Thursday, June 20, 2013

Whosoever Looketh On A Woman...

I've seen a lot of people post that swimsuit video lately.  I appreciate the commitment to modesty that I'm sure led many to share it.  The speaker, Jessica Rey, is a savvy, articulate businesswoman, and a talented designer, and it’s easy to see why so many people found her message appealing. Women today hear a lot of voices telling them how they should look, dress, behave, and live, and it can be frustrating for women to feel so disempowered by cultural messages that tell them that the only value they have is in being sexually appealing to men, that what they have to say is only incidental to how sexy they look when they say it.  Efforts to resist this cultural tide are necessary and laudable, and I applaud those parents who are raising their daughters to value themselves intrinsically, and to disregard what the fashion magazines show them about the importance of having a perfect body or a stylish wardrobe.

I think, however, that this presentation swings too far in the other direction, and I am disappointed with its message, especially when I see it in the context of a rising emphasis on modesty that also devalues women, though more insidiously.  Though it is indeed objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing fewer clothes and showing off her body so as to turn on the boys around her, it is also objectifying to teach a woman that her value lies in wearing more clothes and covering up her body so as to keep the thoughts of the boys around her pure.  The better message is this: wear what you want, like, and feel comfortable in, not for its effect on other people, but so that you can be happy and free as you go about doing many good things in the world.  And stop judging other people for what they wear as they go about living their lives, because it’s none of your business and it’s not about you.

Ultimately, the speaker is promoting her own swimwear line, and her suits and promotional materials seem quite lovely.  I applaud her good business sense and style, but I disagree strongly with her methods of self-promotion.  Rey's speech is very problematic, for several reasons.  First, she's misrepresenting the Princeton study she relies on for most of her argument.  Most social science research is easy to misinterpret to serve one’s own ends, and this study is no exception.

The study in question, presented by Dr. Susan Fiske at Princeton, was conducted using a sample of 21 male Princeton undergraduates (note that in this type of research, an acceptable sample size is 30+, and that the more data points you have, the more reliable your findings).  These men were asked to fill out surveys that gauged if they harbored "benevolent sexism" (i.e. women should be protected by men, women should not work outside the home) or "hostile sexism" (i.e. women are incompetent and inferior to men, women are trying to take away the rights of men, etc.).  They were then shown brief flashes of pictures of fully clothed and swimsuit-clad men and women, and their brains were scanned for activity.  Note that all the swimsuit-clad women were wearing bikinis.  The researchers did not use pictures of women in "various states" of undress, or with "varying amounts" of clothes, as some articles have suggested, and there were no one-piece swimsuits to compare--there were only two conditions: fully clothed and in a bikini.  Please also note that the images of women wearing bikinis did not have heads.

As for the men's reactions, the researchers found (via brain scans) that those men who harbored strongly hostile sexist views also saw the bikini-clad women as less human, and did not have brain activity in the part of the brain responsible for evaluating another person's thoughts and feelings.  Note that this refers to a small subset of the already-small sample size: only the men harboring the most hateful attitudes towards women.

This is hardly an earth-shattering finding--that men who are generally horrible to women, when presented with headless images from a swimsuit catalog, do not see the models as people, and have parts of their brains light up that are associated with "things you manipulate with your hands" (which should tell you what these college boys are doing with their free computer time, not make you reevaluate your choice of swimwear).  

The headline could just as well read: "A Few 19-Year-Old Frat Boys Can't Relate To Real Women, Study Shows."  Stop the presses.

I also take issue with the speaker’s highly selective overview of the history of women’s swimwear.  She skips over the Romans, who bathed nude and are depicted in murals wearing clothing very similar to a bikini.  She skips over the many cultures in which topless and nude bathing are seen as perfectly respectable and natural.  She lingers smugly over the bikini creator’s introduction of his invention, noting that the model who introduced it was a “stripper,” as if to tar all women with the same brush, neglecting the fact that all change is seen as scandalous when it first appears—after all, not so long before the bikini, women had been wearing horse-drawn houses to go swimming.  Times change.  Culture changes.  And acceptable dress standards are bound up in culture—and they change, too.  Pioneer women would find capri pants scandalous.  That doesn’t mean we need to compare bare ankles to stripping.  Your great-great grandmother would find your one-piece swimsuit inappropriate, while you label it perfectly modest.  But we live in different times and cultures, and there are no absolute rules for determining what is “modest” across all time and space.  (As proof, I would note that the speaker, believer in modesty, is dressed in a perfectly lovely outfit, one that would nevertheless get me labeled “immodest” and kicked out of class at BYU—for showing my shoulder.  So if you’re about to argue that “the world changes, but the Lord’s standards of modesty never change,” you may want to re-think your argument.  And your spokesperson.)

Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of women to manage men’s sexual desires.  Full stop.  It is not women's job.  Even if it were, it’s hard to see how a one-piece swimsuit is markedly more “modest” than a two-piece, or how men would be rendered incapable of sexually desiring women thus attired (something no study cited even attempted to address).  In fact, there is no point at which a woman would be sufficiently clothed to negate a man’s sexual desire.  Men in countries in which women are swathed in robes from head to toe still manage to notice that they are women, and still find them attractive and desirable.  They complain that their eyes and ankles are seductive and leading them to sin.  If it were true that men could not control themselves, a more effective solution would be to put out their eyes or ban them from the beaches, not to mandate a dress and behavior code for all women they might encounter.

Here's the truth: Men are people, their bodies made in the image of a divine Father.  Women are people, their bodies made in the image of a divine Mother.  Our bodies are beautiful and God-given, not shameful.  They connect us to the earth and to each other.  They allow us to relate to each other in enjoyable ways.  They are also not the only way we relate to each other.  Men and women are capable of relating to each other as human beings, no matter what they're wearing.  This is part of being an adult.  We are capable of dealing with our sexual desires, which are normal and healthy and good, without shaming ourselves or those with whom we come in contact.  Fetishizing normal female body parts--be they breasts, navels, shoulders, knees, or (gasp!) ankles—and insisting they be covered because we cannot control ourselves—does real harm to both women and men.(1)

Look, wear whatever you want to the beach.  Wear a bikini.  Wear a burkini.  Wear a one-piece.  Wear a house, if you like.  If you want to, wear one of the swimsuits the speaker is selling—they are cute, after all.  But whatever you wear, wear it because it makes you comfortable, because you like the way your body looks and what it can do.  Don’t wear it because a stranger—or a loved one—has convinced you it’s the only way to get respect, or the only way to be attractive, or that your body is a dangerous minefield of potential temptation for all the men who lay eyes on you and it’s your responsibility to remove that temptation, you irresistibly sexy woman, you.  Don’t give in to the lie that your body is all you have to offer—but also, don’t believe the equally insidious lie that your body is shameful or dangerous or needs to be covered up (but “stylishly!”) in order for you to be a person of worth.

You have the right to be treated with respect, no matter what your size or shape, no matter what you’re wearing.  Men are not slaves to their hormones.  They are capable of treating you with respect in all walks of life.  If the cited study shows anything, it’s that the men who can’t see you as a person, no matter what you’re wearing, are the kind of men who weren’t worth your time in the first place, who were already likely to hate and devalue you.  And their demeaning attitude is not your fault.  It isn’t your responsibility to prevent others from sinning.  Jesus did not say “Whosoever lusteth after a woman…should tell her to put more clothes on, already, she’s causing him to have impure thoughts!”  Jesus laid the blame at the feet of the man whose heart was filled with lust, not the women he dehumanized.  And so should we.  Because lust is a problem of the heart, not of the wardrobe.



(1) There are so many examples of people taking this way too far. The speaker, for instance, decries the rise of the bikini and the fact that now, even little girls are wearing it.  Perhaps she has not considered that a two-piece swimsuit is much more practical for parents running their little girls to the bathroom—rather than peeling off a heavy, wet swimsuit from the shoulders, the child can use the potty unassisted.  Anyone who sees a little girl in a swimsuit and thinks "sexy underwear" is the one with the problem, not the child.

