The Two Foes (based on Valerie Hudson’s "The Two Trees")

by Angela Felsted

Note: This is a speech given to a group of men in a speculative culture where women hold the priestesshood and men do not. In other words, for the purposes of this blogpost, we believe in Christ, a Heavenly Mother, following the Prophetess, and worshiping in a church that's grounded in matriarchy.

I’m delighted to address the faithful men in this glorious church.

I didn’t convert to the Restored Gospel because I believe in gender equality. I stay, nevertheless, because I DO believe in equality of the sexes, and I’m here to speak about what makes our doctrine revolutionary from an egalitarian perspective.

According to the Gospel, we are to aspire to Godhood, and without men and women loving each other as equals there is no Godhood. Heavenly Mother doesn’t own her own condo. In fact, the one with the expensive TV and sound system, who doesn’t have to share her things or run her decisions by a man, is Satan. 

This is ground-breaking.

Second, the Church teaches that we’ll have our male or female body eternally. This is a reward for our faithfulness in the preexistence. Men, your prostate, your penis, your testicles, are not blights. Brothers, they are blessings. The Restored Church tells us we marry for time and eternity, that we’ll reproduce for eternity, and that the life of being a man married to a righteous priestess, creating righteous children through your seed will bring eternal joy.

A third thing we’re taught is that women and men are equal in the Lord’s eyes. Just, please don’t use the worldly definition of the word “equal”—”equal” doesn’t mean "the same". To be honest, no two women look or act the same and yet, they are equals before God. That is what God’s true church teaches.

Now remember the diverse ways women and men are equal. They have equal gifts. They are equal cohorts with equal influence, equal in growth when exalted to the celestial kingdom, equal in earthly possessions at least in The Kingdom of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. This is ground-breaking. This is radical. This is an earth-shattering view of equality!

I do not believe we can completely understand this doctrine unless we know what occurred in the Garden of Eden, and I hope to show that the Church’s greater understanding of the fall wholly changes the conventional story of Adam and Eve in a way that is harmonious with God’s vision of equality. Before I go into detail, however, I want to set up three points.

Number one: we don’t think the Fall was a bad thing. Rather, we think the Fall was necessary, and that God had a contingency plan which Adam carried out when Eve partook of the fruit.

Number two: we don’t think Adam wimped out when he succumbed to the will of Eve and the serpent.

And number three: because we don’t think Adam wimped out, we also don’t think Adam was penalized when he chose to eat the fruit. On the contrary, he was rewarded.

We need to remember that there were two trees in the garden, two people (Adam and Eve), and Two Foes watching over the fruit of those trees: the serpent and the angel with the flaming sword. I think it’s fascinating that we have Two People and Two Foes.

I believe a man’s purpose has everything to do with how Adam refused to be separated from Eve. It is only right that man was the one who firmly shut the door behind them as they entered the world to protect the woman’s heel from the teeth of the serpent. 

Adam wasn’t the weakest of men; Adam was the strongest of men. He was the most obedient, the most loyal, the most brave. So it was only right then when Jesus was dying on the cross he addressed not a woman to take care of his priestess mother, but a man; it was a man. Jesus trusted a man to take care of his mother as he hung on the cross and thus repaid Father Adam for slipping past the First Foe to follow Eve through the door to mortality.

But what does Eve do now? Well, I think we’re pretty familiar with this part of the Plan of Salvation. We believe that since Eve didn’t have the backbone to resist the snake, it is her responsibility to face the angel with a flaming sword, pluck the fruit from the second tree, and open the door for all of God’s children who have lived a clean and worthy life by giving them the precious fruit of the second tree. And we all know that the fruit of that tree represents the saving ordinances necessary for exaltation. 

Just as the veil into this life is penetrated and parted by men (the sons of God, who plant their seed in a woman’s womb) even so the veil in the temple that brings us back to our Heavenly Parents, is penetrated by a female hand and parted by the daughters of God. And the acceptance of this great gift and blessing, offered by the daughters of God through the priestesshood, will guarantee a man’s passage through the veil and into the presence of his Heavenly Mother. 

We need to come to a true understanding of what we term “The Matriarchal Order.” We know the word “matriarchy,” if you accept the definition in a standard dictionary, is an institutional structure where women rule over men, but we also know that this isn’t the order of Heaven. So clearly what we have in the church is not a matriarchy. But we do believe in a matriarchal order. The question is, why do we name it that, and why should we reject secular meanings that attempt to define a matriarchy as women ruling over men? 

After all, the matriarchal order of the church was given its name because the power of the priestesshood is passed down from mother to daughter, and because only women perform the saving ordinances required to help God’s children defeat the Second Foe. But we know from modern revelation that this system of governance is really the order of the family, where a woman and man covenant with God—just like Adam and Eve did—to love each other forever, to multiply and replenish the earth, and to give greatest energy and talents to the Lord.

So when we talk about the matriarchal order, we’re really talking about a family government found in the hereafter where women and men are equal partners. 

The priestesshood isn’t an extra blessing bestowed on women and denied men. Priestesshood is a form of training necessary so she can qualify for Godhood, and I think men have their own form of training for Godhood. The ordinances—and they are ordinances—of flesh and free will—courtship, foreplay, penetration—the holy ordinances which protect mankind from the First Foe are not less powerful than the ordinances that combat the Second Foe. 

