Blooming plants at Buddy Attick Park.

Late April is a lovely time of year to see blooming things at Buddy Attick Park in Greenbelt, Maryland. I wanted to document the blossoms I've seen, along with a few non-blooming plants or soon-to-be-blooming plants. All of the photographs in this post were taken at Buddy Attick park in the last few days. (I am not a horticulturist or a botanist, so you are welcome to comment on or correct my attempt at plant identification.)

Growing near the East entrance are these beautiful Virginia Bluebells, or Mertensia virginica. There aren't very many of them, perhaps because they are competing with non-native invasive plants in the area. They were originally planted here by Greenbelt Public Works.

Mertensia virginica  (Virginia Bluebells) 

Nearby, I found a few Wild Geraniums, also called Crane's Bill. There are hundreds of species in the Geranium family, so I'm hesitant to make a definitive statement about the Latin name, but this one seems to be Geranium maculatum.

Geranium maculatum (Wild Geranium, Crane's Bill)

Growing close to little bridge near the East entrance, the Mayapples (Podophyllum peltatum) are plentiful. The flowers aren't quite open yet, but if you look carefully at the photo below, you can see a round bud hiding under the foliage. It will open into a nice white blossom.

Podophyllum peltatum (Mayapple)

If I were a small elf, I would want to take shelter under the umbrella-like foliage.

Also near the small bridge by the East entrance is this wonderful tree. It has dainty white bell-shaped blossoms.

My best guess is that this is one of the Silverbells, a small genus of several species. I'd say that this is the Carolina Silverbell, but I'm not sure. If you know, tell me in the comments.

A Carolina Silverbell?

Another tree that is in bloom now is Cercis canadensis or Eastern Redbud. I've always thought that these trees have a funny, charming shape, with their sort of stringy looking branches.

 Here's a close-up of the blossoms. Redbud leaves are heart-shaped. Of course, they're tiny at this time of year, while the trees are still covered in blooms, but they'll get bigger as the season progresses.

Cercis canadensis (Eastern Redbud)

On the peninsula are several Sweet Bay Magnolias. They are not in bloom yet, but when the blossoms open in a few weeks, you'll want to stop by just to smell them. They are extremely fragrant, with a scent that is lemony and sweet and spicy all at once.

I'm getting a bit giddy thinking about the fragrance. I hope that I don't lose my sense of smell anytime soon.

Magnolia Virginiana (Sweetbay Magnolia)

The Flowering Dogwoods are in bloom now, and they appear to be near their peak. Except that they're not really in bloom! Technically what we think of as the flower petals are bracts. The true blossoms are those little greenish things in the middle. In this photo, you can see that those are not open yet.

Cornus florida (Flowering Dogwood)

These wild azaleas just coming into bloom are Rhododendron periclymenoids, sometimes called Pinxter Flowers. 

Rhododendron periclymenoids (Pinxter Flower)

Buds on a Rhododendron periclymenoides.

The mountain laurel is not blooming yet, but it will probably start blooming in a few weeks. They are plentiful near marker nine on the trail. When they're in bloom, they have clusters of wonderful pentagonal blossoms, pinkish white in color. Here's the wikipedia article, with a photo of the blooms.

Kalmia latifolia (Mountain Laurel)

The Iris pseudocorus, or Yellow Flag, will also bloom later in the spring. It loves very wet conditions, so it grows at the edges of the lake. This is not a native plant, and it's considered invasive in some areas. At our lake, it doesn't seem to be a problem, at least to my untrained eye.

Iris pseudacorus (Yellow flag)

But the park definitely has a problem with some invasive plants, like the ones below:

Vinca minor (Periwinkle) 

Alliaria petiolata (Garlic Mustard)

A large group of Ranunculus ficaria (Lesser Celandine)

The invasive Lesser Celandine, shown here, is easily confused with Marsh Marigold, a non-invasive native. An easy way to tell them apart is that the Marsh Marigold has five petals, compared with Lesser Celandine's eight.

A Japanese Honeysuckle vine (Lonicera japonica) taking advantage of a tree.

                                        

Hedera Helix (English Ivy) is an enemy of the park.

And, of course, Poison Ivy is a native plant, but it makes the woods a land mine for super-sensitive people like my husband. In this photo, the new leaves are shiny and reddish. They'll look greener and less shiny later in the season.

Toxicodendron radicans (Poison Ivy)

This tiny blue flower grows in patches as a delightful weed. It's commonly called Bird's Eye Speedwell, and I am almost confident that its Latin name is Veronica persica. The Speedwells can be confusing because they have so many common names, and more than one species share the common name of Bird's Eye Speedwell.