Pictures from and

I've been a little overwhelmed by the response to this post.  It's clear that many of you have strong opinions about modesty, swimwear, and a host of other things.  That's fine, and I appreciate spirited discussion.  However, a few commenters have gone overboard, so I'm going to give a quick reminder on the ground rules here.  You've been warned, and I will delete all comments that don't follow these rules of common courtesy.
1.  Stick to the topic of the post.  (This post is not about breastfeeding, moral relativism, alcoholism, or autism.)
2.  Avoid questioning the faith, testimony, faithfulness, righteousness, or intent of other people, including me.  That's just rude.  Avoid sweeping generalizations about people you do not know.  
3.  Along the same lines, do not insist that you, personally, know the mind and will of God.  Not only is this incredibly arrogant, it shuts down reasonable discussion.  You do not have the "God" trump card in your hand.  Avoid the temptation to play it.  Do not call others to repentance, dump GA quotes on them, or drive by with links to the For The Strength Of Youth pamphlet.  
4. Engage a person's ideas, not their character.  On the flip side, if someone has engaged your idea and disagreed with it, do not claim that you are being persecuted.  Refuting your argument is not the same thing as persecuting you.
Thanks, all!

FURTHER UPDATE:  I think this discussion has reached its natural end.  Thanks, everyone, for participating.  Comments are now closed.  Check back later this week for a follow-up post that will address some of my conclusions from this conversation. 

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Together Forever

This started out as a short “What I Wish I’d Said In Church” post, but I found I had more to say about it than I thought, and it quickly morphed into an actual post.

Our lesson in Relief Society last Sunday, from the Lorenzo Snow manual, was about temples, and our teacher did a great job presenting the blessings of the temple and talking about the peace that could be found within its walls.  Some of the women shared beautiful and tender feelings and experiences, and I was touched by how deeply the temple had touched their lives and healed their hearts.

Though I have a somewhat uneasy relationship with temple ordinances (a topic I’ve discussed elsewhere), I still find the temple beautiful and holy, and I’ve come to understand its importance in binding us together as a community and as children of God.  A question in the middle of the lesson helped me crystallize some thoughts I’ve had these past few years.  A class member, who joined the church a few years ago, asked a question posed by her mother (who is of another faith), “What happens to those of us not sealed in this eternal family relationship you care so much about?  What’s the alternative?  Where do we go?”  

I’ve actually thought a lot about this, because in some ways, I think the Mormon focus on eternal families is a solution in search of a problem.  We make a big deal about living with your family together forever, forgetting that kids grow up and have families and kids of their own, that presumably they want to be together forever with, except that their kids grow up, and so on.  So how do we imagine it will work, exactly?  Do we imagine a really long dinner table with our whole family, back to Adam, sitting at the same table, and yelling back to Methuselah to “pass the peas!”?  A giant game of Monopoly?  After a while, the whole construct gets hard to wrap your mind around.  

I think of members of other Christian denominations who believe that they are good people and that their family members are good people, and that they and their family members are going to heaven, and I don’t think that they imagine that they will be separated from their families, who live in the same place (heaven) that they do.  So I don’t see “eternal families” in the “families can be together forever” sense as a really big unique selling point of Mormonism.  I think there must be something deeper, some other purpose for this emphasis.

I’m impressed by Joseph Smith’s focus on sacralizing relationships, and his sense that we as people, as communities, need to be bound together, that we need to create welding links between parent and child that will ultimately bind us to God.  There’s a good argument to be made that one of his big reasons for polygamy is to fulfill this mission of sealing people together in bonds of connectedness that would tie them together in this life and in the next.

In the end, I see sealing in families as a statement of intention.  Most of our ordinances are outward declarations of an inward commitment—baptism is a statement that we intend to stand as witnesses of God and bear the burdens of those around us; the sacrament is a statement that we intend to always remember Christ; and sealings are a statement that we intend to create a marriage—or a family—that is tied together by bonds of love and devotion to God.  I think that a sealing signals our intent, but doesn’t on its own create the bond (any more than the baptismal font creates the disciple)—we do that, through our daily actions, by the way we treat each other.  

Furthermore, I think God honors relationships of many kinds.  D&C 130 tells us that “the same sociality that exists among us here will exist among us [in heaven], only it will be coupled with eternal glory.”  And, in my case anyway, the sociality I enjoy on earth doesn’t consist solely of my family members—I also enjoy the company of friends and neighbors and coworkers and mentors, people I love who enrich my life and strengthen my faith in God.  

