Exponent II's Blog

Posted July 18, 2026 ByMindy May Farmer

When I only had one child, I naively told my husband that we would always sit by each other in sacrament meeting. We would not become one of those couples separated by a pew of noisy children, focusing all of our energy on chaos control. As my family grew, along with the realities of helping different ages of children through sacrament meetings, I recognized my foolishness. I wanted well-behaved children and I wanted to hold my husband’s hand and hear the speaker’s message. I could not have both.

Sacrament meeting is clearly considered a training ground for LDS families. There is no alternative nursery for babies, children’s Sunday School does not run concurrently, and meetinghouses don’t offer family rooms to allow parents to listen in without all of the traditional restrictions of a chapel. This adult-centered worship is purposeful, despite the fact that some chapels overflow with young children.

I often wondered why we even went to church with young children, when I spent half of my time in a crowded, smelly nursing room and the other half trying to keep children entertained/train them to be reverent mini-adults. I lugged snacks, quiet toys and books each Sunday, hoping to find the magic combination of occupied, yet quiet. I gave silent prayers of thanks that my husband wasn’t called to sit on the stand.

I look around at LDS Chapels, so purposefully utilitarian, and often wonder how they so fully miss the mark when it comes to being family-friendly. Church buildings could be more thoughtfully organized around the needs of families and help improve the experience for everyone. Improvements could include:

Unisex parenting rooms, with a separate, sealed area to change a diaper (and contain the smell), lots of comfy chairs for adults, and enough room for older children to comfortably accompany their parents. What if these included a quiet area for nursing, feeding, and sleeping, a cool-down area for those screamers, and a toddler area, including kids seating and small toys and books?Cubbies or lockers for families to store items. A coat rack with a shelf up top is not sufficient when you are carrying a diaper bag, a car seat or baby carrier, a bag with supplies for your callings, and a household’s winter coats, hats, and mittens. Meetinghouses need more thoughtful storage options for families.Quiet Toys and Book Check-Out. We know families need these items and they need variety. Why not invest in quality toys and books that can be checked out and shared amongst families?Snack and Water Bottle Holders. Let’s be real: even with 2-hour church, kids are given sacrament snacks. I’m not sure how to prevent crackers being ground into the carpet (unless we put down wipeable mats), but we could certainly provide set areas to contain water bottles and snacks. This way, they aren’t toppling over pews and kids aren’t tripping over them on floors.Family Pews/Seating Areas. I know pews are cost-effective and efficient, but they are not conducive to nursing, rocking, or holding a child. They do not accommodate car seats or bouncy seats. They offer no practical way to contain toys or books. First of all, let’s offer more comfortable seating that allows parents to care for and soothe children in the chapel. Next, let’s consider where diaper bags and toys can be more easily stored and accessed without chaos and stress. Let’s be realistic about how long children can sit and why they are often making a run for it down the chapel aisles. No matter how much we want to create mini, reverent adults, they still have important developmental needs. Let’s stop ignoring them in sacrament meeting.A Children’s Speaker. Yes, kids get primary, but let’s include them more fully in sacrament meeting. What if each time we had a 5 minute talk geared toward the concerns and interests of kids? What if it followed teaching best practices and even engaged them in movement or response?

Would these changes be simple or inexpensive? No. But the LDS Church has billions of dollars. Their chapels can and should be better for families. What would you add?

Posted July 17, 2026 ByGuest Post

Guest post by Millie

I have a hard time acknowledging anger in my body. It is hard for me to say, “I am angry,” let alone “I am angry about Botox.” But reader, I am angry about cosmetic Botox. And I am angry about GLP-1s. I am not angry about all people in all circumstances using these products, but I am angry that I can’t watch 30 minutes of Jeopardy without being asked, over and over again, to buy them. Part of it is probably my algorithm and my memberships — my streaming services know I am a woman in my 30s. Therefore, my algorithms believe they know what to sell me: anxiety about my aging, my size, and skin. I am angry about the frequency with which I am being sold these things. I am pissed about the loudness, the visibility. I have started being less online to avoid Instagram ads, watching more DVDs at home to avoid streaming.

But it’s not just online. I think about Botox anytime I go home to Utah. Driving I-15, it’s hard to avoid a billboard selling you plastic surgery. As the quintessential example, never forget Howland Plastic Surgery’s billboard from a few years ago. The infamous billboard sported a photo of the Salt Lake City temple mid-renovation: “God is remodeling His temple. Isn’t it time to remodel yours?”

While researchers aren’t able to precisely pinpoint the rate of cosmetic surgeries in Utah (because “not all cosmetic surgery procedures are performed by ASPS member surgeons or board-certified cosmetic surgeons”*), we do know that Utah “ranks 10th nationally for the number of active American Society of Plastic Surgeons members.” Almost 20 years ago, Salt Lake City was ranked first in plastic surgeons per capita, according to Forbes. We know that Utah’s culture of “high levels of conformity, competitiveness, and social comparison,” compounds body image pressures. We know that many girls and women feel body image pressure (though it may not always be visible pressure) to spend “significant time, energy, and money on their appearances.” A recent study from BYU faculty found that their sample of LDS men and women had far higher-than national averages for cosmetic surgery, “especially among wealthy participants” and “those with religious salience.”

Reader, I doubt all of this is news. You probably know about Utah’s plastic surgery stats and The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. And I bet you are also seeing GLP-1 commercials online and plastic surgery billboards if you drive in Salt Lake or Utah County. But are we talking about it enough? Are we worrying enough? Do we notice how many times these ads come across our timelines or pop up on our daily commutes anymore? American culture is obsessed with women and girls remaining eternally youthful and thin (heroin chic is back). Women are simultaneously expected to be self-denying mothers and expensive sex symbols. American media is constantly asking for our money, our attention, and our minds. None of this is new — but doesn’t it feel louder?

Personally, I am tired. I am tired of American media telling me that my body is not acceptable, but that I can buy my way to acceptable, to attractive, to thin, to young. I am genuinely disappointed that Whitney Leavitt partnered with Weight Watchers. I am pissed that when Heather Gay was asked about her weight loss at the beginning of season five of Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, her response was, “Ozempic, baby!” and “Thank god for modern medicine.” In other words, her answer was, Of course I chose thinness. You don’t need to work towards body neutrality or body positivity anymore. You can just buy the solution.

And it’s exhausting when you don’t want to buy the solution and the solution will not stop selling itself to you.

I wasn’t surprised by Heather Gay’s response (she’s made herself rich on cosmetic Botox and filler), and I shouldn’t have been surprised about Whitney Leavitt either. In season 1 of The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, one of Whitney’s big plot arcs focused on whether she wanted to do a partnership (brand deal) with a sex toy company and talk about a vibrator on her main socials. Whitney decided to do it because money is money, but she also branded her decision as a feminist-y one: women should get off and women should be able to talk about getting off. I agree that women should be able to get off and talk about it, but this activist slant only came up because they offered her a lot of money first. I’m sure Weight Watchers did too. So, a part of this is, Sure, girl boss, get that money! But part of this should also be: media representation matters. Representation shows others what’s possible, what’s normal, what’s expected, and what’s accepted. We are sending and receiving messages constantly by what we put online and what the media and brands we consume. Influencers are selling us products, but they are also selling us dissatisfaction with our bodies and lives so that a brand can offer us a solution. Our online lives have only made us more tailored targets to sell to.

