A few days ago I saw a familiar phrase on LDS.org, “Is this a woman’s church?” I recognized it as the title of a past FairMormon Conference address by Sharon Eubank, Director of LDS Charities. Clicking the link brought me to the cover article in this month’s Ensign, “Being a Woman: An Eternal Perspective,” and sure enough it was based on that August 8, 2014 FairMormon talk.
Eubank’s original 2014 presentation received a rare standing ovation. It was covered in local media[1] and somewhat in the blogosphere[2]. Reactions were generally favorable.
My familiarity with the original address made reading the Ensign article a little jarring. Several of my favorite bits were changed or missing, kind of like watching a movie adaptation of a book. Very little of the article is verbatim from the original talk. Many changes were simply a matter of summation (chopping 8,600+ words to less than 2,500). Some, though, reflect a definite change in meaning and/or tone.
First off, the Ensign article alters one of the most memorable lines of Eubank’s talk. A woman in Ghana was talking to a member of the Relief Society board and proclaiming, “This is a woman’s church!” The woman explained, “your husband is in the Priesthood room and he is teaching our husbands that the culture of the church does not allow for them to beat their wives and their children” (emphasis added). The Ensign article softens the woman’s powerful expression, “your husband is in the next room teaching our husbands that they must treat their wives and children with kindness and gentleness” (emphasis added). While the meaning is similar, the impact is quite different.[3]
Eubank originally spoke of Heavenly Mother. In our roles as women, she stated we are “a reflection of the Divine Feminine,” and described her thoughts on those associated attributes and responsibilities. All explicit references to female deity were eliminated in the Ensign article. The existence of a Mother in Heaven is only implied through mention of “divine parents.”
In our role as daughters, Eubank originally said, “I have Divine Parents… I have the right, as their daughter, to communicate with them through prayer and revelation and the Holy Ghost” (emphasis added). The Ensign article alters this. “I have divine parents and have the right, as a daughter, to communicate with Heavenly Father through prayer and to receive revelation through the Holy Ghost” (emphasis added). This change is likely a matter of consistency with the church’s position that worship is to be directed only towards Heavenly Father.
Concerning our roles as mothers, Eubank originally emphasized Adam calling Eve “mother of all living” prior to having children. She argued:
Whether you have children in this life or not, when you have your endowment and you are given the name, you are an inheritor of that… [F]or somebody like me in the gospel, fifty years old, single, no children, and all that I’ve gone through emotionally to get to this point in my life, the gospel gives me the inherent title to be a mother.
Eubank’s comments are along the same vein as Sheri Dew’s claim, “As daughters of our Heavenly Father, and as daughters of Eve, we are all mothers and we have always been mothers.” In the Ensign article, there is no mention of the endowment or a right to be called mother by association with Eve. Instead, the “promise of eternal family is made to those whose marriages are sealed in the temple and by the Holy Spirit of Promise.”[4] Quite a shift for someone with experience as a single woman in this church.
At the FairMormon conference, Eubank was blunt about women having negative experiences in the church.
I have to be candid that there are lots of people who would not agree that this is a church for women. And I think that the reason they feel that way is because of a disconnect that comes between our doctrine and sometimes the way that we practice our doctrine. And there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of disagreement and people have had painful experiences. There is just stuff that is plain wrong. And there are consequences, too. It would be absurd for me to stand up here and say that our political and our traditional and our cultural practices always live up to our doctrine. I’m not even sure that we fully grasp our doctrine. And to be honest, in my opinion, we can improve in many, many ways. We should and I think we will.
The Ensign article brings in parts of that argument, but the recognition of painful experiences is eliminated.
I believe that misunderstandings regarding women’s roles arise when there is a disconnect between the doctrine and the practice of the doctrine. However, through continuing revelation from God to His prophets and to us through the Holy Ghost, we can continue to recognize and eliminate most misunderstandings that surface.
There are several other changes I could mention, but for a talk that garnered a standing ovation what does it mean? Bluntness and honesty is what made the original so effective. Eubank must have been involved in rewriting the piece, so the changes were intentional. Is it a matter of correction (as in the communication with deity)? Is it a reflection of changing views? A friend said that changing a talk this much for different audiences feels disingenuous. At the very least, the elimination of Heavenly Mother in an article about eternal perspectives on womanhood is curious.
