FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Gender Issues

Re-examining gay Mormon youth and suicide: What does the data say?

by

salt-lake-city-downtown-21[This post originally appeared at Virtuous Society and is reposted here with the author’s permission.]

Written by Tom Stringham

Do young Latter-day Saints, and especially gay youth, commit suicide at a higher rate than other youth in the US? The short answer: with the data we have, we don’t know. So what do we know for sure? The Mormon teen suicide problem Some readers may have read a recent interview in the Huffington Post with Wendy Williams Montgomery, a Californian mom and LGBT advocate. In the interview, Montgomery refers to a widely recognized problem within Mormon culture: the high rate of suicides among gay youth. “Mormons,” Montgomery asserts, “have the highest rate of gay teen suicides in the country.”

Over the last few years, the idea that Mormons have a problem with teen suicide, especially among gay youth, has become common wisdom. In 2012, a Reuters article highlighted the issue of gay teen suicide in Utah. The Huffington Post has featured the issue multiple times, as in a 2012 post. High-profile Mormon critic John Dehlin frequently discusses gay teen suicide among Mormons, and recently referred to the phenomenon as epidemic. His characterization seems to fit the general impression: Mormons have a special problem with suicide among gay teens.

Missing data

There is no question that gay teen suicide is a reality among Mormon youth. In many cases, we have heard their stories, either through media or personal experience. Fortunately, we are more aware of this reality than we were in the past. Unfortunately, however, these stories seem to be accompanied, more and more frequently, by statistical claims that are not supported by data. Ms. Montgomery’s assertion that Mormons have the highest gay teen suicide rate in the country is unsourced in the original interview, and other blogs and outlets making similar claims are also missing sources. I surveyed all the government and health data I could find on youth suicide in the United States, and was unable to find any agency that collects public data by religion or sexual orientation (data so specific would be very difficult to collect). In fact, the American Association of Suicidology’s LGBT Resource Sheet notes, “to date, there is no empirical data regarding the number of completed suicides within the LGBT community.” The claim appears to be fabricated.

Other claims to the effect that Mormons, or Utahns, have a unique or unusually acute problem with gay teen suicide, or even teen suicide, cannot be supported by any data I can find.

The data we do have

Much of the interest in Mormons and teen suicide seems to originate from a 2006 article in the Deseret News, a newspaper owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The article pointed out a few statistics about suicide that would have been surprising to most readers at the time. First, that Utah had the highest rate of suicide among males age 15-24. Second, that Utah had the 11th highest overall suicide rate in the United States. And third, that the youth suicide rate in Utah had tripled over the preceding half-century (in fact, this is true across the United States). The newspaper didn’t cite its sources, but all of the categories of statistics they refer to are available through the CDC and other federal sources and appear to be genuine.

What else do we know? The data in that report is now nine years old, so it’s worth taking stock of the current reality. I’ve collected a set of more recent figures below, from public data and representative surveys:

A collection of more recent statistics is below:

  • Utah’s suicide rate among people age 15-24 is 9th highest in the United States, among 47 states with reliable data (CDC, 2013)
  • Utah’s suicide rate among males age 15-24 is 7th highest, among 46 states with reliable data (CDC, 2013)
  • Utah’s suicide rate among females age 15-24 cannot be reported as the number of cases is smaller than 20 (CDC, 2013)
  • Utah’s overall suicide rate is 5th highest in the United States (CDC, 2013)
  • Utah is 29th out of 40 states with available data for the rate of high school students who have attempted suicide (not completed suicide) (CDC, 2013)
  • Suicide is the second leading cause of death for Utahns age 10-17. (Utah Department of Health, 2012)
  • Across 9 sites surveyed (all in the Midwestern or Eastern US and California), lesbian and gay high school students had a rate of attempted suicide that was approximately 4 times higher than for straight students (CDC, 2011)
  • A representative survey of students in Grades 7-12 across the US using the Add-Health database found that Mormon gay teens reported significantly less depression and fewer suicidal thoughts than their nonreligious peers. (Add-Health, 2010)
  • The same survey found that religious gay teens had a lower attempted suicide rate than nonreligious gay teens (the number of cases did not allow for statistical significance, however).

