Love and Change

It was early Sunday morning when Drew gently called from the bathroom, “Good morning, beautiful. It’s time to get up. We can’t be late for church.” He was already awake, showered, and dressed before I even opened my eyes.

Still lying in bed, I opened my eyes and replied, “Or you could come back to bed and we could have our own spiritual experience.”

He paused ever so briefly, weighing his options before abruptly blurting out, “With God as my witness, we are going to be on time to church! Get your beautiful ass out of bed and get dressed.”

We exchanged smiles as I begrudgingly got out of bed. Drew walked over to the closet and pulled out a necktie, “I think I’ll wear my purple tie with my rainbow button to church today. That way I can support the ordination of women and the LGBTQ+ community.”

Sometimes I have to pinch myself after he says things like that. If you would have told me ten years ago my husband would be supporting the ordination of women and the queer community, I wouldn’t have believed you. Not my husband.

As I watched him pin his button onto his jacket, my mind recalled an unpleasant memory.

It was 2008. Prop 8 was all over the news. Drew and I had been arguing for years about homosexuality, we didn’t need to be reminded of our blatant disagreement every time the news came on, but there it was. Again.

Drew commented while staring at the screen, “They want to get married now. Soon they’ll want to be teaching it in schools.”

I routinely said, “There’s nothing wrong with being gay.”

He countered, “Did you read Elder Oaks’ conference talk on homosexuality I sent you?”

I flatly replied, “Yes.”

He continued, “Blaire, the prophet has spoken about this. You need to get a testimony for yourself. Being gay is wrong.”

I replied, “The prophet is wrong. They aren’t much different from me.”

Drew scoffed, “You’re nothing like them. You may be attracted to women, but you’re not one of them.”

I interjected, “I’m everything like them! How can you separate them from me? How can you accept me and not them?”

He responded, “Jeez, why are you so upset? You’re overreacting.”

I couldn’t continue. We had fought too many fights. I couldn’t handle another, “Drew, I don’t want to fight anymore. I have read all the books and conference talks you have asked me to read. We’ve said all that can be said, and neither one of us has changed.”

He continued, “But Blaire—”

I cut him off, “Drop it! I can’t even look at your face!” I exhaled, trying to regain my composure. I continued softly and brokenly, “I really don’t want to fight anymore. I hurts too much.”

Seeing my frustration, he gently put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Okay. I’ll drop it.”

Not another word was spoken. We both knew our marriage wouldn’t survive it.

Years went by with little conversation about homosexuality. It came up here and there. We casually discussed it from time to time, but we stopped aggressively trying to convert each other. Forcibly trying to change the other person only led to more heartache. Instead, we focused on loving each other.

Somewhere along the way, something changed. I don’t know exactly why or how it happened. You’d have to ask Drew for the details, which I’m sure are many. But slowly over the years, something gradually changed.

More time passed. It was an average day of housework until my phone rang. I picked up, “Hey, honey. How’s work going? I was just thinking about you.”

Drew spoke slowly and quietly, “Blaire, do you realize you’re bisexual?”

I awkwardly agreed, “Yes. I know I’m bisexual.”

He continued, “Yes, but YOU are bisexual.”

I laughed. It was as if every conversation we had over the last decade merged into a single moment of clarity for him. I didn’t know how to respond. I had been bisexual our entire marriage, but hearing him accept the label somehow made it real.

Smiling, I said the only thing I could say, “I know I’m bisexual. What took you so long?”

Drew answered with such sincerity, “I couldn’t . . . I didn’t . . . I’m sorry. You’re a beautiful, wonderful, bisexual woman, and there’s nothing wrong with you. I love you.”

I smiled and replied, “I’ve waited a long time to hear you say that.”

He continued with remorse in his tone, “Why did you stay married to me? All the things I’ve said to you. After all these years, why?”

I paused, holding back the tears, “Loving you seemed more important than agreeing with you.”

The memories faded as I stood next to Drew watching him put on his purple tie for church. I didn’t need to pinch myself. The moment was real. I commented, “ It’s still weird to hear you say things like that.”

He replied, “Say things like what?”

I continued, “Your support for the queer community. I didn’t think I would ever hear these things from you, but here you are with your purple tie and rainbow button.”

He smiled, “Thanks for waiting for me.”

Hearts change. People change. Beliefs change. Change is sometimes subtle, laborious or slow, but part of enabling change means loving people enough to let it happen on their terms. Sometimes you love them enough to stay. Sometimes you love them enough to let them go. Sometimes you love them enough to listen instead of speak. Sometimes you love them enough you put their desires before your own. Sometimes you love them so much it hurts. Your love doesn’t guarantee the people you love will change in the ways you want them to, but I do believe love is the only way forward.

*Published at Rational Faiths on Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Disappear

(Artist: Hana Al-Sayed)

This is not an expression of happiness or hope. This is an expression of the complete sadness and helplessness I felt while sitting in the pews last Sunday.

