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.
This came from BYU Idaho, Cynthia. Seriously?
CW: Well, you know what’s funny is when this video started going viral and I started watching the video, halfway through, I thought, “Oh, I know how this is going to end - she’s going to quit her job. I know how this is going to end.” And then boom!
SH: Nope.
CW: It was really amazing what she said. She said, “I realized quitting my job would be like hiding my light under a bushel”. It was something like that – or like burying my talents
SH: Yes, burying my talents.
CW: And I was gobsmacked. Gobsmacked.
SH: Okay, well, I’ve got a few more comments from that section that I wanna share with you.
CW: Oh, goody.
SH: This one says, “Why am I hearing this from BYU-I’s social media? I’d appreciate the church just telling us if the old teachings are still applicable or not. I’ll accept it either way, for better or worse. Many members even now structure their lives around those teachings often at great personal expense. If they are making sacrifices they aren’t being asked to, they should know. If social media posts like this, which give the impression that teachings have already changed and we missed the memo, are meant to substitute for clear teaching, then frankly I’m disappointed.”
CW: Interesting.
SH: Another woman said, “Say what now? I grew up in the 80s and 90s LDS culture. Women were counseled to stay home, period. It’s interesting how the church’s teachings change with society.”
And another member jumps on immediately and says, “This has always been the case. Our church has never claimed to never change. The 1800s church was very different than the 1900s church. The messaging in this video has been consistent with many recent general conference talks.”
So there you have it all. This is what’s going on among members. And I think an identity crisis is a really good description of what we’re seeing.
And it’s happening not just to members, but within the organization. I see the organization in an identity crisis. Should we wear the cross and put the cross in our materials? Should we celebrate Easter? What should we be doing? So there are decisions at the institutional level. But then among members, they’re saying, “Wait a minute, it used to mean this to be a Mormon, and now you’re talking about something else.”
CW: I think there’s a reason you and I want to read the comments here. Because they really do give the best description of the both and, right?
SH: Right.
CW: We have people who are coming in here who are clearly very Orthodox believers, and they’re like, “This is great, but did I miss the memo that something changed? And if so, could that be clarified?”
And I thought, okay, it’s not just edgy people like you and me, Susan, who are saying, “Did we miss the memo, did something change?” We were specifically told to not have careers, and now the church is promoting all this stuff officially and through BYU Idaho saying otherwise.
And so I’m really glad to see that the Orthodox members are wrestling with this as well. That’s what I should have just said. It’s not just you and me.
SH: Oh no, it’s not just us. And it doesn’t help that meanwhile, Dallin Oaks becomes the prophet and he comes in hot about women having more babies, right? And having them young.
CW: Right.
SH: And I’m not making this up.
CW: No, we have receipts!
SH: Right. There’s the famous article that came out, or interview with him where the headline was LDS Church President Dallin Oaks Hopes Lower Missionary Ages Will Lead to Lower Marriage Ages.
And a quote from that is, “Marriage is central to the purpose of mortal life and what follows,” Oaks said, we are children of a loving Heavenly Father who created us with the capacity to follow his [00:10:00] commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.”
CW: You know, I’m not really surprised, Susan, that he would come in hot with this right when he is the new president, because it’s clearly been a hobby horse of his for a very long time. Anyway, I’ll get to that in a sec. Go ahead.
SH: Well, in his first general conference address last October he gave a talk that people are still talking about that was about this very thing.
I just pulled one quote from it where he said, “In the United States, we are suffering from a deterioration in marriage and childbearing. For nearly a hundred years, the proportion of households headed by married couples has declined and so has the birth rate. The marriages and birth rates of our church members are much more positive, but they have also declined significantly.
It is vital that Latter Day Saints do not lose their understanding of the purpose of marriage and the value of children. That is the future for which we strive.”
So he made it clear that he was setting the church course in a clear direction at that point. I mean, “That is the future for which we strive.” How much more clear can a prophet really be than that sentence?
CW: He made his point and then he said, “This is why I’m making this point. This is the future.”
SH: Right. And then the church social media departments turned around and started posting weird things about women having careers.
CW: Oh, you’re right!
SH: It’s whiplash. Like what is happening right now? Do they not have meetings where they talk about messaging? I don’t know! I don’t know.
CW: Okay. Here’s a thought I’m just having about that. Maybe those two actually work in tandem because the church knows that financially it is practically impossible…I’m gonna say it is impossible for our young people my children’s age in their twenties. I see what they’re dealing with. It is impossible for them now to not have two incomes.
SH: Right.
CW: If Oaks is going to say “That is the future for which we strive”, meaning to have children and families, it actually makes sense to me that they would be like, “Okay women, it’s okay for you to go ahead and work and keep having families. You’ll figure it out” or something.
SH: I like it. I like that way of looking at it. And I hadn’t really thought of that. But my question is, do they ever connect dots for members ever? I mean, how many times have you and I said that on this podcast? Could they just say what they’re thinking? Could they just lay out the thinking behind the messaging that we get? And of course they never do, they never seem to. But I think it’s really starting to cause problems – existential problems.
CW: No, it really is. Existential problems. And we’re seeing that play out in comments in real time.
But before we go on, I just wanna touch on what I said a second ago: This isn’t anything new for Elder Oaks. For a good time, Susan, go ask ChatGPT, “Please give me a list of all the general conference talks by Dallin Oaks where he talked about the importance of having babies.”
And some of these are burned in my brain. I was like, “Oh yes.” And some of them I was like, “Oh, I didn’t remember this one.” The one I did remember though was when he said, “People have dogs now, not kids.” Do you remember that? Way back from 2009 in a talk called Unselfish Service.