I have to wonder if some of those changes were willingly sacrificed in order to preserve other aspects of Eubank’s message. Her suggestions to church members essentially remain the same, and they aren’t typical of what you find in church magazines:
- Keep the big picture in mind – becoming “obsessed with one question or one practice” often distracts us from bigger issues in the world. Consider, “What is the best use of my energies?” Work to make things better, but keep faith in the meantime. Church practices will likely be more fair and equitable in the future, but recognize and value the “large foundational stones” we already possess.
- Stay faithful in face of opposition – Opposition strengthens us and makes us more flexible. Brigham Young declared the Salt Lake Valley the destined home of the saints prior to understanding the difficulties inherent in settling there. Just because Saints had hardships in that environment doesn’t mean Brigham was wrong in declaring, “This is the place.” We understand very little about what God “is doing with men and women and priesthood,” but “the Lord is content to teach us as we are able, as we grow, as we ask.”
- Seek the Holy Ghost – when questions arise, approach them “with a commitment to unity and respect.” Gentleness and meekness is required of all church members (including leaders) as “the means of feeling the Holy Ghost and exercising righteous influence.”
Questions
- What are your thoughts when you compare the FairMormon talk with the Ensign article?
- What do you think are the reasons for the modifications? Correction? Changing views? Compromise?
- Do you see the changes as minor? Why or why not?
- Do you find it significant that this talk appeared as the cover article in the Ensign?
[1] Church News, Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune.
[2] Commentary at Religion News Service, Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, and Mormanity, among others.
[3] The Church News article covering the original FairMormon talk quoted the beating comment, so it doesn’t appear the church believes the phrase was offensive.
[4] “Are we not all mothers?” I guess not.
Wheat & Tares 
My initial reaction to this is that the original talk suffered “death by committee.”
By profession, I’m the editorial director of a magazine company, so I’m somewhat familiar with the process. Here’s my guess:
1) Editor is always looking for great content. Editor hears of a talk that got a standing ovation by a faithful LDS woman. Begins investigating if the Ensign can obtain rights to republish.
2)Due to space constraints, has room for 1/3 of original text. Decides to cut, as the Ensign never serializes anything.
3)Editorial board objects to graphic mention of physical abuse
4) Corrolation committee objects to reference to divine feminine and Heavenly Mother
5)General Authority advisor objects to statements acknowledging the marginalization of women and implications that church culture fails to meet doctrinal expectations.
In the OP, Mary Ann assumes “Eubank must have been involved with rewriting the piece” but I have my doubts. The Church legal department is absolutely draconian.
The standard “content submission” contract states, in part “you hereby grant to IRI a fully-paid, royalty-free, irrevocable… unrestricted license to use your Submission throughout the universe in perpetuity, and to reproduce, modify, adapt, edit, publish, create derivative works… and to otherwise use and allow others to use your Submission in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.”
Wow.
The Ensign article states “From an address given at the FairMormon Conference in Provo, Utah, USA, on August 8, 2014.”
Would it be so hard to include the word ‘modified’ or ‘edited’ in that sentence?
Other Clark, thanks for the background. My assumption is based on the knowledge that Eubank has a fairly public position in the church, so changing her ideas without permission (or knowledge) seems unlikely. Like I said, very little is verbatim from the original address. The overall voice still sounds like her, in spite of changes. I suppose a skillful editor could pull that off.
It puts her in a nasty spot if she wasn’t aware of how they used her work. The original FairMormon address is easily found on YouTube and in print. The original address was a defense of the church, arguing it’s not as restrictive and conservative as has been portrayed in media. These edits (done with or without her permission) undermine that claim.
I quit reading the Ensign for the same reasons I don’t read beauty magazines. Short, unrealistic, airbrushed, fluffy, articles that present only part of the story.
“Throughout the universe”?!
Wow is right.
I had to see that “throughout the universe” thing to believe it. Sure enough…
Click to access printed-content-submission-agreement.pdf
I feel horrible for Eubank if she didn’t know about the changes. She’s obligated to defend them publicly either way.
I’ve had an article published in the Ensign that was similarly edited. Anything that hints of anything that may appear to raise concerns or appear doctrinally questionable is removed–to such an extreme that some articles seem shallow and less than honest at times. I understand the editors’ goals to produce a magazine that appeals to all people in the Church but sometimes a bit more candor–and honesty–would make the magazine seem more relatable to the readers.
The irony of all this is that the Ensign is a U.S.-only publication (foreign countries get the Liahona, including an English version) so it only needs to apply to Mormons living in the US.
All of which makes editorial decisions, like “The author lives in Utah, USA” seem so childish. What Mormon living in the US doesn’t know that Utah is one of the fifty states?
@ Chris in #7: Did you have an opportunity to review the edited version of the article prior to printing? Did you have any say in what was cut?
