Women & Church Activities: It's time to take it back

My husband says that my defining characteristic is saying the things that need to be said when no one else will say them. So on this Sabbath day morning, I'm going to do just that...

Female leadership in the Church (the head, not the body of believers) has been whittled down to the following:

1. Our ability to entertain
2. Our showcase factor
3. Double-checking with a man first

President Uchtdorf goes after 1 & 2 in his talk, Forget me Not. In it we have such gems as,

"...Insisting that you have a picture-perfect family home evening each week—even though doing so makes you and everyone around you miserable—may not be the best choice."

and

"Dedicating some of our time to studying the scriptures or preparing to teach a lesson is a good sacrifice. Spending many hours stitching the title of the lesson into homemade pot holders for each member of your class perhaps may not be." 

How did we get to the point where such things need to be said, from an apostle, from the pulpit? Brace yourself for what I'm about to tell you. I believe we're at this point because once the keys to Relief Society were turned back to the Church Presidency (in the Age of Correlation) the traditional gender roles for women were emphasized and commodified. Power was replaced with perception. In other words, we have women trained to believe homemaking is the peak of their womanhood, and if they want recognition they can have it through their church callings. Turning things on its head means starting with "how will this look?" instead of "how can we teach people to feel the Holy Ghost?" Over time this corrodes our trust in women's divines powers of discernment, prophesying, and seership. 

As I've sounded the alarm about this problem I've had negative reactions (as is to be expected when confronting tough stuff) with just as many confirmations that this problem is widespread and ranges from laughable to injurious. Whether it's the Relief Society member decrying the "Simplify." theme because it's not decorative enough for their tastes, to primary-aged children getting lambasted for mis-stepping a coordinated "service dance," these moments add up. I'll include my own here. Two young girls and I were recently deflated as our leader expressed dismay that we had put the "iron rod cheese sticks" in the "Nephi fruit boat." (I kid you not.) Up until that point we were having a bonding moment making preparations together. Afterwards, during the activity itself, the children were on the rambunctious side and the adults were losing their voices trying to call them to attention. Things ended with kids picking apart the decorations on their Liahona cupcake and loading up on Gold Plate rice krispie treats. I sidled up to one child and pointed out the attempted symbolism, to which her frosting-covered lips pronounced, "m'Okay." Stepping back from that moment I saw a group of harried women who comforted each other in the knowledge that --at least on Pinterest-- this activity looked good.

Now let me tell you about a different approach. 

Some time ago I was sitting in a stake young women's meeting to discuss activities for New Beginnings. Every ward but one, the Spanish-speaking branch, had affluence among its resources. We were to each explain the marvelous events we've hosted in the past. A pattern emerged. "I went to [insert for-profit LDS website] and downloaded (i.e. paid for) this party theme" and/or "I found this Pinterest idea..." followed by a sprint to get it all done in time for the activity. Finally, a sister from the Spanish-speaking branch stood up. She apologized that her English wasn't very good and used an interpreter. She went on to say that the first thing she and her counselors did was pray for their young women. They felt strongly that they needed to feel loved as individuals. The thought came to them that they should ask each family to surprise their daughter with their favorite meal and for both parents to write a personalized letter describing how proud they are of their girl for her choices to keep the faith. That's it. No bedazzled centerpieces. No cutesy signage. Just a meal and a letter. And that made for an experience they'll never forget. The content and the contrast in that moment silenced everyone in the room. The Spirit was so strong we all had tears in our eyes. 

So as one friend challenged me, what do I have to offer in this space? This graph, actually:

I call this the Activity Axis

You see that church activity axis? We want to aim for the upper right quadrant as much as possible. Now and then we will have to spend a great deal of time and resources to make a difference, that's cool, too (in moderation). With this paradigm shift (back) we can heed an apostle's directive:

"How can we tell the difference for our own situation? We can ask ourselves, “Am I committing my time and energies to the things that matter most?” There are so many good things to do, but we can’t do all of them." (Pres. Uchtdorf, 2011)

And I want to make something clear. A successful church activity led by women does not mean there'll be no complaints. It means not caring about patriarchal ideals, putting aside insecurities, doing what's most inviting to the Spirit, and empowering the attendant. To that end I'm going to collect alternatives to our current practices here and add on as I come across good examples.