Another quote from October 2018, “Children are our most precious gift from God or eternal increase. Yet we live in a time when many women wish to have no part in the bearing and nurturing of children. Many young adults delay marriage until temporal needs are satisfied.” And I just have to say, in October of 2018, if you remember, Susan, that was the very first time we switched from having general Relief Society meetings.
Remember, those would happen like a week before conference, and we started having them on the Saturday night of conference. But it was for women and children, right? Remember, ages eight and up.
And I just remember thinking, “Really? We’re inviting little girls to this and we’re immediately launching into telling women to have more babies?”
Something in me broke that conference. And then right after Elder Oaks sat down, that was when Russell M. Nelson gave his talk where he told women to go on the social media fast. You remember that?
SH: I sure do.
CW: And it was the combination of those two talks that made me feel, “You know what, I’m done listening to this live. I can’t do this anymore.” The infantilization of women felt so complete to me in that moment with those two talks back to back. And I don’t think I ever watched General Conference live again after that. So, something in me changed, but I know that something changed in women hearing these [00:15:00] kinds of talks because I do specifically remember where I was sitting on my couch.
SH: Same. I almost remember that meeting in slow motion, Cynthia.
CW: Yes. Slow motion.
SH: I think my mouth was actually hanging open during that meeting. I couldn’t believe the messages that I was hearing. I felt like I was rewound to being maybe a newlywed and the messages that I had heard then. I just literally couldn’t believe it.
CW: Well, you and me and all the women who started texting me immediately. And I remember one text was from a former young woman of mine. I had taught her as a Beehive and she was a mid-20-something by then. And she was like, “Come on! This is my value as a single woman in this church?”
She’s like, “I can’t even get a date and yet I have to sit here and be blasted about how I’m also not having babies.” Something in her broke too. She’s no longer in the church. Spoiler.
SH: Wow.
CW: That was hard.
SH: Well, I mean, we’re eight years further down the road now. We’ve been through the whole Nelson presidency. We’re into the Oaks presidency. And we find ourselves in a time in the world where it seems that men can’t stop talking about women having babies and not just in the religious realm. I hate to just call out men on this, but I’m going to, because this is how I’m experiencing it. You and I talk and text about this a lot behind the scenes.
CW: Right.
SH: This is happening everywhere. Men can’t shut up about women needing to have more babies. Yeah, I just said that out loud.
CW: Well, yes, you did say it out loud. I’m glad you did. But you and I have been texting each other over the last few months every time some man puts up a new article on Facebook or something where they’re like, “Oh my gosh, this is catastrophic, the birth rate has fallen.” You know who isn’t making any of these posts? Women.
And I just wish, if nothing else, the men would see the optics. Just consider the optics of men coming in hot, telling women to have more babies.
SH: It’s happening. We’re in a time right now. So I mean, I guess prophets are prophetic if eight years ago they were making our mouths hang open on this subject. And it’s only just continued to spill out and go forward. I’m not sure where it all leads. I don’t really know. I think it’s because there are some economic red flags that men are deeply concerned about. I think that’s why it has their attention to the degree that it does. This is an economic problem that we’re facing, right?
And so it took that to get their attention. But I feel like our prophets weren’t talking to us about it that way. They were just putting it on, “Women need to have more babies because that’s your divine role.” And maybe I just heard it that way? Because I’ve always heard it that way because it’s always been explicit that way, but maybe… I don’t know. This is a very sensitive topic for women.
CW: It is really sensitive. But no, Susan, it was explicit. I’m just gonna read that one line again. From Elder Oaks saying, “Many young adults delay marriage until temporal needs are satisfied.” That is not what I am hearing from my children and children their ages in their twenties. They are like, “I can’t even pay my rent. “
SH: That’s what I was just gonna say, temporal needs like housing.
CW: Yeah, okay. So technically that is a temporal need, right? But we’re not talking about expensive watches and luxury items. We’re talking about a roof over your head.
SH: Exactly.
CW: It just feels so tone deaf to me. And this is why it’s particularly hard when men talk about this. Yes, like you said, there are economic consequences to countries when the birth rate declines, but reverse engineer that for just a minute and go all the way back and try to figure out not just why this is happening, but then really do something when women give you the answer about why this is happening.
And that’s not what I’m seeing. Oh, I’m on a rant now, Susan, I’ll cut this out. But you know, people are saying, “Yeah, but even in Europe, the birth rate is still falling.” And they do have universal childcare and healthcare.
SH: They do have social programs, right.
CW: But still American women maybe are in a little bit of a different circumstance where we don’t have those things. And so why don’t you go ahead and give them to us, and then maybe, just maybe, the birth rate will go up. But I get it that it’s complicated and there’s so many other things. People are concerned about climate change. People are concerned about our democracy in the United States heading towards authoritarianism. This is so complicated and so just telling women, throwing out lines like “The young people today just want no part in the bearing and nurturing of children” feels really blamey and one dimensional and [00:20:00] out of touch.
SH: A hundred percent agree. I’m just sitting here listening to you talking and I’m thinking as a grandparent, there is nothing in the world that I love more than my grandchildren. And also I would be lying if I didn’t say that pretty much every day at some point I have a thought. “Is it a good thing that those children are alive in this world right now?”
I just don’t know. Is it a good thing? Do I need to worry about what their lives are going to be like? And I feel completely powerless, really, to impact that. But if I were a young woman getting married right now, I think that it would give me pause in terms of wanting to bring children into this mess that we’re in.
