162: Maxine Hanks on Emma and the Organization of the Relief Society

Please consider supporting this podcast:

Links

Episode on Emma:
Emma and Joseph
Exonerating Emma

Women and Authority

Mormon Studies Initiative (Videos for Maxine’s conference should be available soon! )

Maxine’s interview on the Come Back podcast

Transcript

[00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy. I had planned this week to just repost the episode I recorded over 2 years ago on Emma Smith, since this is the week that we are studying Doctrine and Covenant Section 25, which is the revelation to Emma, and also commemorating the organization of the relief Society. But I actually was able to sit down with Maxine Hanks and have this amazing conversation discussing many of these things. That I found to be profound and so meaningful and useful. I hope you will love this conversation as much as I did. I will go ahead and post the, um, episodes I’ve done on Emma in the description box. So anyone who wants to watch those again will be able to. But I think this is much more meaningful this week. So thank you for joining us as we take this deep dive into the fascinating waters of the organization of the relief Society. Welcome to 132 Problems. I am so excited for this conversation with my friend Maxine Hanks, who I have so much respect and admiration for and so much appreciation for. So I, I have to first, well, I have to thank Maxine for coming, but before I’m gonna let her respond, I wanted to give a quick introduction. So Maxine is the author, and I guess the, um, you, uh, of this book Women and Authority, which is a profoundly important book. And it’s an anthology of many different voices that Maxine brought together, and, um, she might want to talk a little bit more about that. But this book was actually very important and sadly, in my estimation, Led to some excommunications. And Maxine was part of the September 6th in 1993, I believe. Six, well-known academics were purged from the church, were excommunicated. And then in the wake of that, there were more excommunications that followed, actually, by some accounts, thousands of other excommunications up and down the Wasatch Front. And, um, anyway, Maxine paid a very heavy price for bringing forward some new perspectives, I guess, in a, in a way resurrecting some old perspectives on women’s authority in the church. And, um, and since then, in what I think is just an amazing, um, Maxine, your. amazes me. 12 years ago, Maxine felt inspired to come back to the church, which she did. Since that time, she has served in the young women’s presidency. She currently serves as a gospel doctrine teacher, and she is continuing her academic work. And just this last, um, I guess when this airs, this will have been a week ago. Saturday, Saturday the 15th, Maxine put on a phenomenal conference that I felt so blessed to be able to attend. It was a symposium, symposium honoring, um, Claudia Bushman, who, uh, many people will recognize her name. Richard and Claudia Bushman have been an important institution in the LDS Church. And Claudia Bushman was the founder or one of the founders of Exponent 2, which was a reboot of the original women’s exponent, the Relief Society magazine. Only when Claudia did it, it was a little bit more counterculture than even when the original Relief Society began it. And so these are important stories of women’s empowerment, women’s voice. Voices and women’s struggle in our church. And I was so, um, just, I, I was thrilled by that, by that conference. And then the following day, on Sunday, there was a relief Society conference, which also in so many ways was wonderful. It was a worldwide broadcast, and we’ll talk about that. But I, it just seeing sort of the contrast between them and the fascinating story behind both of them. Made me reach out to Maxine, and I’m thrilled that despite all of the work that she put, um, I, I’m sure Maxine is exhausted after putting that conference together. And then also, I know that she’s very busy this week. Um, and I, I’m sorry, I’m giving a long introduction, and I’m gonna let you talk, Maxine. Also, our, our conference, when this airs, will have been yesterday. And Friday and Saturday, this will air on Sunday, but we are recording it before the conference, and Maxine and I are going to be together along with Cheryl Bruno on a panel on Emma Smith. And this is the week that we are studying, Section 25, the revelation to Emma in the, um, Come Follow me, and also the week honoring This, the, um, organization of the relief Society and also women’s, the, the month celebrating women. So all of these pieces came coming together made me think, I have to have a conversation with Maxine Hanks. So thank you so much for being here and I’m going to, going to go ahead and let you get a word in and add or correct anything I said, add to or correct.

