Hey everyone! I haven't blogged in quite sometime, but I recently read a blog post by a member of the LDS Church, my Church community, which has brought me out of my "blogging hibernation." I don't know this member other than through her blog post, and this is my response to it. I will link it here, as it will be difficult to understand my response without first reading her experience:
http://suzannemarie.org/2016/03/30/jesus-hates-your-jeans-an-ode-to-church-leadership/
As Suzanne was willing to share her thoughts and feelings publicly, I don't feel out of place sharing my own feelings in response to her experience publicly. The intention of this is to examine what she said, and articulate the feelings that I have in response to her experience.
In the first person account we are presented with Suzanne, a member of the LDS Church who travels quite frequently. She is a faithful Latter-day Saint who really enjoys going to the temple. The account takes her through a temple recommend interview with a member of a Stake Presidency who she states is an individual who is "...representing the church" and her fairly traumatic experience with that interview. I will present my response in two parts. The first part will be my response to her direct experience. The second part will be my response to the presentation of her blog.
Part 1, The Interview:
The focal point of the entire blog is a question posed by a member of her Stake Presidency. She has gone in for a Temple recommend interview. This is a sacred experience between a member of the LDS Church and one who has been authorized by Church Leadership to determine worthiness. The Temple is a sacred place, and we believe that the Lord has established standards of worthiness that one must meet in order to enter its halls. Whether or not you (the reader) might agree with this practice, it is something that members of the LDS Church take very seriously. I personally think it is a marvelous practice, and essential to my own personal progression.
(If you would like to discuss the topic of worthiness in the LDS Church further please feel free to contact me outside of this blog.)
I will quote the experience here, so as to lend context to my response. The Stake Presidency member begins by asking Suzanne a series of what I would call "set-up" questions:
Him: "Sister Whitehead, I'm glad you are here getting your recommend. Do you know who these questions are from?" .
Me: "Umm... God?"
Him: “That’s right. God. God and Christ run the church. They want us to ask you these questions to make sure you are fit to enter Their house. So this isn’t an interview with me or anyone else – it’s with you and God. Do you understand that?”
Me, kind of confused at why he was telling me all this: “Um, yes.”
Him, rather smugly like he had just caught me in a trap: “Do you think you would so casually approach the Savior?”
She goes on to describe the swirl of emotions that she has in response to this question, and then bravely declares:
Me: “Yes, I would.”
Him, eyebrows raised and not hiding his shock: “OH! Well…. no one has answered like that before. Most people understand how they should humbly approach the Savior in their best dress.”
She is shocked even further by this declaration. After another paragraph explaining her feelings she continues the narrative:
Me: “I can come back if you think I’m being disrespectful like this.”
Him: “Oh! Well….No. let’s just go through these.” My tears and solid stare were making him uncomfortable. “You don’t have to leave. I mean, sometimes we make people leave and go change… but since you’re here let’s just do it.”
Me: “No, no I think if you feel so passionately about it I can go and just do this on Sunday when I’m in Sunday dress.”
Him: “No, I’ll just ask you the twenty questions. I’m just doing what I’m told. I didn’t mean to make you feel guilty or bad or offend you. In a few questions I’m going to tell you how much God loves you and how special you are.”
Me: “I don’t need you to tell me I’m special. I know God loves me. And I know God loves me whether or not I am in jeans or Sunday best. And I get that there are policies and best practices, and I’m sorry I’m not dressed appropriately but you can’t talk to people like that – it hurts.”
The narrative continues with Suzanne and the Stake Presidency member discussing how he might have approached the topic differently. It seems to be a constructive experience for him, at the expense of extreme pain for her. It is likely that he will not approach similar situations to this in the same fashion in the future.
Now my response to the interview itself. The "bare bones" of it as it were.
Worthiness interviews in the LDS Church are conducted on a relatively regular basis. Not only do they help determine an individuals personal commitment to living the Gospel, they also serve to ensure that the person is capable and willing to keep the commitments that they enter into as they continue in their membership in the Church. As stated previously I think they are a vital, and marvelous practice. They have helped me to become a better person, and serve as a sort of "litmus test" in my own life as I strive to be everything that I believe God wants me to be. I have been interviewed many times since I was baptized on my 18th birthday.
As a holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and as a Returned Missionary, I have also had opportunities to conduct worthiness interviews specifically for those seeking to become members of the church. Often the very first interview someone will engage in is the baptismal interview. This interview closely resembles the Temple recommend interview. I believe that if Jesus were present, He would be conducting these interviews Himself. It is a sacred responsibility, and one that I never took lightly. I would always go into these interviews in prayer, asking for guidance and the gift of discernment.