I'll call this list "Personalized Pot Holders not Required":

• Primary
• Use dry ice to create a mist of darkness (turn off the lights) for the kids to walk through. Read the Tree of Life story afterward.
• Young Women
• Potluck with each lady's favorite dish and an encouraging letter from her parents
• Relief Society
• "7 Habits" book club
• Priesthood jeopardy
• Want to make a centerpiece? Okay, learn the fundamentals of floral design. 
• Stories of Faith
  Sisters share stories of women in their family who overcame trials faithfully
  The "centerpiece" is family photos and mementos. 
• "Done is better than Perfect"
  Sisters show how they pushed past the need to be "perfect" and completed a project
  Discuss how "Be ye therefore perfect" actually applies to receiving ordinances.

Bookmark for more!

Racism and the Book of Mormon: Let's Get Meta

If you've read any of the apologetics having to do with race in the Book of Mormon you've probably noticed a pattern, which is as follows:

1. A sea of words written by a white guy who, trust him, is the least racist person
2. Some silly goose-ism about the application to scripture of "modern pre-occupations in America," as one writer put it
3. References to verses that seem to contradict each other about whether or not black skin is a curse or a mark
4. A conclusion that since the Book of Mormon condemns colorism/racism anything that could be interpreted to the contrary is not that

Ta-da!

We're supposed to feel all good about the multitude of chapters that teach the reader to equate black skin with dirty, sinful, and loathsome, and white skin is of course clean, pure, and even delightsome! All that is horrible on its own, but taken in the context of a Church that somehow, for reasons still unknown, preached Blacks were cursed and not allowed to receive the priesthood is just gas-lighting at its finest. 

So let's try something else...

¡Ay, bendito!

Last month a friend of mine who has reclaimed her Aztec lineage and now goes by Cueponcaxochitl (pronounced Kweh-pōn-ka-SO-chill) shared with me a creation myth by my ancestors, the Taíno (pronounced Tah-EE-noh) native Caribbeans. Even though I grew up with drawings and sculptures of the god Yaya in my home, I had never heard this story before. I was enthralled as I watched a video retelling. Then a funny thing happened. I got the sense that something important was coming into my view. There was a resonance within my soul, as it were, when the narrator described a character named Deminan as having skin covered by sores, which set him apart. By the end of the tale we learn that his skin condition was bittersweet because it made him a medium between heaven and earth, called caracaracol. I was amazed by how this ancient description persists even today, as Puerto Ricans are known for calling those who suffer blessed, literally "bendito." 

From there my mind reflected on the account that started a mess,

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them (2_Nephi 5:21)

... followed the impression, "Sore curse is meant to be taken literally (as in skin covered by sores); white/black markings are metaphorical."

If God wanted a covenant group of people to stop mating with a cursed group of people, it would make sense to make the latter unattractive on a superficial level, particularly their faces. Pustulating sores would get the job done. And with parallels to the lepers who were pronounced pure and clean in the New Testament, those who repented of the Lamanite curse were described as having  "scales of darkness...fall from their eyes (2_Nephi 30:6)." I take that to be literal scales of diseased skin, which likely occluded their vision, nothing to do with skin color. Interestingly, for those whom the curse persisted it appears they were unable to repent in fullness because they lacked Gospel instructions for how to do that. Nevertheless at some point they were better than the chosen Nephites (see Jacob 2:35 and 3:7-8) —in part due to the latter's iniquity— and find God's favor. To my mind, this makes them a type of caracaracol, somewhere in between sanctified and impure. 

In its separate sphere is the mark of darkness which —hold your mesoamerican horses— is not the same as SKINS of blackness (I'll get to that later). A mark is something that symbolizes a larger concept relating to purpose. My husband marks the consecrated oil as separate from the cooking oil by placing it in a separate container, for example. I'm not ready to jump into the debate about how mesoamericans are related to Book of Mormon characters, but when I read about Aztecs painting themselves black (their skin, their hair, and/or teeth) and literally producing broken hearts from contrite spirits upon the altar (see also 2_Nephi2:7) I start to think there's a connection. Could it be that their priests claimed the color black because of its strength and distinction from everyone else? We certainly see that same habit (pun intended) in our time. And would such a mark indicate that theirs is a religion separate from what Nephi intended to hand down? Yes. 

Now let's talk about skins of blackness. This is where things get meta. You might've seen my post about how white male supremacy is a scourge upon earth, and that it's the fruit of an abominable church originating in Europe (see 1_Nephi 13:4 ). I have a testimony that Joseph Smith was the prophet who brought about the Book of Mormon, which teaches us these truths, and I also know that he was a white male, susceptible to stumbling as many white males do. It is my personal belief that Joseph Smith took the figurative language of (pure) white and darkness (away from God's presence) and applied these to a literal description of skin color, which is false. His mistranslation is apparent to anyone who reads the Book of Mormon and is not racist. Those who wish to standby the black skin commentary are not only prejudiced in their hearts they are, ironically, in opposition to Joseph Smith who later regretted the error enough to remove skin color in 1840. (Sadly, this correction did not persist in later editions following his death as the Church recruited European members when slavery was still going strong. I wonder why...)