To the best of my knowledge, these statistics are the closest we can come to answering the statistical questions surrounding gay teen suicide among Mormons, or within Utah. Specifically targeted data on completed or attempted suicide among gay Mormon teens simply isn’t available. The data speak well enough for themselves, but it’s worth pointing out that none of the relevant data points appear to justify an unusual suspicion about Utah (or, by extension, Mormons). This is especially true since the surprisingly strong link between high altitude and suicide rates has become well established. Among high-altitude states in the Rocky Mountain West, Utah appears to have overall rates within the average range, and youth rates slightly lower than the average. We have no empirical data specific to Utah for gay and lesbian youth, but we can assume that like other states, the rate of attempted suicide, and presumably completed suicide, is considerably higher than for straight youth.

It’s also worth noting that Utah’s overall suicide rate has increased relative to other states since 2006, while its youth suicide rate has fallen in comparison to other states. Furthermore, the Add- Health dataset mentioned above suggests that Mormon gay youth are relatively less at risk for suicide than nonreligious gay youth.

Conclusions

While only systematic recordkeeping and representative surveys can answer the questions we’re most interested in, we shouldn’t ignore anecdotal evidence about suicide. The sense among many concerned observers in Utah and elsewhere that the situation is bad and getting worse probably reflects an important reality. Youth suicide in the US has quickly gotten worse over the decades, and a disproportionate number of these suicides across the US, including within Utah, are among gay youth. Combined, these two trends might be giving an alarming impression to those concerned about the well-being of gay teens; an impression made locally that could be transformed into misplaced claims, such as Ms. Montgomery’s. So her hypothesis–that Mormons in particular have an unusually severe problem with gay teen suicide—could possibly be an observer’s local interpretation of nationwide trends, but it cannot be supported or rejected by the data itself, as far as I can tell.

The hypothesis cannot be confirmed or rejected by theory, either. Many advocates who highlight the issue of suicide among Mormons do so within the framework of a particular narrative, at the center of which is the idea that Latter-day Saint sexual values are harmful. Since there is no data to support the assertion of abnormal suicide rates, the theory seems to be doing all the work. But there are other theories that could be put forth—Latter-day Saints could just as well hypothesize that robust Mormon families and supportive faith communities lead to lower rates of suicide among gay youth. But this would also be unjustified; it would be best for everyone to refrain from attempting to explain phenomena for which there isn’t evidence in the first place.

Those who believe in Latter-day Saint sexual values and those who do not should be able to agree: one youth suicide is too many, including among gay youth. Even if the Mormon problem is not unique, it is still a problem. We don’t need statistics, and certainly not unsourced statistics, to tell us this.

[For further reading on this topic, please visit this link.]

Disconnect between Doctrine and Practice of Equality

by

McBaine_Women_1024x1024[The following is an excerpt from Neylan McBaine’s new book Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact. It is reposted here with permission of the author and Greg Kofford Books.] 

In my August 2012 FairMormon conference talk, one of the most challenging points that I made is that I feel we do ourselves a disservice as Mormons—when communicating both to external audiences and internal audiences—when we continually assert that men and women are “equal” in our Church. While this may have made some listeners and readers squirm, almost all of the personal responses I received on this point expressed relief. It seems that while we feel confident in our doctrinal belief that men and women have the same worth in the sight of God, we feel uncomfortable doing the cognitive leaps required to claim that men and women are equal in our practice.

The questions seem to be: If we believe in equality, do we have an obligation to practice equality? And if we practice equality, what does that look like? These questions arise in our cultural consciousness because they are the same questions that American society has been wrestling with since the day we declared independence from Great Britain. It was literally “self-evident” to the founders of our country that all people are created equal. How that belief in equality actually translated into a practice of equality was a discussion that shaped the very foundation of our country: for our founders, practicing equality initially demanded that white settlers in America should have the same taxation and representation as their brothers in England. And from the first moments of the country’s founding, debate also raged over whether the equality the new Americans had fought to achieve extended to people of all races. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Americans asked themselves questions similar to those we had at our founding: What does equality look like? How do we practice it? What terms do we draw as a society to determine what opportunities, resources, and experiences are equal? How do our institutions support those terms? [Read more…] about Disconnect between Doctrine and Practice of Equality

Mormon FairCast Book Review: Women At Church by Neylan McBaine

by

Podcast: Download (71.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Neylan McBain Interview - FairMomronNeylan McBaine grew up a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) in New York City and attended Yale University. She has been published in Newsweek, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Segullah, Meridian Magazine, and the Washington Post to name a few.