When I was ten years old, I did not yet know that my body wasn’t good enough. I might have lasted longer in that kid-body-image bubble than many of my girl-peers and I have the feeling that I got by longer than most maintaining a decent relationship with my body. But in my teens and early 20s, maintaining an okay relationship between me and my body took constant investment. I had to be careful, monitoring my thoughts and reactions to my own body, to the media I consumed, to the ways others talked about their bodies. I am not saying this to toot my own horn. I am saying, it is difficult to underscore how common and widespread body image issues are, especially among women. Maybe even more especially among Utah women. So, so many of the women in my life have or have had body image issues. These are brilliant, funny, delightful women. They also happen to be beautiful women, but no amount of beauty can keep you safe from an evolving, expensive standard of American Feminine Beauty.

I worry about daughters. I worry about little girls.

I worry about the little girls who see their mothers investing in not-aging. Why are we not aging? Why can’t we age? What does it do when we all accept this as a fact for women’s bodies? We know a mother’s body image serves as a model for how her daughters will think about their own. 

Younger women are also engaging in cosmetic surgery at higher and higher numbers. In 2024, 1.6% of cosmetic surgery in the United States “were performed on people aged 19 and under.” There is a growing trend of Utah parents gifting “breast augmentation surgeries to their daughters when they graduate from high school.”

I recently watched Cléo from 5 to 7, a 1961 French New Wave film by Agnès Varda. The film focuses on a Parisian pop singer, Cléo, who is flighty, theatrical, impulsive, and anxious as she waits for a phone call from her doctor. She may have stomach cancer. The film follows Cléo through her evening as she waits for this life-altering news. We watch Cléo (whose real name is Flora, short for Florence, we learn near the end, and Cléo, short for Cleopatra, is her stage name) shed layers as she spends time with various people in her life. In the beginning, the people she surrounds herself with all heighten her anxiety — her housekeeper, her quasi-boyfriend, her musical partners who tease her about feeling “sick again” as she wears a white feathery robe and lounges in her bed full of kittens. All of these people are invested in Cléo as a pop star, not a person.

Cléo is beautiful, but she is also dramatic and annoying until about halfway through the film. Then, she takes off her blond up-do hair piece (she had a short bob the whole time!), changes into a black dress, and walks around Paris for a bit. She goes to a café and gets humbled when she puts one of her songs on the jukebox and no one cares. Then she spends some time with a childhood friend, who we first meet as a nude artist model.

Cléo walks into an art studio where students are working on sculptures, working from a live model of a woman. The model stands with one hand holding the other behind her back and her head tilted slightly to the left. When she sees Cléo, she greets her and says, just a minute. Then the teacher tells the model her shift is over and hands her some cash. Cleo’s friend pulls her dress over her head and they walk out the door. Cléo asks her friend how she can handle being seen, naked, in front of so many people. Her friend shrugs and doesn’t seem to think it’s a big deal. She tells Cléo, “My body makes me happy, not proud.” And Cléo continues her journey and changes and becomes Flora/Florence and less annoying and it’s a great movie.

But that one line hasn’t left my head: “My body makes me happy, not proud.”

When I was 11 or so, my mother told me I was getting braces. I was surprised and more than a little taken aback at this news. In fact, I was offended. I was offended because the news was delivered to me as a matter-of-course. My mom wasn’t surprised. She’d probably long-known my teeth should be fixed. But I, still in my kid-body, had never seen my own teeth that way. My body, my mouth, was just a way I lived in the world. My teeth helped me eat food I liked. My teeth brought me textures and flavors; I experienced life, in part, through my teeth. My teeth didn’t make me confident or proud. My teeth made me happy.

As an adult, I understand that my mom had no idea this news would upset or offend me. She was trying to do what was best for my health and she was willing to pour a good pool of our family resources into fixing my teeth.

But as a kid, I was just mad that my bubble had been burst. I now could also see my teeth as snaggly, unacceptable, something to be fixed. I saw my teeth as other people had always seen them, and they no longer made me happy.

I also recently watched Mrs. Doubtfire. Mrs. Doubtfire is a movie that I had not seen since I was a kid, but it was pretty much exactly as I remembered it — except that Sally Fields, the mother, is completely valid in being fed up with Robin Williams as her life partner. But the thing that actually shocked me about the film? Sally Field’s face.

Sally Fields is beautiful in Mrs. Doubtfire. She also really, really looks 47 years old. Her face reminded me of my mom’s face when I was a teenager. As a young person, I loved watching my mom’s crow’s feet deepen as she smiled. I thought those eye-wrinkles were one of the prettiest parts of her face.

I couldn’t stop pointing out Sally Field’s face to my partner whenever she was back on screen. I just couldn’t get over it.

Because here’s the thing: when was the last time I watched a contemporary, mainstream, big-budget Hollywood movie where an actress in her 40s looked like a woman in her 40s? Anne Hathaway had just gone viral for crediting her youthful appearance to a “natural face lift” (pulling two tiny braids really tight!). But the fact is, Anne Hathaway at 43 pretty much has the same face she did 20 years ago, when The Devil Wears Prada first came out. But in 1993’s Mrs. Doubtfire, Sally Fields is beautiful, and she looks 47. Watching the film, I was genuinely startled to realize how unusual it felt to see her face on my screen.

I am not trying to make you, reader, feel bad. If you have had cosmetic Botox, or a boob job, or a tummy tuck, I am not judging you. If you are considering these things, I am not judging you. I know and love many women that have done these things and will do these things. I am, however, asking that we collectively think a little more deeply about what these decisions mean. Our priorities are not neutral.

You do you feminism focuses on empowering individual women to make individual choices and that can be great (we are not all the same, we do not all need or want the same things), but our actions also have consequences, and not just on us. Moreover, our decisions about our appearances, our bodies, and our beauty, never occur in a vacuum. A physical modification may make you feel more attractive or confident but decisions about our appearance are always happening at the intersection of the internal (self-expression) and the external (being perceived by others in the way we want to be.) Feeling better after cosmetic Botox could never be a purely internal, personal desire (“I feel good in myself”). Our understandings about our faces, our skin, our wrinkles are a mix of our own feelings and values and the culture we live in. So our options (and not all women have the same options) and our decisions (what to do with our options) can never exist in isolation. We live in a culture that presents, promotes, and rewards certain choices, and our choices ripple out. 

I do not think all cosmetic work is bad for all women. I’m so grateful trans women have access to high-quality procedures that quiet their gender dysmorphia. I am glad women with disabilities and women who have survived cancer have plastic surgery options. I am glad that someone whose health will be benefited by weight loss has more options than they did five years ago. I am not even always against a cis, non-disabled woman getting a procedure that helps her like part of her body more. I am less concerned about an individual engaging in cosmetic procedures. I am more concerned about the impacts that are coming with the growth, normalization, and widespread use of cosmetic procedures. I want women to feel good about ourselves, but I also want women to take a good, hard look at our resources — our energy, our time, our attention, and our money.