Which I guess leads me to what I really think about sealings:  I don’t think it’s accurate to say “you need to be sealed to someone to get into heaven.”  I think it’s more accurate to say: it won’t be heaven unless we are there with those we love.  It isn’t that a sealing is required for salvation, but that salvation consists of building eternal bonds with the people we love.  And sealings are one way we signal the importance of those eternal connections, a way we invite God into the relationships that form the backbone of our mortal existence.

I add a caveat at the end here, of course, because of the damage I’ve seen a particular understanding of our sealing doctrine do in the lives of people who are horrified by the idea of being with their family members a moment longer, let alone for eternity.  When we teach, we should remember victims of abuse, incest, and violence, divorced members escaped from a horrible ex-spouse who trampled on their dignity, those with family members who are cruel and unkind, who betrayed their trust, our brothers and sisters for whom the good news of the gospel looks like a nightmare.  I know people who live in fear that God will force them to live forever with an abusive spouse or parent, because, after all, they’re sealed to him/her.  If you are in this camp, my simple testimony is: God is not a jerk.  Nephi said it more eloquently: “I know that God loveth his children, nevertheless I do not know the meaning of all things.”  The tenet of my faith is more simple: any God worth worshipping is not a jerk.  God won’t give us a platter of horrors and call it “heaven.”  As Jesus said—even earthly parents know how to give good gifts to their children.  We don’t give our kids rocks and snakes when they ask for fish and bread, and neither will God. Amen.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

What I Wish I'd Said In Church, Part 1

I've decided to start a new series on the blog, titled "What I Wish I'd Said In Church."  Because there are often things I think of in church meetings that I don't get the chance to say, either because it doesn't really fit the message, or because the lesson moves on before I get a chance to comment.  They'll be short ideas, not fully developed essays, but they'll give me a chance to write more often, which I hope will get me back in the habit.  So here goes.

In a lesson on the Word of Wisdom:
"So, not drinking tea and coffee is great and all, but I really love the part of the Word of Wisdom that teaches us to eat fruits and vegetables in season, and to eat meat sparingly.  I think the Lord had more than just Big Tobacco in mind when He warned of the "designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" (v.4).  There are an awful lot of junk food and food product producers in this world who are competing for our grocery dollar, and a lot of good Mormons who wouldn't dream of drinking coffee nevertheless eat lots of salty, fatty, sugary food products that industrial conglomerates have specially engineered to make appealing to us, even though they aren't good for our bodies.  I know that I feel better when I eat food that remembers when it came from--and especially when my diet is mostly plants that are in season."

In a lesson on trials:
"I hear a lot of people say that God gives us the specific trials we need to help us grow.  I'm not sure I believe that.  I just don't see God running around making Amy-shaped holes in the sidewalk.  In other words, I think most trials don't come from God.  He didn't specially select them to remove some character deficiency.  Life is messed up.  Sometimes stuff just happens.  Sometimes people are mean.  Sometimes people get hurt, lost their jobs, leave their spouses, or die.  Life is hard.
Another thing people say is that "trials make you stronger."  I don't believe that either.  I think trials make you weaker.  They hurt.  They grind you down.  But even in trials, the Lord can give us strength and comfort.  He can weep with us and lift us and bring us closer to Him.  Trials don't make us stronger.  Turning to God in our trials makes us stronger.  The grace of Christ, when fully embraced, makes us stronger.  But trials just kind of suck."

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Mommy Flowers

I'm delighted today to have a guest post from Desiree, who was gracious enough to share the talk she wrote for Mother's Day today.  Thanks, Desiree!

Hello, I am Desiree X, though if you call me Sister Y, I won't bother to correct you. I have been asked to speak about becoming a mother, since I am obviously in that process now, being 25 weeks pregnant with my first, a son. How odd that is, saying I have a son.

Being pregnant has pushed me to consider my beliefs even more deeply because I am figuring out exactly what I want to teach my children. I want my children to know their Heavenly Parents love them. I want them to know of both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. 

