his humble abode and he gets to be written into her will. Talk about the guy marrying up!

(It's worth pausing here to recall the start of this epic post where I point out that if one were to take this exchange at face value and no context, it would look really unfair towards the woman.)

I had always known to think of Jesus Christ as the intermediary, but seeing Woman hold both keys to the final door leading to the Patriarchal Order got me to see her in that in-between role, as well. Her role in that position stems from the fact that God the Father (and Mother) is too holy to deal directly with man (His greatness being like a fire would consume him). And Jehovah, before being born to an earthly mother, was too holy to be in contact with earthly man (a natural enemy to God). This is where Eve comes in. For how near to the angels is woman! She is the virtue (angel) who can act upon Adam as she is under the direction of Jehovah who is under the direction of God.

Above I have drawn a symbolic representation of how I see God dealing with man on earth.  In The Creation he is forming man through the protective inner layer of Jehovah, who is covered by the outer lining provided by Eve. What characteristic allows Eve to be in contact with both Heaven and Earth? You can find that answer in the temple. But if you're not in a place for that, consider the evidence of this Heaven-Female-Earth dynamic right before our eyes. A pregnant woman, for example, straddles both Heaven and earth as she creates a person somewhere in-between. She then births a child who, if taken before the age of accountability, has a spirit worthy of returning to God. How near to the angels, indeed.

(At this point I would like to point out that Eve is not Adam's mother, but did take part in his creation which in one sense, does make her the mother of all living.

Also, analogies are never perfect when it comes to things divine, and in this case the limitation is that this imagery of the glove makes it seem like Jesus and Eve are objects being acted upon. That is not the case. This is meant to show the harmony, even fluidity of their doing the Father's will.)

When Eve finally does obtain knowledge, it is through transgression and the protective barrier is essentially rent in twain by this. I show in the middle image the break in Eve and even Jesus Christ who must eventually take upon Him our sins. Absent here is God the Father who cannot be among man in this fallen state for reasons mentioned above.

To recreate the protective barrier, Jesus Christ is born of woman and creates a cross-link (pun not intended, but boy does it work) which allows Adam and Eve to interact with God the Father again.

If we zoom in, we see that Adam has a much closer connection to both Jesus Christ (now represented in yellow) and God the Father (not shown) after The Fall. I posit that this is through the Melchizedek Priesthood. In order to complete the arch, Eve (represented in purple) now has this one area where she needs to work through her husband, Adam, only when he submits to the hand of God.

If we zoom out in this cross-section view, we see Eve represented on the whole and note that she is far from broken and has an identity many times greater than that part of her that is dependent on Adam.

Thus we see how one mundane experience in life coupled with some faith can lead to all sorts of thoughts and insights in the temple. I'm very excited to go back and ponder on this some more, and feel compelled to again remind any and all readers that this is the gospel according to Monique. You do you.

p.s. Upon returning to this post soon after writing about Eliza R. Snow here, I just realized that the hymn "O My Father" is the equivalent of a FUBU (For Us, By Us). It's the story of woman's mortal journey, realizing she came from an exalted sphere, and tapping into that divine power which gives her revelation concerning both our Father and Mother. So fab!