Episode 261 (Transcript): Susan & Cynthia's Mailbag Mayhem
Episode Transcript
Many thanks to listener Gretchen Blackburn for her work in transcribing this episode!
This episode can be found on any podcast app or can be listened to here on our website as well. All the notes and resources we cited in the episode are found at this link as well:
SH: And I feel like you’re describing this kind of diversity of thought. I find it very hopeful that that’s even being allowed on Latter Day Saint platforms. This is hopeful that we can have James Martin on and he can say these things, it really is. But I feel like he still says them as an outsider. We’re thrilled that the diversity of thought is coming into the room. It’s fresh air coming into the room. But until the leaders or mainstream members, until it starts to come out of those mouths, then members who would express the same thoughts will continue to be ostracized. Exhibit A: Cynthia and Susan.
CW: Hello, I’m Cynthia Winward.
SH: And I’m Susan Hinckley.
CW: And this is At Last She Said It. We are women of faith discussing complicated things, and the title of today’s episode is Susan and Cynthia’s Mailbag Mayhem. How’s that?
SH: Hello Cynthia.
CW: Okay, Susan. Mayhem? Really? Is that where we’re going today?
SH: I mean, people seem to like the Rage Cast, so let’s take it up a notch. Let’s go to full mayhem. Really it’s just that we have a smattering of different things that we wanna talk about.
CW: This episode did start out – I’m giving a teaser right here ‘cause we’re gonna talk about this halfway through – but this episode did start out with a specific topic with specific notes. And then it just kind of evolved into other stuff. So we’re front loading. We’re putting the mayhem at the beginning, and then we will get to some more structured stuff towards the end. Teaser.
SH: A little teaser. That sounds good. Well, I think it was in our Rage Cast episode where we had a little conversation about a church identity crisis. We were talking about, do I wanna cut my bangs? Right? About the church as an eighth grader. And ever since we had that conversation, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. And the church has helped me along by continuing to do stuff that makes me say, “Seriously, what are we even doing right now?” And so, I just want to talk about a couple of those things right upfront, if that’s okay.
CW: Yes.
SH: You and I have talked several times over the years about this thing going on where the church is calling women to leadership positions who have had careers.
CW: Big careers.
SH: Big careers in some cases, yes. Career women in leadership positions in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which has spent literal decades telling women not to do this, right?
It’s interesting. So a couple of things happened on social media a week or so ago. One was a post that popped up about a man supporting his wife who was in medical school, maybe?
CW: Yes, that’s right.
SH: This came from the church. Of course, we’ll link to it. And it’s a lovely story. He’s decided to stay home with the kids and support her while she’s going to medical school. And this is a decision that they have made together as a couple, which is, let’s be clear right up front, the way obviously marriage should work, right? Isn’t this the way that these decisions should be being made?
CW: Imagine that.
SH: But the thing about the exchange that took place on social media with the church posting this—and then what happened after—is not that people took any issue with what the church posted necessarily; it’s what’s behind all of it.
CW: And that’s why we’re talking about this.
SH: And there is a lot of emotion. The comment section was pretty crazy with that post, right? And we’ve seen this happen before. I mean, Annette Dennis’s famous “Post turned ‘round the world” comes to mind immediately where someone says something that maybe shouldn’t be that big a deal, but then the members explode in the comments.
CW: The “What’s behind that?” exploded
SH: Exactly. And that’s what happened with this one. So I want to just give you a couple of comments from the comment section.
One that I feel like captures what a lot of people were thinking, including myself, which is why I chose it, says this: “This does feel like mixed messaging. The proclamation outlines fairly specific gender roles and has long been treated as doctrine. If the current emphasis is shifting toward personal revelation and individual family decisions, that’s a meaningful change. But it should be clearly acknowledged as such. When teachings carry [00:05:00] doctrinal weight, they shape real life decisions for decades. So it’s reasonable for members to ask whether the underlying stance is consistent or evolving. Clarity here would go a long way.”
And then someone else jumps on immediately and smacks back saying, “On the other hand, personal revelation isn’t a new doctrine.”
CW: Someone had to say it. They just couldn’t let that comment stand alone. They had to smack it down.
SH: Yeah. So we had that going on. Late the same week, or maybe the next week, we had a video that came out from BYU Idaho. This was a woman talking about how she examined her personal gift, her strengths, her needs, and her desires; and decided to pursue a career. They also have children, but she’s working and her husband’s also working, and she is finding enormous fulfillment through that choice.