Closing thoughts:

When I shared my previous post a woman I admire congratulated me for building a liberation theology, and that's when I realized this was going to be a process, not just a feel-good post for minorities here and there. This is something I need to continually shape within restored doctrine for the truths about my people to finally see the figurative light. 

We Need to Talk about The Abominable Church

This year my baptism anniversary fell on Columbus Day. I was feeling pretty raw about it.

Some time ago my mother's cousin did our family history work and made a shocking discovery. He was looking for the Spaniard who traveled to Mexico and from whom we inherited our family name, but we never found him. Instead, our line proved to be purely indigenous to the Americas, all the way back to a grown man living in the early 1500s who was renamed Felix Moreno (we have no idea what he was called at birth). Felix Moreno literally translates to Lucky Brown Man. Was that name given in mockery? Did some Europeans think he was fortunate to not be killed, and apparently allowed to reproduce and/or keep his offspring (and not have them thrown to the dogs, as Columbus was known to do)? I was simultaneously proud to be detached* from such atrocities and hurt to think about my ancestors being subject to them.

This was not my favorite chapter

So as I reflected on my Church membership this time I couldn't find peace. I felt dumb, even traitorous to my roots as I felt the weight of 1Nephi13 on me. That chapter has always been there, causing me to ache, and serving as an immediate stumbling block to my progression in reading the Book of Mormon. As you can see from the screenshot above, it's about the "discovery and colonization of America," a scriptural embodiment of Manifest Destiny. Almost everyone who's ever read it understands the following verse to be a reference to Christopher Columbus:  "...and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land." Inspired by God, eh? Divine enslavement, rape, and torture? No, I couldn't get behind this. The chapter heading has a large X on it in my scriptures, encouraging me to look past it.

And yet, I felt impressed to face my stumbling block head on. Then and there. Of course I didn't want to, but the Spirit was nudging me. Plus, if there was any possibility I could bury this issue I thought I ought to go for it. So I did. And it was painful.

I re-read the whole chapter, and as Enoch once said, I "refus[ed] to be comforted... but the Lord said unto [me]: Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look." And verily I say onto you that I did see a few things, but the trick about seeing is that you perceive without understanding. At least at first. What I saw were many chapters in the Book of Mormon about war, and these reports stood as a witness to why God's anger had been kindled. After accepting this I felt permitted, even blessed to cast aside the 1Nephi13 verses that started with "I beheld." (Part of me even wondered if this was Joseph Smith's interpretation of what Nephi saw in a vision.) From there another strong impression came:

The Abominable Church is founded by Satan, the father of lies... and white male supremacy. 

In an instant I became aware of a historical dichotomy, as outlined below:

And you know what? This lines up with 1Nephi13, especially as you focus on the verses spoken by the angel, who instructs Nephi,

Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.(1Nephi13:7)

I always thought this was a jab at the early Catholic Church. But having been raised Catholic, I know that the men and women who toiled away at making and preserving illuminated manuscripts, who lived chaste and simple lives, preached the Gospel, and took care of the poor (including animals) did not deserve to be lumped into this group. I understand now that they never were. What I believe these verses want us to comprehend is that white male supremacy thrives on gold and silver obtained by the shedding of innocent blood, and by the bitter fruit of human trafficking ye shall know them. This does well to describe the Inquisition, of which God does not approve. The Inquisition was Satan's counterfeit missionary work.

The angel also asks Nephi to behold the wrath of God, as it rains upon his own brethren (verse 11). In my previous ward I was told this meant the bloody massacre of my people was ordained by God, which bothered me to say the very least. But if you think about it, that's not really how He operates. When Moses needed his people freed, for example, God worked through plagues and finally a destroying angel as a last resort. I am willing to accept that the multitude of diseases European immigrants brought with them could be a form of God's wrath for things well-documented in the Book of Mormon and beyond. Fine. But war is never God's modus operandi. Does he suffer it to be so? Sure, we're even told later on in Mormon 4:5 that "it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished." And why does God permit this? Because being a covenant people does not mean everything you do is blessed by the Lord, rather it means God will often stay His hand because He needs you to preserve or even restore His Word.