I once asked my husband what his thoughts concerning Heavenly Mother were and he gave me a typical Jeff response. He said he didn't know, he'd never really thought about Her much. She was not a subject of importance to him. And that deeply upset me because that is what my goal is, isn't it? To become a Heavenly Mother myself? I couldn't imagine my mortal children nor my spirit children ever thinking I was not important to them. But I understand where he was coming from. Heavenly Father is capable of giving us all the love and guidance we need, just as there are many single mortal parents who are capable of and do raise their children on their own. But, Heavenly Father is not a single parent.

A woman I know from an online group told a story about her daughter recently. In order to keep her overly-enthusiastic kids away from the neighbor's petunias, she has taught them that dandelions are"Mommy Flowers" - and they're allowed to pick as many as they want to bring her. After a pet goldfish died recently, this woman had a conversation with her 4 year old daughter, Lorelei about how we go to live with our Heavenly Parents when we die.

Lorelei asked, "Mom, does Heavenly Mother like dandelions?"

Her Mom said, "I'm sure she does. She created them! We wouldn't even have dandelions without Heavenly Mother."

Lorelei responded excitedly, saying "Oooooooh! I want to bring her lots of dandelions and Mommy Flowers when I'm grown up and dead and go to live with her!!!"

Then a couple of weeks ago, this family walked around outside of the temple and Lorelei saw some dandelions there. "MOM!" she yelled. "There are dandelions at the temple!! Heavenly Mother is at the temple!! Heavenly Mother is everywhere!!"

I hope to have such conversations with my son some day. I don't want him to simply know that Heavenly Mother exists, but to actively think about Her, ask questions about Her, and feel a connection to Her. I testify that both of our Heavenly Parents know us and love us uniquely. Lorelei was right, Heavenly Mother is everywhere, including the temple. I felt Her presence, her love for me, in the celestial room when I first went through the temple a little over a year ago.

I've also been thinking about Jesus Christ's example. It has always fascinated me that as important as getting married and having children is, there is no clear scriptural mention of Jesus having his own family. Instead, he was simply a person. When we talk about him, we identify him as a son and a brother, not specifically a husband or father.

In Luke, chapter 2, a woman named Anna is mentioned as one of the people who greeted the infant Jesus at his presentation in the temple. She is called a prophetess, and is described as being of "a great age". She had lived with her husband for 7 years before he died and then she was a widow for 84 years.

After her husband's death, Anna decided not to remarry or have children, but instead spent her life serving God and telling people about the Savior. Anna shows us that we all have different purposes and callings in this life and whether or not we are married or have children, we are loved and valued by God.

Following the description of Anna is the story about Jesus teaching in the temple at 12 years old. What this story is supposed to teach us is that Jesus had great knowledge, even as a child. But when I was a child, this was my favorite story about Jesus because I learned from it that it is ok to be a kid and make mistakes. Jesus didn't tell his parents where he was and when they found him, "his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

And then Jesus did something my 8 year old self found truly amazing. He didn't apologize for making them worry but instead said, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?"

I know if I'd said something similar to my mom, I'd have received one of her infamous lectures. After all, wasn't it a mistake for him to not to tell his parents where he was? Jesus was perfect, but even he was a human child who forgot to tell his mortal parents where he was. He made a mistake, but it wasn't a sin.

And since I've been pregnant, I've come to think more about the other side of the story, which is that his parents lost him, Jesus, the saviour of all mankind. And they didn't just lose him in a shopping mall for 20 minutes.

The scriptures say that Mary and Joseph "went a day’s journey" before realizing he wasn't with them and then it took three days to find him.

Can you imagine the panic and guilt they must have felt? I plan on always keeping this story in my heart to help on the days I feel that mommy guilt everyone talks about. God didn't take Jesus away from Mary, didn't tell her she'd failed or was a horrible mother. She was simply human and made a mistake.

My second favorite story about Jesus was the one where he "overthrew the tables of the money changers" in the temple.

Of course this story teaches us that the temple is sacred and we must never turn God's house into a den of thieves. However, the reason I love this story is because Jesus shows human emotion.

I was adopted from foster care. I have 2 different types of saviors, Jesus Christ, and my adoptive mom. Had I not been adopted, I would either be dead by now or I would be a drug addict/alcoholic, and probably a prostitute. I know it is a startling thought, to think of me living such a life. But the only reason I am not is because my mom showed me a different way to live. I know some people thought she was crazy for taking me and my younger siblings in, but I am so grateful she wasn't afraid to become a mom to 3 very young children in her 50's.