CW: Yeah. These are hard things.
SH: These are really hard things.
CW: I think the same thing. I was just taking care of my grandson in Seattle for a whole week, and I thought that every single day as I was playing with him. And the joy of playing with him was also mixed with, “What will his future hold?”
SH: Yes.. It really feels so real. Have you ever heard a prophet get up though, and say, “Hey, we’re killing the planet and we realize that you’re probably concerned about this”? “We realize that you might not be having babies because the political unrest feels so big that it might devour all of us.”?
CW: Imagine. I can’t even imagine.
SH: No, I can’t either. The disconnect between our stated published doctrine - looking at you, Family Proclamation, cause that’s the easiest thing to point to. (Or maybe to the mothers in Zion).
CW: Or both.
SH: The difference between that and what our leaders say now or have said previously and our current media messaging leaves this enormous gap that members are trying to navigate. And it’s pinball, basically. And one result I see is members firing shots at each other in comment sections like I just told you. I would read you a comment and then I would read the smackdown from someone else right after. I feel like our leaders could take the lead in– wait, leaders taking the lead?
CW: Their literal job.
SH: Their literal job maybe could be to stand up and give some clear direction on things that would help members have a way to get to the same page. We have no way to even get to the same page right now.
CW: As you and I have been talking about this so much over the last few months, I sent you a text and you were like, “Okay, Cynthia, we’re including this text in this episode.” And so I read this reluctantly, and yet I stand by it as well. I am sorry, but sometimes Susan gets my rage and my snark and I clean it up for episodes, but I’m not cleaning this one up.
I texted you, “I really don’t know what to do with the church now that has Jesus slideshows in the endowment and encourages women to work: all of this while wearing sleeveless tops.”
Break
CW: This identity crisis does not need to be the case. They could clear this up, like you said, if leaders would lead.
SH: Yeah,
CW: I think that would clear up so much of this, all the head scratching that’s going on.
SH: So I’ve been thinking a lot about this because you and I have done whole episodes about change. Right? I mean, we are big proponents of the idea that, of course the church changes and needs to change and is going to continue to change. And the members need to get comfortable with change or at least figure out how to live with it and ride those change waves. As we’ve been thinking about doing this episode, I’ve been considering how maybe the church could address change in a way that would work better. And I came up with one idea. I call it the Jesus Formula.
CW: A good name.
SH: I mean, it’s at least a hopeful start, but it goes like this: in Matthew 5, in the Sermon on the Mount, over and over again we see Jesus set the perfect example, in my opinion, for what the church needs to do. You know what I’m talking about?
His pattern in those verses was, “You’ve heard it said, but I say to you.”
And Cynthia, I just feel like all the church needs to do on this stuff is say “Earlier prophets counseled women not to work outside the home, but we are a living church. And as times change, we go to the Lord and ask for current guidance. In today’s world, we feel it’s time to update that prior prophetic counsel.”
CW: Yes.
SH: Is that so hard?
CW: This might be my favorite Susan idea/epiphany/ light bulb moment that you’ve shared with me. And it all came as a result of our Beatitudes episode because we were doing a deep dive into Matthew 5. [00:25:00] Like we’re just combing through it and then you texted me saying, “Here’s the formula: ‘You have heard it said, but I say to you.’” And I was like yes, yes, yes!
And people would get on board, don’t you think?
SH: Oh, I do think, and in one of those Facebook comments that I read the man even said as much. He basically said, “Yeah, I’ll follow you. Invite me and I will, I just need you to say it clearly.”
I’ve said that before on our podcast. I really do feel like the members will follow the leaders if they are invited to do so. But we’re getting nothing.
CW: We’re getting nothing. And so people think this couple, the man supporting his wife, like, “Oh, he’s just going rogue or something”, because there is nothing to clarify that. So the problem with the church not saying “You have heard it said whatever, X, Y, Z, but now we say A, B, C” is, they refuse to take responsibility in the form of any kind of statement clarifying like, “Women please keep working and have babies, work so you can have babies” or whatever.
So, the members don’t see this as a change in women not working. Was that policy, theology, doctrine?
SH: Yeah, for some members it really was. I mean, I’m gonna say that for many members the Family Proclamation is doctrine.
CW: Yes.
SH: I think instead what happens is members think that other members are defective members.
CW: Yes,
SH: Right? For bringing this up and being troubled by it and talking about it. And to be fair, not everyone thinks that we’re not getting messaging about these things. Did you see Peggy Fletcher Stack had a Facebook post this week asking people, “Do you have Pope Envy?”
Like, are you disappointed that our leaders aren’t making a statement against the Iran war that’s going on? And that comment section was another one that was just a total shootout. I can’t really describe it. It was a bar fight, Cynthia. I don’t even know how else to describe it.
It’s members attacking each other. In the case of these Facebook posts, it’s members attacking the woman, ‘cause we’re talking about the children thing versus members defending the status quo versus members wanting to celebrate the change because all three of those things are happening. Or sometimes it’s members mourning their life choices that they made under the old rules and the effects that have had versus members saying, “I never heard those rules. Maybe that was a Utah thing?” I actually saw that line on one of these posts this week. Versus members celebrating the change. And without some clarity from the church, we have no way to move forward with anything that resembles unity.
And we have no way to get on the same page. There are people in those comment sections I’m noticing who are saying, “Well, we’ve been hearing all these messages.” Somebody on Peggy’s post about the Iran War said, “Didn’t you listen to General Conference? We just had two whole days of messages denouncing the war.”