Veronica persica (Bird's Eye Speedwell)

You likely have Ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea) somewhere in your backyard. It's everywhere. The scalloped leaves have a yummy spicy scent, and its blossoms are so tiny that it was hard to get a good shot with my camera. Here's a link to the wikipedia article if you want to see a better close-up.

Glechoma hederacea (Ground-ivy), shown here with English Ivy.

And I used to confuse Purple Deadnettle, shown below, with Ground-ivy, though they're clearly different. (Ground-ivy also resembles Bugleweed, of the genus Ajuga.)

Lamium purpureum (Purple deadnettle)

 Here are two species of the Buttercup family:

Ranunculus acris (Common Buttercup)

Ranunculus abortivus (Kidneyleaf Buttercup, Small-flowered Buttercup) 

I'm guessing that this is Daisy Fleabane (Erigeron annuus), though I can't be entirely sure it's not Philadelphia Fleabane.

  Erigeron annuus (Daisy Fleabane)?

This almost looks like a photograph of trees in fall color, but it was taken yesterday. Brightly colored seeds give some trees a red or orange glow.

Here is a close-up of seeds on a Red Maple tree. If you look carefully, you can see the last little bits of the red flowers that were in full bloom a few weeks ago. The Red Maple, Acer rubrum, seems to be the best represented species of maple in the woods around here.

Acer rubrum (Red Maple) seeds.

Here are some Skunk Cabbages, Symplocarpus foetidus, which thrive in wet places. The Skunk Cabbage flowers are also finished now. The blossoms are odd looking things, spotted brown and purple, and they come up from the ground before the foliage appears. You can see a photo of a Skunk Cabbage blossom in the link here.

Symplocarpus foetidus (Skunk Cabbage)

This thornless shrub is Jetbead or Rhodotypos scandens. (In the original post, I was unable to identify it, but a friend posted it on the Plant Identification facebook group.) It is non-native, and it can be invasive. 

Rhodotypos scandens (Jetbead)

This tree, growing on the path that leads to the peninsula, is still unidentified. It looks like a Cherry Tree to me, but I'm not sure. If it is a Cherry, I don't know which species it would be.

A Cherry Tree?

The bark of the mystery tree.

Buried treasure birthday party, with map.

The treasure box.

Complicated birthday parties are not my forte, but when it occurred to me that my five-year-old would love a treasure map leading to actual buried treasure, I couldn't resist. So we had a buried treasure birthday party last year.

I kept my preparation time reasonable by avoiding things liked decorating a cake, mailing invitations (I just emailed people), or anything fancy besides the treasure hunt itself.

I told all the invitees to bring shovels.

My mother gave us an old hinged wooden box. (Key point: It got really dirty, so it wasn't something she was attached to.) I filled it with foil-covered chocolate and a few cheap plastic beads.

I bought the chocolate coins in the bulk candy aisle at Wegman's. They have the advantage of being real chocolate, unlike some other candy money, and they're less expensive per pound than the little individual bags of chocolate-y coins for sale elsewhere.

I kept the treasure box hidden from the birthday honoree, but I let my two-year-old sample the treasure the day before. He was truly delighted.

 

In advance, I made a treasure map that roughly represented our backyard. I decided to locate the treasure near the badminton net, so that it would be easier to find. There are all kinds of neat ways to age paper, but I didn't have time to do more than singe the edges with a match and sort of rumple it.

We were perhaps a bit too ambitious and decided to bury the treasure box (wrapped in a scrap piece of cloth to protect the wood) about a foot deep. We wanted to make the kids work for their treasure!

The treasure map. Naturally, X marks the spot.

 

I wrote a few clues and hid them around the house. They were simple clues like, "Look in the coldest place in the house," or "Look under the couch cushions." Each clue led to the next one, with the final clue leading to the treasure map. 

Once the treasure hunt started, the kids were excited as they raced around the house looking for clues. Since some of the children could read, they didn't need much adult help. They found the map under the fruit bowl. 

That was a good moment.

Finding the map.

Then they ran outside with their shovels! Fortunately, the kids were able to figure out how to interpret the map, more or less. There may have been some adult guidance here, when we realized how unfortunate it would be to have a bunch of extra holes in the backyard that didn't yield any treasure.

Following the map.

Starting to dig.

There was a lot of digging.

As I mentioned it before, we probably dug the hole a little too deep. At some point, my husband started scooping out big shovelfuls of dirt, because the digging process was taking so long. In the end, the difficulty they had digging down to the treasure probably added to their excitement when the box was finally unearthed.