Because this is also a conversation about resources, about value. Who can afford cosmetic Botox, a boob job, and the really good hair extensions? Which women can access better treatment, more soft power (even bigger brand deals!) because of their appearance? Despite inflation and general economic difficulty in the US post-Covid, we have seen huge surges in Botox, cosmetic surgery, and weight loss medication (which often goes hand-in-hand with surgery — as people seek cosmetic surgery after weight loss). In 2022, cosmetic surgery procedures had grown 19.0% from pre-Pandemic levels; minimally invasive procedures, botox and filler, had increased by more than 70.0%. In 2022, patients spent more than $26 billion on “both minimally invasive and surgical procedures” in the US.

How much of our resources go into our bodies — into monitoring, maintaining, or building our confidence? This is a topic that has long been discussed in women’s studies courses around diet and disordered eating. If you are hungry, or constantly monitoring your food and weight, you don’t have energy to think about revolution. 

Do the amount of resources we give to our maintaining/changing our appearances align with our values about how much these things matter to us? If we spent less of our time, energy, and money on fixing our bodies that often don’t need to be fixed, we could make more change, more revolution, more art — couldn’t we?

Shouldn’t we?

*Note: all quoted info, unless otherwise cited, comes from “Cosmetic Surgery and Body Image Among Utah Women: A 2025 Update” a research brief from the Utah Women and Leadership Project, an amazing initiative whose funding was slashed by the Utah legislature earlier this year. Many other sources I hyperlink here are also cited in this 2025 Update.

 Millie is a writer and editor. She loves reading, watching movies, long walks, and every cat she’s ever met.

Posted July 16, 2026 ByEditor

For Exponent II’s Winter 2027 contest issue, we ask writers and artists to examine inheritance. An inheritance is something we are given, passed down from those before us. We inherit our families, our DNA, and the color of our eyes. We are born into stories and cultures, trauma and anxiety, healing and humor. What have you inherited?

We want to see what’s in the cardboard boxes beneath your bed. What makes up your family archive? What have you cherished, reworked, or rejected?

What was lost before you and what do you strive to leave behind? What inheritances do you choose to pass on–to whom and why?

Our editors are seeking personal essays, fiction, Sabbath pastorals, theology pitches, poems, and visual art from women and gender minorities across the Mormon spectrum. Read our full guidelines and submit to editor@exponentii.org by October 15, 2026.

Photo by Laura Fuhrman on Unsplash

Posted July 16, 2026 ByApril Young-Bennett

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah invite us into a turbulent century of return, rebuilding, and reimagining identity after exile. Persian kings send three Israelite leaders; Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah; to their ancestral homeland of Jerusalem to rebuild their community after generations of displacement and captivity. These men sometimes rise to the moment with vision and resolve and at other times, act out with shockingly horrible behavior. Their experiences invite us to consider how we rebuild after loss, how we stay focused on the work God calls us to do, and how we resist the temptation to “other” those who are different from us.

Table of ContentsEzra and Nehemiah: 2 books that are 1 book, 3 main characters, 100 yearsThe Lord inspires people of all faiths.Rebuilding like ZerubbabelStaying focused like NehemiahThe Good Hand of GodDemonizing Marriage to “Strange Wives”Ezra and Nehemiah: 2 books that are 1 book, 3 main characters, 100 years

It is best to read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as one. Traditionally, they were one book until the 1400s AD, when they were separated in the Hebrew Bible.

— John B. MacDonald, 10 Minutes with Ezra and Nehemiah, Living Theology, July 12, 2024

This book-split-into-two has three main characters: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel (how come he didn’t get a book named for him?) and covers about 100 years of time.

537 BCKing Cyrus of Persia sends Zerubbabel to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple.458 BCKing Artaxerxes of Persia sends Ezra to Jerusalem to teach Mosaic law.445 BCKing Artaxerxes of Persia sends Nehemiah to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls.

(See Nehemiah 1-5, Reading the Bible in a Year-2020, Sept. 26, 2020; Ezra 1-2, 7; Nehemiah 2)

Books of Ezra-Nehemiah Summary by the Bible Project explains how these two books work together and summarizes the similar stories of the books’ three main characters.

The Lord inspires people of all faiths.

Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, is remembered as a king who was “tolerant and magnanimous as well as brave and daring” and writings from both his Israelite and Greek subjects speak highly of him. (Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, Encyclopedia Brittanica) The Biblical Book of Ezra describes how, after Persia conquered Babylonia, the Lord inspired the Persian king, Cyrus, to send a group of Jews to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple.

Cyrus the Great and the Hebrews, Jean Fouquet, c. 1475

1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.

4 And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.

Ezra 1:1-4

How do you see the Lord working through men and women around you, including people who are not members of the church? What does this suggest to you about the Lord and His work?Rebuilding like Zerubbabel

After reading all the references to Zerubbabel in the Bible, which were more than I expected, I learned that he was governor of Judah when the Jews came back from 70 years of exile in Babylon. During their captivity Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, destroyed the original temple that Solomon built. God later stirred the new king of Persia, Cyrus, to send the Jewish exiles back with an order to give them all they needed to build a new temple in Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was among the men who began rebuilding the foundation. But opposition to the work was fierce, and their enemies were relentless until they persuaded the next king of Persia to stop the rebuilding.  So the temple project was left unfinished and abandoned (Ezra 4:21, 24).The Jews moved on with their lives and concentrated on their own homes. But 17 years later, God raised up the prophets Zechariah and Haggai to exhort the people to start rebuilding. Haggai said: “Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses while this house lies in ruins? … each of you busies himself with his own house.” (Haggai 1:4, 9). The prophets’ words stirred the governor Zerubbabel and the priest Joshua, who both began rebuilding the temple.

…During this time, Zechariah spoke those words that I’ve been clinging to: “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts.” (Zechariah 4:6) We do not accomplish great things because of our great skills but rather because of our dependence on God. God’s power is made perfect in our weakness. The rebuilding of the temple was not by their might or their power but by the Spirit of God who worked for them and in them. God just needed their willingness.

Then God said, “Who are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain. And he shall bring forward the top stone amid shouts of ‘Grace, grace to it.. The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall complete it” (Zechariah 4:7,9).

What looked like a mountain — the task of rebuilding the temple with enemies trying to stop them – was nothing to God. Just as Jesus told the disciples that faith could move mountains (Matthew 17:20), God was telling Zerubbabel that he too could move mountains. Rebuilding the temple may have seemed impossible in Zerubbabel’s strength, but with God’s Spirit, his own hands would complete it. What a great word from God. He will establish the work of our hands (Psalm 138:8).

— Vaneetha Risner, Not by Might, Nor by Power: Lessons from Zerubbabel’s Faith, Aug 22, 2024

What does it mean to rely on God’s Spirit rather than might and power?What spiritual “ruins” in our lives might God be inviting us to rebuild?Staying focused like Nehemiah

Another benevolent Persian king in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah was Artaxerxes, who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem on separate missions. Nehemiah sought to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, while Ezra was sent to teach the law of Moses to his people.

According to Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf,

Nehemiah of the Old Testament is a great example of staying focused and committed to an important task.

— Dieter F. Uchtdorf, We Are Doing a Great Work and Cannot Come Down, April 2009

6 So built we the wall; and all the wall was joined together unto the half thereof: for the people had a mind to work.

Nehemiah 4:6

What do you think it means to have “a mind to work”?  

But as the walls of the city began to rise, opposition intensified. Nehemiah’s enemies threatened, conspired, and ridiculed. Their threats were very real, and they grew so intimidating that Nehemiah confessed, “They all made us afraid.” In spite of the danger and the ever-present threat of invasion, the work progressed. It was a time of stress, for every builder “had his sword girded by his side, and so builded.”