People showed up to these interviews in all manner of dress. Sometimes they were coming straight from work. Other times they were heading to work right after. They weren't always very "clean," still covered in the grime of the day (or sometimes night if they had worked the night shift). Usually they came in their very best, which depending on individual circumstances differed dramatically. As I think back on these interviews, I don't remember a single one where what the individual was wearing ever entered into my mind as anything other than appropriate. And yes, many showed up in jeans and t shirts. Not every single person was ready yet to be baptized either, but not a single one was turned away, or made to feel "bad" or "different" because of what they were wearing.
This is not to say that the clothing that a person is wearing is not important. I believe that it is. I think there is something true in the sentiment of "Sunday best." In trying to look our best for the Savior. There is a certain focus that I gain when I go to my closet and say "I am wearing something today that I don't usually wear. I am doing this because of the place that I am going." It changes my own personal mindset, and helps me get into a more reverent mood. It's similar for me to when I put on my uniform for the Army. I am wearing this for a reason, for a purpose.
Many assumptions were automatically made by the presumption of the question that was posed by this leader. The biggest assumption was "this woman doesn't appreciate the sacred nature of the temple recommend interview." As explained by Suzanne, this couldn't be further from the truth. She understood the sacred nature of the interview, wasn't planning on getting an interview that night, but circumstances were such that she was able to, seemingly fortuitously and admittedly unexpectedly. It is in this assumption that the leader made his mistake.
He also explains that he was "just doing what I'm told." This hints at instruction from his own leadership, likely the Stake President. While it is dangerous to infer anything from any account, it is possible that this stake had been experiencing this "issue" on a regular basis recently, specifically that young members had been coming into recommend interviews in casual dress, which on some level reflected their mindset about the interview, and potentially about the temple. In an attempt to address this perhaps the Stake Presidency had come up with this question together. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the reasoning behind the question, the question itself was, at least in my opinion, ill-advised.
It was ill-advised because of the assumption. The assumption that the person sitting in front of the leader wasn't serious about the interview. I remember hearing a story from a very wise man who had served his mission in the south. He talked about how his first sacrament meeting in one area he saw a young man passing the sacrament in a track uniform. It seemed very irreverent to him, until it was explained that this young man was very poor, and his track uniform was his very best. Suddenly perspective changed, and this wise man learned an important lesson. Never assume.
The question of "if you were coming before the Savior" should in my opinion be turned back on the leader. The question should be "if I am representing the Savior, how would He respond to this young woman's state of dress?" My response and my opinion is - He wouldn't give a hoot about what she was wearing. He would care for more that she was there, with Him, seeking to be better. He would exude love, and if there was something that she could do better, He would help her to realize it with love and care, not accusation and entrapment.
It breaks my heart when I hear stories like this, and Suzanne is not alone. There are untold numbers of members of the LDS Church who have been hurt in similar fashion by well meaning leaders. Many of them soldier on in pain, while others simply quit coming. Not all abuse is intentional abuse. Some parents abuse their children ignorantly, not realizing that it is abuse simply because it is the way they were raised. Thus is the issue with some Church Leaders. Questions like this are similar to the experience Elizabeth Smart had with one of her teachers:
"I remember in school one time I had a teacher who was talking about abstinence and she said, 'Imagine you're a stick of gum and when you engage in sex, that's like being chewed. And then if you do that lots of times, you're going to be become an old piece of gum and who's going to want you after that..." Then Elizabeth was kidnapped, and raped repeatedly.
She continued:
"Well, that’s terrible. No one should ever say that. But for me, I thought, ‘I’m that chewed-up piece of gum.’ Nobody re-chews a piece of gum. You throw it away. And that’s how easy it is to feel you no longer have worth. Your life no longer has value.”
No girl should ever feel guilty for being raped, but this teacher effectively did just that. It's these blanket assumptions coupled with bandaid-esque statements or questions that create such a problem for both leaders and followers in the LDS Church. Even if Suzanne had come knowingly wearing jeans and a t-shirt, would this question be appropriate? My response - absolutely not. The Savior was approached by lepers, by prostitutes, by all manner of people seeking redemption and healing and acceptance. I don't remember Him responding with "do you know who you are talking to? I'm Jesus. I'm greater than all the Kings of the earth. You should dress better when approaching me."