That was a very good moment.

At last!

At just five years old, Johnny may have already peaked as far as birthday party fun goes. I can't see myself doing something equally cool in the future.

Abraham, Hagar, and the God who sees me.

Il Guercino, Abraham casting out Hagar and Ishmael

Few stories in the Old Testament are as dramatic as Abraham's sacrifice of his son Isaac. The story is troubling, moving, confusing, and compelling. We can't help but imagine ourselves in Abraham's place — or in Isaac's. We can't help wondering how God could require such a thing, and how Abraham could dare to tie his son to the altar and raise the knife. We feel immense relief and release when the ram in the thicket takes Isaac's place. And the sense of relief is real: we too have been spared by a Lamb that God has provided.

When that lesson comes up every four years in the curriculum cycle, it makes for a rich discussion in Sunday School. Some class members are genuinely inspired by Abraham's faith and subsequent deliverance; some draw from Abraham's example the courage they need for their own tests of faith. I appreciate hearing how others find meaning, but I always seem to come to the story in a state of emotional conflict, a state of protest. I am reluctant to celebrate it as a great example of obedience and sacrifice. It's just too disturbing. Does God really test people by telling them to murder their own children? That question looms large for me, and pretending that everything makes perfect sense is not helpful. In fact, it's impossible. Hearing from other members of my faith, those with different viewpoints, gives me balance. Our collective grappling with the story adds depth and perspective to my private struggles.

As showstopping as the near-sacrifice of Isaac is, this time through I found myself focusing on a part of the lesson that is usually not given much attention: the story of Hagar and Ishmael. Maybe it's because I have two boys of my own now, maybe it's because oppression is on my mind, or maybe it's just that I'm paying closer attention this year. Whatever the reason, Hagar's and Ishmael's story wrapped itself around my mind.

Hagar is Sarah's Egyptian bondwoman. She is owned by Sarah¹, and when Sarah can't conceive, she gives Hagar to Abraham as a second wife or concubine. When Hagar gets pregnant, "her mistress [is] despised in her eyes." Sarah, blistering at Hagar's disrespect, responds so harshly that the pregnant Hagar runs away. But Hagar sees an angel who tells her to turn back and reassures her that she will have many descendants through the son that she is carrying.

Years later, when Ishmael is probably in his teens, Sarah bears Isaac, the promised child of the covenant. And then comes the abandonment. This is the first time I've pondered the story of Ishmael since having children of my own, and I almost can't bear the sadness of it. Sarah sees Ishmael "mocking²." She tells Abraham to banish his own child, saying, "the son of this bondwoman will not be heir with my son." Incredibly, God commands Abraham to go along with it. Hagar has to leave her home. Ishmael has to leave his father. Abraham loses his son.

With all of the drama of the sacrifice of Isaac, this earlier sacrifice of Ishmael is understandably overshadowed. But this time, Abraham and Ishmael are not spared. There is no ram in the thicket. Ishmael is gone.

We know that Abraham loves Ishmael. After God tells Abraham that Sarah will bear a son and become the mother of nations, his joy is mixed with concern for his first son. He cries, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before thee!" I imagine that Abraham is saying, "But what about Ishmael? Can't he be a covenant child too?" Indeed, it is a mystery to me why Ishmael and Isaac can't both be part of the covenant. Maybe Ishmael and Hagar are not willing to follow God's laws. They are both depicted in the Biblical account as lacking respect, at least on occasion, either for Sarah or for her son. We might describe them today as having "bad attitudes." Given the family structure that they are part of, I can hardly blame them.

So Ishmael and Hagar are cast out from the household and left to wander in the desert with bread and a bottle of water. When the supplies run out, they almost die, but Hagar again sees an angel, and this one saves her life. He shows her a well of water and tells her that Ishmael will become a great nation. We can take some solace in the statement that God is with the lad as he grows up, and perhaps in the fact that much later, when Abraham dies, he is buried by both Isaac and Ishmael. (I wish we knew more about what must have been a poignant burial and family reunion of sorts.)

In this deeply disturbing story of family dysfunction and cultural oppression, there is one passage that particularly touches me and offers a glimmer of hope. When Hagar runs away from Sarah, the angel of the Lord appears to her in the desert. Before giving her instruction about her future, the angel address her: "Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go?" I find it significant that Abraham and Sarah refer to Hagar as "my maid," or "thy maid," or "this bondwoman," but that the angel of the Lord calls her by name³.

