The F Word

I'm an elder millennial and I've been in LDS/Mormon online spaces since I was a teenager. Since 2007. Sixteen years. That's almost as long as some of you have been alive. And there's something I've never talked about before that I want to explain to those of you who need to hear it. And you need to stick around for THE WHOLE THING not to misunderstand what I'm going to say.

The vast majority of you end up okay. You'll make it. You'll figure out your happiness and embrace it fully, and it'll all work out. You'll be okay. I care about you all tremendously, but I've seen your stories play out enough times that I know how it ends. If we can keep you from yeeting off the mortal coil prematurely, you'll be just fine.

There is one group this isn't true for. They're the ones I worry about the most every time I see them: the trad wife cohort. The women who have already decided that their only plan for their future is to get married, have an undetermined number of children, and leave everything after that as a giant question mark, to be decided for them by other people's choices.

I'm the only LDS person in my family. I come from a family with three generations of divorced/separated women. To be financially independent enough to take care of myself was instilled in me from birth. Protect yourself and your financial freedom from abusive men, from men who do not have your best interest anywhere near their thoughts.

That's what I learned from watching my mother work herself to the bone to pay for my father's attorney from the constant legal trouble that alcoholism, drugs, and nonsense behavior from untreated mental illness brought upon us. There were times we didn't have food, but there was always a case of beer in the refrigerator. That's what I learned from my grandmother, who divorced her husband at a time when that was unheard of because he abused her. That was what I learned from not one, but two great-grandmothers who, as southern women with all of the cultural baggage it entailed, left their husbands and lived on their own rather than putting up with disrespectful behavior from the men they married. Women who believed that it is better to be alone than with any man who doesn't respect you.

This is my backstory, my lore, if you will. And I swore I would honor it by never putting myself anywhere near situations that looked like these. To be financially dependent on any man, no matter how kind and generous, was something I never wanted for myself. I wanted my own job, my own money, the ability to travel, to do as I pleased. I wanted financial freedom, the security of knowing I would always be able to take care of myself AND him AND our children if it ever came down to that.

That's not the life I have. In all but name only, I'm a trad wife. Chronic illness and disabilities have made it so I cannot work. I am fully financially dependent on my husband, and every effort I have made to change my situation has come at great financial expense, as well as compromising my physical and mental health. I've had to let go of the life I wanted for myself because I've never found any employer who was willing to give me the accommodations I need to accomplish even a fraction of my goals. And even if they did, it's impossible for me to work enough hours for me to ever achieve them.

I'm a trad wife, not by choice, but out of necessity. And it scares me every day.

If my husband dies in an accident, or a mass shooting? If he becomes disabled? If he ever becomes as sick as I am, or worse? What will we do? We have plans for this. We have multiple retirement accounts, including one in my own name, that he puts money into. He sees my situation, understands it, and prioritizes it in how he manages our finances. But if it were to happen today, tomorrow, any time before we both can retire, we're screwed. Shit Creek, no paddle.

If he leaves me? If I ever have to leave him? How will I support myself? Honestly, I don't know. I don't have an answer to that question. It scares me more than I can articulate. I hope I never have to find out because I'm too disabled to take care of myself. That's the only thing I know.

There are too many women who are far too eager to put themselves into this place of financial insecurity and precarity. They don't even realize how dangerous that path is, for them and for their children, to have nothing that truly belongs to you. Not really. Not if the money that paid for it wasn't yours. Not when everything you treasure and recognize as the life you want has his name on it.

Being a trad wife is built on an agreement of mutual exploitation. In exchange for providing unpaid, undocumented labor, your spouse has agreed to pay all of your expenses indefinitely into the future. If this were a job, you would never agree to those terms. Trad wives don't understand that when it comes to marriage, however, they're jumping into that exact situation head first.

All of this to say: I'm not morally or ideologically opposed to anyone being a house wife or SAHM. I understand EXACTLY what happens to women to make that a necessity. I don't judge anyone who ends up in that position, either by choice or by force. But I'm not going to let anyone go into or remain in that situation blindly, having never once thought about how to finance the life they're dreaming about. I'm not going to let anyone walk through life somehow thinking that everything is supposed to magically work out for them like some sort of fairy tale. That's not how the world works. That not how life works. And I hate the thought that the first time all of this occurs to someone is when their life comes crashing down around them.

If "feminism" is the dirtiest word you know, you're not in any kind of position to advocate for yourself. If you don't see yourself as your husband's equal (which is what feminism, by definition, HAS to mean), how could you even begin to negotiate for yourself in a divorce, a job interview after being out of the workplace for 10+ years, or to family who you'll be reliant upon to get you back on your feet? If you don't even have the courage to say you deserve to be treated like an equal in society when everything is going to plan, how would you do it from the floor with the wind knocked out of you?