A lovely woman in the ward sang a musical number, “The Family is of God.” As I listened to the lyrics, I felt my eyes well up with tears before the first verse was over. Surely onlookers would have perceived my emotional state as an expression of the spirit, but it wasn’t.

The woman sang:

Our Father has a family. It’s me!

It’s you, all others too: we are His children.

He sent each one of us to earth, through birth,

To live and learn here in fam’lies.

It’s such a wonderful idea with such a contradictory message. If families include “all others too,” where is my Mother? Does Her existence mean so little? Are Her contributions unworthy of recognition? Are we not part of Her family? Are we not Her children? Is She bound to a soul which is so dominate that He’s oppressive?

If it is my highest degree of glory to become Heavenly Mother, then my gender has eternally damned me to an existence where my children are discouraged from communing with me. I would watch them grow from a distance while my daughters would wonder aimlessly, or project themselves in a male paradigm that thwarts their priesthood participation. My destiny would be to bind myself to a male where my purpose would be to uphold His glory and power, while our children sing praises of His love, grace, and power. I might be mentioned in an occasional footnote or two, but it doesn’t really matter. This song is the gut-wrenching reminder that the purpose of my eternal existence is to disappear—to live a mortal life, create eternal life, and disappear.

If this is an accurate projection of Heavenly Father’s family, becoming Heavenly Mother would be a truly horrifying fate.

This is not an appeal to literalistic interpretations, but rather a call to question what narratives we are teaching our congregations about the worth and value of a woman’s existence.

It hurts to listen to the same excuses over and over: “We don’t speak of Her out of respect,” or “It’s for Her protection.” Neglect is not respect. There is absolutely no doctrinal foundation for such a useless claim. She is a GODDESS. She doesn’t need protection from our meager human existence. Unless we believe She is so weak She can’t handle Her own children. If so, are we really so prideful to believe we could injure Her in Her status of Godhood? That sounds like hubris.

Whether or not we want to admit it, the Gods we worship are made in our image, or rather reflections of ourselves, our religions, and societies. Her absence is my absence. We are symbiotically connected with Her and our Gods. Her absence is just a symptom of the circular patriarchal logic that dictates the majority of world religions. We worship a male God that is written about in male-dominated texts, and those texts are interpreted by the male clergy. No wonder God is male; women weren’t a part of the discussion. We’re set on a winding staircase of circular madness that leads to the same destination every time then question, “Why don’t we know more about Heavenly Mother?” It’s insanity.

This is nothing new. Women have been yearning for a divine role model long before my existence. Mormon Feminists have been crying out for their Mother since the beginning, starting with Eliza R. Snow. Yet here we are—hashing out the same old dialogue over and over and over in digital spaces searching for someone who is willing to listen to the souls crying out for their Mother.

The message I received on Sunday was, “Blaire, your existence doesn’t matter here. If your church is true, fiction, or somewhere in between, it doesn’t really matter. Your place in this world and the next, in reality or fantasy, is unworthy of equitable participation or recognition. You can love with all your heart, study with all your mind, work with all your might, but your place in the Heavenly Eternal Family is not even worth being mentioned in a primary song. Your trajectory is to fade into the background and disappear.”

You’d think after so many years of this nonsense it would stop hurting so much, but it doesn’t. It still hurts. EVERY. SINGLE. SUNDAY. We deserve a better message.

*Published at Feminist Mormon Housewives on Tuesday, November 1, 2016

A Feminist’s Defense of Polygamy

(Artist: Soraya Hamzavi-Luyeh)

I am a Mormon feminist and I support polygamy.

Before you get out your torches and pitchforks, hear me out. We may have more in common than you think.

While I don’t recoil at having another spouse or my husband having another spouse, I do recoil at mandated polygamy as a requirement for the highest degree of celestial glory. I recoil at authoritarianism, patriarchy, and androcentrism, which are often associated with polygamy. I recoil at any marital or sexual practice imposed on consenting adults in exchange for selective salvation; including but not limited to monogamy, polygamy, or heteronormativity.

First, let’s start with accurate definitions. Polyandry is when one person is married to multiple men. Polygyny is when one person is married to multiple women. Polygamy or plural marriage is any combination of polyandry and polygyny. Monogamy is one sexual or marital partner. More commonly practiced is serial monogamy—one monogamous partner at a time. Arguably, serial monogamy is a form of polygamy, especially among Mormons who believe in eternal sealings and everlasting relationships. These serial monogamous sealings are reserved generally for men. Granted there are some minor exceptions for dead women, which is hardly a consolation for living women.

There is nothing inherently misogynistic or oppressive about the definition of polygamy. Polygamy is an alternative lifestyle to monogamy, yet it is still perceived as an oppressive practice for women. This is reasonable when polygamy has predominately been patriarchal with restrictions placed on women’s desires and participation. It makes sense why people would reject polygamy when they conflate the definition of polygamy with polygyny, cite historical examples of oppressive behaviors and reference current inequitable heteronormative sealing practices. However, by conflating the definition of polygamy with polygyny you are contributing to patriarchal oppression by neglecting polyandry as an equitable part of the definition of polygamy. Sadly, I’ve observed both progressive and conservative Mormons do this, which makes it even more difficult to divorce the notion of plural spouses from fanaticism, male dominance, and religious cults.