Neylan is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Mormon Women Project, a continuously expanding library of interviews with LDS women found at www.mormonwomen.com.

Neylan is the author of a collection of personal essays — How to Be a Twenty-First Century Pioneer Woman (2008) — as well as Sisters Abroad: Interviews from the Mormon Women Project (2013). She lives with her husband and three young daughters in Utah.

Questions:

Your bio speaks volumes about your passions to support and place a spotlight on Mormon Women. When did your first feel the sparks of this passion?

I actually wanted to start with the cover of the book. Aside from it being warm and fuzzy paper, easy to hold in your hand as you read, the artwork is also quite gripping. I don’t always have much to say about the covers, but I love the painting on the cover of your book. Could you describe it and how the cover actually speaks well to the theme of your book?

This theme of feminism has a wardrobe of interpretations that attempt to clothe a given message. Because there are so many different versions of feminism, could you please take a minute to describe your own interpretation of feminism, and how you frame your self in reference to it?

Your opening sentence is as clear a thesis as I have read however, “This book is predicated on a single belief: that there is much more we can do to see, hear, and include women in the church.” As I read it I wonder about one word in that sentence, the word “much” there is much more we can do to see, hear, and include women in the church. How bold, italicized, and underlined did you want the reader to read into the word “much?”

It is your clear assumption that women are not being heard, and in this same first chapter where you state that a good portion of your book is going to talk about the problem: that some women are feeling neglected, overlooked, and silenced in their church experiences. Is it that these women are feeling neglected and overlooked and silenced by men? By other women? Both?

You address the issue of hurt, of pain, that women are feeling. There are multiple accounts of this happening throughout the church. In a recent interview Terryl and Fiona Givens talked about their new book, The Crucible of Doubt. In that book they talk about the utility of suffering, of trials and tests. They consider these as part of the experience of worshiping deity. Then I read your book and I read about the primary effort to alleviating the hurt. For those that might see these two and feel that both offer some truth they may also seem paradoxical. How then do you define the place, utility, or role of hurt?

You call for greater empathy from general church membership with those who struggle or have hurt. The Savior called for the same thing in his day, and one could argue that seeking for greater charity is the cause of all who wish to be considered disciples of Christ. Discipleship, for men or women, tends to operate on a metaphorical scale where there is a balance of helping others being in ratio to others helping themselves. In reading your book, there is a clear indication that you feel that the church has not done enough to help women or to reach out to embrace women’s voices. What then is that balance as you see it?

We believe in a church of continuing revelation, a living church, one that should not fight flat out the idea of change. But that belief is also tempered by understanding from which changes are to come, and why they come. The first half of your book is meant to lay out the case that there is a need for change. The second part offers some perspectives and examples on how changes can come. How then are we to first acknowledge the need, in a faithful way, without doing so in attacking the system or those who are doing their best to administer the gospel with limited capacities?

In going through part 1 of the book you spend a lot of time talking about the deep need for change on these issues. It can be uncomfortable to sit with that material. While Part 2 of the book is example after of example of how people have enacted changes locally, things that people have done to adopt more equality. This is more a fulfillment of D&C 58:27 where people are being anxiously engaged in a good cause. What are some of those examples

Continuing the conversation begun by Neylan McBaine’s “Women at Church”

by

At the recent 2014 FairMormon Conference, I picked up a pre-release copy of Neylan McBaine’s new book “Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact”, which is being released publically today. I started reading it on the airplane ride home on Saturday and couldn’t put it down and I finished it the next day after Church. It was amazing. Since it is officially being released today, I thought I would share my thoughts about the book and about the message that I think Neylan is trying to convey concerning how we can improve our Church culture and our rhetoric to match our doctrine.

This is not a book about doctrine, nor does Neylan intend for it to be. Instead, it is written for men and women, Church leaders and fill-the-pews-every-week Church members. First, it illustrates how some Church culture, rhetoric, and practices unnecessarily make some women (and in many cases the men who love and support those women) feel less-than, and then it provides several suggestions for how we might change our culture, rhetoric, and practices without requiring any changes in doctrine or official policy.