I'm not here to argue about the superiority of trad wives OR working wives. I'm not here to fight for anything but Universal Basic Income so we can all exist in a more secure financial state, independent of individual circumstances. And I'm definitely not here to scare you.

I'm simply here as the person you will inevitably be turning to in that moment of crisis, where faith and devotion fall short of giving you everything you wanted in life. I'll be the one with the bottle of water and saying "You are brilliant and strong. You can figure this out." I'll also be the one nodding in agreement that your husband took for granted all the love and labor you gave to him, purely because he was socialized to think he has a right to do that to you. No, I don't think you're crazy. No, I don't think you're asking too much. YES, YOU NEED A LAWYER FOR YOUR CHILD SUPPORT CASE. I'll be there for all of it, to say all of the things to you that you can't imagine ever needing when you say "all I want is to be a trad wife."

How do I know? Because I've been doing it for sixteen years now with people who sounded just like you do now. In person and online. In public and in private. With friends and strangers. I've never had the luxury of being anything but a feminist, an advocate for women they don't even realize they need, that they don't (and won't!) have the vocabulary to ask for.

Not as long as "feminism" is the dirtiest word they know.

Is the Holy Ghost also Heavenly Mother?

Some of my dearest friends believe the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Mother are the same. It's a valid question and discussion, and I thought I would share my perspective and reasoning for why I disagree.

You may think differently after all this. You may still think Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost. That's cool. I like being able to reason together, based on what we know and have personally experienced. You don't have to change what you believe based on what I've said. My purpose here isn't to say to anyone "You're wrong." It's to add another way of thinking about things to the discussion. Add what makes sense to you to your cafeteria tray. Or don't. It's your call.

The reason I don't share this belief is because the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit without a body, as described in D&C 130:22. That's how they can perform the essential functions of the Holy Ghost. D&C 130 explains that for the Holy Ghost to perform the function assigned to them by God, being disembodied is a crucial part of that.

Heavenly Mother is a resurrected, exalted being. For her to be a co-creator, equal with God and in full possession of her powers, she must possess a perfected body. 

One of the unique messages of Mormonism is that exaltation is inseparable from having a resurrected, exalted body. From D&C 76 and its descriptions of "bodies celestial" to the description in Abraham 3 of those who "keep their second estate" having "glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." Removing Heavenly Mother from her embodied physical state would put her into an unequal relationship with our Father in Heaven, incomplete and subject to him. That's why the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "all beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

He, She, or They?

This point, however, does raise an interesting question I've never considered before. Is it appropriate for someone who has never received a body, and therefore never experienced gender in the flesh, to be assigned as male?

The Gift, Walter Rane

 

I've explored the relationship between biological sex and gender before. Being familiar with that perspective will help elaborate my comments here.

I know what the family proclamation says about gender being eternal. The language being used there has expanded and changed since 1995 when the family proclamation was given. When they said gender is eternal, they were referring to what we would now describe as biological sex. The family proclamation asserts that biological sex is eternal.

Gender is completely separate from biological sex. Gender is a social construct that is shaped by our own responses to our biological sex. Does our sex match how we perceive ourselves and our lived experiences in our own bodies, or are they incongruent with each other? That's not something that can be determined just by looking at someone. While leaders and the authors of scripture in times past have seen the Holy Ghost in vision, described him as male, or quoted Christ in teaching the Holy Ghost is male, these are secondhand accounts. I don't consider them definitive sources

Some of my dearest friends believe the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Mother are the same. It's a valid question and discussion, and I thought I would share my perspective and reasoning for why I disagree.

You may think differently after all this. You may still think Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost. That's cool. I like being able to reason together, based on what we know and have personally experienced. You don't have to change what you believe based on what I've said. My purpose here isn't to say to anyone "You're wrong." It's to add another way of thinking about things to the discussion. Add what makes sense to you to your cafeteria tray. Or don't. It's your call.

The reason I don't share this belief is because the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit without a body, as described in D&C 130:22. That's how they can perform the essential functions of the Holy Ghost. D&C 130 explains that for the Holy Ghost to perform the function assigned to them by God, being disembodied is a crucial part of that.

Heavenly Mother is a resurrected, exalted being. For her to be a co-creator, equal with God and in full possession of her powers, she must possess a perfected body. One of the unique messages of Mormonism is that exaltation is inseparable from having a resurrected, exalted

Some of my dearest friends believe the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Mother are the same. It's a valid question and discussion, and I thought I would share my perspective and reasoning for why I disagree.