Hagar is evidently moved by this encounter, and I am moved by her words:

And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? Genesis 3:16

I find it striking that Hagar calls the name of the Lord, "Thou God seest me." Other translations give her these words: "You are the God who sees me."

You are the God who sees me.

The concubine, the runaway bondwoman, the person with the least social standing in the family, living under the weight of oppressive cultural traditions that rob her of her dignity, is twice visited by an angel.

She is seen by God. And in the end it is God who saves her.




____________________________________________________________________________
¹For simplicity, I am using the names Sarah and Abraham here even though at this point in the story, their names are actually Sarai and Abram.
²An interesting detail of this story is that the name Hagar means "flight," giving rise to speculation that this was not her personal name, but a descriptive name used later when the story was recorded. Read more about the name here.
³The word "mocking" is loaded with connotation, including possible sexual overtones. Click here and scroll down to the comments to read my questions and discussion about the word with the author of the blog Benjamin the Scribe.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bonus Material:

If you stuck to the assigned reading, you skipped Chapter 20, which wasn't included in the lesson. Here, Abraham's story takes on an almost goofy absurdity. To my weary mind, it was a welcome change from the gravity of the other chapters. Here is a summary:

When they journey to Gerar, Abraham tells everyone that Sarah is his sister so that King Abimelech won't challenge Abraham to a duel (or whatever they did in those days) in order to win Sarah for himself. This is the second time Abraham has pulled that trick (see Genesis 12 where the same thing happens in Egypt), and sure enough, Abimelech takes Sarah into his household. As a punishment, God makes the women of Abimelech's house infertile. Luckily, before Abimelech gets a chance to have his way with Sarah, the Lord explains the situation to him in a dream. So he returns Sarah to Abraham, along with a bunch of extra servants and livestock and stuff, to make up for taking his wife. Abraham explains that he technically wasn't lying, because Sarah actually is his sister — same father, different mother! The story ends happily with Abraham healing Abimelech's household.

If we read these chapters chronologically, this episode happens when Sarah is pretty old. It comes after Ishmael's birth, and after Abraham is promised a son through Sarah and responds, "Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" This is probably a good example of the need to take Bible chronology with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I kind of like the idea of an ancient, white-haired Sarah being totally irresistible to Abimelech, king of Gerar.  

Part 3 of 3: Imaginary conversations with a conservative Mormon woman about feminisn and the Church.

Jules Bastien-Lepage, Harvesting Potatoes in October

In light of recent controversies surrounding women and the priesthood, I have thought about how I might have a conversation with a conservative Mormon woman about issues facing women in the Church. 

This is the second of three parts. In Part 1, I focus on my desire for unity with my conservative friends in the Church despite our disagreements, my belief that the Church is a work in progress, and the possibility that current policy may not fully reflect the will of God. In Part 2, I talk about habits of exclusion and our tendency to allow men to teach women how to be women, without reciprocity. In Part 3 below, I speak about presiding in the home and ordination to the priesthood. Of course, my thoughts are my own, and they do not represent the official positions of my church or any other organization.


Presiding in the Home

One doctrine that I hope is clarified and refined in the near future concerns husbands presiding over their families. In recent years, General Authorities have made it clear that husbands and wives are to make decisions together as equal partners. This has not always been the case. The term "equal partners" carries with it powerful implications. For example, in a business, equal partners may have different responsibilities, but they are equally invested, and they have equal measures of influence and decision-making authority. It makes sense to me that the same principles of equality would apply to a marriage partnership.

But this concept of equality seems to contradict the teaching that men are to preside in the home. According to the dictionary, preside means "to exercise guidance, direction, or control," or "to occupy the place of authority." I have not found a way to reconcile the notion that the husband presides, with the teaching that husbands and wives are equal partners. If women and men are both responsible for leading, teaching, and directing their families, and if they share equally in making important decisions, in what sense does the man preside?

Though men hold the priesthood, women and men both draw on the power and blessings of the priesthood as they make their way back to God¹. Elder M. Russell Ballard taught that the priesthood power in the home is shared by husband and wife.  But if this is true, then surely husbands and wives are are equally entitled to receive revelation for their homes and jointly responsible to guide and direct their families. I cannot think of any meaningful way in which it makes sense for a husband to preside in the home that does not equally apply to his wife. I believe that families cannot reach their full potential for spiritual and temporal strength without both parents leading. To my mind, emphasizing a man's leadership in the home over his wife's leadership diminishes both husband and wife.

Think of the potential to remove cognitive dissonance, increase our understanding, and strengthen our marriages if the language of the Proclamation on the Family were clarified this way:  

By divine design, fathers and mothers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness. 