My biological mother and father physically, emotionally, and sexually abused and neglected me. My mom warned me before I got pregnant that having my own children would bring up a lot of my past pain. That when I felt the love a parent has for their child, I would ask how my biological parents could have possible treated me the way they did. My birth mother did not place me for adoption because she wanted what was best for me, I was taken away from her because she abused me.

I am learning that forgiveness can be a very long process. Just when I think I've forgiven them, I find my anger or pain and disbelief bubbling up again.

I am grateful that Jesus showed us that it is ok to be angry, to be human. That it is ok to not instantly forgive people, especially when they have desecrated something sacred, such as the temple, our temples, or the sacred bond between a parent and child. We should not let the pain and anger consume us, but it is ok for forgiveness to not be instantaneous. Having human emotions is not a sin.

I'm so thankful for my knowledge of Heavenly Mother, because as wonderful and loving as Jesus and Heavenly Father are, sometimes you need a mom. I feared men as a child, so, with my past, I am a bit anxious about being the mother to a son. But at the same time, I'm excited for the opportunity to teach him to be a good person.

But even as I happily prepare for this child, I know that just the sight of me can bring up painful emotions and memories for some women, that a lot of women skip going to church on Mother's Day because it is just too hard.

I have witnessed people I love desperately wish for children and not be able to have them. It is true that they can still be aunts and uncles, teachers, and so on. These are important and wonderful roles, but I recognize that being an aunt is not quite the same as being a mother and that the ability to be a mother in the eternities, as comforting as that knowledge is, is not quite the same as holding your child's sticky little hand in yours during this beautifully messy mortal life.

My sister had a miscarriage seven years ago, she had been 12 weeks pregnant with my niece, Sam. Its been extremely difficult for her and my whole family. Sam is happy and is doing what she needs to on the other side of the veil, but I keep thinking about how excited my 6 year old niece would be about her little cousin. How Sam would put her hands on my belly and ask me how my little boy had gotten in there, did I eat him? And I'd laugh and tell her no and that she should go ask her mom.

I remember how difficult it was for me when kids who were born the year Sam would have been born started coming into nursery. But Sam's death has given me a new level of understanding of just how precious each child is.

For me, nursery is the absolute best place to learn about being Christ-like. Jesus said to love one another, and that is what little kids do. They don't care if you are married or who you are married to, or what sort of work you do, they don't particularly care what you look like or what religion you are.

They don't care what you are, they just care about who you are. Are you a kind, loving person? If you treat them with love, that is all that really matters. I look forward to learning from your children every week and thank you for the examples of parenthood I've seen through the years by observing you with your little ones.

My patriarchal blessing calls my children, "those spirits on loan from Heavenly Father." I've taken this as a reminder that our children are first and foremost our Heavenly Parent's children, our brothers and sisters.

So I would just like to end by saying that I know our Heavenly Parents know and love us each as individuals and that I am so grateful for what just these few months of pregnancy have already taught me. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Don't Believe Everything You Read in the Deseret News

Okay, by now we've all read the piece by the DesNews blogger, Andrea Whatcott, entitled "Don't Believe Everything You Read in the News."  In it, she takes most of the mainstream media to task for misinterpreting Elizabeth Smart's recent remarks at Johns Hopkins for their own political ends.  I had several problems with her post that basically boil down to this: I think it's disingenuous.

First of all, I agree with her on this point--you should definitely watch Smart's full remarks, not just read the coverage on them.  Here they are.  Really, go ahead, the video is only twelve minutes long.  Smart's main themes are:
1.  A retelling of the story of her own kidnapping, repeated rape, captivity, and rescue.
2.  An exploration of why she didn't run, and therefore why other victims of trafficking and kidnap might not run:
     a.  Because she was afraid that her captors would hurt or kill her or her family.
     b.  Because she felt that her life was worthless since she had been raped, and no one would ever want her or love her again.
3.  A charge to teach our children more about trafficking and kidnapping, and prepare them with the skills to fight back.  She didn't go into this very much, except to say that we should teach our children that they are of worth, and that it is worth it to fight back or run, because their lives are still of value.  This seems to tie directly into her previous point.