Our God is one of equality. She will not put a heavy burden on the shoulders of men who deserve more. She has given the priestesshood to women as a gift to her sons, and I love the Restored Church’s vision of gender equality and fairness. Nothing causes me greater happiness than the restoration of the priestesshood. How lucky we are to live in these times, to have this knowledge, and to know that in the eyes of God we are all equal.

A Woman's Place- Part 4

 by Angela Felsted

I grew up in a home with three brothers, so I can attest to the fact that some teenage boys are resentful of the extra work that comes with having the priesthood. I’ve never been required to wake up at the crack of dawn for a church meeting, never been pressured to put my life on hold to serve a mission, nor was I taught the importance of finding a career that would enable me to support my future family. As a young woman, the emphasis was in becoming the kind of girl that would be worthy of a man’s protection through keeping my thoughts clean, my body covered, and my virtue intact. Why pursue a lucrative profession if you believe your future husband will take care of you financially; why go into a prestigious field like law if it keeps you from staying home full time with your children?

In the church we call men and women equals while proscribing them segregated roles. We preach that a mother’s work is as respected and admired as any man’s even though men who do my work (Stay-At-Home Fathers or part-time workers who spend more time with family) cannot be found anywhere in the paid church hierarchy. Because the truth is, men who succeed in building prestigious (non-nurturing) careers are the ones who are called as spiritual leader. The two counselors who advise the president of the church are perfect examples of this: Henry B. Eyring went from teaching at Stanford Business School in 1962 to working as President of Ricks College from 1971-1977, and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, who began flying airplanes for Lufthansa in 1965, was promoted to Senior Vice President of Flight Operations in 1992.

It’s only right that these men are admired for their ambition. After all, they are not mothers, called selfish from the pulpit for having the drive to pursue their careers. Authors such as William Bennett, who attribute the disintegration of stable families with the rise of feminism, would be hard pressed to find a better religious organization to model “The Path to Manhood” from. Mormons women are taught to value the home not only as teenagers, when temple marriage is held up as their ultimate goal but also as adults through sermons, lessons and pictures such as those found in the church’s newest publication, “Daughters of My Kingdom,” littered with images of idyllic family life: a mother and father singing with children around a piano, one photo of a family with six bright and cheerful kids, and more than one well-rested mother holding a calm and peaceful newborn.

This one-size-fits-all version of womanhood, advertised like a brand of designer tennis shoes, is isolating to those who believe in the doctrines of the church, but struggle with the womanhood/motherhood connection, or with an abusive spouse, or with the realization that raising children is a tiring job that depletes a person’s energy. The voices of these real women who have real needs are drowned out by the daunting image of the perfect female nurturer. And let’s be honest, new mothers are tired, not all kids are serene, most make messes, many of them do not listen—taking care of children, cleaning a home, doing laundry, and fixing meals isn’t just hard work, it can be tedious. Granted, there are those who enjoy these things, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no ladder to climb in this profession, no reputation to build, no money to be made (unless you work for someone else). 

By highlighting only the most fulfilling moments of family life to its female population, the Mormon church is employing the same commercial techniques which Barber believes has infantilized the US population. There are three ways this harms women (and by extension families): first, it sets future mothers up for disillusionment; second, it creates an environment where those who feel marginalized cannot speak up without censor from their peers; and third, it establishes an unrealistic standard which makes women (single and married) think there’s something wrong with them when men do not propose, babies do not come, or having children does not bring them perfect joy. That last part describes exactly what happened to Lisa Butterworth, an LDS woman who went through her own period of disillusionment before starting the blog, Feminist Mormon Housewives: “I had entered adulthood, married in the temple, and arrived at my destination of perfect Mormon womanhood, but… here was doubt. All my years of faithful Young Women attendance had not prepared me for doubt. Except perhaps to instill the fear that doubt meant I was a bad person.”

Dr. Kent Ponder wrote a widely distributed study in 2003 based on nearly 300 interviews with LDS women called Mormon Women, Prozac® and Therapy where he pinpoints three harmful and often overlooked realities of the male-centric Mormon culture/church: it’s one-size-fits-all creed for women, the requirement that females obey men in authority from birth to death, and how women in the Church forfeit control of their own life choices.

Six months ago, I would have called that last one a load of rubbish, but I have since taken time to think back on the principles stressed in my formative years along with their impact on my choices as a young single woman and must admit that his statement has some merit. For starters, my decision to major in music rather than a practical, more lucrative profession was rooted in my belief that the patriarchal system would always be there to take care of me. And this is the belief that relieved me of pressure to support myself after college graduation when I moved in with my parents and worked a handful of part-time jobs: Jewelry Store Salesman, Switch Board Operator, Office Temp, Substitute Teacher, Free Lance Musician, and Private Music Instructor. By the time I married in 1999, I was a college educated women who had never gotten her own apartment, paid her own car insurance, owned her own credit card, or worked at anything other than a dead end job—but I was pure, completely devoted to the gospel, and looked on my leaders with a childlike faith that matched my childlike obedience.

In the church’s estimation I was a success.

A Woman's Place- Part 3

One of the first feminists in the history of the United States was John Adam’s wife, Abigail, who wrote to her husband on March 31, 1776 to ask him to give women a voice in the running of the new government: “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”

Despite her ultimatum, no room was made for “the ladies” in this new government. Wives back then were property under the law. Any land owned by a single woman was given to her husband when she married. John Adams sums up the commonly held beliefs of the day which allowed for the disenfranchisement of half the population to John Sullivan in a letter where he explains why women should not vote: “ . . . because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience in the great business of life . . . Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares.”