You may think differently after all this. You may still think Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost. That's cool. I like being able to reason together, based on what we know and have personally experienced. You don't have to change what you believe based on what I've said. My purpose here isn't to say to anyone "You're wrong." It's to add another way of thinking about things to the discussion. Add what makes sense to you to your cafeteria tray. Or don't. It's your call.

The reason I don't share this belief is because the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit without a body, as described in D&C 130:22. That's how they can perform the essential functions of the Holy Ghost. D&C 130 explains that for the Holy Ghost to perform the function assigned to them by God, being disembodied is a crucial part of that.

Heavenly Mother is a resurrected, exalted being. For her to be a co-creator, equal with God and in full possession of her powers, she must possess a perfected body. One of the unique messages of Mormonism is that exaltation is inseparable from having a resurrected, exalted body. From D&C 76 and its descriptions of "bodies celestial" to the description in Abraham 3 of those who "keep their second estate" having "glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." Removing Heavenly Mother from her embodied physical state would put her into an unequal relationship with our Father in Heaven, incomplete and subject to him. 

That's why the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "all beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." 

body. From D&C 76 and its descriptions of "bodies celestial" to the description in Abraham 3 of those who "keep their second estate" having "glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." Removing Heavenly Mother from her embodied physical state would put her into an unequal relationship with our Father in Heaven, incomplete and subject to him. 

That's why the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "all beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." 

of this information because they weren't written, preserved, or translated by impartial bastions of gender equity.

Because the Holy Ghost has never had a body, they don't know what their gender is. This is why we refer to the Holy Ghost as a personage of spirit, rather than a person. It's also why I think the most accurate pronoun to use for the Holy Ghost is "they," rather than "he." There are too many ways that biological sex and gender can manifest in humans for me to ever assume I know what it'll be for someone who has never even been mortal before. That's a decision the Holy Ghost has to make for themselves once they receive a body. 

So what is it going to take for me to feel like I know the Holy Ghost enough to definitively assign pronouns to them? The same way I do with anyone else: by having the person introduce themselves to me and tell me firsthand what pronouns they prefer.

We don't have anything like that from the Holy Ghost. It's unwise to misrepresent the scriptures we have as if they are. And if the idea of the Holy Ghost deciding, in the actual experience of being embodied, to come out as queer bothers you, it might be time ask yourself why.

Why Every Man in the Church Needs Relief Society

 

As a young co-ed at Brigham Young University, I wasn’t trying to become a subversive voice for cultural change and gender equality. I wasn’t advocating for women’s ordination. I wasn’t personally invested in the budding movement to wear pants to church on Sundays. All I wanted was to watch the general Relief Society meeting, and to know if anyone else was coming with me. On that autumn day in 2010, all I cared about getting a seat to watch the meeting in the Marriot Center—on time.

Regency Apartments was an all-girls complex that fit six women to each unit. Someone was always coming or going from my friends’ apartment—usually me, or one of half a dozen other people with some connection to someone there. Clarissa didn’t feel like going to the Marriot Center with me, but did I mind turning the television on so she could watch it from home? That’s what I was doing when someone else’s boyfriend and another guy I didn’t know came in through the door. Katie wasn’t ready yet, but could they just sit on the couch and wait for a bit? She’d be right out.

Out of the boredom that overtakes all men sitting on couches, they asked what I was doing.

“Looking for the general Relief Society meeting.”

One of them laughed and scoffed.

“You mean the meeting with all the doilies and women CRYING?” They laughed heartily at their own joke.

I didn’t look up from what I was doing before I gave a caustic response.

“Relief Society is not a meeting where we all go to cry like children. We are grown women and this is the female leadership of our church. If you wouldn’t talk about the priesthood leadership like that, don’t talk about our leadership that way.”

I don’t remember what response they managed to sputter out, and frankly I didn’t care. I had somewhere to be and nothing nice to say to them at that point.

But I’ve thought about that experience a lot. I’ve asked myself a lot of questions about it—the same kinds of questions I found myself asking many times at BYU. How can someone be raised in the Church their entire lives and have no respect for the Relief Society? How can someone who was raised by a Relief Society sister be this painfully ignorant about the contributions and sacrifices we make? It was another experience where I, the convert in the room, had to explain something fundamentally basic about the Church to someone who was raised in it, who had taken that experience for granted. It was profoundly isolating in a way I hadn’t been prepared for.

But this was different. It landed differently. It hurt more. I got my first glimpse of what too many men in my own church genuinely think of me, whether they will openly admit to it or not.