Think of the increased sense of purpose it would give to our young women as they prepare to becomes wives and mothers. Think of the clarity it would give to young men as they prepare to honor their roles as husbands and fathers.
 

Talking about Women's Ordination

Finally, what about the priesthood? Though I do not personally seek the same kind of priesthood responsibilities that males have, I would argue that no member of the Church should belittle or ridicule the desire that some women have to hold the holy priesthood. Not just because we are commanded to love one another, not just because these women are our sisters and their pain is our pain. But because a close examination of scripture and church history teaches us that this is a complicated issue without clear-cut answers.

When Joseph Smith spoke to the newly organized Relief Society in 1842, he said that he would "make of this Society a kingdom of priests." The word "ordain" was used in setting apart Emma Smith and her counselors. Moreover, it was common in the early days of the Church for women to give healing blessings using the laying on of hands, and Joseph Smith expressly defended the practice saying, "if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold  their tongues, and let every thing roll on." I see nothing in the standard works that explicitly bars women from holding the priesthood. I am not trying to make the case for female ordination to the priesthood, but I am trying to make the point that our history is full of ambiguities and unanswered questions. It is natural that we should ask whether women will someday hold the priesthood or even whether we, in some sense, already do. And if God Himself, master of the universe, allows us — no, commands us — to come to Him in prayer with our questions, doubts, and petitions, perhaps we should be less afraid to petition our leaders for greater light and knowledge.

I do not seek ordination to the priesthood (at least not the same priesthood that men hold in its current manifestation), for several reasons, some of which can be rationally explained, some of which are inexpressible in words, and some of which are too delicate or sacred to explain in a public forum. They are not persuasive reasons; they are personal. For now, I will not share them here.

But allow me to point out that my reasons do not include the fact that I am a mother, bearing and raising children. The idea that motherhood is to women what priesthood is to men does not resonate with me. I fear that drawing a false priesthood-motherhood parallel does a disservice to both men and women. Fatherhood, not priesthood, is the analog to motherhood.When we say that women don't have the priesthood because they are mothers, we are implicitly claiming that motherhood is somehow more fulfilling, more important, or more exalted than fatherhood. Given that God himself chooses to be addressed as Father, I cannot believe that the sacred calling of parenthood matters any less to men than it does to women².

Men have fatherhood plus priesthood. Women have motherhood plus . . . what? I long for women to have . . . something, some role in the Kingdom of God that allows us to more fully express our potential as leaders, teachers, and prophets. Whatever doctrinal addendum or change to be wrought would take a revelation from heaven. I have not been given any such revelation, but I hope that the leaders of the Church are earnestly seeking further understanding of the divine roles of women. I only have the vaguest inkling, a hazy vision, of a glorious heavenly council that includes men and women, where women are neither on a pedestal nor subjugated, but equal participants with their hearts, bodies, and minds. Where men were made for women just as surely as women were made for men. Where women speak and lead alongside men. I long for truth to pour out from heaven, until the reality of equality between men and women is made fully manifest.


I welcome you to turn this imaginary conversation into a real one by sharing your thoughts in the comments section.
__________________________________


 ¹My own analogy to illustrate this principle is that my husband might hold a flashlight, but it belongs to both of us, and we both can see the light and use it to make our way along the path.
²Claiming that motherhood is our answer to the priesthood is also problematic in that it excludes (at least in this life) the many women who will never have the opportunity to be mothers and the young women who are still waiting to be mothers, even while their male peers are progressing in the priesthood.

Part 2 of 3: Imaginary conversations with a conservative Mormon woman about feminism and the Church.

Francis Coates Jones, Women in a Rowboat

                                                                                                                                
In light of recent controversies surrounding women and the priesthood, I have thought about how I might have a conversation with a conservative Mormon woman about issues facing women in the Church. 

This is the second of three parts. In Part 1, I focus on my desire for unity with my conservative friends in the Church despite our disagreements, my belief that the Church is a work in progress, and the possibility that current policy may not fully reflect the will of God. In Part 2 below, I will talk more specifically about issues affecting women in the Church. Of course, my thoughts are my own, and they do not represent official positions of my church or of any other organization.

When I attended church yesterday, I was particularly aware of the important ways that women contributed to my Sunday worship. The congregational hymns and choir number were chosen and directed by women. There were two assigned sacrament meeting speakers: a man, followed by a woman. The Gospel Doctrine Sunday School teacher was a woman, and the majority of the comments in the class were made by women. The Young Women's meeting that I attended in my role as adviser was briefly interrupted by the sustaining vote of a new presidency in the Beehives, the class for girls aged 12 and 13. Following the sustaining, the doctrinal lesson was taught by a 17-year-old young woman.