The LDS church uses similar language to explain why mothers of young and school aged children are not permitted to hold paid teaching position with the Church Education System, why they cannot serve as temple workers, and why a woman’s only true authority is in the home.

In 1993 Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the twelve apostles had this to say about the roles of men and women: “Some roles are best suited to the masculine nature and others to the feminine nature. Both the scriptures and the patterns of nature place man as the protector, the provider. . . . Those responsibilities of the priesthood, which have to do with the administration of the Church, of necessity function outside the home. . . . The woman, by her very nature, is also co-creator with God and the primary nurturer of the children.”

After he speaks about how men are not to dominate their wives, maintaining their power only “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge.” He goes on to say this about the role a woman plays: “This divine service of motherhood can be rendered only by mothers. It may not be passed to others. Nurses cannot do it; public nurseries cannot do it; hired help cannot do it—only mother, aided as much as may be by the loving hands of father, brothers, and sisters, can give the full needed measure of watchful care . . . . The mother who entrusts her child to the care of others, that she may do non-motherly work, whether for gold, for fame, or for civic service, should remember that ‘a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.’ (Prov. 29:15)”

Every so often, I feel like I’m living in a time warp. Has the rest of the world really moved on to letting females serve in positions of ecclesiastical authority outside the home—are their voices really heard and respected in matters once considered the domain of men? If you ask your typical Mormon woman if she is oppressed, she will say no! Absolutely not! The men in our church are taught to esteem the fairer sex, cherish womanhood, care for widows, protect their wives, and provide for the mothers of their children. They are trained from the tender age of twelve to help others by serving in the church.

At the time when many American men are starting their sophomore years at college, Mormon boys are encouraged to delay their education to preach the gospel in a place they’ve never been, among people they have yet to meet.

A few months after my future husband arrived in Mexico for his two-year mission, he was sent to a tropical region, where he slept in a humid room with no air conditioner, making trips to a cockroach infested outhouse in the dead of night. When the sun came up, it beat down with such intensity he shaved his head to keep cool, only to receive the worst sunburn of his life. To make matters worse, his Mission President assigned him a companion who, in the midst of talking to strangers and knocking on doors, badgering and begged my future husband to help him buy a donkey, after which he broke their one and only fan, destroyed all the lights, and began tearing the electrical wires from the walls in a fit of rage.

When my future husband mentioned these issues to the Mission President, he was told to suck it up and deal with it—a scenario which was repeated with another difficult companion a few months later, except that in the second case he was so angry and disillusioned he walked to the bus station with the intention of leaving. Torn between the conviction of his faith and the hell of trying to preach said faith, he found himself sitting alone on a bench on Christmas day bereft of friends or family when two complete and total strangers convinced him to go back and try again.

Is it any wonder with this kind of training ground, the majority of Mormon men value persistence and hard work? Is it any wonder that this particular religion has produced successful, influential leaders like Steven Covey, J.W. Marriot, and Mitt Romney?

Since marrying my husband, I’ve watched him help people move, visit the poor and depressed, give blessings to the sick, and offer our home as a place of refuge for a teenage boy kicked out by his own mother. I’ve watched my husband testify of the strength of his beliefs while struggling to sustain leadership which doesn’t always know better than to use guilt and toxic shame as motivators. Spiritual abuse is a problem in the church, and I’ve watched my husband get walked over time and again while feeling utterly powerless to protect him. So often when I’ve tried to defend him to leaders, I’ve had my concerns and suggestions dismissed right before said leaders compliment me on my compassionate heart.

The majority of LDS men I have met go to great lengths to pay homage to the women in their lives. They see these accolades of verbal appreciation as a form of honor, and often get defensive when a woman utters the word “oppressed” in regards to her place in the church. The problem with the O word is that it brings to mind images of workers weighed down under boulder-like responsibilities as a foreman cracks a whip to keep them laboring. Under this definition it isn’t Mormon women who can claim oppression, but the men who offer their bodies as stepping stools to lift their wives, mothers, and daughters onto a pedestal. 

Our Thoughts: From the Peacewriter Writers- Celebrating the Peacewriter's 100th Post

  

To celebrate the 100th post, several of the writers on the blog put together their thoughts about the journey, finding peace, and accepting the paths others around us choose as well.  

From St. Jude:

Ex-Mormon, Inactive, Jack Mormon… we slap a title on them and think we have them all figured out. But the reality is under that label is a husband, a father, a daughter…

Imagine if your life was celebrated rather than judged. Imagine if we could all stop judging each other’s lives and start celebrating them. What if today we stopped referring to people who have left the church as an apostate, or deceived, or lost? Maybe today we could refer to them by a standard not set by a church; rather we could call them a good man, a good mother, a loving son, a compassionate daughter. What if today we stopped judging them by a belief system; today we are only allowed to judge them fairly, from our heart and what we know to be true about them.

No church can compensate for a family’s love and support.

Can we give ourselves permission to celebrate the lives of those we love even if they chose a path other than our own? D &C 64:10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.” This is what unconditional love looks like. These are your children, your parents, your friends; they are not commodities that should be set at distance because they don’t agree with your world view. Do your family members really have to attend church to receive your love and support? If you’re answer is “I do love them but…” that “but” is a fail marker. Can you say a prayer for their happiness that doesn’t include a miracle to bring them back to your vision of how their life should be? Time is ticking away from all of us.  How much time has to pass before we can see there is so much more to a person than a belief system.