As the years passed and I continued gathering experiences as a woman in the Church—first as a missionary, then as a wife, a childless woman, and eventually a temple ordinance worker—I noticed a pattern emerging. This stereotype of women who cry and make things pretty without contributing anything of substance was not an isolated attitude. I encountered it in multiple countries, from men young and old, in converts and those who were born in the covenant. The failure to instill respect for Relief Society in our boys and young men is all but universal, and begins at an early age.

Allow me to demonstrate.

How many times do boys and young men hear their male leadership pray for women by name from a pulpit, or at an altar? The general, stake, or local Relief Society president—how often do we pray for them publicly? I’ve been in the Church for fifteen years now. I’ve never heard it once.

How many various male leaders do they see receiving prayers by name from a pulpit? The bishop, the stake president, the visiting general authority, the apostle who is sick, the president of the Church—the list goes on forever. Some will be familiar with the temple policy that forbids any prayer to be said for any individual by name who is not the president of the Church. This excludes all female leadership. How is that discrepancy reinforced in how these young men are taught to pray at home?

When boys and young men receive temple recommends at twelve, they affirm they have a testimony of the president of the Church as the only living person with the power to access the keys of the priesthood. They sustain that prophet by name. That experience is then reinforced in general conference when they give a similar affirmation, by name, for every single member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as “prophets, seers, and revelators.”

They do not similarly sustain any woman by name in a temple recommend interview. They sustain women by name in general conference and in their local units only when the leadership changes. Depending on their age and where they live, they may be able to count how many times they’ve witnessed this in their lifetimes. And even though women prophesy[1], have visions[2], and receive revelation[3] in this church, these boys and young men have never heard ANY modern woman referred to as a prophetess, seer, or revelator. When God declared, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” surely, he meant in every aspect of his life—including leadership and church administration.[4]

As participants in the offices of the Aaronic (and later, the Melchizedek) priesthood, they will act as ministering brothers to women in their wards with their leaders and relatives. They will have occasions to see men blessing women through the power of the priesthood. They will never see that action reciprocated. How DO women bless men, other than by making food or giving them children? Of course, that’s all some of them think women are good for—that’s all they’ve ever seen us do! And in their young minds, they cannot fathom how the priesthood blessings they watch their fathers give to sisters in the ward are equal in power and influence to the casseroles those same sisters bring over for a variety of reasons throughout their lives. The confusion is understandable because the assertion is laughable. How is an ordinance supposed to compare in importance to a tray of funeral potatoes? Especially if the sister doesn’t “do it right” like their family does, and everyone eating it complains about how weird it tastes and how much better it would be “if mother had made it"?

We can quote scripture at these kids all we want. We can tell them “neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man in the Lord.”[5] We can quote 1 Corinthians 12 at them about how every member of the body is as important as every other part. We can quote Joel about how our daughters will prophesy and upon the “handmaids” in the last days God will pour out his spirit.

When are we going to realize our youth are not internalizing what we tell them? They’re internalizing what they hear and see us do. And what they hear and see is an unacceptable discrepancy between how men and women are sustained at church. The unspoken message, taught in action, is that women don’t receive these opportunities because they don’t deserve them. Their work is not important enough to merit any real acknowledgment or praise by name. After all, women exist to make babies and feed people. That is their purpose because nothing else they do will ever be more important than that. What could they possibly want or need with more?

This sounds harsh—until you’ve been a young woman in this church and you’ve heard these words come out of a young man’s mouth. Then the mouth of someone the same age as your father. Then a grandfather. Then you hear versions of this from your bishop. A stake president. A mission president. The elders in your mission. Your ministering brothers. The day you hear some version of it come out of your husband’s mouth is a particularly hard day.

But the day that would truly break me would be the day I hear any of this come out of the mouth of my son. That is why the secret prayer of my heart, long before I ever fully realized it was there, was that I would never have to raise a boy in the Church.

Why should every man in the Church be required to go to Relief Society? So they can learn what the voice of the Divine Feminine sounds like, and truly “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.”[6] I want them to realize that for as long as they believe there is no woman in the Church equal in power and authority to the prophet, they are unprepared to enter the presence of the Lord and to meet his Equal. I want them to realize we are also servants.[7] We have names. We are also the anointed.[8] I want them to understand that in a church of continuing revelation, there is no “sealed portion”—just the words written in the fleshy tables of a woman’s heart they will never receive without us, no matter how much they ask, seek, and knock.[9]

I want them to see the sheer number of clipboards and sign-up sheets it takes to do all the compassionate service, community outreach, and the amount of cooking it takes to run a congregation the way they expect it to operate.

