A Woman Without a Religion

About nine months ago I started wearing head coverings.  After a couple weeks of begging God for answers to a question He finally (instead of answering the question) instructed me to wear head coverings.  I did it every day for a few months, and I researched them (something I hadn't been doing about my question; I wanted the easy answer).  I grew to love them for multiple reasons.  I had a halo of frizzy regrowth after some postpartum hair loss that it conveniently hid, it kept my baby from pulling my hair, it kept my ears warm in the winter time, it kept the wind from blowing my hair in my face, and I felt pretty in them.  These were the practical and superficial reasons for it.  The biggest reason to wear it went much deeper.  I felt closer to God by obeying a direction that came personally to me, and my attention was drawn to Him more throughout the day as I had a physical reminder of something I was doing only for Him every day.

So now as I go about my days I've been asked a couple times by people I've met if I'm Muslim.  No, I'm not.  I've never read the Quran.  But how do I explain who I really am?  Mormons don't accept me as one of them because I don't believe in blindly following their modern prophet.  Christians, I've been afraid to admit to them that I still believe in the Book of Mormon, and I believe that bad things Joseph Smith is said to have done, are rumors spread by his enemies.  And for anyone who isn't Christian it brings to mind a variety of bad things Christians have done in the name of their religion that I don't agree with.  I feel no loyalty with the Remnant Movement started by Denver Snuffer.  I'm grateful for the stepping stone it was in my transition leaving the Mormon church, but don't quite agree with some things happening among their group either.  Messianic Jewish seems the best fit, but their services are at times difficult to attend.  And most people have no clue what that means, which is okay, I can explain it to some degree, but not very well since I haven't been attending with them very long and have much to learn myself.  So if they have any questions beyond my simple explanation I'm unable to answer them. Talking to my atheist/agnostic brother-in-law he said, "So you're agnostic. That's a start.  You can't go straight from Mormonism to atheist.  I was agnostic for years before I was atheist."  Almost as if I was on the way to atheism because I no longer believe in the men who lead a worldly cooperate institution.  So I explained that my relationship with God is stronger now than it ever was, and I still believe in a specific God so "agnostic" doesn't seem right either.  And talking with my husband, even he didn't understand my aversion to labels, saying, "We're just Christian."

Labels are a way of lumping people together and associating them with other similar people.  The problem is that most these labels end up misrepresenting parts of that group.  Some people lump together Muslims into one group, and even though the violent terrorists are the minority among them, all the rest are guilty by association.  Likewise with race labels.  People of one group label people of another group and consider the other group to be guilty of whatever the worst people among them have done.  Guilt by association.  This is the most divisive thing we as people do.  And we do it as much with religion as we do with race.  Dividing those who believe in one thing from those who believe in another.  Rather than loving each other regardless of what we each believe and building on common ground, and discussing with the purpose of understanding one another and realizing we both probably have truth to offer the other that we hadn't previously considered.  But instead we are often too caught up in trying to convince others of our ideas to stop and consider theirs.

Ultimately no label fits who I am.  My journey is more complex than that. When it comes down to it, nothing feels quite right except to say I am a lover of God, a lover of people, a humble follower of Christ, and a seeker of truth. 

The Truth about Relief Society Part 1: The Founding and Origional Organization

My experience that prompted this post

You never know how little authority women in the church have till you are called to a position in which you think you can do something meaningful, just to find out you can't even plan a single topic without permission from a man.  We take such pride in saying Relief Society is the oldest women's organization in the world, but how is it a women's organization if we have to get permission from a man who isn't part of said organization to do anything within it?  To me this doesn't make any sense at all.  I wouldn't mind if women never get the priesthood, but can we at least get control over our own organization again? The High Priests, and Elders can organize their own activities, extend their own callings and fulfill their responsibilities all on their own.  Why should the women need the oversight and supervision of the Bishop to do the same things?  We are treated not like equals but like children.  We don't want the priesthood so we can be Bishops, or Elders (at least most that I know of).  Men can have those callings, we just want the freedom to do what we like within our own organization.  In attempting to plan a gathering outside of normal Sunday services I have to get permission for the topic AND the teacher of the topic.  Apparently this control over the women has been going on for well over 60 years.

So what was Relief Society when it was founded?  Let's look at what Relief Society was when organized by Joseph Smith.  With the Joseph Smith Papers we can go straight to the source and read about the organization of Relief Society straigh from their own meeting minutes:

"President Smith further remarked that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He proposed that the Sisters choose a presiding officer to preside over them, and let the presiding officer choose two counselors to assist in the duties of her office -- that he would ordain them to preside over the Society -- and let them preside just as the Presidency presides over the church and if they need instruction -- ask him, he will give it from time to time." [emphasis added] (JSP Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book p.7-8)

Notice the women choose the leader, and she chooses counselors, all Joseph did is propose the organization and ordain the women they chose to lead them. They can ask him for instruction but he did not mandate anything in the form of policies or anything else, a Constitution was all up to them to create for themselves.

"If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, etc. are among us. . . .

"He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity etc. like the first Presidency of the Church.

"Motioned by Sister Whitney and seconded by Sister Packard that Mrs. Emma Smith be chosen President -- Passed unanimously --" (ibid p.8)

The ONLY role of the priesthood in Relief Society was to ordain the women to offices within the Society, not even to propose or vote on who those sisters should be!!!  Joseph Smith did not call Emma to be the first President of Relief Society, the sisters did by common consent.  Relief Society had it's own funds, and it's own treasurer, and was not dependent on the Church for it's financial means to carry out it's purposes.  Joseph Smith gave the first donation of $5, and after the minutes of each meeting a record was kept of donations including who gave and the amount.  The men present for the initial organization and naming of the Society withdrew before the choice of secretaries and treasurer were made.  (ibid p. 13)

Sisters who wanted to join the Female Relief Society of Navoo had to apply and their membership be voted on by common conent of those who already belonged (this is an action at the begining of each meeting, the sustaining of new members), just as men admitted to the priesthood are sustained by common consent then and still today.  Every meeting (except one when Joseph Smith thought they were growing too fast) started with the sustaining of new members, and a list of those who were added to the Society.  Early meetings talked about the importance of avoiding evil, and in the third meeting Joseph Smith said, "none should be received into the Society but those who were worthy -- proposed that the Society go into a close examination of every candidate." (ibid p. 22)  Much of this responsibility fell to Emma.  

What has Changed?

Today the men decide who will be in various positions in Relief Society and the men decide how much money from church funds can be used by the Relief Society, the men decide what topics we can teach and when and who can teach them. Voting on new members who wish to join has been done away now and any female member of the church over the age of 18 is automatically a member of Reilief Society. We don't make our own lessons, and we don't have our own funds to administer relief with.  Really we don't do any administering relief any more.  We do some service to those who need it from time to time, but most of our ability to give relief has been crippled by the church burocracy (speaking from my own experience and observation).  We instead create our own new organizations (like the Liahona Children's Foundation) separate from the church when we find a need of relief because we can't give relief in Relief Society any more.

Continue to Part 2