For those who have left the church, this unconditional love is a two way street. It’s ok for you to be happy for your family members who are going off on missions, marrying in the temple, spending their Friday night date night at the cannery. Your vision of life is not their vision of life, but it makes them happy, and brings them peace. Happiness and peace should be things we hope for each other. Its’ ok to ask “ How was the temple?” It won’t kill you to hear them say how they felt the spirit and received what they feel was an answer to prayer. It won’t kill you to say “that’s great, I’m glad you had a good experience there.”

All of us need to take off the rose colored glasses of judgment that we see each other through. Stop looking from outward sources at these people we label and see them from your heart, See them with love and compassion, find a reason to celebrate life with them, not in spite of them. It won’t affect your own salvation, but then again, being a little more Christ like just might. 

From Angela:

Mormons draw on history to affirm their faith. They feel the angst of young Joseph as he kneels in the grove of trees, the worry of Emma (his wife) when her husband is imprisoned, the hope and fear of men and women as they cross the plains in search of religious freedom. 

These things are in the past, but many of us feel them in the present. The pain and anguish of our ancestors become our own pain and anguish, cementing us together not only as a people who believe in a similar theology, but as a people grounded in a common past. This isn't an easy thing to leave behind.

From Tom:

I have spent a good deal of time of my life as a firm believer in Christ, God and the authority the LDS church claims it has.  And after going through my personal crisis of faith, I’ve spent the last four years in a state of unbelief and uncertainty.  It didn’t take me long to realize that I’ve been trying to walk on a path with very little footing.  My foundation had been ripped out from under me and I was in a place of trying to rebuild my spiritual identity from the ground up. 

So in these last few years I’ve encountered a great deal of hurt, anger, pain, betrayal and permanent damage from many people who have gone through a crisis of faith of their own.  Some find a “home” in their anger, or resentment towards the church.  I understand that.  I’ve also seen many people burn bridges with family and loved ones all in reaction of losing their faith in the church.  In fact, I’ve been one of those who burned a few bridges of my own and I regret that.  So I am now in a place where I am more interested in building bridges, rather than burning them.

This place, this blog, was created by a dear friend of mine.  This person said to me, “wouldn’t it be great to have a place where people could find peace and solace through each other, regardless of beliefs?”  And it was our own Stephanie’s words that immediately became the motto for this place.  Loving and accepting words. 

I still have my phases of anger towards the church.  No doubt.  I have trouble with things said to me and my family that I firmly disagree with.  I currently reside in a forced position of having to navigate these crazy waters.  Would I like to not deal with trying to sustain a relationship with the church?  Yes.  Would I rather leave the church and permanently damage my marriage and family relationships?  Absolutely not. 

So why this place Tom?  Well, in my four year journey thus far I’ve seen how much beauty there is in other people.  And I don’t give a flying shoot about what they believe anymore.  I don’t have a single ounce of missionary intentions in me any longer.  I have NO interest in converting anyone one way or another.  What I am interested in is hearing and seeing what works for people and what they have gone through to be who they are today. 

I have recently become involved with suicide prevention.  Hearing stories of those who have lost a loved one through suicide will change you and as I continue to be more and more involved with those involved I will continue to change. 

I am not a wise person.  I don’t have any good and lasting answers for people.  I can share my experiences and hope that something I’ve gone through can give peace or possibly spark an idea for them.  I am in a position with more questions than any real answers.  I recently told a friend that I feel like I’m a sponge, just trying to soak in as much as I can to help me get a better perspective of where I’m headed.  I am still trying to build a spiritual foundation for myself.  So, I’m still on the ground level spiritually and I can often get overwhelmed with how much work I need to do. 

So I would like to personally thank all of The Peacewriter readers for coming here by, reading, sharing and leaving comments.  But I really want to give a virtual hug of sincere thanks to those who have come here and contributed:  St. Jude, Oliver, Ingrid, Mel and most recently Angela. 

But I would most like to publicly thank Stephanie.  Because without her, this place would not exist and so many of these powerful words that have had a direct influence my life would have never been spoken or written. 

I consider myself just a fan.

From Stephanie:

Recently a friend posted a comment on a message board that went something like this:

I don't know that any of us have to understand why other people choose to remain active or maintain affiliation with the church and others do not. What works for some people does not work for others.

My thoughts exactly. 

The power in that quote is in the acknowledgement that there are different paths to choose and for those of us who live on the fringes, it is nice to have someone willing to back you up, no matter where your path is taking you.

Like many others who have been down the same road I have yet to find a road map that tells me what comes next.  The way is different for everyone.  For me, it has become about a quest for peace and a place to belong.

The vision for The Peacewriter was a simple one inspired by an amazing friend whose life choices reminded me that there is value in finding a middle path, of working through the hills and valleys and finding peace along the way.  In the beginning I was angry and wanted to destroy everything I could that reminded me of the Church.  But the example of my friend and the words of others taught me that I was going from one black and white worldview to another.

I wanted to create a place where people could come and talk things through, to find peace through words and thoughts and ideas.  To some, the words may seem harsh or even critical at times, but to others, there may be something resonating.  And maybe, another traveler might feel less alone on the rocky and winding trail.

I hope we have accomplished just that.  I want to dedicate this 100^th post to the many writers who have shared their thoughts and made this place just what I hoped it would be.  My journey has been made bearable by reading their words and feeling the love of the friends who have crossed my path.  I can only hope The Peacewriter has given others a place to find peace as they traverse their own paths.