In 1Nephi13:29 we read,

And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

This is a reminder that even though the Gentiles (in and out of the Abominable Church) do terrible things, God must have a level of mercy for them that relates to their actions occurring in a time when His Gospel is not fully on the earth. In other words, they will be judged on an incomplete law. But note here again that this is not saying the Gentiles are inspired as a group in all things, in fact just the opposite. This verse is reminding us that "an exceedingly great" number of white Americans will do awful things, often in His name. This concept is especially hard to grasp for those who believe the USA's origins are entirely divine. And yet...

Credit Arlen Parsa on this thread

Above we see the Founding Fathers, where those who owned and exploited slaves (that's White Male Supremacy in case you missed it) have their faces covered by a red dot. Those who managed not to stumble and held to pure Christianity (which abhors enslavement) were few indeed.

And if the Book of Mormon is written for our day, which I believe it is, then we really ought to think about what the Abominable Church is up to now and who is falling for it. We should seek to identify the false priests who oppress. And oppose white male supremacy. In fact we must.

Right now I feel a good sense of relief from a testimony standpoint, but one of the hardest things lately is sharing my revelations about this chapter with white Mormon Americans who are, "happy for [me]." Happy for just me? Why hasn't this bothered YOU? Are we so accustomed to indigenous people being used and abused that we're cool with planting these pain-inducing verses –for they are easily misused– in their lives and walking away? No. I need white members of the Church to try and feel what I feel, and go about correcting our discourse on 1Nephi13. Think of it as manifesting a new destiny.

*I'm actually equal parts indigenous and Iberian on genetic testing. Life is complex.

Working as Designed?

I'm staying up to write this late at night because I know a lot of people are stunned and confused about what the reversal on The Policy means for them as members of the Church. They want to know how to navigate this space where the ones chosen to lead them are capable of making mistakes. Big mistakes at that.

First let's talk about this notion of "the prophet will never lead you astray." That makes it sound like presidents of the Church are capable of perfection. Surprise: They're not. All we're promised is that he knows the way to salvation and exaltation: From Point A to Point Z, the ordinances in between, and should warn us of dangers along the way. We are not to expect hand-holding for the entire journey, nor blindly accept each and every direction given to us (see also).

But I get it, having The Policy rescinded is on the one hand a huge relief; on the other hand it casts a lot of doubt on the trustworthiness of what's coming from the pulpit. I too was feeling the weight of this today. I said a little prayer asking to understand this conundrum and shortly after that my phone rang.

There's a problem with the computer interface my colleague and I designed. He called to tell me what the tech support staff had to say about that.

"They said it was 'working as designed.'"

Ah, the ol' "working as designed." This is a common refrain from people who build computer programs and subsequently get feedback saying their products are broken in some way. It's a nice way of saying, "I did everything right, it was YOUR instructions that were flawed." So my buddy and I checked our work, looked at how that translated to the computer program, and we found that the error was actually on their end. It was a problem with the build.

I felt like my prayer for understanding had been answered.

Working as Designed and Working as Built is an age-old problem that best represents modern revelation. God is perfect. He is the master architect. The Church Christ established and restored was designed by Him to bring imperfect people back to their heavenly home. When that master design is built up and run by error-prone mortals we get things like The Policy.

There will be many who tell you that this is it, they can't go on being a member of the Church because The Policy and its reversal is a "sign" that our religion isn't "true." I'd say that this is a sign we need to trust God before men, and remain steadfast about waiting for true messages from the appropriate messengers.

I hope and pray that as General Conference is upon us we seek for understanding, patience, hope, and most especially the gift of discernment.

See One, Do One, Teach One

Seems legit.

In the medical education system you start out as a medical student with no real power to execute orders, to a resident physician with the ability to make decisions, order tests, and prescribe medications ... so long as your full-fledged attending physician signs off on them. Finally, after board certification and completion of residency you're the real deal. You fly solo, all power and liability is on you.

In medicine we also have a "See one, do one, teach one" motto. When you're a medical student your job is to mostly observe what the doctors do. You might interview patients and write notes, but those things don't really count in the medical record. When you're a resident you have a bit of a safety net under you and this is when you start doing real things under supervision. By the time you're an attending physician the idea, in an academic setting, is to mostly teach the residents and medical students.

So why am I giving you the inside scoop on how the medical field works? It's because I suspect President Nelson, a physician surgeon, applied these academic principles to Church policy creation and that's how we got The Policy (re: gays and their children) and its reversal. Here's why:

In 2015 President Thomas S. Monson had severe dementia. The Church was being run (as is its policy in such cases) by the combination of presidency keys. We see Boyd K. Packer die in July 2015 and The Policy go into effect November 2015. What happened in the interim? Russel M. Nelson became Quorum (of the Apostles) President (QP). For context, everyone at this time knows Nelson is next in line to become prophet and Dallin H Oaks is positioned to become the next QP or higher (as would become the case).