Early Mormon polygamy was exceptionally complicated and steeped in authoritarianism, sexism, racism, superstition, and coercion. I agree with many critiques of early Mormon polygamy involving underage participants, violence, castration, manipulation, rape, and deceit. Early Mormon polygamy hurt many people. However, I can list many mistakes and abuses in monogamous marriages of the 19^th century, but that doesn’t make monogamy inherently wrong. This is not an apologetic appeal to justify wrongful behaviors. I simply seek to isolate the oppressive behaviors from the marital practice.

I descend from a polygamous heritage. Mormon polygamy is literally in my DNA. My foremothers and forefathers were polygamous—mortally and post-mortally. I am sealed to Joseph Smith via my polygamous foremother. My existence (and the existence of my husband and our children) is the product of an interconnected polygamous family. I will not denounce polygamy or my polygamous heritage which has made my existence possible. 

Frankly, it would be about as nonsensical to ask Mormons to denounce a polygamous parent as it would be to ask Mormons to denounce a homosexual parent. That is not an appeal to conflate the legalization of polygamy with the legalization of gay marriage. There are some significant similarities and differences in overcoming social and practical obstacles. However, it is possible for a person to respect a homosexual marriage and family, while still not desiring it for themselves. I know many people have strong repulsions toward polygamy and I respect a person’s right to reject it for themselves. I would also hope in return people would not callously reject a person’s desire to practice polygamy.

Perhaps polygamy was essential to the uniqueness of Mormonism that solidified relationships among the early Saints. They were a very queer and peculiar people. Mormonism, as a social group, thrived under the “Us versus Them” narrative perpetuated by the US government. Even early Mormon Feminists were supportive of the legalization of polygamy. Clearly, there was something very real, almost tangible, which resulted in the practice of plural marriage. I don't know if the Church would have survived without polygamy, not for procreative purposes but for social purposes. I haven't any idea what Mormonism would look like without polygamy. There's no aspect of the LDS Church that hasn't been influenced by the practice of polygamy. Denouncing polygamy is practically tantamount to denouncing the entire religion. It's that fundamental to our foundation.

Abstractly, the concept of multiple sealings (even the whole of humanity) as an interconnected community is deeply inspiring to me. To reduce plural sealings to a meager sexual relationship would be a sore disservice to the richness of our Mormon theology, even if there are clear examples of primitive lustful desires influencing early Mormon polygamy. Plural marriage, at its core, is the idea that we are capable of radically loving more than one person, perhaps even every being on the planet. This may or may not include a sexual relationship, and this notion should respect the consent of all participants. I find the hetero-patriarchal control over the practice of multiple sealings frustrating, because it puts limitations on the rituals I participate in that are gestures of my love and commitment toward other human beings, my religion, and ultimately God. These limitations on sealings seem nonsensical and counterintuitive to Mormonism’s ultimate trajectory—the transcendence of all humanity.

Sadly, current LDS sealing practices still support a patriarchal approach to plural marriage. They pose inequitable opportunities for men and women when each is given different expectations and limitations. Even though LDS temple sealings are patriarchal and androcentric, temple practices and policies have dramatically changed over the years. I trust policies will continue to evolve to include the equitable participation of women. However, to advocate for the complete removal of polygamy in the name of feminism to then only mandate monogamy is simply replacing one potentially oppressive mandate for another. The feminist stance on sexual and marital practices should value individual agency while also working towards a safe environment where participants' desires and values are respected, whether they are polygamous or monogamous.

Any depictions of the Celestial Kingdom that mandate such oppressive marital requirements for salvation and glory is not worthy of our aspirations. Doctrine and Covenants 88:18-20 prophesies that the earth may be prepared for celestial glory. The Celestial Kingdom is prophesied to be right here if we choose to cultivate such a godly community which respects diverse desires, but also serves to unify the whole of humanity in one eternal family in its diversity.

Imagine a civilization that is so radically compassionate and advanced they have transcended traditional notions of the human condition. At that point our species would warrant a new term, posthuman. This celestial civilization would be indistinguishable from God. Mormonism teaches that we have the potential to not only live with God again, but also to become Gods ourselves. Mormons prophesy of a very material and communal transcendence of humanity. We are taught to collectively build Zion, which includes a posthuman civilization of radically compassionate and creative beings, or Gods. The intimacy a couple may experience in a marital or sexual relationship would be dwarfed in comparison to the intimacy we experience with God. The concept of plural spouses would be almost insignificant to the type of intimacy we would experience as a posthuman civilization.

Any posthuman civilization worth building would welcome and respect diverse families and relationships, because at that point we would be one eternally interconnected family. We are obviously not at this hypothetical celestial state of being, but we should still build Zion now. Our primary concern with building celestial families should not be whether they are polygamous, monogamous, polyamorous, interracial, homosexual, or heterosexual, but rather that love, respect, and compassion are at the center of consenting relationships.