A Woman's Place- Part 2

In 2007, Benjamin R. Barber, a political theorist and director of the Interdependence Movement, published a book about how consumer capitalism is breaking down the fabric of society. I mention this because the home and church are part of the fabric of society, and while there are those who blame feminism for the implosion of solid, stable homes, I believe there is a simpler explanation.

  In Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole, Barber shows how the commercial economies in the western world have forced children to grow up faster, made sweat shops in underdeveloped countries thrive, and pressured adults in capitalistic societies to put off saving in favor of spending money they don’t have. He then takes his premise one step further by saying consumers have taken the place of citizens.

For centuries, women have entered into marriage expecting to work and take on more responsibility. While some wives have labored alongside their husbands, others have cultivated their own garden, educated children, or found a separate job to increase the household budget. My maternal grandmother helped out at a local grocery store for one dollar a week during the Great Depression. My father’s mother had nine children and spent her evenings changing bedpans and nursing the sick at the local hospital.

I believe our expectations of marriage have changed since the introduction of modern conveniences like online shopping, streaming video, credit cards, and Disney movies that portray love and marriage as a sugar-coated, happily-ever-after experience. As American consumers, we are bombarded with commercials on television, Facebook, YouTube, the newspaper, Google, blogs, and magazines. Barber writes that this pushing of “stuff” does wonders for the US economy, but that by giving buyers whatever they want right now, adults have forgotten how to delay gratification.

Ironically, the ability to give up something now for future payoff is vital for building a fulfilling marriage and successful family. The “Peter Pan tendency” described by Barber as the infantilization of adults for consumer gain, isn’t just a money thing. It has bled into the very fiber of our culture. Nowhere is this plainer than on shows like Two and a Half Men, where the commitment phobic leading man avoids marriage and fatherhood while sleeping with a different woman almost every night. His lifestyle allows him to have all kinds of grownup toys: a big screen television, a cook to make his meals, expensive clothes, a leather couch, walls without smudges and brown fingerprints from children’s hands—the benefits of success without the work of family life. Why grow up when you can stay a kid forever?

In a society where we prize material wealth, there are all kinds of reasons not to start a family. My local Safeway store sells Huggies for $30 a box, one tin of powdered formula is $25, every few months I fork out hundreds of dollars for shoes, but this pales in comparison to the $900 a month charged by the preschool three blocks from my house. According to a study done by the USDA in 2009, the cost of raising a child in a middle income family from birth to age 17 sits at around $222,000 (a figure that doesn’t include college).

Raising kids requires sacrifice, and dealing with the judgments of other people doesn’t make this sacrifice any easier. As a Gen Xer stuck between baby boomers who used mostly physical forms of discipline and young trendy parents who think Time Outs are abusive, I’m always receiving unsolicited advice. At the drug store a few months ago, one man told me to chill out after I reprimanded my daughter for not coming when I called her. A few weeks later a different sort of parent confronted me at Barnes & Noble, “Do you hit your kids?” he asked.

“Of course I don’t,” I said.

“Well . . . you’d be surprised what one controlled smack will do.” Maybe it’s bad, but I wanted to smack him. Parenting is hard enough without heading up a PR campaign. And let’s face it; mothers of small children could use some positive press.

They could also do without having others label them “breeders” and “baby factories.” To have morning sickness, labor, sleep deprivation, diaper duty, loss of privacy, and the constant stress of setting a good example for your child even when they’re throwing a massive tantrum in the middle of the post office, referred to as merely “popping out babies” is demeaning to all women, not just those who reproduce.

Do I recognize there are people who think my choice to raise a family make me anti-feminist? You bet. Just as I realize that my ability to own property, vote, and plan my own life are made possible through the hard won efforts of feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in addition to her work as an activist, reared seven children and remained faithful to one man for 47 years until his death in 1887. By today’s standards, she’d be called an anti-feminist too, and chances are she’d be appalled at the article I ran across on CNN.com a few months ago, where William Bennett, author of The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood writes, “A shift in cultural norms, a changing workforce and the rise of women have left many men in an identity crisis. It makes for good comedy, but bad families. . . .  Most feminists aren’t celebrating the decline of men and shouting it from the rooftops.”

Bennett blames the deterioration of the male condition on the rights and opportunities of women, but provides no evidence to back up his assertion. In an article printed in the November 2011 Atlantic Monthly, Kate Bolick tries to connect the rise of women with the decline of men by pointing out that “in 2010, 55 percent of college graduates ages 25 to 29 were women.” She tells us that “as of last year, women held 51.4 percent of all managerial and professional positions,” and writes that “male median wages have fallen by 32 percent since their peak in 1973.” But correlation is not causation, and even she doesn’t have the gumption to state that the deterioration of the male condition is a direct consequence of feminism. Unfortunately, logic is not enough to counter the conviction of those who insist feminism is ruining men and destroying the family. Nowhere is this attitude more prevalent than in the LDS church.

The gender roles assigned by the Mormon patriarchy are at odds with Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s vision of equality. Women have limited authority in the church and strive to live laws which they have no voice in forming. Though a twelve-year old boy ordained to the Aaronic priesthood can pass the sacrament and collect fast offerings for the poor, no woman, no matter her age, is permitted to serve in like manner. When appearing before a church court, women appeal only to men, making a jury of her peers impossible. And if ever she commits a sin requiring forgiveness from higher authority, she must confess to a man who holds apostolic power from God. 