CW: Interesting.
SH: Right, and like I read the woman earlier, who said “This has been a theme in many conference talks recently.” She was talking about how they have been telling us it’s okay for women to work. I don’t know what conference talks she’s talking about.
CW: Yeah, I don’t know either.
SH: But some members, I guess, are hearing it. But the fact that so many aren’t hearing it and that you and I can see that clearly enough just from what’s going on social media – they ought to be able to see that too and realize we need to clarify the message.
CW: Yeah, the church needs to clarify the message, but I’m wondering if they didn’t even stop to realize that by choosing to not clarify their message, that’s what’s causing all these bar fights,
SH: Right. I think it’s causing some members to leave the church. I mean, I wouldn’t call it like a full on schism in the church, except I think that there is one there. And it’s continuing to widen and deepen in the same ways that it is politically in many places in the world, not just the United States. Same things going on in the church.
CW: That’s a good point.
SH: And I feel like we’re in real trouble. Like I said, this is an existential problem that we’re facing in my opinion.
Okay. Let’s move to talking about another marker of identity crisis.
CW: Okay.
SH: It’s this trend that you and I have commented on a million times to each other. We see it as podcasters where more orthodox podcasts or platforms, sometimes it’s publishing platforms, have clergy or scholars or authors on who are not members of our church who can and will say the hard things.
CW: Right.
SH: Okay, let’s talk about that for a second. We have some personal experience with this.
CW: We do. I’ll let you handle the details there.
SH: Oh, the details are –I will not mention any names about this– but we were invited on a more Orthodox podcast, a podcast that actually has some church ties. And it was specified to us in the preparatory talks for that episode that non-members on the podcast can say whatever they want, but members are only [00:30:00] allowed to say certain things.
CW: Yeah.
SH: Am I remembering that right?
CW: You are remembering that right.
SH: So we went in there being very careful, very aware of what the lines were. As we always say, “Those could have been Sacrament meeting talks, right?” We were on our best behavior and still the episode did not air.
CW: Right
SH: On the other side of this coin, you and I had Jennifer Bird and Beth Allison Barr and did the same thing. We were happy to set them up to give some answers saying things out loud that maybe we wouldn’t have felt comfortable saying. Is that fair?
CW: Oh, I think we’ve said all the things. Maybe I just see this differently, but I feel like having on Dr. Bird and Dr. Barr, it was more like expanding the conversation outside Mormonism. That we have a problem in larger Christianity and it’s a shared problem, so let’s talk about that.
SH: Oh, I agree that that’s why we had them on. And I think that’s why these other platforms are also having them on. I mean, I applaud that we’re doing this, I absolutely do. But it irritates me that they’re allowed to talk about anything, but there are still boundaries around members’ voices. Members aren’t allowed to say anything. I’m thinking of one specific instance with, I think it was Jennifer Bird, where we – at least I – with a sort of devilish glee set her up to address whether President Nelson was on track when he asserted that Noah and his wife and Adam and his wife made the same covenants that couples are making now. And I just wanted her as a biblical scholar to say that’s hogwash because I have never really wanted to be the one to say that’s hogwash.
CW: Okay, okay.
SH: But I was pretty happy when she said it. I mean, I did that on purpose.
CW: Yeah. Okay. I see what you’re saying then. It’s both and, Susan, we wanted them on for the reason I said, and the reason you said.
SH: I think that’s true, and I think it’s true of all of these platforms. I was thinking specifically of the Deseret Voices podcast. The Desert News has a podcast, right? They ran social media posts promoting a podcast that they did recently with Father James Martin. We love Father James Martin.
CW: Yes.
SH: And the headline on it was, Why Invoking Jesus in War Turns Christianity into a Dangerous Weapon. And they said “the danger of thinking God is on our side.”
CW: Yeah. They said that.
SH: I’m not sure I’ve ever felt more gaslighted from my church than in that moment.
I mean, what about “Fear not, though the enemy deride. Courage for the Lord is on our side.” I mean, I’m the person who years ago on this mic said that most Mormons think God is a Mormon. And I felt pretty theoretical saying it, but I mean, am I wrong? Am I wrong that members of the church generally think the Lord is on our side?
CW: Yeah, it’s hard to know because was just the interviewer who wrote that line? Was it the social media people? Was it their personal opinion?
SH: For sure the social media people did.
CW: Yes, but Deseret Voices is owned by Deseret News, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So I get it. I get the head scratching because of that line, the danger of thinking God is on our side.
SH: I mean, I’m thrilled. I agree that there is great, danger in thinking that God is on our side.
CW: Oh, I loved that episode.
SH: I loved the episode also, and I’m thrilled to have it come from a church source. Love that.
CW: Same.
SH: But also it’s a sneaky backdoor way of getting that idea out there under the church umbrella without our leaders having to actually say it.
CW: Right. Why do you think that is?
SH: I don’t know. I mean, here’s what I feel about all of this war statement thing. I am a person who would love to hear our prophet speak out in some of the ways that the Pope had. I am one of the people who comes down on the column of having “Pope Envy”.
And in that podcast, Father Martin said what our prophet and leaders need to say, but haven’t. But to be fair, just in the past six years they’ve been burned pretty badly before. Like who thought vaccines were gonna turn out to be political? And yet when President Nelson addressed mask-wearing and vaccines, I saw a backlash against that recommendation that I have never seen in my lifetime against a prophet. Like people publicly denouncing the prophet, people calling him a fallen prophet very publicly. I’ve never seen anything like that.