Those of us who seek changes in policy must acknowledge the many opportunities that women of the Church already have to teach, lead, and influence. If there is to be any meaningful conversation, I believe that we must better understand and respect women like you, women who feel empowered in their roles, women who know that they are heard, counted, and valued.

Recently, several changes have brought greater visibility and more opportunities for women: the lower age requirements for missionary service, the new sister training leader missionaries, the women praying in General Conference, the inclusion of a female speaker in the Christmas devotional broadcast, the portraits of women leaders hanging in the Conference Center. In a recent New York Times article, Relief Society General President Sister Linda K. Burton was quoted as saying that the church will benefit as “men’s vision of the capacity of women becomes more complete.” This is an exciting time of progress for women in the Church.

Several times, I have heard you ask, "Why is it important that women pray in General Conference? Does it really matter who says the prayer?" You rightly point out that the efficacy of the prayer is not affected by the gender of the one praying.

Habits of Exclusion and Damaging Messages

But I feel certain that these small things do matter. It matters who says the prayer, it matters whose portraits hang in the Conference Center, it matters who speaks at worldwide broadcasts. It matters because seeing women in positions of worldwide leadership and hearing their inspired words strengthen the Church. It matters because habits of excluding women send unintended messages that have no place in our doctrine or in our community of saints.

Leaders have repeatedly stressed that women are vital in building the Kingdom, that our voices are important, that we are equal in the Church and in the sight of God. Though certain responsibilities in the Church may be differentiated according to gender, praying is not one of them. Prayer is not a function of the priesthood; women and men are equally capable of calling upon God in prayer. Barring women from praying in meetings undermines our efforts to internalize these doctrines and detracts from the main message of our faith.

I am grateful that, as of April 2013, women can pray in General Conference. With this change of policy, the wonderful doctrine of equality is more fully realized. It feels right; it feels comfortable. Of course women should pray in General Conference. What took us so long?

I believe that there are other habits of exclusion that should be carefully examined. Here are three to consider: Church policy does not permit women to be financial clerks or Sunday School presidents. And outside of official Church policy, there is an unwritten rule in some wards that women are rarely, if ever, the concluding speakers in sacrament meeting. It is not obvious to me how holding the priesthood is requisite for fulfilling any of these responsibilities.

Each of these practices has the potential to send subtle, unintended, and damaging messages. Why can't women handle the money? Perhaps women aren't as reliable with records and finances or as sound in their judgment as men are. Why don't women speak last in our worship services? Perhaps a woman's words do not carry the same weight of authority as a man's. Why can't women head the Sunday School? Perhaps women can only lead organizations that administer to women and children. Perhaps the oversight of adult scripture scholarship is outside our domain. These messages are not in harmony with my understanding of women's abilities to organize and responsibilities to testify, teach, and expound the scriptures.

I see no doctrinal reason, no practical reason, and no spiritual benefit to excluding women in these ways. Indeed, some wards have more faithful, capable women than active men. Allowing women to hold more positions of leadership that do not directly relate to functions of the priesthood would allow greater flexibility for wards and branches. Perhaps someday we will say in regards to these, "Of course. What took us so long?"

You and I have often commiserated together about how difficult it is to balance the demands of family, community, and church callings, especially with young children at home. So it is important  to make a distinction between these two sentiments:

    "I personally would like to hold [a particular position in the Church]."
                                                      vs.
    "I don't want to be disqualified from that position because of my gender."

These statements are different. I have no particular desire to be a ward financial clerk (and I dare say I have that in common with most men), or the Sunday School president, and I don't feel personally slighted if I am not the concluding speaker in a meeting. But I would rejoice if women were not barred from these roles, when their circumstances permit them to take on the responsibilities. Similarly, I would be very surprised if the majority of members of Ordain Women actually wanted to hold the demanding calling of bishop or stake president. But I am certain that they would welcome the chance to sustain a female bishop, and they would appreciate knowing that such a thing is a real possibility for the future.

Men Defining Manhood, Men Defining Womanhood

As women in the Church, we are accustomed to men presiding over our meetings, occasionally sitting in on lessons, chaperoning at Young Women's camp, and speaking at the General Women's Meeting. Men regularly instruct groups of women on many topics, including our roles as women in the Church, even though women do not instruct gatherings of men. Women's meetings and events often have one or two men present, even though the reverse is not true. We're used to this, and we don't find it remarkable. Perhaps we need to stop and think about it a bit more carefully.