I want them to see how differently women speak in spaces that don’t revolve around men—how honest we are with each other. How vulnerable we are, in ways many of them are still not allowed to be. If there’s any truth to Relief Society being a place where women cry, men shouldn’t be laughing about it. We’re usually crying because of something they’ve said or done. In those moments, we’re exercising the gift of healing (and the gift to be healed) from the wounds men have been causing us since before this world began. It’s an endowment of power unique to us. It also comes complete with a whisper network where we discuss together which men at church to avoid for our own protection. You know, the ones President Monson warned us (and you) about when he said, "Men, take care not to make women weep, for God counts their tears."[10]

I want the men in my church to listen to women. Really listen. Hear the voice of God in what we have to say. Recognize it. Hear that it is prophetic. It is revelation, for “whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” I want men to understand they’re not the only prophets, seers, and revelators in this church. Clearly, that’s not something they’re learning in Priesthood these days.

So come on over to Relief Society, fellas! Pull up a chair. Get a cookie that some woman got up early to make this morning before she came to church. Let’s taste the quiet desperation in every bite as you finally realize it’s there for the first time.

We can all cry about it together.

---

[1] Judg. 4:6-7, 1 Sam. 2:10, Joel 2:28-29, Luke 1:48, Luke 2:36, Acts 2:17-18, 21:9.

[2] Matt. 27:19, Luke 24:23, and A of F 1:7.

[3] D&C 25:7-9.

[4] Gen. 2:18.

[5] 1 Cor. 11:11.

[6] D&C 68:3-5.

[7] D&C 84:36.

[8] D&C 121:16.

[9] 2 Cor. 3:3.

[10] Monson, Thomas S., “That We May Touch Heaven,” churchofjesuschrist.org, April 1990 General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/that-we-may-touch-heaven.

Sex and Gender Identity in Scripture

One of the reasons people in the Church give for not wanting to affirm transgender, intersex, gender fluid, and non-binary members of our community is because of how these perceptions of gender allegedly conflict with scripture. So, let's take it apart, starting with some of the important terms on this front it will be helpful to define.

As I looked at each term on their list, I paused on the definition they've given for Binary: "The gender binary is a system of viewing gender as consisting solely of two identities and sexes, man and woman or male and female."

Maybe this is obvious to other people, or has been covered elsewhere before. But seeing male and female vs. man and woman written like that caught my attention. These terms are separate. They refer to sex and gender distinctly, separately.

You know what else does that? The creation story of Adam and Eve.  

Notice how Moses 2:27 refers to sex, male and female.

Gender isn't introduced until the next chapter, when Adam names Eve, "Woman." Which, yeah. How are you going to have gender before the first woman has even been created? It's a distinction and separation that is also maintained in the Genesis accounts of chapters 1 and 2.

Here's the interesting part. Nowhere, is any of this exchange, does God state that sex and gender are intrinsically tied together—that they must or will always line up as male and man, or female and woman. It's not a necessary part of the story as written.

Adam and Eve, the record makes clear, are cisgender. But there is no scriptural imperative of any kind to assume that this is the immutable order of things for all creation, according to God. There is simply no evidence for that assertion here.

I've read these stories countless times, heard them recounted countless times in the temple as both a patron and an ordinance worker, and I've never seen those layers of meaning before. It's a good reminder of what my husband says to me all the time: God can't steer a parked car. Until we ask for these insights, we may never see them on our own.

 

But wait! There's more.

Look at D&C 93:29. In our pre-earth life, we were spirit beings, living in the presence of God. And we were made of "intelligence," right? 

 

Notice how it says intelligence can't be made or created?

Hold that thought, and go back with me to Genesis 1.

 

What does it say God did with it biological sex? What's the verb? 

 

Created.

 

He made us male and female. But D&C 93 says intelligence, the substance from which we're made, cannot be formed or made. 

 

What does this mean? What does it tell us?

 

It means intelligence, like priesthood, has no gender. 

 

It means our biological sex begins when we are organized out of intelligence.

 

We are eternal beings, but biological sex and gender are not eternal.

"But Sister Collins! The Family Proclamation says the opposite!"

Yes, it does. It's almost like the Family Proclamation has been superimposing evangelical Christianity's political interpretation of gender and sexuality on the human family that isn't supported by scripture. And in a choice between evangelical Christianity and the health and safety of our own members, it's pretty clear whose side we should be taking.

But I'm just a returned missionary who has been a Sunday School teacher more times than I can even count. What do I know?