Both the descriptions of “the problem” and the suggestions for “solutions” are backed up by anecdotes from a wide range of sources that Neylan collected after considering some of the reactions to her 2012 FairMormon Conference address and being encouraged to expand her work there into a larger project. She sought for stories and suggestions from Church members across the belief and political spectrum. She then pulled them together to illustrate how, when we talk about gender balance in the Church, we are not only dealing with doctrine – we are dealing with emotions, culture, public relations, and long-standing group dynamics, many of which have little or nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Neylan’s message was full of “a-ha” moments for me. One occurred when I listened to her 2012 FairMormon Conference talk and heard her describe why language matters, both internal and external to the Church, when we talk about things like “equality”. For example, When we use the words “equal”, “alike”, or “equality” in a gospel setting:

“…and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike [or equal] unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (2 Ne 26:33),

we have developed a good internal (as in, inside the Church) understanding of what “alike” or “equal” means and looks like: God loves everyone without regard to race, color, gender, occupation, etc., and we, as disciples of Christ should seek to emulate that same principle.

Where we run into trouble is when we try to pass off this internal definition or understanding of “equal” in our external public relations messaging as a Church. The rest of the world uses a measuring stick that is vastly different to measure “equality”, and our rhetoric will fall on deaf ears if we do not recognize this fact and adapt our message accordingly.

When I say “vastly different” from the rest of the world, I mean we are different by almost every criteria the world uses to gauge these sorts of things: prominence of women’s events compared with men’s, prominence of women leaders compared with men, emphasis on women’s public teaching and influence compared with men’s, opportunities for institutional or organizational “span-of-control” and “span-of-influence” positions for women compared with men, etc. All of these are simple, basic, easy-to-calculate, easy-to-see, measuring sticks by which the rest of the world gauges the word “equality”. We have to consider what the rest of the world hears when we put out our public relations messaging or our social media posts about media stories regarding gender-related issues in the Church. We need to realize that when we talk about “equality” between men and women within the Church, but then the world sees something totally different when they look at our organization, their reaction will be to discount or dismiss our comments and messaging as not credible or misleading. When we try to pass off our internal definition of “equality” as equivalent to the world’s definition of “equality,” we will fail every time. And when we fail in the public relations space, we lose credibility.

“But who cares?” we might ask. “Since when are we concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of us? Shouldn’t we be more concerned with what God thinks of us?” Sure. Absolutely. But if that were the only consideration, we would have no need for a Church Public Affairs function! It seems like at least one of those reasons should have something to do with aligning our internal and external rhetoric. As long as we want to maintain our ability to appeal to the rest of the world through our missionary efforts, we would do well to listen to people with the experience and expertise to help us at least reduce the number of “unforced errors” on this subject.

This is where I think McBaine’s approach is so valuable. By challenging us to refine our rhetoric first, and not agitating for changes in doctrine, she is reinforcing the point that it is not only important what we say, but how we say it.

One of my favorite parts in “Women at Church” is where Neylan points out the strong and empowering message that we could send to the world about the importance of women’s contributions in the Church by making those contributions more visible. We live in a visual world, and while words are important, so are images. The recent changes in seating assignments during General Conference, for example, where Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary General Presidencies have been invited to take a more central position on the rostrum, and the addition of these women’s portraits in the lobby of the Conference Center and in the center page of the Conference issue of the Ensign and Liahona alongside the General Authorities are some examples of this being put into practice. One of Neylan’s suggestions is that we consider inviting ward or stake Relief Society, Young Women, and/or Primary presidencies to sit on the stand during Ward or Stake Conferences.

Some may consider this an example of tokenism or window dressing, since these women do not preside over the meeting. But whereas changing who presides would require a change in doctrine (as Elder Oaks’ April 2014 General Conference address made clear), the change suggested by Neylan would require no change in doctrine, nor any change in official church policy. And the benefits could be great: both men and women, old and young, would see women as well as men recognized on the stand for the important work that they do in the Church. Our doctrine is clear on this: the work that Priesthood brethren do in the Church is no more nor less valuable than the work that sisters do in their Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, and other callings. So how can it hurt us to have a visible representation of the equal value of those contributions on the stand? Making women’s roles and responsibilities more visible to both the men and the women in the ward by having RS, YW and/or Primary leaders sit on the stand, even if only for Ward and Stake Conference, does not fly in the face of anything more than our traditions and customs (and perhaps in some cases our prejudices). And if it removes a potential hurdle for our youth or other members struggling because of the imbalance in the visibility of women’s contributions, all of whom are growing up and living in a world where the world’s definition and visual depiction of equality is what they live and experience every day at school, at work, and in their other non-Church associations, and if it can remove that hurdle without changing doctrine or policy, then indeed, why not!?