I am a Mormon Feminist and I support polygamy.

*Published at Rational Faiths on Friday, October 21, 2016

The Priestess

(Artist: Full HD Wallpapers)

In the beginning was the Word,

and She was God.

She breathed, “Let there be light”,

and shattered absence

with conception.

All was born.

She looked upon the earth,

teeming with a network of life.

And it was good.

She, God the Mother,

evolved woman from a lesser specimen,

And shared Her priestesshood with Eve,

The Mother of All Living.

Eve chose the fruit of

knowledge and intelligence,

protected under providence.

The children of God were born when

she disobeyed the laws of Eden.

And it was good.

Eve’s daughters grew as

authorized agents,

keeper of keys,

temples of life,

attributed to God, Herself,

to enable all goodness and flourishing.

Her daughters acted in Her name,

creating life,

each a member of a greater whole.

And it was good.

My female body swollen

with Her priestesshood,

as it was with Mother Eve.

Infinite life within my womb,

pregnant with exponential love,

overflowing with sentience,

I felt my own daughter in motion.

And it was good.

My daughter was born.

In her first breath,

she wailed for the Mother,

“I am lost. Thirsty and suffocating.

Where is She?”

Placing my breast in her mouth,

I whispered to my daughter,

“The Mother is here,

as plain as air.

She surrounds you.

Claim your birthright and

breathe Her in.

You are not lost.”

And it was good.

If a woman does not comprehend

the character of God,

she does not comprehend herself.

The Mother awaits

Her daughters to claim their priestesshood,

to act in the name of the Creator,

to summon the sacrament of life.

It was passed from mother to daughter,

beginning with the Word.

And it was good.

Quite Meaningful

When my husband and I lived in Florida I was sad. Not just kind of sad, but very, very sad.  A kind woman in our ward described me as, “Sister Ostler? Oh yes, she’s that lovely, sad girl who always sits in the back of the room.”

I laughed when I heard her description. I suppose I wasn’t very good at hiding my sadness. Most meetings I sat in the back of the room fighting the uncontrollable sobs that were constantly threatening to expose me—my sadness.

The truth is, even when I’m happy, I’m still quite sad. It seems we live in a culture that perceives a person’s happiness is the ultimate achievement or measuring standard: “Are you happy?”, “Does he make you happy?”, “Are you happy at church?”, “Does your work make you happy?”, “Aren’t you happy being a mother?” and so on.

No, my husband doesn’t always make me happy, but I find our relationship quite meaningful. No, the constant demands of my children usually don’t produce happiness, but I find motherhood quite meaningful. No, advocating on behalf of the oppressed and abused is not something that makes me happy, but I find my work quite meaningful. No, my church doesn’t make me happy all the time, but I find communal worship quite meaningful.  And no, my life isn’t always happy, but I find my life quite meaningful.

The truth is, even when I’m sad, I’m still quite happy. While sadness may seem undesirable it is the product of my love. I love quite deeply, and equal to the depth of my love is my sadness. I find the symbiotic relationship of love and sadness quite beautiful, because it is meaningful. So I’m perfectly happy being sad.

Priesthood Power

(Artist: Paul C. Swift)

A few years ago I acquired a 1954 vintage copy of “Priesthood and Church Government,” by John Widtsoe. I devoured it. Despite its flaws it’s a fascinating book.

I could easily sum up the book in one word: patriarchy.  I don’t mean that facetiously. I mean that literally. Patriarchy, as in a system of government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. There are copious passages illustrating the exclusion of women.

The book even contains a brief section referencing the ordained patriarchal order of family dynamics. It’s one of the few references of women in the entire book.

“Wives and children should be taught to feel that the patriarchal order in the Kingdom of God has been established for a wise and beneficent purpose, and should sustain the head of the household and encourage him in the discharge of his duties, and do all in their power to aid him in the exercise of the rights and privileges which God has bestowed upon the head of the home. This patriarchal order has its divine spirit and purpose, and those who disregard it under one pretext or another are out of harmony with the spirit of God’s law as they are ordained for recognition in the home. It is not merely a question of who is perhaps the best qualified. Neither is it wholly a question of who is living the most worthy life.” (Priesthood and Church Government, p.83)

According to this, women are not disqualified from ordination due to worthiness and lack of qualification, but simply because patriarchy is God’s ordained law. No matter what I do, how I act, or how worthily I live my life, the message is God doesn’t trust women with “His” power. I was born female and that was more eternally damning than any sin a man could commit and repent of.