So what is the answer to this conundrum? To this dilemma? The answer is humility. Those called into any position of leadership must exercise radical humility. I like to say "err on the side of love." I believe that one day I will stand in the presence of Jesus, and be judged for my actions. I don't think that He will look at me reprovingly and say "Josh, you should have been more judgmental." Now, He might say "I wish you had used better judgment" but I just don't see Him calling me to be more judgmental towards His children. I imagine instead Him saying "I wish you had loved more, and judged less."
I also believe Him when He says "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again..." I'm hoping that my extension of love, forgiveness, and acceptance will be accepted by Him. Any and all leaders in the LDS Church must see each person coming to them as children of God, seeking to be like Him, and they should take their responsibility to sit with these children as a sacred trust. They should humbly approach each opportunity with prayer, recognizing that they are not God, and they can't really presume to know what God would do. Seeking the Spirit they should follow its promptings, and avoid the use of "band-aid-type" questions or statements.
Part 2, The Blog Itself:
I'll try not to spend much time here, but I feel that it is important to briefly discuss how Suzanne's blog affected me, besides the content of the interview. This is in no way meant to discount the way that Suzanne felt through her experience, nor to judge her. Rather my attempt is to take both aspects of my experience with this blog, and suggest recommendations.
During her account Suzanne states that she doesn't think she has "...ever been reprimanded for anything ever." She spends a lot of time explaining her travels, and while this adds context to the story, it also in ways takes away from her experience. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter why she had shown up to the interview in what she was wearing, the question that was posed to her was wrong. From the point of view of the reader this account of all of her travels can lend a certain level of individual pride to the experience.
She also states that:
"I’ve always been a church rule follower and suddenly I realized that all the fluff about this interview not being with him was only to put me in my place where I would feel guilty and bad for what I was wearing as if I didn’t respect Christ enough rather than him wanting me to know this was a symbolic Q&A with God."
I spoke earlier of presumptions on the part of the leader. Here Suzanne is making a very large presumption regarding the intent of this leaders heart. As stated earlier she talks about his posture once he had "caught her":
"Him, rather smugly like he had just caught me in a trap...
This presumption causes the reader to react with additional outrage. I imagine if I were to talk to the Stake Presidency member and ask him if he felt like was "trapping her smugly" he would likely respond with an emphatic no. She continues:
"... I thought of my Dad. I’ve learned a lot about my relationship with my Heavenly Father from my wonderful relationship with my earthly father and suddenly I felt homesick and sad and remembered how all gowning up he always let me know I could come to him. He told me if I messed up, if I got drunk, if I was in a bad place, I could always come to him or call and he would treat me with love and come get me..."
As a father of a daughter, I would absolutely echo this statement of her father. But I would also add that post-drunken experience I would be striving to help her to become better. She continues:
"...He didn’t know I was barely in the country a couple days and was super behind, going through a lot today, and hadn’t planned on being here, and hadn’t even had time to eat lunch or dinner yet and just wanted to go to the temple in the morning. He didn’t know my relationship with my Savior..."
She's absolutely right. Having been in positions where people have offended me before with similarly inappropriate and seemingly uncaring questions, I have come to realize that often people don't realize the harm they are causing. Because I have these realizations they tend to lead me to judge less, and love more, not judge more, and love less. She continues:
"...I felt the pain of people that have sat in the seat before I sat there and tears started to build in my eyes..."
She explains this quite cosmic experience, as though she is having the experience of countless other individuals who have come before, and those that will come after. Later in the conversation she states that:
"...I don’t need you to tell me I’m special. I know God loves me. And I know God loves me whether or not I am in jeans or Sunday best. And I get that there are policies and best practices, and I’m sorry I’m not dressed appropriately but you can’t talk to people like that – it hurts..."
In my opinion, the onus of love and compassion, humility and suspending judgment, really relies on those that are in leadership. As members of the church, however, we must remember that we are led by a lay leadership. This means that our leaders typically have absolutely no training other than their own life experience. This means that at times, they will have less relevant experience than we have as it pertains to their calling at any given time. This means that we too must extend humility, love, understanding and compassion to those that are called to lead at any given time.
My response to the blog itself is that it fails to do this. It takes this admittedly sad and hurtful experience, and turns it into in large measure a diatribe about how terrible a job this leader did. It also feeds the furnace of those who have been offended and turned away. As I read the comments on Facebook and the blog itself they are in large measure supportive, which I believe Suzanne deserves our support, but this blog also describes a divide. A duality that exists within the mind of many of the LDS Church. The "us and them" idea of leadership. What we need to realize is that we are them. As inadequate as we may be made to feel by leaders who misstep, they feel equally inadequate in their roles. It is our responsibility, all of our responsibility, to approach each interaction we may have with God's children in love and humility.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it helps.