We ignore or minimize the distinction between our “gospel” understanding of these terms and concepts and the “worldly” understanding to our great detriment, as it undermines our ability to be “in the world but not of the world.”  We need to be not only multi-lingual in our missionary training centers as we teach the various languages of the world, but also multi-lingual in our cultural rhetoric and understanding. This will help us guide those who would welcome such empowering and ennobling doctrines if they could see them through a gospel lens, unburdened of the rhetorical baggage that otherwise prevents them from seeing the beauty of our doctrine.

Book Review: “Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact”

by

McBaine_Women_1024x102410614220_10152602861189764_2459171662055093934_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neylan McBaine is one of several notable and thoughtful participants in the conversation that has been taking place about the roles and situation of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Her soon-to-be-released book, Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact, is both a tremendous synopsis of that conversation for those who are still trying to get a handle on its many facets and a valuable and constructive contribution in its own right. Sister McBaine is the founder of the Mormon Women Project, which collects stories of LDS women for the purpose of celebrating and highlighting their lives, accomplishments, and contributions, a worthy goal in a church that celebrates that which is of good report and praiseworthy, but also a worthy goal for one interested in better understanding the human condition.

Her book draws upon a wide variety of sources. I saw mention of most of the major discussants, a host of more minor ones, and many individual women and men who shared their experiences navigating the labyrinth of gender relations in the relative privacy of their own lives. Apart from merely having a large pool of sources from which to draw experience and wisdom, this book also accomplishes a measure of balance. The author explains both sides of many of the issues in LDS gender relations in terms proponents of each position will likely relate to. Thus people with a variety of opinions will be both informed and challenged by this book. The author also presents some challenging perspectives. Not all of her anecdotes end well. But this also plays the important role of highlighting the real human lives and souls that are at stake in the effort to live our religion in a truly thoughtful, inclusive, and Christ-like manner. Though the book contains a number of stories that are necessarily sorrowful, the book maintains a genuinely hopeful tone of focused optimism. This is not a book that should leave people depressed or hopeless, but instead give them perspective and ideas for how to improve.

For me personally, this book succeeded in accomplishing several important things. It helped me understand some of the more common or characteristic sources of frustration. It convinced me that having sisters more visible is important for spiritual reasons beyond any worldly arguments that may exist for it. And it helped reinforce my confidence that our leaders are working to improve these situations, and that there is significant scope for us to work for better relationships within the scope of our own stakes, wards, and branches.

Why is it important for women (or any sort of person, really) to be visible to others? In reading this book, a few reasons become apparent. One that the author brings up is that the process of creation necessarily involves models. When God created the earth, those creations were “spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.” And it makes sense for us to desire models to use to form our own worlds as well. Jesus, who also famously counseled that we should do our alms in secret, commanded the disciples to “let your light so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (3 Nephi 12:16). While on the surface these two directives appear to be at variance, the principle appears to be that we are not rewarded of God for self-aggrandizement and seeking the praise of the world, but we nevertheless help to glorify God when our example teaches others how to succeed in living in accordance with His plan. Not every woman’s path will look the same, and it is important to have women who represent the variety of possible righteous lives visible so that others seeking to find a righteous example upon which to pattern a faithful life in their own circumstances can have the undergirding benefit of an example. The life of faith is one of challenges, but challenges that need not be encountered alone and without a map.

Turning attention to some of the means the author proposes for providing female role models, one of the most encouraging points she brings up is the fact that many of the practices that could be adopted to provide visibility to women on a local scale are already being modeled by our general leaders. She notes the recent deliberate inclusion of women auxiliary leaders in prominent positions in the seating arrangements for General Conference, as well as their inclusion in the Conference Ensign center sheets showing general leaders. Of particular interest in this last conference is a talk by Linda S. Reeves dealing with protecting the home from pornography. This talk sets a strong example of a general leader speaking to the whole church, just as one giving a talk in sacrament meeting (who likely holds some particular stewardship in the ward) speaks by default to the whole group rather than only those who they are assigned to serve in some particular capacity. This was further driven home by her choosing to address what has traditionally been thought of as a male problem, though participation by either gender is thoroughly unfortunate.