Smart spends a great deal of time on these last two points, so for Whatcott to insist "that's not what Smart focused on" is false.  In fact, Whatcott (or her editor) went back and edited (the editorial note says "updated and expanded") her own Deseret News piece so that it mostly discusses the same themes that all the other mainstream media sources discuss--Smart's feelings that she was "worthless," "dirty," "filthy" and "a chewed-up piece of gum" following her rape--feelings which stemmed not only from the horrors of her rape, but, by her own direct admission, from teachings she had absorbed from her own "very religious upbringing" that because the "most special thing" had been taken away from her, "Who would ever want me now? I'm worthless...I understand, all too well, why someone wouldn't run, because of that alone."

Whatcott claims, "Smart was raped. She felt worthless because of it. I don’t think she would have felt less worthless if her school teacher hadn’t taught that abstinence before marriage is ideal, or if her parents hadn’t taught her the sacredness of intimacy."  Not only is this false--Smart herself cites these two teachings as things that contributed to her feelings of horror and worthlessness--but it's also a straw man.  None of the articles Whatcott cites are claiming that there's anything wrong with teaching kids that waiting for marriage to have sex is ideal.  What they are objecting to--and what I think any thinking person MUST object to--is a certain way of teaching chastity and abstinence that has arisen in conservative Christian cultures--including our own--and that does great damage to people like Elizabeth Smart.  It does damage to the shockingly high number of people (women especially) who are the victims of sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault in its various forms.  When we teach our youth about sex in a way that emphasizes purity and virginity, which, once lost, can never be regained, we do a disservice to rape victims and to those who have voluntarily had sex--we cast them as tainted, as worth less than their peers, as chewed gum that no one will re-chew.

Departing Young Women General President Elaine Dalton gave a talk at the last General Conference which, in reference to Mormon's account of his people raping, mutilating, murdering, and eating the bodies of captured Lamanite women, said, "Mormon...lamented that the women were robbed of that which was most dear and precious above all—their virtue and chastity." (Talk about taking his words out of context! (She's done it before)) When we teach our daughters that their virginity is the thing that is "most dear and precious above all," and then they lose that most precious thing--by force or by choice--is it any wonder that they feel worthless and irreparably damaged?  In Smart's words, "I mean, if you can imagine the most special thing being taken away from you, and feeling like that...was something that devalued you.  Can you imagine turning around and going back into society where you are no longer of value, where you are no longer as good as everybody else?"

So yes, the chewed gum analogy wasn't the only thing Smart said.  But she wouldn't have said it if it wasn't important, and it was a particularly vivid example of the main thrust of her remarks.  So many media outlets picked it up and ran it, not because they're trying to tear down the church or they hate chastity--but because the way we teach chastity damages people, and it is a very real problem in our community and in others.  The way we teach chastity needs to change.  It wasn't every other media outlet in the country that missed the point, it was Whatcott.

It's possible to correct this problem, but not if we bury our heads in the sand and ask everyone to "move along, nothing to see here!"  The "All is well in Zion" attitude of the Deseret News in general and Ms. Whatcott most recently, the inability to acknowledge that we have a problem, are, I believe, an impediment to the good that could be done by the changes that need to be made.

Other writers have noted some of the ways we could do a better job.  Nate Oman writes that we should decouple chastity from virginity, noting memorably that "Generally, if people keep the law of chastity their entire lives, they will naturally be virgins on their wedding nights. That, however, is not the point of chastity any more than the avoidance of coffee stains on your desk is the point of the Word of Wisdom." (I recommend his full essay here).  Kristine Haglund has noted that we could stop teaching the Young Women that verse in Moroni as if it had anything at all to do with virtue.  Matt Chandler, referring to a variant of the "chewed gum" analogy, involving a wilted rose that has been touched by everyone and therefore "lost" its purity, has beautifully declared "Jesus wants the rose!"  Sarah Hanks has a few ideas for better object lessons to use in talking about sex.  And Richard Beck has explored the Christian purity culture and offered us a new paradigm.