CW: That was definitely the whole COVID vaccine post with the famous picture now of Russell Nelson with his [00:35:00] sleeve rolled up getting the vaccine. That was a sea change moment, don’t you think?
SH: Absolutely. I do.
CW: The waters literally changed direction.
SH: I think so. And I think that they are gonna be really hesitant to speak out again on anything that could be construed as being remotely political.
CW: Okay. But to quote another song, “Do what is right, let the consequence follow. ”Being a leader sometimes means you lead. You stand out front and say, “This is what we stand for.” I don’t know. I mean, getting back to the whole idea that Father James Martin gets to say the hard things, it just feels to me as Latter Day Saints that we allow a lot of diversity of thought about Christianity outside of our church.
We’ll get all the Christian leaders outside or even Jewish leaders to say the hard things we’re not willing to say, but within the church we demand uniformity. And that is why you and I have been nixed from certain platforms.
SH: Yes.
CW: It’s because we still are, I was gonna say we’re still active members, but even if we were ex members that would make it way worse.
But there’s a different expectation on you and I as Latter Day Saints than there is on someone who is never a member of our church and those people get to come on specific podcasts and say the hard things out loud. Whereas if you and I do, the episodes never air.
SH: And also not surprising. Is it surprising to you?
CW: It’s not surprising, but I want us to be different. I want us to be mature. I want us to grow in complexity. We keep talking about diversity of thought in the church. And in some ways I feel like we’re getting there on small things. Like it’s okay for people now, maybe to say “I believe” instead of “I know”. I think in that tiny way we’re allowing some diversity, but I feel like we’re still demanding uniformity. And this is just the things that you and I have been through. We’ve lived it out specifically. We are not okay in certain circles.
SH: Well, yes, that’s true. I just said to my husband at dinner the other night, “I’m not sure I’m ever going to give another talk or lesson in my church” and that is really heartbreaking to me if that’s the case. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I could be misreading the situation.But it wouldn’t surprise me.
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: Exactly. That’s it.
Break
CW: Let’s flip the coin, ‘cause I want to talk about a similar issue, but it’s the other side of the coin here. I wanna talk about people who love our podcast, they love our work, they listen to us, they support us, they pull us aside and they say, “Keep doing it!” but they cannot come on as guests.
I’m thinking about a guest we wanted to have on our podcast. She is a BYU professor. She’s an expert in a certain field. We wanted her to come on and talk about it, and I’m gonna be really vague about any more details, but she can’t. Her individual beliefs and desires and passions have to be subdued in favor of the organization’s image. And to come on our podcast would not be good for the image of BYU and therefore the church.
SH: It might jeopardize her job, if we’re honest.
CW: it might jeopardize her job. And absolutely, I do not want that to happen. So I respect that. But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt a little bit.
SH: Yeah, it hurts.
CW: And like I said, our DMs, our private messages often get hit from folks who see our stuff on social media, but they don’t want to comment publicly because they want to keep their reputation of neutrality.
SH: Right.
CW: Now I’m not talking about marginalized folks here. I’m not talking about a woman who, like, if her husband sees her comment, she could be abused, he could leave. Like I’m not talking about that. I’m thinking of a specific person who is a [00:40:00] straight white man, and he keeps sending me private messages and I tell him, “This is fantastic, I love this, leave it as a comment,” and he’s like, “Oh, no. Oh no.” And I think he even said to me one time, “Trust me, I hate myself so much for not having the courage to say this out loud.” And I think, “You know what? Susan and I are over here catching stones.” You, specifically Susan, are wondering, “Will I ever be able to give a talk again?”
And yet we have people going, “Well I wanna be able to do all of those things so I’m just gonna let you two take all the hits”. Because we have made incredible sacrifices for at last saying it.
SH: That’s true.
CW: I don’t know. I’ve been thinking a lot about this as we’ve been preparing this episode and the psychology of this fascinates me.
So I was doing some digging and I found an article called Why Social Change is Contagious. So here’s a paragraph from that article. “Research published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that social change can self propagate. Simply witnessing other people change their behavior leads people to question fundamental beliefs that hold them back from changing themselves. Specifically, seeing changes in others make people think that change is possible for themselves, that it is important and that it is compatible with who they are.”
SH: That quote explains At Last She Said It to me.
CW: It really does.
SH: I have seen this with so many women who, because we are willing to talk about it, they start to think about things differently.
CW: They do. And I just keep thinking, how much more change, How much faster could that rock go down the mountain? You know the stone cut out with hands? How much faster could it roll if we had more people –
SH: –willing to say things out loud?
CW: Yeah. So I mourn that. I mourn that more people believe change is needed and are still like, “Nope. I’m gonna sit here and stay quiet.”
SH: I mean, in their defense, the consequences are very real for people with this stuff.
CW: They are.
SH: They can be. You can lose relationships, you can lose your job. It doesn’t come without a cost. But yeah, I agree with you and I think for every member who doesn’t speak out, a leader who doesn’t speak out in any way, you know, it’s just, it’s exponentially magnified the sort of chilling effect that that has.
I was at the Gather Conference over the weekend with my husband and there was a presenter there, an LGBTQ woman who said after she came out she was talking about how much it changed for her at church because what she experienced was for the first time boundaries around her voice in that one place.
It didn’t change how she felt able to speak in the rest of the world, but it was a fence that suddenly went up around her at church.
CW: Exactly.
SH: And I understood how she felt because I thought, “Criminy, I’m in the same ward where I taught Relief Society for so many years.” And yet here I am the same person with the same ideas talking about the same things. And yet I feel like there could well be boundaries even though no one has specified that to me. But there could well be boundaries around my voice among my own brothers and sisters in my ward.