While the Declaration of Sentiments written at the Seneca Falls Women’s Convention in 1850 might use this as an example of man usurping “ . . . the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming his right to assign for her (woman) a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God,” most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe any woman who asks to serve in the same capacity as a man is ungodly and prideful, and that the significance of motherhood disqualifies her from such service.

In “Daughters of My Kingdom: The History and Work of Relief Society,” put out by the church in 2011, we learn of the experience of a 16-year-old girl, who finds comfort in the words of her leaders. “In her innermost feelings, this young woman had always wanted to be a mother, but she had been concerned that motherhood was unpopular and even denigrated by many people in the world. She was comforted when she heard prophets and apostles affirm the goodness of her ideals.”

A woman’s most noble path in the church is defined by her gender. Without motherhood she cannot reach her full potential, give service equal to that of a priesthood holder, or fulfill the most important duty God wants her to perform: raising righteous children unto The Lord.

I can see a number of benefits to this value system and understand why so many people embrace it. As a stay-at-home mother who is on this path, I don’t like hearing my life choices denigrated anymore than a career woman does. For years I believed what was preached from the pulpit: that feminism is waging a war on the family. Now I think those who blame female rights for the destruction of the family are setting up a straw man.

A Woman's Place- Part 1

By Angela Felsted

In 1999, one year after I graduated from college, I agreed to marry someone I hardly knew. We had been dating less than three months and neither of us had reason to rush things. He wasn’t dying; I wasn’t pregnant; and we both had our US citizenship. My younger brother, who was serving a two-year Mormon mission, wanted me to delay the marriage until he got home. I refused, but in defense of my rash decision, there were two things pushing me toward the altar: romantic love, and a desire to hold onto my virginity until my nuptials.

Turmoil set in after our honeymoon. I slept on the couch a lot. (My in-laws and parents were unaware of my struggles since I put on a smile and said everything was fine.) It seemed like the man I lived with had changed overnight, and I wanted my fiancé back. He had been so thoughtful while we dated—bringing me daisies, holding my hand, snuggling with me on the couch. I had thought, when we married, that I’d wake up in his arms each morning, or fall asleep looking into his brown eyes. Instead my husband made the bed with separate blankets. He went stiff when I embraced him and took issue with my “clinginess.” When I worked to keep an optimistic outlook, I could accept his need for space. Other times I felt desperate and alone. Was I foolish to believe marriage would be blissful?

Twelve years later, I still ask myself this question. I am 35, with a husband who has learned to hug me when I cry, four kids finally old enough to dress themselves, and a new illusion shattered: that motherhood is a fulfilling and idyllic legacy.

With kids in elementary school, I thought I’d miss the infant stage—the rush of love I got from watching my newborn son in sleep, lashes spread out like half moons against his cheeks. Rather I feel like I’m leaving a dark tunnel, with tantrums, dirty diapers, and sleepless nights behind me. In the years before I had children, I didn’t fear parenting because I believed myself an expert. This wasn’t pride so much as ignorance; I put my younger sister to bed when I was 10, started babysitting at 12, worked at a daycare center at 19, and looked down my nose at parents who could not control their children.

There were a lot of things I failed to grasp as a young single woman. My choice to marry a man I’d dated for less than six months for emotional reasons (“romantic love”), can be attributed to the naïve storybook belief that everyone has a match. And my decision to place sexual morality above the modern notion of testing the waters (“a desire to hold onto my virginity until my nuptials”) is a principle modeled by my mother, who chose to stay home with her five children in the seventies and eighties, when second-wave feminism called rigid gender roles oppressive.

Growing up in a traditional Mormon home, I saw no problems with the patriarchal model my parents used. My father presided insofar as he chose which of his kids would say grace at the dinner table. He brought home a paycheck, gave the occasional priesthood blessing, and taught me how to ride a bike and throw a Frisbee. When my brothers turned twelve and were ordained Deacons, they passed the bread and water each Sunday and began to prepare for their missions through study and prayer. I was taught that a woman had no greater calling than to marry a worthy priesthood holder and rear a family. In high school, my female church leaders put together a fashion show where we wore our mother’s wedding dresses. I’d never kissed a boy, never been out on a date, and worried about placing so much value on something I could not control. At this point I had yet to hear anyone state that stay-at-home mothers were oppressed. My father was (and remains) a man who does dishes and vacuums floors. Even so, I refused to base my worth on men’s opinions, and chose instead to focus on my education.

My parents were proud when they dropped me off at Brigham Young University (owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in September of 1994. I shared a kitchen with five other girls who could not have been more different. Two of them planned to pursue their degrees come hell or high water, one made it known she would put it on hold for the right man, and the two remaining had enrolled for the sole purpose of finding a husband. Apparently, they viewed forking out thousands of dollars to a college they had no intention of graduating from as an investment rather than a waste of money.

In fairness, if their church leaders had been anything like mine, these girls had been told in every meeting and activity that a woman had no greater calling than to marry a righteous priesthood holder and rear a family. They simply wanted their lives to start.

Last night as I lay in bed staring at the ceiling fan to the left of my bed, I tried to explain to my husband that the pressure he felt to go on a mission at 19 is exactly like the pressure Mormon girls feel to get married to a worthy man. My husband wisely mentioned how tiresome it is to hear women in their twenties label themselves old maids. I had one such roommate my junior year who asked me how I could stand my single status when she believed hers meant there was something wrong with her. I kept myself from laughing at the lunacy of her statement only because she was about to cry. What I should have done was ask her why she needed a man (or anyone else) to tell her she was lovable?