Brings to mind Ron Poelman’s conference talk a few decades back. Had to bring him back to read a redacted version from the tabernacle pulpit, as if he were giving that version in conference.
Other Clark – the Ensign and Liahona have a lot more overlap (they changed the formatting of the Ensign a few years back to enable that). It doesn’t have all the content, since the Liahona also contains material from the New Era and Friend. As the cover article, Eubank’s talk is in both the Ensign and Liahona this month.
Paul, I was wondering how long it’d take for someone to bring up Poelman. Yes, this does call to mind that incident.
Chris, thanks for sharing your experience. Like others asked, did you get to see the final version of the article prior to publication?
TheOtherClark: Here in the UK we’ve always received the exact same Ensign as the USA rather than the English Liahona.
The Other Clark – we get the Ensign here in the UK, as we do all the separate church magazines, as they do in other English-speaking nations I am sure. So it isn’t limited to the US. We get a UK news inset in the centre of the Ensign.
Insert not inset… And MaceFace beat me to it.
Interesting post MaryAnn. Thank you.
Your comment #3
“It puts her in a nasty spot if she wasn’t aware of how they used her work. The original FairMormon address is easily found on YouTube and in print. The original address was a defense of the church, arguing it’s not as restrictive and conservative as has been portrayed in media. These edits (done with or without her permission) undermine that claim.”
Indeed it does, and only adds ammunition to the “disconnect that comes between our doctrine and sometimes the way that we practice our doctrine. And there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of disagreement and people have had painful experiences.” cut from the original…
What else can we expect from the same folks who Photoshop sleeves onto little girls and angels?
What got left out? Integrity.
That the church routinely edits and and alters presentations/speeches like this should come as no surprise. It is beyond absurd that the church that claims to hold truth most dear and that claims to have the “most true book” on earth repeatedly alters the truth of things to fit their version of “truthiness”. I’ve seen it so often, I’m neither surprised nor disappointed. The church as an organization continues to hold its members to a higher standard of truth than it’s willing to hold to itself. Any organization with the remotest sense of Christ’s teachings and the spirit of truth would do better.
I agree that this is an article that suffered death by a thousand cuts and probably is quite disheartening to the author. The whole correlation project, in which doctrinal consistency and the avoidance of controversy trumps all else, leads to bland material.
Why are we still pretending that there is a Mormon doctrine, and that questions of what is doctrine can be authoritatively answered with yes or no? There are a variety of doctrinal possibilities that are constantly evolving, coming in and out of favor, with varying levels of scriptural, prophetic, and community support. A conversation about that would be fascinating and enriching. By sticking only to the most safe and banal topics, you suck out all life from the religion.
I’m de-lurking to say I’m glad this post was written, I was wondering if the bloggernacle would say anything.
I was livid when I read the article last week, it’s so different from the original talk. To my mind, the basic overview of the original talk was 1) here are some ways the Church supports women 2) here are some specific examples of how we could improve. The Ensign completely removed Part 2, and we end up with “yay, the church is just awesome for women!” Between this article and the clueless VT message, I’m just shaking my head. 15 years ago I would read the Ensign cover to cover faithfully every month, but it’s slowly been dumbed down to the point where I’m debating renewing my subscription.
Also, Other Clark: We get the Ensign in Canada too.
Thanks for the corrections. I knew the Ensign went to Canada. I didn’t realize it went to England.
Di, I left out the later changes just because it’d be too long, but it really hit hard how much optimism was killed by the edits. Eubank’s discussion on her positive experience in upper level church councils – claiming they took her dissenting opinions seriously and worked to create solutions everyone could feel good about – was discarded. Linda K Burton saying discussion was awesome, figuring out culture versus doctrine, working with leaders to create good solutions – the quote was edited down to imply we needed to just follow leaders. Questions we have seemed to be put in context of faltering testimonies rather than the original questioning of existing practices to see if there was room for improvement. Her excitement that leaders were actively seeking revelation to better understand and describe beliefs (never in the past would leaders have acknowledged that women operate with priesthood authority in church positions!) versus the article declaring that current leaders are just clarifying things we’ve known all along. The edits create tension within the piece itself.
What intrigues me is the edits in the context of just how available the original is. This is an essay that calls out to look for other essays by the author and the easiest to find is the original.
Surely the editors had that in mind? Or should have.
The entire thing fascinates me. Makes me think of Readers Digest editions of things.
When I read the Ensign article, I felt like the author was communicating some principles while holding back on maybe what she really felt. Reading between the lines I was impressed that she had significantly more to say. I wasn’t surprised when I found out the article was based on a more detailed talk.