As the work continued, Nehemiah’s enemies became more desperate. Four times they entreated him to leave the safety of the city and meet with them under the pretense of resolving the conflict, but Nehemiah knew that their intent was to do him harm. Each time they approached him, he responded with the same answer: “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down.”

What a remarkable response! With that clear and unchanging purpose of heart and mind, with that great resolve, the walls of Jerusalem rose until they were rebuilt in an astonishing 52 days.

Nehemiah refused to allow distractions to prevent him from doing what the Lord wanted him to do.

— Dieter F. Uchtdorf, We Are Doing a Great Work and Cannot Come Down, April 2009

What “great work” are you doing right now — in your family, community, or inner life?What forms of distraction or discouragement do you encounter when you try to do great work?

17 They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon.

Nehemiah 4:17

Do you ever feel like you’re building a wall with one hand and protecting yourself by wielding a weapon in the other hand?What keeps you motivated when life becomes this complicated?The Good Hand of God

Both Ezra and Nehemiah expressed that “the good hand of God” was upon them as they worked on their missions.

When the good hand of God was upon Ezra:

6 This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him.

Ezra 7:6

9 For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.

10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

Ezra 7:9-10

27 ¶ Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem:

28 And hath extended mercy unto me before the king, and his counsellors, and before all the king’s mighty princes. And I was strengthened as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me.

Ezra 7:27-28

When the good hand of God was upon Nehemiah:

8 And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.

Nehemiah 2:8

Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king’s words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.

Nehemiah 2:18

What might it mean to have “the good hand of … God upon [you]” as you do His work?How can we prepare our hearts to receive the good hand of God upon us?How have you seen His hand in your efforts to serve Him?Demonizing Marriage to “Strange Wives”

A less admirable similarity between Ezra and Nehemiah is their disturbing mutual preoccupation with multi-ethnic and interfaith marriage.

Under Nehemiah’s leadership, the Israelites pledge not to marry non-Israelites (Nehemiah 10:29-30), ban Ammonites and Moabites from their congregations (Nehemiah 13:1), and banish people of mixed ethnicity (Nehemiah 13:3). Later, Nehemiah discovers that some Jewish men have married women of other ethnicities and have bilingual children (Nehemiah 13:23-24). He reacts by cursing these married men, beating some of them, pulling their hair, and chasing one of them away (Nehemiah 13:25-28). And he describes this whole temper tantrum in first-person narrative with no shame whatsover about his behavior!

When Ezra learns that Israelites have married people of other ethnic groups, he orders all the Israelite men who have married non-Israelite women to abandon their wives and children, and they do it! (Ezra 10:1-3, 10-12)

What. On. Earth.

The Come Follow Me manual handles this troublesome content by skipping it entirely. Ezra 9 and 10 and Nehemiah 10 and 13, the offensive chapters in question, are excluded completely from the manual and are not among the required readings for the curriculum. I think this is an excellent solution. These stories are not edifying and conflict with modern doctrine and policy, so the spiritual value in studying them may be slim.

On the other hand, if your class appreciates delving into difficult texts and is open to the suggestion that ancient prophets and leaders like Ezra and Nehemiah may have gotten some things wrong, there may be lessons to be learned from these chapters if they are treated as cautionary tales. Also, as an instructor, you may want to study this content even if you don’t intend to teach it, so you are prepared with a response if an overachiever in your class goes the extra mile, reads the full books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and brings up their treatment of multi-ethnic and interfaith families in their questions or comments.

How do the actions of Ezra and Nehemiah in these chapters contrast with their behavior in the other chapters we have studied?What does Nehemiah’s temper tantrum tell us about his own character?Why do you think Ezra chose to punish women and children for the actions of their husbands and fathers?

While Ezra and Nehemiah are united with each other in their disdain for multi-ethnic and interfaith marriage, they do not represent the only voices on the subject in scripture. Other books of the Bible present an alternate perspective.

A lot of other texts in the Hebrew Bible do not object to intermarriage in the way that Ezra and Nehemiah do. For example, in Numbers, Moses is depicted as having married a woman from Cush, and his sister Miriam is punished for criticizing this union (Num 11; cf. Exod 2). Indeed, some other texts within the Hebrew Bible are more positive about those depicted as foreign. For example Yahweh points out Jonah’s small-mindedness when it comes to his compassion for all human and animal life (Jonah 4:11).

— Katherine E. Southwood Intermarriage in Ezra-Nehemiah Bible Odyssey, March 4, 2021

I would add that Ruth, for whom one of the books of scripture in the Bible is named, was a Moabite woman who married an Israelite man, Boaz, and they became ancestors to Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus himself was a mixed Moabite/Israelite, like the mixed ethnicity children Ezra and Nehemiah vilified.

Can you think of any other scriptures that present an alternate perspective from Ezra and Nehemiah’s point of view?

The mandate to marry within your own ethnicity enforced by Ezra and Nehemiah has had some unfortunate echoes in the history of the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), where the temple/priesthood ban precluded temple marriage wi people of African descent until 1978. However, I think it is important to emphasize that current church doctrine and policy has no restrictions on mixed ethnicity marriage, and past policies should not be used to justify discrimination.

The LDS Church continues to encourage church members to marry other members, but most modern church leaders do not go so far as to encourage married men to divorce their wives over religious differences like Ezra did. A recent article in the Liahona by an LDS man discusses the importance of maintaining an interfaith marriage through mutual respect.

I’m grateful every day for a loving wife who, although she believes differently than I do, honors and respects both of our journeys.

— Anonymous, Maintaining Hope and Keeping Your Marriage Strong If Your Spouse Leaves the Church, Liahona, April 2021

Brigham Young University, owned and operated by the LDS Church, provides the following counsel to interfaith couples:

Commit to your marriage. Settle once and for all that you will stand by your spouse despite religious differences. Put aside your differences and decide to love each other even though you disagree about religion. Build a sacred sense of commitment in your marriage. If you see your marriage as something sacred and each other as individuals consecrated to each other, your marriage relationship will grow deeper and stronger.

— Strengthening Interfaith Marriage, Forever Families, BYU

Alexiana Fry explains Nehemiah and Ezra’s strong attitudes as a trauma reaction after years in captivity.

As a response to their trauma, when the Judahites return to the land, they have a newfound zeal to refine and “purify” their communal identity, broken and shattered in the great loss of trauma. Ezra and Nehemiah recall the events that follow this painful reestablishment of a nation, with a newfound understanding of how to obey and follow the covenant in light of their trauma. In doing so, they create distinct boundaries that displace and “other” those amongst them who are carrying out what are, to them, “detestable practices (Ezra 9:1),” a common use of rhetoric when engaged in “othering.” Ezra goes further, pointing out the specific group with these different practices—foreign women married to Israelite male leaders. Ezra assumes they are still worshipping the gods from their original homelands, thus being a temptation to once again turn from YHWH and endanger the covenant that they had, already, experienced the consequences of breaking. Being both foreign and a woman in this context means to already be othered through gender, religion, and nationality. Yet, the returnees are not only othering those who are already “other,” but also those among them not forced into exile. We do not hear from the foreign women in the text as their priestly husbands obey, adhering to the community leader’s interpretation of how to move forward post-trauma. The women and their offspring are sent away. (Ezra 10:3).