I mention this as a tangent, a piece of the bigger picture, but it is also a necessary part of the story. In 1972, when my 31-year-old mother, who worked in DC as a secretary for the FBI, married a musician seven years younger than herself, she’d taken a leap of faith not uncommon for a Mormon woman. By the time she was 45, she had four healthy children and a 6-year-old son newly diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. The church took care of her needs. Meals were brought in, childcare provided. How is it that the same patriarchal system which afforded her so much security had the power to chip away at my roommate’s self-esteem by defining her as a wife and mother before she had even married?

What my parents and youth leaders really wanted was for us girls to find love, raise a family and be productive citizens. I don’t think anyone intended to create a culture where single women and those who deal with infertility struggle with their worth as human beings.

With single parent households rising and half of new marriages failing in the United States, the Mormon patriarchy is clinging harder than ever to traditional marriage. Preparing young women for motherhood by holding up pictures of LDS temples like those of Cinderella’s castle, where prince charming will whisk them away and give them a blissful storybook ending. But what most of us find upon entering our fairy tale kingdom is that the servants have been dismissed, and that we must build our relationship without a personal maid to cover up the girth of our frustrations, or a laundress to wash out the stains of our emotional baggage.

Be a Defender of Tolerance

(Based on Brittany Beattie’s Be a Defender of the Family)

You can fight intolerance by defending John Lennon’s vision of peace and unity.

Are you aware that you can promote peace as a teenager? You have the conviction and inner power to fight for ideals which are under attack by intolerance. But how? you ask. By telling everyone around you to “Imagine there's no heaven / It's easy if you try / No hell below us / Above us only sky / Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one / I hope someday you'll join us /And the world will be as one.” (John Lennon)

You can fight the vicious onslaught of intolerance by combating it at school, at home, and even on facebook. Here are a few basic ways you can work toward the extinction of intolerance.

1. Be inclusive. Talk to your friends about the accomplishments and contributions of those in your family who live alternative lifestyles. You can go into detail about how your two aunts have adopted a child, or the PhD program your 17-year-old transgender brother just completed, but don’t ever criticize those in your family whose lifestyles differ from what is considered normal in our present society. It doesn’t matter if those criticisms are based in reality, if there is a form of abuse in the relationship, or if there is alcoholism or mental problems at work in the lives of your relatives and family. Always talk about the good things they do, whether online or in person.

Do everything you can to make your home comfortable, clean, and positive for the benefit of those who struggle with intolerance. Think about inviting friends over when your aunts, your nephew, and your brother are there so others can learn of the marvelous love and family values displayed in a tolerant and inclusive home.

2. Defend inclusion in discussions with friends and others. When an ideology is pushed at home or school, at work or even in an online article, show your bravery by condemning intolerance. Those who claim to know the will of God, who read their Bible and hold Sunday services, are really spreading fear and hate. You have a special calling to speak out in defense of John Lennon’s vision for the world. Your conscience will tell you what to say.
3. Beware of how religion defines our human relationships. Much of what is taught in churches and seen on FOX NEWS contradicts values of love and unity. Conservative news sources and religious organizations often venerate a one-size-fits-all version of family life that results in isolation and heartache for those who don’t fit the mold. John Lennon had the following to say about living as one: “Imagine there's no countries / It isn't hard to do/Nothing to kill or die for / And no religion too / Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one / I hope some day you'll join us /And the world will be as one

Closed minded, intolerant people use patriotism and religion to fool you by making what is hateful and wrong look virtuous, righteous, or good. They try to mislead you into believing that tolerance goes both ways and that allowing intolerant people free speech has no harmful consequences…. You must be brave enough to avoid churches, shut the door on missionaries, turn off FOX NEWS and tune out friends and neighbors who are trying to strip you of your enlightenment in order to plunge you into the pit of black and white thinking.

When you shut out those who support only the traditional family and discriminate against others, it will be easier to ban intolerance from our society and also to build a more unified, peaceful world.

So yes, I firmly believe that this generation will be forced to battle with fear-based dogma on a grander scale than any which have come before, but when you are brave and work as a defender of tolerance, you can change the future of our society for the better. Even if others despise you for it, your behavior will help bring to pass John Lennon’s dream of living in a place where there is no creed, no war or hunger, and where “the world will live as one.”

Fathers Who Know

In October 2007, Julie B. Beck, newly called General Relief Society President, gave a talk at General Conference that continues to live in infamy. Here author Angela Felsted offers up her answer to Beck's talk. In this thought provoking essay, she turns the tables placing fathers in the hot seat. What follows is perhaps controversial, but an important lesson in the power of words. If nothing else, Angela's words should make us all think about the power of the messages that come across the pulpit.

Fathers Who Know

In the Old Testament we read about an extraordinary woman who was exceptionally stunning and obedient. “This young woman, who was also known as Esther, had a lovely figure and was beautiful.” (Ester 2:7). This faithful woman paid tribute to Mordecai, her cousin who raised her like his daughter by “ . . . (keeping) secret her family background and nationality just as Mordecai had told her to do, for she continued to follow Mordecai’s instructions as she had done when he was bringing her up (Esther 2:20). Mordecai was not Esther’s father, but when it came to what was best for her, he knew. I would suppose that the fathers of Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, and other great women also knew.