This idea of leaders speaking to the needs of the whole church rather than just one particular subset of it is further amplified in the council setting. In a ward council, the sisters who preside over the auxiliary organizations are asked to share their insights and inspiration on all matters that come before the council. The inspiration of these sister leaders is then able to benefit the entire ward body. When all functions properly, input from sisters functions on an equal footing with input from the brothers in the ward. This practice has likewise been modeled at the general level. Sister Eubank’s recent FairMormon talk included her recounting of her experiences with councils that made sure they heard and understood her insights before proceeding. Properly conducted ward councils have received strong encouragement from Elder Ballard, who has been counseling leaders to properly harness the full potential of their Ward Councils for 20 years. The more these councils fulfill their full potential, the more our sisters are able to fulfill theirs.

Neylan McBaine also discusses the great latitude that local leaders have to solve problems of visibility and recognition on the local level. She emphasizes the importance of spiritual creativity by leaders in the process. She discusses a number of approaches that have been taken with baby blessings to make sure the mother was recognized, while still keeping within the bounds of church policies. One of several discussed was inviting the mother to sit on the stand at the meeting where the blessing occurred so that she had a good view of the ordinance and so that she could be seen and receive the recognition of the congregation. A number of other good approaches were discussed. The key really does seem to be in spiritual creativity, and a willingness to explore ways to include and recognize the real and significant contributions and accomplishments of women. There is enough space within the church policies for these things to happen, if people are willing to experiment a bit, be patient with one another, and withhold judgment.

Another area where she identified possibilities for women to contribute is the sacrament. Apparently, (something I was less aware of before reading this book) women have historically provided bread for the sacrament, and any way you look at it, purchasing Wonder Bread is an assignment not strictly necessitating priesthood authority. Reading the beautiful account of a sister who prepared the sacramental bread, I couldn’t help recalling that the bread represented the flesh of the savior, and that, indeed, that flesh was molded and formed and prepared by a woman. Inviting then the Lord’s handmaids to provide the bread might even enhance the meaning of the ordinance and at the same time highlight one of the most uniquely key and feminine contributions to the salvific history of the human family.

The insights shared in this review are a very small sampling of what one person got out of a remarkably thoughtful book. Anyone that would like to get up to date on the conversation about women in the Church of Jesus Christ should locate a copy of it immediately. I’d loan you mine (with a deposit), but I am but one man with but one copy. If you’d like, though, this is important enough of a book that we have them available for preorder at the FairMormon bookstore at a bit of a discount. The author was kind enough to personalize my copy while I was at the FairMormon Conference, where she received the FairMormon Award of Excellence. She wrote, “With hope in the future.” This book gives me a lot of reasons for hope.

“This is a Woman’s Church”

by


Sharon Eubank’s presentation, given on August 8 at the 2014 FairMormon Conference, received the rare honor of a standing ovation. The transcript can be viewed here.

You can purchase access to the rest of the conference videos at the FairMormon Bookstore.


Sharon Eubank was born in Redding, California, to Mark and Jean Eubank. She received a bachelor’s degree in English from Brigham Young University and served as a full-time missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Finland Helsinki mission. Her career includes working as a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate for 4 years and owning a retail education store in Provo, Utah, for 7 years.

Since 1998, she has been employed by the Church in the Welfare Department. She helped to establish 17 international LDS employment offices Africa and Europe. For five years she directed the humanitarian wheelchair program expanding its scope to 50,000 individual donations each year and implementing World Health Organization training standards.

In 2008 Sharon became regional director of the LDS Charities for the Middle East Africa North area where she oversaw humanitarian work with active country offices in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Jordan, and Morocco. She also served on the Relief Society general board during Sister Julie B. Beck’s administration until April 2012.