CW: Right. Can I lighten it up for a second? And go to our subtitle – should we call this, “Should we cut bangs?”
SH: Yes, I think so.
CW: And all the men listening will have no idea what we’re talking about, but bangs are a huge change to a woman’s face. And so the metaphorical idea of cutting bangs is a really difficult one that everybody will see you differently.
SH: Right.
CW: And they’re not permanent, but it’s kind of a semi-permanent decision.
SH: I mean, it’s a big decision.
CW: It’s a big decision. So I get it as well. I get that people don’t want to come out publicly and say, “Well, I see this a little bit differently.” ‘cause to them that’s like cutting bangs. People are gonna see you differently. They’re gonna think different things.
I mean, okay. To get really literal for a minute, my sister and I all had bangs when we were little. And one day my sister Patricia decided, “I don’t want bangs anymore.” But being a child, she didn’t realize to get rid of bangs you have to grow them out. So she just cut them off to the bone.
SH: Ah, just cut them off!
CW: Yes. She just decided, “I don’t wanna be seen this way anymore, and I’m just gonna chop it off.”
SH: Oh dear. Poor thing.
CW: Exactly. So I totally get that people don’t wanna cut the bangs, they don’t wanna change their reputation. They don’t wanna change how others see them, and at the same time: cut the bangs. It’ll be okay.
SH: There’s such a both and here at play.
CW: Such a both and.
SH: You know, I [00:45:00] feel deeply conflicted about this and I consider myself to be a person who holds paradox pretty well. At least it’s an area I’ve done a lot of work on. I want more voices, right? And yet why does this feel complicated? And I’ve been trying to think, you know, what is it about this?
I think what it really comes down to -–the part that I’m struggling with, what really what I should be seeing as a really positive step forward in expanding the conversation outside the boundaries of just our church and bringing in all this diversity of voices – I feel like we’re getting non-members to do our dirty work. And I think that means that our leaders get to stay sort of safely behind their church office building walls.
And that means that the church can remain completely unwilling to call out corporate sin, which we’ve done some talking about that on recent episodes.
CW: Yeah. Yeah.
SH: And it means that members are left experiencing feelings of gaslighting
CW: You and me.
SH: Yes, and many others as we’ve seen. And there’s no clarity as to the church’s official viewpoint. And so there’s no way for members to move forward and embrace change with unity.
CW: Exactly.
SH: Then the real poison of this to me is that we can all go to church on Sunday and keep pretending we’re on the same page, like church members always have when actually we’re not.
Break
CW: Okay. Susan, in 10 minutes, can we get to the title of this episode, which is Mailbag Mayhem because originally, this episode was supposed to be called: Ask us Anything.
SH: Right.
CW: Well, let me back up. Originally we had an episode planned called What the Church Gets Right and What it’s Getting Wrong. And so we specifically asked for voicemails saying, “In one voicemail, tell us like one thing the church is getting right, one they’re getting wrong in your opinion” and we received….
SH: One voicemail.
CW: One voicemail from a woman named Taylor. So let’s do her voicemail and then maybe we’ll get to our Ask us Anything ones as well.
Taylor: I think one thing that the church gets right is its teaching in following a specific truth, a straight and narrow path. You know, some people will say, “I live my truth. You live your truth.” But Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Like this is the way, there’s one way and the church acknowledges that. I think one thing that the church gets wrong is saying that they are that one way.
CW: Thank you, Taylor.
SH: She said it. She said it. I mean, okay here’s what her framing leads me to think about. If the church claims to be the way, which she’s saying the church acknowledges that Jesus is the way. But as a lifelong Latter Day Saint, I have come away from those 60 years of experience with the distinct impression that the church also believes that we are the one way. Does that sound fair?
CW: Well, I think it’s explicit. We are the one and true living church.
SH: Okay. So if the church claims to be the way, and then that way changes, as it’s going to, because spoiler: earth, members are left with the idea that the way must be whatever the church says.
CW: Yeah.
SH: And that indoctrinates members with loyalty to the organization rather than to Jesus’s gospel, which is the actual way. And I feel like the fruits of that are the very identity crisis that we’ve been talking about today.
CW: Oh, it’s come full circle.
SH: Yes. We’re living through that problem right now. The problem is that members are loyal to the organization first and foremost. Because they’ve been, I mean, I hate the word indoctrinated, but we’ve been trained to be that way.
CW: I was listening to an LDS podcast recently, I had never even heard of this podcast, but someone suggested some of the episodes to me. I know we’re planning an episode on confirmation bias, Susan, and so I didn’t wanna listen because my confirmation bias is like, “No, these apologists may challenge my thoughts here, you know?” But as I’m listening, one of the hosts says, “Jesus literally says in Doctrine and Covenants section” whatever, whatever.
And I was like, “Wait, what? Jesus literally said?” And so I immediately started texting you about this, and you reminded me the New Testament Jesus, (as opposed to Doctrine and Covenants Jesus), New Testament Jesus was written down 30 to 70 years after he died – the Gospels.
SH: Right. Nobody had a tape recorder there.
CW: Nobody had a tape recorder. And so for the millionth time, literalism is the lowest form of meaning. And more on that: we’re actually planning an episode on Myth, we’re gonna tackle that.