Widtsoe continues by asserting that motherhood is a gift God has bestowed upon women, making motherhood tantamount to priesthood authority. He states:

“That grave responsibility [of motherhood] belongs, by right of sex, to the women who bear and nurture the whole race. Surely no right thinking woman could crave more responsibility nor greater proof of innate powers than that! Such power entrusted to women proves conclusively that they have been recognized and trusted.” (Priesthood and Church Government, p.85)

Sadly, he completely neglects the responsibility of fatherhood as an equal compliment to motherhood, and that parenthood may be one small aspect of a person’s life and identity. He also neglects women who are unable to conceive, nor does he mention that in order for a woman to conceive she is still dependent upon a male, while a male priesthood holder requires no such female dependency to exercise his priesthood.

It’s not difficult to see why some women with fertility difficulties also struggle with a sense of self worth. If creating an offspring is her highest priesthood calling and, through no fault of her own, she can’t, one could easily begin to believe God simply didn’t trust her with her priesthood power. I understand counter arguments of women having perfected bodies capable of child bearing in an afterlife are common rebuttals, but I think we can do better than empty promises that are contingent upon a woman dying to be able to exercise her priesthood power. Dead women with perfected bodies bound to eternal pregnancy hardly seems like a logical, compassionate, or thoughtful response. I trust godly creation and reproduction would be far more rational and efficient.

Sadly, the teachings printed in this book written over half a century ago still linger in our ever evolving policies and practices. I have not only been taught these things from family and friends, they are still explicitly and implicitly taught in our meeting houses and temples.

The present implementation of priesthood authority is perfectly logical when taking into account the LDS Church’s history of polygamy, correlation, and the imperative to exclusive priesthood authority in relation to other Mormon sects. In context, it’s easy to see how we got to this point and why “Priesthood and Church Government” was even written.

Is the priesthood simply a man-made tool to further exercise his dominance over women? Is it one more way men define their religion as more legitimate than another? Is it just another attempt to subjugate women and confine them to patriarchal control? Some feminists have reached such conclusions, and frankly, I don’t blame them. I, too, am highly skeptical of any authority I am blatantly excluded from on account of my gender. Any power that is used to prohibit worthy women from participation in religious rituals doesn’t resemble the power of God that inspires me as a Mormon, and hardly exemplifies a God I would worship or aspire toward. If that’s priesthood power, count me out.

However, conflating priesthood power solely with church governance is a narrow approach to what could be a powerful, inspiring, and sublime tool for all humanity. I believe it is possible to approach priesthood power beyond patriarchy, asinine exclusivity, and superstition.

So what does priesthood power look like independent of patriarchal governance?

The priesthood power is the knowledge of God, the power by which the universe is governed, and is the authority to act in the name of God. Doctrine and Covenants 84:19 states “This greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.”

John Taylor comments that the Priesthood “governs all things—it directs all things—it sustains all things—and has to do with all things that God and truth are associated with. It is the Power of God delegated to intelligences in the heavens…and on the earth.” (Millennial Star, Volume 9, p.321)

Brigham Young declared: “If anybody wants to know what the priesthood is, it is the Law by which the worlds are, were and will continue forever and ever. It is that system which brings worlds into existence and peoples them, gives them their revolutions, their days, weeks, months, years, their seasons and times and by which they go into a higher state of existence.” (Discourse of Brigham Young, p.130)

“Priesthood is the authority…to act officially in the accomplishment of the Plan of Salvation.” (Priesthood and Church Government, p.35) “Priesthood implies purpose. The purpose of the Plan, made clear in modern revelation, is the eternal, progressive welfare of human beings.” (Program of the Church, John Widtsoe, p.127)

Priesthood power is God’s work, and that work is clearly illustrated in Moses 1:39, “For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” I’m confident that includes women too.

As stated in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “It is the power by which mortal bodies will be resurrected immortal, to be possessed forever by the spirits who dwelt in them, glorified by God according to their works while in mortality. It is the power by which eternal joy may be attained, but always and only through obedience to the laws and principles of righteousness as exemplified and taught by the Savior.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Priesthood, 1992) Here we are encouraged to follow the example of Jesus Christ when exercising priesthood authority. Alma 13:8-9 suggests those that are ordained take upon them the high priesthood, becoming high priests forever after the order of Jesus Christ without beginning or end, “who is full of grace, equity, and truth.” If God’s priesthood power is exemplified through the example of Jesus, the priesthood power mandates the equal opportunity for participation, as we have all been invited to be one in Christ.

Mormons are firm believers that “faith without works is dead,” and by modern revelation it will be according to our works in mortality whether or not we will be successful. Cosmoforming, terraforming, resurrection, and immortality are lofty goals; and I trust humanity would benefit from the equal participation of women.

Doctrine and Covenants prophesies the earth “may be prepared for the celestial glory…that bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever.” The celestial kingdom is prophesied to be right here if we choose to exercise our priesthood power to bring about the transcendence of the human condition.

This is the priesthood power that inspires me. This represents a godly power worth magnifying. I will continue to seek after all priesthood power including ordination. As Joseph Smith taught, “I advise all to go on in perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of godliness.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.364)

If the priesthood is reduced to little more than a tool of patriarchy to assert authority over others with unnecessary exclusions, then indeed a woman’s desire for ordination would be unrighteous in such context. However, if the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God to participate in the work of creation, organization, immortality, and resurrection, I can find no fault in a woman’s desire to be more fully involved in priesthood responsibilities and religious rituals that motivate actions toward those goals.