I treasure my association with so many extraordinary men in the Church. I appreciate their inspired words, their sincere praise, and their perspectives on womanhood. Men and women learning from each other, each mutually seeking to please the other in healthy ways, is natural and positive. What concerns me is the abundance of counsel from men directed toward women on what it means to be a woman, with very little reciprocity. Too much emphasis on men teaching women how to be women may foster unhealthy attitudes and subtly encourage women and girls to look to men for approval, guidance, and authority as they form self-conceptions and life goals. We must wholly understand that we are important, not because of how much men value us or what men think of us, but because of who we are as humans on planet earth and daughters of God. I worry about the effect on dating and marriage as two young people enter a relationship, the man having learned from male ecclesiastical leaders how to be a man, and the woman having learned from both women and men. This concern could be addressed with a change in practice, not doctrine¹.

I would like to see something more balanced. Imagine the power that could be unleashed if women, drawing on inspiration from heaven and a wealth of experience, occasionally instructed men on how best to fulfill their roles as husband, fathers, and priesthood holders. I am accustomed to congregations of women learning from words of wisdom and encouragement spoken by a man of God. But I have this other vision in my mind — a vision of a group of men sitting and listening to a woman whom they love and respect, a woman of God, in full acknowledgement of her divine calling and gifts of the Spirit. Maybe she would be teaching them about her experiences in drawing on priesthood power, or how as men, they can better assist the women of the Church, or how better to honor their roles as fathers and husbands². I believe that a woman addressing a priesthood meeting would bring great blessings and a needed balance as men and women strive to work together and understand one another.

In Part 3, I will share my thoughts on presiding in the home and priesthood ordination.

I welcome you to turn this imaginary conversation into a real one by sharing your thoughts in the comments section.

_______________________________________________________________
¹Of course, one can make the valid point that the men who speak to women have priesthood stewardships over their congregations; they communicate messages from God. But is there any doubt that they are speaking as part-prophet, part-man? Else why all the anecdotes about baking pies and so forth?
²When Elaine S. Dalton, General Young Women's President spoke at the October 2011 General Conference, she spent much of her talk specifically addressing fathers of daughters. I had never before heard a woman address the male membership of the Church in that way, and I was deeply moved by the experience. This should not be such a rare occurence.

Stuff I've learned watching movies and television.

Stuff I've learned watching movies and television:

1. If you have a natural gift for detective work, be careful. You and your associates will regularly stumble upon dead bodies, and your circle of friends and acquaintances will be rife with murder suspects, witnesses, and victims.

2. If a door is locked, you can easily break it down by heaving your shoulder against it. It will give way. (This works best if you're a man.)

3. Even writers, struggling artists, and bartenders can afford spacious, tastefully decorated loft apartments.

4. If you're in a relationship, lying is the primary method for heading off potential conflict with your significant other. No matter how elaborate the lie becomes and how many of your friends have to cover for you, it is preferable to engaging in direct communication with your partner.

5. If you're not in a relationship, keep in mind that you're most likely to fall in love with whomever you most dislike when you first meet him/her, provided that s/he is ravishingly good looking.

6. Hiring a fake fiance (or spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend) is a perfectly normal thing to do, with very desirable results. In such situations, you are almost guaranteed to (actually) fall in love with the person pretending to be your romantic partner.

7. For a courtship leading to a committed relationship, three or four days is a reasonable length of time. Don't be afraid to declare your love and/or propose marriage after just a few days, especially if you and your true love have already been through a serious deception or misunderstanding that has devastated the relationship.  

Bonus tip: An airport is a good place to make a romantic entreaty. Try to time it so that you arrive just before the person you love gets on the flight that will separate you forever. If you're a few minutes too late for that, go ahead and get on the plane. You can declare yourself there, and the other passengers will enjoy the inevitable passionate kiss that results.

8. If you're about to give birth, your labor and delivery will involve a lot of screaming but will only take about ten minutes at the most. Don't worry. If the baby arrives before the midwife or doctor, friends or bystanders will do a fine job of helping out.

9. If you're a female, forget being shy or reserved. These days, spunky, strong, and adventurous is the way to go. "Quirky" is trendy too, as long as you have an impeccable sense of style and are drop dead gorgeous.

But the lesson that I have learned most thoroughly is this one:

10a. Women: If you want to have a serious, romantic relationship and be the star of your own life, you must be endowed with stunning physical beauty. Deviate from the highest standards of modern beauty and you are, at best, the comic relief or the supportive friend.