Currently, Sharon is the director of LDS Charities, the humanitarian organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mormon Fair-cast 244: FairMormon Conference 2014

by

Podcast: Download (18.0MB)

Subscribe: RSS

33480_1612609000660_2667876_nDanPetersonMartin Tanner who is the host of “Religion Today” on KSL FM 102.7 and AM 1160 interviews Steve Densley who is the executive vice-president of FairMormon and Daniel Peterson, Ph.D. who is a prominent Mormon apologist and professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University about the upcoming FairMormon conference that will be held in Provo Utah on the 7th and 8th of August this year. Tickets can be purchased here.

This broadcast originally aired on the 6th of July 2014.

The views and opinions expressed in this podcast may not represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon.

 

What is God Thinking? Reflections on Mormon Women and the Priesthood

by

Sister Missionaries serving in Berlin Germany. (Photo from LDS.org.)
Sister missionaries serving in the Germany Berlin Mission. (Photo from LDS.org.)

[This is a guest post from Deborah Rowley, a Latter-day Saint woman sharing her perspective on the subject of women and the priesthood. These comments are Deborah’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of FairMormon or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints..]

I am a woman. I am also a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am aware of the events surrounding Kate Kelly, her excommunication, and the Ordain Woman movement. Many people both inside and outside the Church have been asking questions like, “What are the leaders of the church thinking?” or “What is Kate Kelly’s bishop thinking?” Those on the other side of the controversy are asking, “What is Kate Kelly thinking?” or “What are the members of Ordain Women thinking?” While these are good questions, I think they’re the wrong ones. No one in the swirling social media frenzy surrounding this situation is asking the right question.

Here is the right question, “What is God thinking?” I know how that must sound. Just stay with me for a second. Let’s just assume that the priesthood leaders at the head of the Church are telling the truth. They have said that only God makes this decision about who holds the priesthood. And they have told us that God said, “Not women.” That answer may change in the future but for now, the answer is no. You may not believe that those men are speaking for God and that is your right. But I do. My faith depends on it. Otherwise the leaders of my church are lying. If they are lying, why would I want to be part of their organization or hold the priesthood anyway? Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that they are telling the truth and that God said no. That is where my question comes in.

The right question is, “What is God thinking?” Einstein famously said that he wanted to know God’s thoughts. I am no Einstein but I think I know my Heavenly Father well enough to know what he is not thinking. He is not thinking that his daughters are undeserving or unworthy. He is not thinking that his daughters couldn’t do the job as well as his sons. He is not thinking that he loves his daughters less than his sons or that he values their growth and development less than that of his sons. He is not thinking that he wants to drive women away from his church or hold them down or keep them subservient. I am confident that God is not thinking those things.

So what could be God thinking? I don’t want to be struck by lightning for the presumption of thinking like God or for God, but I really like that question. As I’ve pondered that question sincerely, I’ve come up with several answers that make sense to me. They may not make sense to you, but below are three possible reasons that I came up with. (God is not in the habit of letting me read his mind so feel free to take this with a grain of salt if you want.)

I started my thought process by acknowledging that God thinks in the big picture. He looks at the long term and can see perfectly how thumping that one domino will set in motion a stream of events that we cannot even begin to see. God knows the consequences down the road that are hidden to us with our limited perspective. Can he see that what seems like one positive to us right now would result in even bigger negatives in the long run? What could those negatives be?

First, perhaps God is saying no because he is protecting his youngest and most innocent children and wants to safeguard a mother’s very limited time in the home. Second, perhaps God is saying no because he is concerned about the growing distortion in our understanding of men and women’s unique roles. Perhaps giving the priesthood to women would further blur the distinction between men and women and jeopardize our Father’s plan for all his children. Third, perhaps God is saying no because he is aware of negative consequences to his sons.

Many boys are struggling in a world of violence, pornography and fatherless families. Perhaps this decision would further marginalize boys which in turn would negatively impact their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters. You may agree or disagree with my three points and that is just fine. I am not trying to argue my points as definitive answers because I don’t know what God thinks. But I think it is very probable that he has different purposes and reasons that I wouldn’t even understand if he were to try to verbalize them to me. Nevertheless, it has helped me to think of some reasons that make sense to me. You could do the same. Why do you think God would be saying no?