I’ll respectfully disagree with Widtsoe’s comment that “surely no right thinking woman could crave more responsibility.” I am a right thinking woman and I do crave more responsibility. I know I’m in the minority, but being in the minority doesn’t make a person wrong. Anyone with vision who ever dared to question, divert, or protest was once in the minority, including Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith.

If the priesthood is what they say it is, we should encourage every human being on the planet to participate in the work of God. If the priesthood is what they say it is, shouldn’t all who desire to act in God’s name to bring about the immortality of humanity be commended and ordained? If the priesthood is what they say it is, I can reach no other conclusion by my Mormon upbringing that to desire to be a priesthood representative of the Almighty is exactly what God would want me to do—in all capacities, not just in capacities outlined by patriarchal authority. If the priesthood is what they say it is, am I not an heir of God too?

*Published at Rational Faiths on Thursday, September 22, 2016

Life is Not Static

(Artist: Mariam Soliman)

I lie on my back staring at the canopy of color, listening to the sounds of the earth. The birds. The breeze. The leaves. The insects. The stream. My heart pleads, "Stay. Make this moment last a little longer." But the moment is gone. The sting of impermanence left its mark.

Why must the leaves change so quickly? If fall is death, why is it so beautiful? Perhaps it is only beautiful, because life will emerge again. Perhaps it is not death, but simply change.

There is beauty in the angst of impermanence, because it is a consequence of love and longing. There is beauty in suffering. Not all suffering, but some. I certainly don't advocate for apathy toward suffering, however, if there is no suffering or pain, there is no love or joy. The only way to end suffering is to end life. All becomes meaningless in the absence of opposition. 

Although, the beauty of pain and suffering would be overshadowed by the beauty of life emerging. Reemerging. Not all beauty is equal. Perhaps I'm young and naïve, limited by my embodiment and finite logic, but I would like to behold the beauty of eternal life. Eternal progression inspires me and begets my actions toward greater goals in an ongoing process of becoming. Life is not static, and I do not see how eternal life could be static. There is endless potential within humanity, but it requires impermanence, suffering, and love.

An Atheist in Relief Society

(Artist: Lonely Speck)

In Relief Society, we recently studied Lesson 16: Marriage—An Eternal Partnership. First, I want to commend the instructor for not making any comments about traditional marriage being under attack. The lesson could have easily been swayed in that direction, but she focused on more inspiring topics and gave a wonderful presentation.

However, the lesson placed a heavy emphasis on a marriage being secondary to God, or rather, your relationship with God is more important than your relationship with your spouse.

The lesson manual read, “Marriage is often referred to as a partnership with God. This is not just a figure of speech. If this partnership remains strong and active, the man and woman will love each other as they love God.”

The instructor then drew an equilateral triangle on the white board with the top angle labeled “God”, and the bottom two angles labeled “husband” and “wife”. It is a common illustration used in LDS Mormonism to enforce the idea that God is just as important, or perhaps more important than your spouse.

As illustrated in the lesson:

“An eternal marriage will be composed of a worthy man and a worthy woman, both of whom have been individually baptized with water and with the Spirit; who have individually gone to the temple to receive their own endowments; who have individually pledged their fidelity to God and to their partner in the marriage covenant; and who have individually kept their covenants, doing all that God expected of them. Living the principles of the gospel makes a happy marriage.”

But what if all the promised happiness that comes from obedience to religious regulations doesn’t provide happiness, but instead sadness, frustration and pain? What if your spouse loses their faith in God entirely?

My mind left the Relief Society room and drifted to a distant memory.

It was roughly three years ago. Our family was in the car driving through the Utah desert during the night. Our children were peacefully sleeping in their car seats while Drew focused on the dusty road ahead. We had at least another three hours on the road.

Despite the peaceful silence of the drive my heart was pounding and my palms were sweating. This was the moment. I have to tell him I don’t believe in God. I had waited long enough. If there was ever a right time it was now. We still had a long drive ahead, so no one could get angry and leave the car. We also had the children sleeping soundly in the back, so no one could lose their temper and yell. God or no God, there are certain universal truths that must be accepted—you never wake a sleeping child was something we could always agree on.

I struggled with how to begin and awkwardly blurted out, “What if God wasn’t leading any of the religions? What if religion was all made up?”

My comment to him was so absurd he smiled and laughed, “What are you talking about?”

I realized I needed to start off slower. I began, “What I meant to say was, there is a lot of good to be found in religion. When you served your mission in Rome, you met a lot of wonderful Catholics. Do you think God was influencing the Catholic Church?”

Drew responded, “Of course I believe that. There is truth to be found in all religions, and God is helping all of them. He’s just influencing us more, because we have the true church.”