These are the messages we should be giving our youth.  We should teach in love, not in shame.  We should be sensitive to the feelings of victims of abuse.  We should stop teaching our girls that their value lies in their virginity--not because we believe chastity is unimportant, but because we know that our girls are more important than their hymens.

Monday, May 6, 2013

I Have No Need Of Thee

"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant...there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.  And there are differences of administration, but the same Lord," Paul wrote to his friends in Corinth (1 Cor. 12:1-5).  He was concerned, because word had reached him that the Corinthian saints had begun to be divided, proclaiming their talents and gifts to be superior to their neighbors'.  Some are given one gift, he wrote, and some another, but it's all the same Spirit and the same Lord.  Your neighbor may have the gift of prophecy, your friend the gift of faith, your wife the gift of healing, and you the gift of tongues, but "all these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills" (v. 11).

These gifts are meant to bring us together, not drive us apart, just like the many functions of our different body parts unite us and help us function.  "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many.  If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”" (v. 12-21).

There is a great polarization in our world today, in many spheres.  Politics has become so dysfunctional that bipartisanship and moderation are dirty words, and reaching across the aisle for the good of the people is seen as handing a victory to the enemy.  Religion is fragmented into conservative and liberal factions, each dismissing the other as deluded and lamenting their benighted-ness.  We have forgotten that ideological differences need not turn us into embittered foes.

It's an easy position to fall into, when we come up against those with whom we disagree, those who perceive the world differently than we do.  We see only their "not-me-ness" and hastily conclude, "I have no need of thee," not thinking that perhaps the reason for our different perceptions is that we may be the eye, and our neighbor, the ear, perceiving in fundamentally different ways, not because one of us misapprehends the nature of reality, but simply because we have different functions in the body, which "has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body."

Sometimes, perhaps most tragically, we find ourselves so alienated from others' worldview that we are sure that we do not belong to the body, whether it be the body politic or the body of Christ.  Hearing the loud chorus of hands around us excitedly reporting on their tactile sensation, it is easy to conclude that "because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," and difficult to frame the impulses received by our retinas in a way that is comprehensible to our neighbors, difficult not to think that we will never feel what seems so natural to our neighbors.

I make these mistakes a lot.  From not-so-subtly bristling at those irritating comments Brother Agitate makes in Sunday School, to leaving church in tears, certain that I will never belong among these people who believe so differently from me, the way I perceive my faith and my God often leave me in need of Paul's reminder, "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of thee,' nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of thee.'"  Because, in the end, we all are members, not just of a church, but of the body of Christ, who told His disciples to "be one, and if ye are not one ye are not mine" (Doc. & Cov. 38:27).

I believe, as I wrote earlier, that there is room for all of us in the fold of God.  There is room for--nay, need for--all of our individual God-given spiritual gifts in building the Kingdom.  It isn't easy to integrate our varying gifts and cacophonous voices into anything resembling harmony, and it's often tempting to stamp out the discordant voices, easy to convince ourselves that unity requires unanimity.  But the radical call of Christian discipleship is to achieve harmony while honoring diversity, to recognize that unity comes, not through conformity, but through charity.

Paul concludes his eloquent discourse by showing the Corinthian saints "a more excellent way" (12:31) to understand the interaction of their spiritual gifts in the body of Christ: have charity, or love, for one another.  For without love, he says, all other spiritual gifts are "nothing" (13:1-3).

"Love," Paul says, "is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends" (13:4-8).  And the other gifts and talents we cared so much about in this life?  "As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away" (13:8-10).  Though now our vision is clouded, there will come a time when we will see clearly, and will know one another fully even as we are fully known.

I hope that, when that day comes, when we "put away childish things," that we won't be left with the uncomfortable realization that we've been cutting off our nose to spite our face--or worse, because it had the audacity to be something other than an ear.  I hope that we can learn to draw circles that take others in rather than shutting them out, even when we wonder how we could possibly share the same body with members who are so different from us.  I hope we will have learned, by then, that we all belong to the body of Christ.  And if the "feeble knees" need strengthening and the "hands which hang down" need lifting up (Doc. & Cov. 81:5), we should remember that these are the knees and the hands of the body of Christ, of which we are all members.  For, in the end, when it comes to the body of our Lord, none of us can ever say, "I have no need of thee."