The duty fathers perform today has never necessitated more watchfulness. More than any other time in the history of the world, we need fathers who know. Precious spirits are coming into a world that will have to fight with the influence of Satan. Still, fathers can have courage. When fathers know what they can become, what God once was, and remember the covenants made with Him, they’ll have great power and authority over their children for righteousness sake.

Fathers Who Know Make Money

Fathers who know work hard to make money. Whereas in many places fathers are “letting their wives help” with bills, or going into risky fields they “enjoy,” in Latter-day Saint culture we still believe in fathers making money.

Valiant sons of God make good money. In the scriptures we read of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph of Egypt, who would do whatsoever was necessary to obtain land, sheep, birthrights, or riches for themselves and their families.

Some men are not capable of financial success in this life, but just as John the Baptist of the New Testament labored ardently without making ends meet, the worth men put on riches in this life and the time they spend laboring for it will bring them wealth when they rise in the resurrection. Men who work to achieve that blessing now are guaranteed to have it in the eternities, and the eternities last far, far longer than our life on earth. That is power; that is authority.

Fathers Who Know Honor Sacred Commitments

Fathers who know honor sacred commitments. I have attended church meetings in the most destitute cities and towns where devoted fathers have dressed carefully in their Sunday clothes and left their wives and children in the wee hours of the morning to walk on dirty, mud-caked roads to early morning meetings. After hours of deliberating, they sit behind the podium and watch their wives bring each of their sons to sacrament meeting in starched white shirts with their arms folded; their daughters in modest dresses with their eyes lowered to the floor. These fathers honor their commitment as servants of God. They know if they aren’t setting an example of leadership and sacrifice, they are not emphasizing obedience enough. These fathers have a righteous influence. That is power; that is authority.

Fathers Who Know Are Laborers

Fathers who know are laborers. This is their singular obligation and function under the plan of salvation. To labor means to work, toil, and make operational. Hence, fathers who know take extra shifts to cultivate a productive work environment. Another term for laboring is kissing up. Kissing up often includes taking the blame for others mistakes, working over holidays, and cleaning the coffee cups and crumbs left out by your coworkers. Work is where men can most influence people; therefore, Mormon men ought to be the best kiss ups in the world. Working beside non-members in a day to day job gives men an opportunity to model the kinds of behaviors their co-workers should emulate. Laboring fathers are smart, but all the learning men acquire will gain them nothing if they don’t know how to create a work environment that cultivates success for those around them. Productivity occurs most often when we serve others, and men should be willing to wash the feet of their co-workers like Jesus washed the feet of the disciples. Laboring require energy and humility. Making work environments productive through laboring is an important and special role granted to men. That is power; that is authority.

Fathers Who Know Are Firm

Fathers who know are firm. As they preside over their wives, they entrench their children in a vast and holy religious institution. These fathers work for the growth of their institution. They stress obedience, tithing, and temple marriage. They take charge of family prayer, give priesthood blessings, and aren’t afraid to take to task children who are disruptive during church. Fathers who know mold their daughters and sons into their own image. They won’t ever discard their hopes by reading secular parenting books and succumbing to popular models of discipline. These good fathers who know are selective about affection and sentiment in order to preserve their energy for the tough love that matters most. That is power; that is authority.

Fathers Who Know Are Judges

Fathers who know are judges. Since they are responsible for monitoring the home, they should never let things go. A friend of mine with an ultra-clean house mentioned to me that she did not gain anything from Sunday School that she hadn’t already been taught at home. Her father used bed time, meal time, homework time and family prayer time to make sure she’d cleaned her room, put away her shoes and socks, scrubbed the dishes, and complied to all his orders. Think of the sparkling homes future wives and mothers would have if fathers ran their households like a boot camp for homemakers. Then the obedience, work, and dedication needed to diaper children, scrub the floor, and listen without offense to their husband’s criticisms would be a blessing and not a burden. That is power; that is authority.

Fathers Who Know Build Protective Walls

Fathers who know build protective walls. They use these walls to shield their families from the world in order to foster eternal goals. They put up walls against their children’s internet use, friend’s phone calls, Sunday parties, and children playing in other people’s homes. Fathers who know are willing to be the bad guy, to keep heathen influences out of the home in order to better teach their children—about Bible reading, Book of Mormon scripture chasing, planning talks, studying the Ensign, listening to the prophet’s voice, sitting with reverence, and the value of isolation. These fathers choose carefully who’s allowed inside the wall. Their purpose is to keep the rising generation safe against the onslaught of the adversary. Their purpose is to set future fathers and mothers on the path to train up their own children. That is power; that is authority.

Fathers Who Know Stand Guard

Who will stand guard over this rising generation? Mormon men will—men who know, men who stand immovable when they’re so exhausted they want to collapse. We are led by prophets of God who have asked the men of the Church to stand tall. He has told us to guard our children. Mormon men should be the best in the world at making money, upholding their commitments, laboring, standing firm, and insulating their families. I have a strong belief that our men will do this and be known henceforth as fathers who know.

Angela Felsted is a musician, poet, and nature lover. Her work has appeared in issue fifteen of Drown in Your Own Fears, Chantarelle's Notebook, and Vine Leaves Literary Journal. You can download, SCARRED, her most recent poetry collection on Amazon Kindle or visit her blog at www.my-poetry-place.blogspot.com