I exhaled and continued, “Hypothetically, what if that weren’t the case? Let’s pretend God is helping all the religions equally.”

He replied, “Yeah, but he’s helping ours a little more than others, right?”

His question was clearly rhetorical.

I continued, “Why would He do that? Why favor us over any other religion? Do you honestly think that if you were a native of India you would still be Mormon? No. You would likely be a Hindu—a wonderful Hindu man who was dedicated to his faith and family, but mostly likely a Hindu.”

He paused, “Maybe, but don’t you think someone like me would find the Gospel and convert?”

I replied, “I find that highly unlikely. You were born Mormon and that’s why you’re Mormon. If you were born Jewish, you would probably stay Jewish.”

He said, “I suppose you might be right, but everyone will get the chance to accept the Gospel when they die. I would accept it then.”

I responded, “But how do you know? Because you prayed about it and got a good feeling? I can’t live like that. People get good feelings about all sorts of things, and some of them are quite terrible. Prayers and feelings aren’t reliable.”

Drew became slightly defensive, “What are you saying?”

Things were getting intense. I looked back to make sure our children were still asleep and reminded us both to keep our voices down. I continued whispering, “I’m saying I don’t believe God is leading Mormonism more than any other religion. I don’t believe God would favor such a small portion of people.”

He conceded, “Ok. I can see that. You’re saying God is leading all the religions equally. I can live with that.”

I paused and apprehensively pressed forward, “Well, not exactly. Now that we have established God is leading all the religions equally, let’s pretend God is not leading any of the religions equally. Let’s say all churches and religions are equally wading on their own without divine help. What if there is no God?”

Drew furrowed his brow, “What?”

I breathed, “I’m saying I don’t believe anymore. I have lost all desire to put faith in Heavenly Father.”

If it is possible for a person to yell while whispering, that is exactly what Drew did, “What are you saying!? You want to just stop going to church? You don’t want to baptize the kids or send them on missions? You already stopped wearing your garments. You refuse to go to the temple, and now this? What does this mean!?”

I searched for something positive to say. My heart started pounding again. I was crushing him. His whole worldview was being deconstructed and worst of all I was the angst of his discomfort. Nothing in the world meant more to him than us being together forever as a happy family in the Celestial Kingdom. It really wasn’t an unreasonable request. I agreed to it when we were married. Even though it seemed nothing more than fiction to me, it was very real to him. But perceptions of reality and fantasy collide and there was no going back.

I recalled horror stories of spouses that left their marriage once they learned their partner had lost their faith—spouses taking the children away, threatening to refuse visitation—I was mortified by the thought. Drew was clearly the better parent of the two of us. I always tried my best, I certainly was a good parent, but I couldn’t compare to Drew. What if he took the kids and left? He would never do something like that. Even worse, what if he would be happier with another woman that wasn’t me? Would I love him enough to let him go and have a happy life with someone else? My eyes began to well up at the thought of not being together over something as stupid as God. My love for Drew was far stronger than my hate toward any god.

The words came pouring out of my mouth, “I know this is hard. I’m not saying we have to leave the Church. I’m not even saying I’m leaving the Church. If you asked me to, I would live it for you. I will be the Primary President (which I was). I will be the perfect wife of the Elders Quorum President (which he was). I will even go to the temple and send our children on missions. Mormons are good people. I just…I just needed you to know the truth. I only wanted to be honest with you.”

All my love, fear, pain, and passion overflowed, and I allowed a few tears to escape my eyes and roll down my hot cheeks.

We sat in silence. I felt like we were two strangers in car driving down a road with an unknown destination. Have I finally pushed him past the breaking point? Why do I always feel this compulsive need to be so goddamn honest!?

I scrambled for something to say, but he broke the silence first.

He softly whispered, “Don’t be ridiculous.”

I regained my composure, “What?”

He repeated himself, “Don’t be ridiculous. I would never ask you to live a lie for me. It wouldn’t be you.”

I awkwardly smiled, “I know you wouldn’t, but my offer is still sincere. I would do almost anything for you.”

He replied, “I know. That’s why it’s easy to love you.”

His calm presence was reassuring, but it was clear I deeply injured him. I wanted to make it better, but I didn’t want to lie. I hated being the source of his conflicting pain and joy. The only comforting thing I could say to him was, “I’m still the woman you loved yesterday. You just know me a little better today.”

He silently reached across the divide and gently held my hand. Words ran dry, but with the touch of our hands we were in agreement. We both knew this was not something that would be solved over night in a single conversation, but we were committed to figuring it out together. Any God that did or didn’t exist was just going to have to make its peace with the fact that we put our marriage before our perceptions of God and religion. Right now was more important.

The voice of the Relief Society instructor interrupted my memory. I was back in the fluorescent lit room sitting in an outdated upholstered chair with my legs crossed and arms folded reverently.