— Alexiana Fry Trauma and the “Other,” For Better or Worse May 27, 2020

However, while trauma may have led to these attitudes, Fry points out that it does not excuse them.

The learned and modeled xenophobia through the process of scapegoating continues to distract individuals from the difficult emotions and seeming senselessness that come with trauma. Dominant culture supremacy against those seen as “other”, most specifically the ideology of white supremacy in the United States, to show itself without ceasing through not just individuals, but also through systems and policies. We must recognize and resist the many ways in which “othering” sees bodies, particularly, bodies of color, as dispensable. This discrimination is multiplicative, and while the pandemic has all of us “in the same storm, we are not all in the same boat.”

While considering “othering” in the face of trauma is not novel, it is necessary to note that trauma can give one explanation for the behavior, but not license. Uriah Kim gives a timely reminder that “unless we see ourselves in the Other and see the Other in ourselves, we are in danger of repeating the habit of making enemies of our neighbors, representing the Other negatively in order to sanction our use of violence against them.”[5] In recalling the texts of the Old Testament, the guiding force and command of loving one’s neighbor should remind us of the posture needed in order to act as we reject the ever-constant mechanism of “othering,” and to consider the invitation to see ourselves as truly connected.

— Alexiana Fry Trauma and the “Other,” For Better or Worse May 27, 2020

Why is scapegoating a poor coping mechanism for trauma?What are some examples of “othering” we may witness in our modern communities?How can we see the “other” in ourselves?

Posted July 15, 2026 ByRose

On July 9, 2026, Wade Christofferson pleaded guilty in federal court to coercing and enticing a minor. He admitted to sexually abusing two girls—both younger than ten—in Ohio and Utah. According to federal prosecutors, the abuse included approximately twenty hands-on assaults, sexually explicit video calls and handwritten messages using secret code words for children’s bodies. He now faces at least ten years and as much as life in prison.

But the most disturbing question is not only what Wade Christofferson did, but what leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apparently knew—and what they chose to do with that knowledge.

Decades before Christofferson’s arrest, girls reportedly told LDS bishops that he had sexually abused them or behaved in frighteningly inappropriate ways. Kristin Dunbar Mautz says she reported Christofferson to her bishop as a young teenager after he assaulted her during sleepovers. At the time, Christofferson was serving as a counselor in that bishop’s own bishopric. Mautz waited for him to be removed. According to her account, he remained in the calling for months. Another family later reported an attempted assault, and the bishop reportedly said he would “take care of it.”

What did “taking care of it” mean?

It apparently did not mean immediately calling the police. It did not mean warning parents. It did not mean telling families that a man accused by multiple girls of sexual misconduct had been hosting children in his home. It meant handling the matter through priesthood channels.

By 1996, several girls had reportedly came forward. A stake disciplinary council excommunicated Christofferson for child sexual abuse, according to a former high council member and multiple survivors or their relatives. Yet there is no public evidence that church leaders notified law enforcement. Congregation members were not told the real reason for the discipline. Instead, a rumor circulated that Christofferson had been involved in an affair with an adult woman. The former high council member says he had sworn to keep the proceedings secret—a promise he now regrets because speaking sooner might have prevented decades of additional abuse.

That silence protected Wade Christofferson far more effectively than it protected any child.

When a Crime Becomes a “Repentance Process”

LDS leaders routinely describe sexual abuse in the language of sin, confession, forgiveness and repentance. But child sexual abuse is not merely a private sin to be resolved between a perpetrator, his bishop, and God. It is a violent crime. It creates victims, endangers other children, and requires investigation by trained civil authorities. Priest-penitent privilege should never become a mechanism for transforming evidence of a crime into an ecclesiastical secret.

 The privilege mentality—the belief that disclosures made within priesthood offices must remain inside the institution—appears throughout this story. Reports were routed through bishops and a disciplinary council. Participants were expected to remain silent. The congregation was kept uninformed. No public warning followed Christofferson when he moved to another state.

Many of the early disclosures reportedly came from children and their parents—not from Christofferson privately confessing his own conduct. A victim reporting abuse to a bishop is not the predator’s privileged confession. Her disclosure should never be hidden in a confidential “repentance process” file that leaves the accused man free while the child carries the secret and more children are endangered.

Christofferson seems to have understood the protection religious confidentiality might offer. Shortly before his arrest, investigators found that he had searched online for the phrase “In Ohio do clergy have to report child abuse confessions.” After admitting his conduct to the father of one of the girls, Christofferson reportedly texted that he would meet with his bishop to begin the “repentance process.”

The sequence is chilling: search for the reporting loophole, then go to the bishop. 

Meetings with clergy should not function as a escape from accountability.

Excommunicated, Readmitted and Returned to Leadership

Christofferson’s excommunication did not last long. The Church has confirmed that he was readmitted in 1997 after what it called its established “disciplinary and confession processes.” He then moved to Ohio, returned to full participation and served in Church leadership. Investigative reporting indicates that he served in three bishoprics and additional leadership positions between 2006 and 2025.

Floodlit, an independent organization documenting sexual abuse in Mormon communities, reports that an annotation may initially have been placed on Christofferson’s membership record to prevent him from serving with children—but was later removed.  Only the First Presidency can remove annotations. The LDS Church should disclose when Christofferson’s record annotation was removed and who authorized the removal.

Restoring religious membership must never mean restoring the access of a sex offender to vulernable populations in a church, yet that is precisely what apparently happened. Christofferson returned not merely as a member, but as a trusted priesthood leader. Members in Ohio were reportedly not warned about his history. The institution possessed information that ordinary parents did not. The institution therefore had power that parents did not—the power to restrict him, watch him, warn others and prevent access. 

What Did D. Todd Christofferson Know?

Wade Christofferson is the brother of  President D. Todd Christofferson, now one of the Church’s highest-ranking leaders. A Church spokesperson has said President Christofferson was told around 2020 that his brother had a history of abusing children decades earlier. The spokesperson said he did not contact law enforcement because he respected the wishes of the now-adult victims. The Church says he later reported a recent allegation involving a minor.

LDS leaders and members need to learn that respecting a survivor should not require leaving an accused serial predator in Church membership or leadership without a meaningful safeguarding response. Leaders could have restricted Christofferson’s access to children, reviewed his membership record, alerted appropriate safeguarding personnel, and ensured that local leaders were aware of the risk. The Church has not adequately explained why those protections apparently failed. 

LDS leaders and members and needs to know that child sexual abusers rarely stop at one victim. Many pedophiles will abuse scores of children if they are not stopped. LDS members should be taught what grooming looks like, what consent is, the importance of reporting sexual abuse, and the importance of believing and supporting survivors of abuse.  

The issue regarding President Todd Christofferson is not simply a question about what one apostle or First Presidency member knew. It is a question about an entire hierarchy in which information moves upward while accountability rarely moves outward.

Without commenting on this specific case, a child welfare expert, Laurieann Thorpe of the group Prevent Child Abuse Utah, said: “Any time we prioritize the safety of adults over children, that’s a failure … I think any time that a child is hurt and it isn’t reported and adults knew about it, it’s a failure.”