But I mean, we have [00:50:00] New Testament Jesus, in our church, we have Doctrine and Covenants Jesus, which is what this podcaster I think was saying. We have Old Testament Jesus, and then we have Book of Mormon Jesus. So I mean, if you’re going to say the way, the way for Mormons is actually really wide because we believe all those visions that Joseph Smith purports to have had with Jesus and got written down in the Doctrine and Covenants. We also see that as the way, and I guess it all gets tangled up.
If Taylor’s talking about Jesus is the way, but we say the church is the way. I think that’s why we could comfortably say Jesus is the way because if this is his one and only true church, then everything in it, like I was saying, the Old Testament Jesus, Doctrine and Covenants Jesus, Book of Mormon Jesus, that is the way.
As I’m saying this all out, I realize there’s more to flesh out. And maybe we’ll do that in our Myth episode, but I totally get what Taylor’s talking about. We claim one and therefore we get to claim the other. If we claim Jesus is the way, that means the church is the way.
SH: Interesting. I’ve got a lot to think about on that.
CW: That was a word salad, a big word salad.
SH: Yeah. But I’ve got a lot to think about there. Because I honestly feel like, Cynthia, if I go into a church setting and I privilege Jesus from the Bible over whatever is being talked about as coming from the church, (for instance, by privileging the two great commandments as they came out of Jesus’ mouth over something that the church is teaching), then I’m the heretic.
CW: Yes.
SH: So is Jesus really the way in our case?
CW: Great question.
SH: Ooh, there’s a whole episode waiting to be had there. Thank you, Taylor. Thank you for opening up that can of worms.
CW: Alright. Let’s hear from Brooke.
Brooke: Hi Susan and Cynthia. My question for you is, if you could go back in time knowing what you know now, what steps would you have taken to treat motherhood as a life altering economic, developmental, and physiological event instead of as an identity?
CW: I love that question from Brooke. And we know Brooke a little bit, right? She’s probably more my age and I think only a woman my age would use the words that she used. A 22-year-old I don’t think would’ve ever said, “This life altering economic…” Anyway, I love the question, Brooke, and it’s such a hard question for me specifically because I wouldn’t have the children I have now. Literally, like my children are all adopted and so they would’ve gone to different homes if I hadn’t jumped right into motherhood at age 24.
So that makes me think, “Of course I’m glad I became a mother at 24”, but also, here’s the both and, 52-year-old Cynthia would discourage 24-year-old Cynthia from becoming a mother that early. To be honest, I have no idea, Brooke, and I’m sorry this is so wishy-washy because if I thought about motherhood with my brain that I have now, I might never have chosen it.
There’s a lot of buzz about the declining birth rate we’ve just talked about a little bit. And while I know that’s complicated, I also think the obvious discussion to have is “Why aren’t women choosing motherhood?” And is anybody asking the women who bear a hundred percent of the birthing if they even want this?
SH: I also love this question, although I did kind of have to get down on the floor and wrestle with it a little bit. Because the way that she frames this question kind of makes it hard for me to answer. I think motherhood was an identity for me because I did it full-time for something like a quarter of a century, right? But also because it was a life altering economic, developmental, and physiological event.
It’s because of that that it was an identity, because it struck so deeply in every area of my life. I have to frame everything within the context of having become a mother at 19 because in order to change anything very appreciably, I would have to change not what I know or knew then, so much as who I was and where I was in my life. I would have to be a totally different person. So like you would have different children, I would be a completely different person. And I don’t have any regrets really about how I did motherhood. Certainly not because I did it perfectly, but because I gave it a hundred percent effort.
So I’m gonna die knowing that in this one thing, I absolutely gave it my best. That being said, I am also going to die with the regret of not having made more money. That’s not a bad thing to have regret about, but also kind of a dumb thing. It’s not that I didn’t have a career, because I did, but I chose work that fed the areas of my identity that sat outside of motherhood because those parts of me were starving to death instead of prioritizing my future financial security. And I regret that every single day now that I’m facing retirement.
I’m happy with the trade off from [00:55:00] a psychological standpoint, but I’m much less happy from a pragmatic standpoint. And also I feel like it’s really likely that my mental health would’ve been better if I had a career outside the home.
Personally, I don’t really believe it’s possible for women, well, or anyone, but particularly for women in the context of this conversation, to have it all. I think that life demands trade-offs for everyone, and so I would’ve had to give up some things that I did have in order to get those things that I didn’t have, and I really have no way to judge whether those would’ve been satisfying trades. I’d love to know, but I can’t know that.
CW: Okay. We have one more message and it’s from Meredith.
Meredith: Hi Cynthia and Susan, this is Meredith. I’m calling in response to your request to ask you anything. One of the themes I’ve noticed that is prevalent in your podcast over the years is what about Mormonism doesn’t work for you. And obviously that’s been very needed. It’s one of the things that I’ve needed to hear and be able to talk about with other people. “What about Mormonism doesn’t work?” What I want to know and ask you is, “What about Mormonism still works for you?” And by Mormonism I mean the big umbrella of Mormonism: the organization, the culture, the theology, all of the above.
So I’d love to know what, if anything, still works for you about Mormonism. Thank you so much for your show. I truly believe you’re doing the work of the Lord. Have a great day.
CW: Very kind, Meredith. Thank you. Okay, we’re completely out of time, so I will just go straight to Jesus. Jesus still works for me. And for the millionth time, I’m going to share what has been my favorite Barbara Brown Taylor quote for the last couple of years where she says, “I don’t speak of the Christ, but I’m happy to talk about Jesus.”
I haven’t really settled on anything. This isn’t any kind of announcement about having, about referring to Jesus as like my Savior or the fact that we “need” the Atonement.