I raised my hand and respectfully said, “I wanted to add that I can imagine situations in which putting your marriage before God is the right thing to do. I was an atheist and I will be forever grateful that my husband loved me more than his God. It was also vital to our marriage that I loved him more than God, because I did not love God at all, in fact, I hated masculine projections of god. Life is complicated, and I trust the God I worship now is really ok with the fact that we loved each other more than our perceptions of God, religion, heaven and an afterlife. Our love transcended those differences, and ironically, it was quite godly.”

*Published at Rational Faiths on Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Bisexual Women and Consent

(Artist: Simon Chaput)

Let’s be clear, all sexual assault is horrid and deserves attention and care. It is not my intent to undermine, neglect, or minimize the trauma and experiences of others who are not bisexual females. The intention of this post is to add to the conversation an awareness of the specific challenges bisexual women face, so we can collectively stop the continuation of harmful stereotypes. I also want to clarify that I do not speak for the entire bisexual community, and I speak only to my own experiences and research.

According to the findings in Victimization by Sexual Orientation Survey, in comparison to heterosexual women, bisexual women are twice as likely to experience sexual assault and three times as likely to be raped. Bisexual women have a 46.1% chance of being forcibly raped. This rate is 2.6 times higher than straight women and 3.5 times higher than lesbian women.

I briefly mentioned my experience with sexual assault when I participated in the BYU: Stop Silencing Victims demonstration. Many women are apprehensive to come forward after an assault or rape because of the rape culture that is perpetuated by the Honor Code. However, when a bisexual woman is assaulted her sexual orientation can and will be used against her with assumptions that she deserved or liked the sexual violence imposed upon her due to stereotypes surrounding her sexual orientation. Another challenge preventing bisexual women from coming forward is that her sexual orientation can also be used as grounds for discipline or expulsion.

Bisexual women share a harmful stereotype with male victims of sexual assault. Both seem to be perceived as always wanting sex, therefore sexual assault against them isn’t taken seriously. Sadly, she is the person most likely to experience sexual assault, but is also treated as the least trustworthy. It’s not difficult to understand why bisexual women are reluctant to even report their assault. When they do bisexual women receive the fewest positive social reactions overall, and have higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The media and porn industry can complicate the problem when they project bisexual women as sex objects to fulfill the fetishes of others without regard for her consent or desires, especially when these scenarios are combined with violent and/or oppressive behaviors. Bisexual women are then dehumanized by becoming the hypersexualized trope in a patriarchal narrative.

It’s a horrible feeling to be:

1. Told your sexual orientation isn’t real, or doesn’t exist

2. Greeted with skepticism by both hetero and homosexual individuals

3. Fetishized and objectified

4. Assaulted partly or fully due to stereotypes about bisexuality

5. Experience biphobia and bi erasure

6. Distrusted when reporting an assault, because you’re a “confused” bisexual

7. Blamed for seeking attention when you are seeking help

8. Disregarded as having illegitimate or exaggerated concerns

9. Sexually assaulted by both males and females

10. Told you deserved it because of your sexual orientation

This puts bisexual women in a losing paradox of being perceived as promiscuous and undesirable, while also being objectified as the pinnacle of sexual desire. There’s no winning.

There is a reason why bisexuals are called the “invisible majority.” According to Pew Research, bisexuals are also much less likely than gay men or lesbians to “come out” to the important people in their life. Only 28% of bisexuals say all or most of the important people in their life know they are bisexual. By comparison, 77% of gay men and 71% of lesbians say the important people in their life know about their sexual orientation. Despite the “B” being the largest subset in the LGBT+ community, many are apprehensive to come forward about their orientation not only because they receive shaming for having a non-heterosexual orientation and/or are rejected for not being “completely gay”, but because their orientation puts a target on their backs for sexual harassment, assault, violence, and rape.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that bisexuals are not a legitimate part of the LGBT+ community, or they are only legitimate after they prove themselves with a detailed description of the sexual history. This is one reason why many bisexuals reside in the “normalcy” of a heterosexual marriage or relationship. It’s safe. True, bisexuals often enjoy the privileges of blending into a predominately heterosexual society, but many suffer in silence when it comes to sexual violence and harassment due to the unique rape culture that surrounds bisexual women.

Bisexuality does not mean sexual attraction towards anything with a pulse. Bisexuality does not mean sexuality attracted toward you. Bisexuality is not an invitation for sexual contact. Bisexuality does not mean having indiscriminant sex with multiple partners. Bisexuality does not mean she is automatically interested in non-monogamy. Bisexuality does not mean confused. Bisexuality does not mean you are entitled to intimate details about her sex life. Bisexuality does not mean you are entitled to making her your bipoly unicorn. Bisexuality does not mean hypersexuality, promiscuity, or nymphomania. But most importantly, bisexuality does not mean you can dismiss the legitimacy of her orientation or consent.

As we continue to have important and productive conversations about consent, rape, assault, harassment, violence and rape culture, I hope we seek to better understand the experiences and challenges of all victims, so we can work together to build communities where all victims can get the help they need and everyone’s consent is respected.

*Published at Feminist Mormon Housewives on Saturday, July 23, 2016