The Church Has Used This Shield Before

The concerns surrounding Christofferson do not exist in isolation. An Associated Press investigation documented another case in which Church risk-management officials discouraged an Idaho bishop from testifying about a former bishop’s confession, citing clergy-penitent privilege. Without that testimony, prosecutors dropped sexual-abuse charges. The Church also offered the survivor and her mother money in exchange for a confidentiality agreement.

In the Arizona case involving Paul Adams, Church attorneys similarly argued that clergy-penitent privilege excused bishops from reporting his confession that he was sexually abusing his children. The abuse continued for years. An appellate court later ruled that serious questions remained about whether LDS doctrine actually required the confession to be withheld.

These cases reveal the danger of treating secrecy as a sacred principle while treating child protection as a matter of legal discretion.

The Church publicly declares that reports of abuse should never be dismissed, that leaders should fulfill their legal reporting obligations, and that protecting vulnerable people is its first responsibility. But protecting children requires more than doing whatever the law minimally demands. A church claiming divine moral authority should not ask, “Are we legally required to report?” It should ask, “What action will make children safest?”

Repentance Without Accountability Is Not Repentance

Last fall, Linda Hamilton wrote an outstanding article about Wade Christofferson, which I highly recommend. She articulates critical issues about this situation that deserve careful consideration by every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The lives of some of my closest family members and friends have been deeply impacted by perpetrators like Wade Christofferson, who were protected by LDS leaders. I have written about this issue here and here. I maintain that the LDS Church’s current policies have created a rape culture than make it unsafe for children. Although most bishops are not perpetrators, some are, and no church leader should have access to children without the supervision of another trusted person.

Because of the policies and practices that top LDS Church leaders have adopted, the Church is complicit in the sexual abuse by people like Wade Christofferson. LDS leaders know children are being abused by some Church members and ecclesiastical leaders. They know some bishops and youth leaders are perpetrators. They know that children would be better protected if the abuse were reported to authorities, and yet they refuse to report it unless required by the law.

If the Church cares anything about its children, it will:

Stop all one-on-one worthiness interviews with children.



Require all leaders to report abuse to authorities.



Stop allowing perpetrators to work with children and youth.



Stop removing annotations from perpetrators’ membership records.



Require background checks for anyone who works with vulnerable populations.
Stop stating that all leaders are called by God.

This is the bare minimum the Church should do. Its refusal to do so shows that the LDS Church cares more about aggrandizing money, power, and institutional control than it cares about protecting its children.  

The Church needs to stop saying it has the gold standard for protecting children. It does not.

Call to Action

We need to speak up loudly and articulately about this issue until the LDS Church decides to do the right thing and protect its children. We can also:  Tell a friend about this issue. Write a letter to the editor. Urge LDS family members to accompany their children to worthiness interviews. Call our political representatives and ask that clergy become mandated reporters of sexual abuse if our states or provinces do not require them to do so.

Currently, four U.S. states require clergy to report all sexual abuse.  Some regions of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have enacted laws requiring clergy to report all abuse. Much more needs to be done internationally.

Sadly, although child welfare advocates know that priest/penitent endangers victims, the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have successfully lobbied U.S. lawmakers to maintain this exemption. An Associated Press investigation found that in the past,  the LDS Church, its attorneys and influential Latter-day Saint lawmakers opposed or helped block efforts to narrow the privilege in California, Arizona, Utah, Missouri and New Mexico. Former California Sen. Jerry Hill specifically identified Catholic and LDS opposition as helping defeat his 2019 reporting bill.

Clergy–penitent privilege endangers children because it allows religious leaders to conceal reports of sexual abuse instead of alerting authorities who are trained to investigate and protect victims. A child’s safety should never depend on whether an abuser disclosed the harm in a sanctuary, confessional, bishop’s office, or pastoral counseling session. When confidentiality is treated as more sacred than a child’s life and well-being, institutions can shield perpetrators, delay intervention, and leave other children exposed to continued abuse. Religious freedom must not become legal cover for silence. No doctrine, reputation, or pastoral relationship should outweigh the urgent duty to protect a vulnerable child.

 There is nothing in LDS theology that asserts that the clergy/penitent relationship should trump the protection of vulnerable people from sexual abuse. 

No confidentiality oath should bind a Church leader to silence when a child in danger. No disciplinary council should substitute for a criminal investigation. No claim of forgiveness should erase the history of a pedophile in LDS membership records.

Jesus placed children at the center of his ministry. The modern Church must start putting children first—by choosing their safety and well-being over institutional reputation and the protection of leaders. That is what Jesus would do.

 

Thanks to Floodlit.org for the photo of Wade Christofferson. If you have the means, please consider donating to them. They are doing critical work in documenting convicted sex abuse members and leaders in the LDS Church and need financial assistance to obtain court records.

Inserted photo of President D. Todd Christofferson from lds.org. Photo of Wade Christofferson from Butler County Jail.

Posted July 15, 2026 ByLinda Hamilton

Dear Emma, your house is haunted. What remains of the Nauvoo Mansion House is filled with ghosts. But you probably already know that. It’s impossible for a man to build a home on lies and control and not have its nightmares stalk the halls long after he’s gone.

Image from Ensign Peak Foundation. This shows the house with the hotel, before it collapsed.

A young missionary wearing a pioneer dress and a smile tells us to concentrate on how we feel as we go through the tour of your home. Lining up on the street in Old Nauvoo though, all I feel is out of place. My research brought me here, to this site of sacred pilgrimage. But my Mormonism and you make me bear witness to secrets I sometimes wish I’d never learned.

I see the front staircase, brightly painted in white and black. The buzzing starts in my head, the spirits gathering. Was this where you threw Eliza Snow down the stairs, if such a story is true? I don’t condone violence but I also can’t comprehend the betrayal of a best friend secretly marrying your husband. How it must’ve pushed you to your breaking point to find their love letters in his breast pocket. Or seen a young girl with his gold watch. I take the stairs slowly, allowing each sensation to settle inside me. Whatever these stairs saw, pain riddled every step.

Image taken by blogger

That front room–is that where you placed the Partridge sisters’ hands into Joseph’s so he could be sealed to them with your coerced blessing? The room is stale, so devoid of life. Speaking of rooms, did you have to walk every day past “Room 1,” the room where Joseph took Melissa Lott? Where he forced her? Because there is no true consent in patriarchal polygamy. My body aches with fear of seeing that room. Thank goodness the missionaries share the hotel portion of the home collapsed over a century ago. Somehow I get the feeling that was you, Emma.

In the top bedroom I hear it. A distinct knock at the window. Someone wants in. My heart races. It could be my imagination. It could be you. Or Joseph, who you’ve locked out. I don’t know if you’ve forgiven him yet. Or ever.

The upstairs should feel joyful, once the home to children and family. Instead, it’s heavy, thick enough to choke on. I sense we’re not alone as we follow the missionaries through the rooms. You’re watching us, maybe wondering why we keep coming back here to plaster over your story and whitewash your messiness. We play stick pull and dip candles where women were coerced into marrying an already married man. We tell stories of happy times and dance to a fiddle on the grounds were men lied, cheated, and manipulated. There are pageants held where fourteen year old children discovered their marriage wasn’t just for eternity and that they were the sexual property of a man many years their senior.