I’m putting quote around need, but I, like Barbara, am all in it for Jesus as a wisdom teacher and as the anchor in my faith that I have heard stories about since I was a child. And I’m still wrestling with the whole part about the Christ. And yes, Jesus is the center of my faith. And yes, there are many other churches that are more progressive than ours, (looking at you, the Episcopalians), but I’ll admit, when I go to their church you recite the Nicene Creed. Every Episcopal church I’ve gone to, they always recite it at the beginning. So I guess that’s a very specific part of their liturgy. Like, I’m not okay with that. I’m not okay with it, meaning, “We believe in one God, the father, the almighty maker of heaven and earth.”
And I’m like, “Okay, again, where is the feminine divine in that?” So I guess what I’m trying to say, I am not leaving one broken Jesus church for another broken Jesus church. This is my broken Jesus church. So I’m planting myself here.
SH: Yeah. I can really relate to that. You know what’s so interesting to me about Meredith’s question and hearing it again, it really struck me. As a listener, she’s saying, “I’ve heard you talk for six years about everything about Mormonism that doesn’t work for you.“
And as a podcaster, Cynthia, I feel like we’ve been talking for six years, like we’ve answered this question of what still works for us over and over and over and over and over.
So she’s hearing it differently from the way that I feel like I’m putting it out in the world. And so that’s really interesting to me. But like you, I like religion and this is mine and it’s a pretty sweet spot really for someone who likes religion to be able to keep the connection with their heritage touchstone, which is what Mormonism really is for me. But also draw widely from not only other Christian denominations, but really all the world’s great wisdom traditions.
You and I are doing the Living School right now, with the Center for Action and Contemplation. So we’re going really wide. I don’t know really why I would need to give up Mormonism. The problems that it has and the ways that it doesn’t work for me are sort of one brand of problems, but I would find another brand of the same problems and the same deficits in any other denomination.
That being said, and this is important, and I think this has changed for me over the course of the six years: I’m a person for whom specific theology doesn’t really matter much anymore.
I really have come to feel like things like the nature of God are an inside job. They’re not something that someone else has figured out and is going to teach me.
Nobody has facts in these areas that I know of. So when it comes to theological beliefs now in my life, my attitude is, “I’m okay. You’re okay. [01:00:00] Believe whatever. Whatever feels true to you.” And I can access Biblical Jesus from anywhere. From any Christian Church or no Christian Church.
I can have the Bible on my nightstand and dive into that whenever and wherever. There are parts of the Book of Mormon that I do regard as scripture as a result of my experiences with them. And so for me it comes down to, “Do you still like organized religion, Susan? “And my answer is “Yes. Thank you for asking. I really do.” I’m interested in meaning making. I love singing music in community and I specifically love our Mormon hymnal. It’s been the soundtrack of my life. And my life experience has been that as a Latter Day Saint, I have found Latter Day Saints to generally be good people who love God and are trying to make good choices.
I’ve said before that for me it was a really good template for building my life and I do still feel that way.
CW: Love it. Love it. Love it.
SH: Thank you for this mayhem conversation, Cynthia. We said it all, and yet maybe we said nothing at all. I don’t know.
CW: We said it all, and yes, you’re right. Everything and nothing all at the same time.
Break
Voicemail 1: I just finished listening to this week’s episode from CA about purity culture actually for the second time, and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about an experience that I had a few weeks ago. I’m in a book club with several dear friends that I have known for a very long time. All of the women are LDS and we discussed a book selection last month.
A beautiful story that yes, did have a few paragraphs that were describing a brief sexual encounter, but they were in no way graphic or inappropriate. It was pertinent to the story. And in fact, one of the situations was describing intimacy with the main character and her husband. And at one point, one of the women in the group mentioned that she just could not finish the book because she was so uncomfortable with these rather benign descriptions of this sexual encounter.
And this is a lady who is 60 years old and has been married for 40 years, and it made me so sad for her. Just she is clearly not somebody who is comfortable with healthy sexuality, but most especially her own.
Voicemail 2: Hi Cynthia and Susan. I just listened to your episode with CA and it happened to coincide with reading the story of Rachel and Leah and Jacob in the Old Testament Come Follow Me. I have three young boys and every time we read things from Come Follow Me like this, I just have to wonder, what are we doing? What good conclusions are we supposed to gain from a story of a man working for seven years only to be tricked? Ha ha ha, so funny into marrying the other daughter and then marrying another daughter and becoming a polygamist.
Like the only conclusions I can see are that women are property and it doesn’t matter what men do with them or how they are treated. Like I just read these stories and I think there is no wonder we have a problem in the church of abuse and of priesthood being wielded over women in the way that it can happen in the church when this is the foundational text, when these are the sacred texts that we are reading to our boys every four years.
I honestly think it’s so problematic that I just am wondering, like, should we just not even teach Old Testament? Should we just get rid of it? I think that might be like the best option.
Break
SH: Oh, guess what? Stop for a second. I gotta change Internets. I’m so sorry. I should have done it before.
CW: Oh yeah, you are a little fuzzy looking.
SH: Okay, hold on. Sorry.
Break
CW: Oh, shoot. I quoted that wrong Susan, in October, 2018. That. Wait, shoot. Let me re-say something.
SH: Don’t forget our website. Go to atlastshesaidit.org to find all our substack content. While there, you can contact our team, leave us a voicemail, register for events, subscribe, or make a tax deductible donation. Paid subscribers get extra stuff including ongoing community chats and live chats with us.
Remember, your support keeps the podcast ad free. Thanks for listening.