10b. Men: If you're witty and confident, you may be of any age, body shape, or face type and still find the love of your life — who will of course be a young, thin, beautiful woman.

Paul and Phoebe

This is a guest post by my sister Rosemary. It also appears on her blog dearmessyroom.wordpress.com

I often read the Bible on my morning subway commute. If I can get a seat early on, then I have enough time to read a couple of chapters before I have to worry about transferring trains and getting back into the jostle of hurrying commuters. I've gotten into the habit of bringing my French Bible, partly because it gives me an excuse to practice my French, partly because some of my fellow Crown Heights commuters are Caribbean francophones and I like to feel that we have a point of connection, and partly because my French Bible is lightweight with a sturdy spine—well-suited to being slung into a backpack and carried around all day.

Anyway, the other day I was finishing Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and I came across a mind-opening section: Chapter 16. This chapter doesn't have much doctrine in it; it's instead Paul's sign-off to a long-ish list of Roman church members. Although I had read them in English, the first two verses in French left me amazed. 

"Je vous recommande Phoebé, notre soeur, qui est diaconesse de l'Église de Cenchrées, afin que vous la receviez en notre Seigneur d'une manière digne des saints, et que vous l'assistiez dans les choses où elle aurait besoin de vous, car elle en a donné aide à plusieurs et à moi-même." 

My own translation is this: "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is deacon of the Church in Kekhries, that you receive her in our Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you assist her in the things that she may require of you, for she has helped myself and many." The word "diaconesse" was the bombshell. How had I missed the fact that there was a female deacon in the early church? Was this a priestly calling? I wondered why Phoebe hadn't come up as an example of female leadership before, until I went home and found that the KJV names her as a 'servant' rather than 'deacon,' — a word that disguises the attention Paul gives to her with the same kind of submissive roles that I'm used to seeing assigned to women. Ever the curious etymologist, I looked in my Greek New Testament. The word was 'diakonos', a word that is the root of our present day 'deacon' and can also be translated as 'servant' or 'minister'.

After my re-reading the verse in English and then in Greek, I realized that Phoebe may not have been blessing the holy communion or performing the kind of priesthood ordinances that we moderns might think of as a 'deacon's' job. And while I am excited by the possibility of Phoebe as a priesthood holder, my excitement doesn't depend on that. Maybe to explain it I'll share another story. When I was getting ready to enter the Missionary Training Center, I got a packet in the mail with visa information, including a "minister's license." It was in Italian, and standing in the kitchen my father and I excitedly pieced together a translation of it. This is a vivid memory for me as my first stab at the Italian language, but it was also the first time I realized that in the eyes of the Italian government, I would hold the same title as the young men missionaries. I wasn't just a "sister," I was a minister. 
 
So now let me relate this back to the excitement of Phoebe's role. What is thrilling here is that she seems to have a distinct calling of administration and specific authority that is recognized and relied upon by Paul. So often, I feel that women are left in a mushy area of following their own spiritual promptings for the good of individual people, while their role as church officers (their callings) is downplayed. Thus their capacity to work and receive inspiration on behalf of a group is not given the chance to flourish. Even in callings that require women to work in an organizational and administrative capacity (and that's a lot of callings), I think women often feel like they're coming in the back door on inspiration — that it's not their right and responsibility to be leaders, or that because the buck always stops with the bishop (or EQ president, or stake president), their leadership doesn't really affect men at all (unless they're little boys in Primary, I guess). 

So, to sum up, I love the Phoebe story because it gives two remedies for this obstacle to women's spiritual growth: First, it names Phoebe's calling. Whether we call her a minister or a deacon, she is something. She's not just a nice lady with a soft heart who follows her instincts of goodness; she has an identifiable role. Second, Paul, as a male leader, is pointed in his recognition of her influence on both the group ('plusieurs') and himself ('moi-meme'). She's not his mother or any kind of biological or legal family member. Sometimes I think men in our church are embarrassed or feel that it's not quite proper to praise the capacities of females outside their own families. Paul has no such qualms. Paul is unashamed to point out that the woman Phoebe has succored him — he feels no need to qualify her leadership role.

So, Phoebe's role is what I want for the women of the Church. I want women to know that they have specific and needed roles to fulfill, in addition to their roles within families. I also want them to recognize that they are leaders of men, not just of other women or children (whether in an official capacity in a particular church calling or simply in personal interactions). And finally, I want men to be as clearly supportive as Paul is — giving credit to women as leaders in their words and in practice.