I’m know you were happy here too, Emma. It wasn’t all doom and gloom. But I wonder how it can all balance out–the good memories over the destructive ones. Memories that burn so brightly they continue to pass on to us as generational trauma. Your house is haunted by the many ghosts of a life lived and a foundational violence.

I leave the house unsettled. Unmoored. I stare at the foundation left from the hotel and wonder what horrors it once upheld. How many girls, women, widows, married women were raped in its walls to satisfy Joseph’s need for power and control? How many fights and betrayals did those window’s watch when you realized your husband had been so catastrophically unfaithful and dared to call it godly? Did the structure simply collapse into itself, unable to hold up the heavy sorrows weighing it down?

My dear Emma. You were so brave. You were so human. You deserved better. I mourn and rejoice with you. But I also feel your ghosts, humming in the walls of a Mansion House on the banks of the Mississippi River. A place trapped in time and trauma. Nauvoo may have been the city that Joseph loved, but I can never return. I can’t bear to throw one more handful of dirt on the burial mound.

*This post was adapted from a post originally shared on my Substack.*

Posted July 14, 2026 ByEditor

This is a Letter From the Editor introducing the Summer 2026 issue of the Exponent II magazine. This issue is expected to arrive in mailboxes at the beginning of September.

Dear Reader,

There are two barely visible handprints on a green electrical box a couple of miles from my house. For years, I’ve woken up early in the morning to jog on the unkempt trail outside my door. I run to an unfinished road by a field where starlings and two great blue herons gather, across streets and past houses and over sidewalk cracks raised by tree roots, until, winded and sweaty, I pause. Pressing my hands against an electrical box, I breathe, stretching my calves for a moment before taking the same route home.

The oils on my hands leave lasting ovals where my fingers and palms touch the metal. Almost every morning, through every season, I run to that box and the visible memory of all the previous mornings. Occasionally, I run a different route, but I’m always pulled back to those handprints on the green paint. There is something precious about placing my hands on the handprints of my past selves. 

I didn’t even consider this quiet, simple thing I do every morning to be a ritual until I immersed myself in this Summer 2026 issue of Exponent II. The words and art in this issue show me that ritual can be created and adapted in response to our needs, desires, griefs, and healing. This issue teaches me about the diverse ways we as humans find meaning through action: moving our bodies, investigating our minds, and interacting with and noticing the world around us.

Within these pages, you will find personal stories about finding healing rituals through leaving the familiar and discovering different cultures around the world. Our authors share their experiences with the naked saunas of Austria, the Hindu death rituals of India, and the oceans of Hawaii. 

Some authors create their own rituals. In “Embodied,” Kristy Money creates dream rituals to connect to her sexuality. The raw imagery of Erin Matheson Ritchie’s poem, “Thy Faith Hath Made Thee,” beautifully describes her pa’s last few moments and funeral rituals. And in our flannel board feature, Lindsay Denton invites us to consider, through her experiences, how to create rituals in our own lives. 

Some pieces find new relationships with ancient rituals. In “A Daughter, In Whom God is Well Pleased,” Shannon Soper reflects on her baptism, deriving new meaning from her childhood experience. In “Smoke & Ash,” Heather Sundahl plays with the ancient smudging ritual by “both honoring tradition and transgressing it” in her work as a therapist. And in the essay “Rituals,” Rocio Cisneros grieves the loss of her Mexican heritage as the daughter of a Mexican immigrant, but recognizes that when her “mother crossed the border . . . She crossed with traditions ingrained in every fiber of her being.”

Rituals make us just as much as we make them. At their best, rituals can connect us to ourselves, to each other, to the divine, and to the earth. And at their worst, as we see in Christine’s essay, “Loved: From a Distance,” our unexamined practices can also wound us and those we love. The cover art of this issue, the basket holding an array of objects like a broken altar, depicts the daily, repetitive aspects of a human’s life. What is in your basket? On your altar? In your soul? Are they placed with intention?

May this Exponent II issue guide you to the rituals that charm, delight, and heal you. May it uncover truths within yourself and bring intention into your life. As I ran the familiar route each morning while compiling this issue, the truth of my desire to leave some sort of handprint on the world was uncovered. May the art, essays, poems, and features within the pages of this ritual issue touch and transform you as they have me.

Warmly,
Natasha

To support the work of Mormon feminists and hold their artwork and words in your hands, subscribe to the quarterly print magazine.

Summer 2026 Cover

Photo by Joanna Kosinska on Unsplash

Posted July 14, 2026 ByKatie Ludlow Rich

This platform often addresses structural inequality and paths toward individual empowerment, but less often the financial knowledge and resources that enable greater independence.

Many women and gender minorities reach adulthood without having learned how to negotiate compensation, invest, plan for retirement, build credit, protect themselves financially, or talk candidly about money within families and relationships. We may have inherited messages that money was impolite to discuss, that someone else would manage the finances, or that wanting greater financial security was selfish or materialistic.

Add to that the layer of teachings many Mormon women received that encouraged them to be stay-at-home moms, to get an education “just in case,” but not to pursue a career they could use to support themselves or their families, and to volunteer their time and talents without ever monetizing them.

Money and Mormon Feminism

Exponent II invites submissions for the “Money and Mormon Feminism” blog series on financial feminism: how women and gender minorities can better understand money, challenge the financial systems and expectations that limit us, and build more secure futures.

Inspired in part by books such as Tori Dunlap’s Financial Feminist, Rachel Rodgers We Should All Be Millionaires, and Simran Kaur’s Friends That Invest, this series will explore the money scripts we have inherited, the financial realities we have encountered, and the knowledge we wish we had gained earlier.

We welcome personal essays, interviews, practical guides, book or resource recommendations, and contributions from professionals. Possible topics include:

How family, culture, religion, gender expectations, or economic circumstances shaped your relationship with moneyLearning to negotiate compensation, ask for a raise, price your work, or pursue entrepreneurshipBeginning to save, invest, plan for retirement, or manage debtTalking honestly about money with a spouse, partner, parent, child, or friendNavigating finances after divorce, widowhood, caregiving, disability, career interruption, coming out as queer, or a change in faithWhat to consider about personal finances as a single adultUnderstanding the long-term costs of unpaid labor and unequal earningsProtecting yourself financially within a marriage or committed relationshipRecovering from financial mistakes, secrecy, shame, or abuseWhat you wish you had understood about money when you were youngerFinancial books, tools, practices, or conversations that changed your life

We are particularly interested in concrete, accessible contributions that help readers take the next step.
You do not need to be a financial expert to submit, though we welcome posts from experts. We value honest accounts of learning, changing, starting over, and asking questions that once felt intimidating. We also recognize that financial choices are shaped by income, race, class, disability, family structure, access to education, and other circumstances. Not every strategy is available to every person, and submissions should avoid treating wealth or financial stability as simple measures of discipline or personal worth.

Series submission due by September 14, 2026

To contribute to the series, submit a guest post via the usual Exponent II blog guest-post submission portal by September 14. Please indicate that your submission is intended for the Financial Feminism Blog Series.

Let’s talk about what we were not prepared for, what we wish we had known, and what we can begin doing differently now.

Want to support Exponent II’s efforts to host these important conversations? Subscribe to Exponent II’s quarterly magazine or make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!