Whatever the reason, I trust God. I trust that he has my best interests at heart, that he loves me and is thinking continually of my needs. He knows what those needs are and how to fulfill them far better than I do. He knows how to fulfill them better than a group of women activists or a group of priesthood leaders. I do believe that God is behind this decision and I trust him. I believe that conscientious leaders have prayed to him to know if now is the time and God said no. I don’t speak for God, but his prophets do. You don’t get too far in reading the Bible before realizing that the prophets’ words are never popular. Why should that change in our modern day?

The unpopularity of their teachings should confirm rather than discount their validity. I do not see denying women the priesthood as hurtful to women. I do not see this decision as holding women back. Why would a loving God purposefully hurt his daughters? From where I sit, I see women in the church thriving and continuing to grow and progress without the priesthood. I see powerful women who lead with strength and purpose, who express their views openly and honestly. I have never been asked to shut up or sit down. Quite the contrary. I have been asked time and time again to step up and speak up. I feel nothing but respect from my priesthood leaders and I admire and respect them in return.

I will continue to give my all to the religion that I believe in. I love being a woman in the Church. I believe it is the place where I can reach my fullest and highest potential and where I can most fully develop a relationship with God and with his Son Jesus Christ. One day I will know God’s thoughts and I will see how this decision fits into his eternal plan. For now, I will not tell God what to think or what to do. I will trust him and exercise my faith.

Articles of Faith 4: Valerie Hudson on the Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks

by

Podcast: Download (37.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

VMHudsonDr. Valerie Hudson joined the faculty of Texas A&M University at the Bush School in 2012 as the George Bush Chair. She is considered an expert on international security and foreign policy analysis, she received her PhD in political science at The Ohio State University. Prior to going to Texas A&M she taught at Brigham Young University.   In 2009, Foreign Policy named her one of the top 100 Most Influential Global Thinkers. Dr. Hudson developed a nation-by-nation database on women (http://womanstats.org) that triggered both academic and policy interest including use by both the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and various agencies of the United Nations.   Her research and teaching experience is also complemented by three major teaching awards and numerous research awards. She is a founding editorial board member of Foreign Policy Analysis, and also serves on the editorial boards of Politics and Gender and International Studies Review. More information can be found on her website, http://vmrhudson.org.   She comes to us today under the nome de plume V.H. Cassler to discuss her article in the 7th Volume of the online journal SqaureTwo found at SquareTwo.org. Welcome VH!   Some of the questions Valerie Hudson answers are:   Valerie Hudson’s article is a sort of time capsule or cultural snapshot of the current discourse in the LDS world about the roles of women, women in the priesthood, ordain women, etc. Valerie is a self proclaimed feminist which is a designation that has become a very vague concept in some respects. There are different waves of feminism, there are different implications on what being a feminist implies. Valerie says she is a Mormon BECAUSE is a feminist. How can one define themself as a feminist and how does that dovetail with Mormonism.   A brief introduction as to what that Journal is and what people can expect to find there.   In her book- Women in Eternity, Women in Zion she explore the idea of separating doctrine from culturally accepted precepts. This theme is also addressed in your article in SquareTwo. The article is entitled Zion in Her Beauty Rises: Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks. To start out you address some of the previously held cultural approaches to the discourse on the role of women in Mormon Culture and doctrine. What are some of those past cultural positions that were held by some?   There is a change in the discourse since the 21st century began on the issues of women in the church. General Authorities seem to be more assertive with the doctrines of gender equality. Valerie’s article focuses on recent statements from Elder M. Russell Ballard, Sheri Dew, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks. She gives a brief synopsis of each of these statements.   There have been other statements on this issue, so why these three sources, why not just one?   There is a temptation when it comes to issues such as gender and where there seems to be some changes in the way things are either viewed and/or operate, to make a chicken and egg kind of argument. That is to give the distinction that the change came because of the protest or pressure of men and women, vs. divine authority. What merit is there in even considering the source of the change? Does it matter? Can’t divine authority be given based on the petition of God’s children?   Valerie Hudson concludes with a beautiful and intriguing statement, “I agree with [Sheri] Dew when she predicts that, “the kingdom of God will change overnight” for the better when we move to higher ground on these questions.” The questions here being those surrounding gender roles and doctrines in the LDS Church. Valerie elaborates further on how this is the case?   Valerie Hudson, or V.H. Cassler, is the author of a the article Zion in Her Beauty Rises:
Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks that can be found in Vol. 7 of the online Journal SqaureTwo found at SquareTwo.org