If we view this in terms of:

apostle = med student

QP = resident

Prophet = attending physician

It would be no surprise then if Russell M. Nelson as QP jumped at the opportunity to use executive power for something that he could say was the will of the Lord, but policy only (i.e. not offical doctrine). This would be practice for the big role for which he was slated. And we know he moves quickly, wasting no time. The Policy would be his "do one."

When the Chief strikes down your order.

But what one man wants and what the Lord wants are often not the same thing.

What was supposed to happen is President Eyring and President Uchtdorf with new QP Nelson, along with the sustaining and authoritative power of the remaining apostles, were to turn their keys in confirmation of what was taught to them by the Spirit.

What I think happened is a couple of things. I think Eyring and Uchtdorf, having worked for some time now without a functional President of the Church, slipped into the mode of "I sustain our [future] prophet." They wanted him to get practice as QP and succeed. Also, let's be honest, they knew they were a geriatric heartbeat away from answering to President Nelson for the remainder of their ministry. I'm guessing that factored in.

I suspect something went wrong right away. For starters, why focus on "the gay issue"? Especially right out of the gates? It seems like Nelson saw an obvious problem between homosexuality and Mormon Latter-day doctrine and wanted to fix it. I don't doubt he sought the will of the Lord, but it appears he landed on the side of legalism. And just who persuaded him to choose justice? Who likely pleaded for mercy instead (but ultimately relented)? I'll let you decide.*

*Worth a thousand words

In the end there needed to be apostolic consensus, but my guess is at least one presidency member drew near to The Policy with his lips for the sake of unity, but his heart (and key) were turned away from it. In contrast, I can see Nelson receiving guidance from someone who was close enough and practically there in terms of having presidential keys such that his input was valued more than it was worth. We see this happen from time to time in medicine, too. Senior resident and 4th year medical student start a surgical case without the attending surgeon and the patient bleeds out.

The patient in this case is everyone affected by The Policy. We can never say for sure how many LGBTQ members died by suicide as a result, but my gut and reasoning tells me the blood of this generation cries out.

The Silver Lining to a Large Black Cloud

I think three big things have/will come out of this: 1) We have learned how to discern right from wrong, 2) We now know which members will accept/reject false doctrine, and 3) More women will be brought into policy-making decisions at higher levels in more official ways.

1) I've said it before and I'll say it again, we must look for the tokens and signs Father promised to send us. When the leaders of the Church teach us a principle we should pray on it, consider it, and feel within us a confirmation that it's true. Then, when we act upon it, we should see good fruit. There was never any good fruit from The Policy. Only bad, heartbreaking, rotten products. Moreover, when it comes to church-wide policy, ALL presidential keys need to turn in agreement. This is tricky because The Policy was touted as coming from a unanimous voice, but I recall discussions at its onset about how this just didn't seem like something a certain key-holding apostle would support, at least not in his heart.

So let's say we were early saints and Peter, James, and Thaddeus approached us with new policy... Stop right there. That's not right. Perhaps the next time it came from the original First Presidency (Peter, James, and John), but they had no tokens and (good) signs to give... Thanks, but no thanks.

We need both: The actual presidency and the correct tokens and signs.


2) I remember after The Policy each and every woman I knew had a hard time with it. Even the most "totally believing Mormon" (TBM) types felt sick in the stomach thinking about babies being turned away. But within the same day of its announcement, these women and their male counterparts posted and preached about how, "if you look at it this way," The Policy is actually about love!

These members were wrong. They are dangerous. They need to learn from this and change.

3) I've looked back at my journal of impressions and the letter I gave my bishopric pleading for an end of at least one aspect of The Policy. My feeling is that this episode has made it clear that women need to be involved in policies that affect the family of God. And since that touches everything, I do expect an announcement this weekend during General Conference.


Closing Thoughts

Going back to that image I've painted of the confident resident and eager med student, I know and I hope you know they had no intent to harm. We also know the outcome was catastrophic. As "ancillary staff" did you take orders and facilitate a wrongful practice or did you run things up the chain to a higher authority?

Next time --because humanity assures us there will be a next time-- let's not accept a broken protocol nor leave the operating room; let's do all that we can. Together. Because now, as President of the Church, Russel M. Nelson is teaching us that we can learn from our mistakes and become better. Much better.

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