Posted July 13, 2026 ByKaylee

The church (in the United States at least) recently held a fast for religious liberty. I just wrote a lesson plan about “righteous” kings in the Bible who do not believe in religious liberty. They used some brutal techniques to institute religious reform. For instance, King Asa killed anyone who would not seek the Lord (2 Chr 15:13). He also deposed his mother because she made an idol in a grove. The idol was cut down, crushed, and burned (2 Chr 15:16).

The first time I read the Old Testament as an adult was after I’d internalized Kevin Barney’s classic article “How to Worship Our Mother in Heaven (Without Getting Excommunicated)”. I’d learned to see the groves/Asherah/sacred poles as a possible symbol for the feminine divine. In some parts of the Old Testament, groves and high places are holy. (See Gen 21:33, Prov 8:2, and 2 Chr 1:3). In others, they are condemned. (See 1 Kings 16:33, Eze 6:3, and 2 Kings 15:3-4). The bible is inconsistent about whether or not these artifacts and places are holy. So I’m wary when the author of Chronicles claims that the kings destroying these religious sites are “righteous”. The anonymous chronicler is not an unbiased source of information, so his judgments should be questioned. Just because the scriptures say something is good, doesn’t mean it is good. When one is skeptical of the surface-level interpretation of a text, one is said to be using a hermeneutic of suspicion. It can be emotionally difficult to read scripture this way. I think I did a reasonable job of introducing the concept in a faith-positive manner in my lesson plan, but I want to talk about it further.

There was a recent guest post about how the Come Follow Me manual leaves out the story of the female prophet Huldah. Blogger April Young-Bennet wrote about the same thing four years ago. They both champion the idea that Huldah provides an authoritative prophetic voice that ought to be followed by the righteous. I appreciate the work they have done to increase Huldah’s visibility to church members. I absolutely agree with them that Huldah’s story should be included in the curriculum. However, it’s also possible to understand Huldah as a mistress of the patriarchy—a woman being played by the powerful men in charge of the church and state. From comments on those posts and on social media, a number of readers already understand Huldah’s story in this way. A few linked to some fascinating works: a book chapter titled “Huldah’s Long Shadow” by Julie M. Smithi and a BYU forum address by Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker called “What Did Josiah Reform? The Earlier Religion of Israel”ii iii.

At least one of our readers admitted to being troubled by the idea of Josiah eliminating worship of female deity. It’s sobering to consider how thoroughly other Israelite practices have been removed from the written records. Josiah must have had incredible control over the messaging. Feminist theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza acknowledges that a “hermeneutics of suspicion is so threatening because it challenges and demystifies the structures of domination that are inscribed in the biblical text, in our experience, and in contemporary contexts of interpretation.”iv It is a particularly useful technique for marginalized people to elucidate ways the dominant culture shapes our thinking. Thousands of years later, these reforms still influence a massive percentage of the world’s population. It’s worthwhile to try to understand how these power structures work.

In the book of Chronicles, all of the “righteous” kings destroyed religious artifacts. Judah’s King Hezekiah planned a huge Passover feast. He invited tribes from Israel. It was fine that the celebration was held late, and that not everyone who participated had cleansed themselves like they were supposed to. This sounds beautifully inclusive. The Passover was even celebrated for a whole extra week because Hezekiah provided thousands of bulls and sheep for the offerings. But there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Before the Passover celebrations, the incense altars in Jerusalem were thrown into the Wadi Kidron (2 Chr 30:14). After the celebrations and before going home, everyone who was there went and destroyed the other altars and groves and high places throughout the kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 31:1). People who lived in Jerusalem were commanded to give to the temple (2 Chr 31:4). They contributed so much that the excess had to be piled up in heaps. Hezekiah died very wealthy.

Half a century later, twelve-year-old King Josiah was busy tearing down the altars, poles, and high places that had been rebuilt by the kings in between. Religion was used as a tool of the state. Josiah continued to use it that way. When Josiah had the temple repaired, the high priest Hilkiah found a book of the law of the Lord (2 Chr 34:14). Many biblical scholars think that the found book is Deuteronomy, or maybe an early version of the Pentateuch.v It seems strange to me that everyone just forgot about this book, even with all the volatility of state religion. It makes sense to me that religious reform may involve editing or adding scripture. Joseph Smith did both of those things. The books of Kings and Chronicles both say that, after the book discovered in the temple was read to King Josiah, he rent his clothes in mourning because the people had not been following the word of the Lord as written. One can interpret this as an act of political theater. If people believe the surface level story, those people can be controlled by instructing them to follow the rules in the book. Naturally, there’s going to be some resistance to such reforms. If part of what Josiah was changing was the worship of female deity, it would be particularly beneficial to have a female figurehead endorsing the changes. Huldah can be understood as playing that role.

I do love how the scriptures say she repeated the phrase “thus saith the Lord” so many times (2 Chr 34:23-27). However, her words were recorded by someone with an interest in preserving Josiah’s reforms. They could point to her and say “Look! This female prophet says we should do away with worshiping that (definitely false!) goddess.”

Turning the scriptures upside-down like this can be distressing the first time you see it. I don’t have easy answers for how to work through it. As my faith has evolved, I’ve ended up with a greater conviction of the wisdom of Jesus’ teachings, even though I’m more skeptical of institutional churches. Reading the scriptures like I did here bolsters my conviction that my skepticism is wise. Forcing beliefs on others is not righteous. I appreciate that our current church leaders are concerned about religious freedom, although I don’t love the political connotations that phrase currently has. While I absolutely value religious freedom, I find that valuing religious freedom is encompassed by two bigger principles: “love your neighbor” and “love your enemy”.

iSmith, Julie M. “Huldah’s Long Shadow” A Dream, a Rock, and a Pillar of Fire: Reading 1 Nephi 1, edited by Adam S. Miller, Maxwell Institute Publications, 2017, p. 1-16. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/2

iiBarker, Margaret “What Did Josiah Reform? The Earlier Religion of Israel”, BYU devotional address given on May 6, 2003. Audio recording: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/margaret-barker/josiah-reform-earlier-religion-israel/

iiiBarker, Margaret “What Did Josiah Reform?”, Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, edited by Jo Ann H. Seely; David Rolph Seely; and John W. Welch, Maxwell Institute Publications, 2004, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/39

ivSchüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Orbis Books, 2001, p.175.

vMichael David Coogan, et al. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 5th ed., New York, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 660.

Image of an Asherah figurine from Wikimedia Commons

Posted July 12, 2026 ByNatasha Rogers

Join us on Zoom for this free writing workshop! Whether you are a novice or an expert, gather with other Mormon feminists and learn more about the craft of writing.

Workshop details: 

Date/Time: Tuesday, July 14th at 6 p.m. MT / 8 p.m. EST.
Sign-up here: http://exponentii.org/workshops
Title: “Using Creativity and Play In Revision” with Elaine Turner

We have all heard that writing is a process, a series of steps that are not linear but can be engaged with throughout the creation of our piece. But I prefer thinking of Anne Lamott’s model for writing: the “down draft” (getting ideas on paper), the “up draft” (fixing it up), and finally the “dental draft,” where you “check every tooth to see if it’s loose, or cramped or decayed.” In this workshop, we will discuss a little bit about what the down draft should be (crappy), and various strategies for fixing it up. Then we will discuss a few specific dental draft ideas that might help pinpoint moves in revision. We can generate a piece to try these strategies out on, or writers can bring a piece they’d like to play with.  

We hope to see you there!