This scenario gives me such mixed feelings. On one hand I’m grateful that some more progressive ideas are being eluded to in the Ensign. But when the article is whitewashed (kinda like the time they put sleeves on the angels on the Ensign cover), I feel powerless. Here our Sister gave a really amazing talk and the things that were changed communicate that those in power are uncomfortable with talk of Heavenly Mother as well as any acknowledgement that the current Church culture might be causing women pain. And since it’s men who are likely making these changes, I feel even more at their mercy for the voices of my Sisters to be heard.
So many desires. So many inspired ideas. So much faith. So much grief over our HM. And yet so little power.
You could send her an email and ask her about it.
Maybee, powerless is a good word for it.
Jeff, not a bad idea.
We get the Ensign in Australia as well
Stephen, so do you think it will ultimately draw more people to the 2014 version? If so, would they care about the discrepancies?
It was me – the friend who said it feels so disingenous. I read the Ensign article when it came out and was so thoroghly turned off by the hatchet job I couldn’t even think about it wo dwelling on negative feelings.
So maybe Eubanks’ original message really did stay with me.
I used to pour over old Improvement Eras, Relief Society Magazines and earlier Ensigns. The current Ensign has evolved into an Adult version of the Friend. This further confirms to me how dull it has become. Do the general authorities even look at it for personal reading?
This was used in my ward as the text for last week’s RS lesson. I had never read the original before – I loved it. A little bird told the rest of the sisters about the original and the lesson ended up being really good. So if nothing else the Ensign article may drive people to Eubank’s real message.
Having worked at Church magazines, I understand very well what happened here. Everything that goes into the magazines has to jump over many hurdles, including review by three Seventies, two Apostles, and a Correlation committee, not to mention the middle managers who operate on the principle of fear. The managing editors know very well what will cause trouble. My guess is that this talk was eviscerated before it ever got to the review stage.
The main problem here is that everything the Church publishes simply cannot be at all frank or honest about the Church. The Church, according to the Church, never makes a mistake and is always right. It has never caused problems for anyone. It also never apologizes, for anything. It is perfect. Haven’t you figured that out yet? This is the reality the Church wants us to believe it exists in. Unfortunately, it is fantasy. Although some Apostles may assure us that the Church and its leaders are not perfect, the Church will never publish anything specific to illustrate the point and help members understand this truth on a practical basis.
Mary Ann, I think it will draw people to the original.
I don’t think most will mind the editing. I also think most will appreciate the original.
JC — I think you hit a good point when you state the Ensign has evolved into an adult version of “The Friend.” — or a Readers Digest version of the gospel.
W — I really think that if you can’t look at it and see something that is useful for personal reading by leaders as well as everyone else and that is driven by fear — there appears to be a problem.
I wish I had a solution.
Superchicken, I’m glad to hear the Ensign article is doing some good at the ward and individual levels.
W, most of us have picked up on the church tending toward protecting it’s public image. The article still allows Eubank to say that church practices are not always ideal. The edits tend towards implying that this is the fault of individual members, but there are still statements that point to future improvement within the institution itself: “Our practices will continue to change in the Church as we learn to apply our doctrine in better and more perfect ways. I hope the next generation is even more fair and equal in its practice of the gospel.”
There’s an address on history.lds.org by Julie Beck about the process of getting Daughters in My Kingdom published. I find it interesting that she talks about being encouraged to circumvent the normal church process for this project. While I don’t find the end product of Daughters in My Kingdom to be all that different from anything else the church produces, it is interesting what Beck says about the editing process and branding.
The church’s obsession with branding feels very similar to the episode in the Old Testament with Aaron and the golden calf. In churning out these heavily edited, carefully crafted images of the ideal Latter Day Saint and its leaders (past and present), we’ve created our own false and impotent idols. It’s unfortuate that we’ve stripped away the genuiness of real stories (and talks like Eubank’s) that, in their original form, were quite powerful.
“We made the connection that if the men and women of the Church did not know or believe in our brand, then that could translate into a disenfranchisement of sorts…”
This is moving off topic, but this is one of the most fascinating things I’ve read in a while. Because this is exactly what has happened – in R.S. and beyond. Perhaps worrying about the church’s brand (ie. taking a chopsaw to articles like the one mentioned here) is less important that making space for the spirit to draw people to Christ?
I find that this leads to people losing interest in reading the Ensign–much like interest in The Readers Digest is falling.
An intriguing development and I’m not sure where it goes.