[05:03] Maxine Hanks: That was great. That was a great introduction. I’m happy to be with here, uh, here with you, Michelle. I, I really like you and I, I appreciate the fact that you create, that you’ve been giving a needed feminist critique of polygamy. We were doing a lot of feminist critique of polygamy in the 1980s and 1990s, and there’s a real need for that. So I appreciate you. And in the In the 1990s, it wasn’t thousands of people, but it was dozens of people who were kind of called in and disciplined for work they were doing. But that brings up the central point that you’ve kind of made here about what you want to talk about today is this kind of difference or tension between what we have in the past, what we have today, and bringing those two together, you know, what the women’s exponent knew and what exponent 2 brought back. And then what I was bringing back with my book, we weren’t, we weren’t bringing forth anything new. We were just recovering, trying to recover what we had kind of forgotten and lost about women’s, uh, priesthood and authority and the mother in heaven. And so all of this relates to this kind of tension that I think you’re peeing on, which is that sometimes there’s a gap or a difference between what we used to do, what we used to know, and then what we know today. And how do we close that gap in a way that Recovers the really good positive, empowering true stuff from the past but doesn’t bring back the mistakes of the past and that also benefits from continuing revelation, the new and better things we’ve learned, but at the same time can somehow recover, um, things we’ve lost. And so I think it’s always been a kind of. Attention and a balancing act and a and a struggle within LDS history from the beginning to the present to figure out how do we hold on to the true stuff, the best stuff from the past, but also progress and improve and correct mistakes so that our current You know, situation can somehow benefit from the best of both the past and the ongoing continuing revelation. And so I think that’s, that’s kind of a central theme here and all of that that I think you mentioned.

[07:17] Michelle: Oh, I love that. I love that so much. I love the fact that when you wrote this um sort of scandalous book, right? For, for what, at least from the fallout from it. That what you were actually doing was mining the gold from the past. That’s, that’s such a profound insight. And I also, I love your insight about finding the best, finding the gold from each time period without getting too, um, hung up on the things that are less than, than gold, the things that we should be able to discard. So. So, I hadn’t talked to you about this before, and if you don’t want to talk about it, let me know. But I would love to just hear a little bit about your journey, about kind of the impact of, of your excommunication and kind of where you went, and, and then your, your journey coming back. I think it’s a fascinating story that, that I would love to hear more about.

[08:12] Maxine Hanks: Thanks. Well, and I did share a lot of that on the comeback podcast, but I can summarize it right here really quickly because I had to do within myself and my own journey in life, what I just described. I had to really sift and I think we all have to do this. I think this is what you’re doing. I think this is what your listeners are doing. This is what church historians and academic historians and feminists and members are doing and leaders are doing. We’re all sifting through. You know, the past and to figure out what was really worthwhile that we need to hold on to or we need to recover, and then what are we learning that’s new that is this really gonna correct mistakes and improve us, make us better, you know. And that’s basically what I did. I, I sifted through all the things that I thought were the problems, you know, like 132 problems with polygamy. I had to sift through LDS history and figure out, OK, what are the problems? What are the mistakes? And then I had to focus on what I thought the restoration had really gotten right. And so that was my process. All those years, both going through excommunication. The book, it wasn’t scandalous. It’s just that we had so much material in that book that we were recovering from the past that a lot of people weren’t aware of. It was groundbreaking, and we were covering so much that had been forgotten and buried in the past that it was new and people didn’t know how to deal with it. It was just really a lot of new information that people weren’t ready for. And so the problem was, It was good information, but we were just way ahead in our work as scholars and feminists from where church policy and current understanding was. And so we were, there was a gap. We were out of sync with where current church understanding as a whole church, you know, and church policy where that was in the late 80s and early 90s. And that’s, I’ll just mention that’s always a really important tension in our lives because we have our own personal path and then there’s the collective, the church, the community path. And they’re sometimes at different stages, you know, and we have to really appreciate and honor both, not neglect our own path, not stifle and prevent ourselves from learning and growing. But at the same time, we can’t expect the church, the whole church, everybody, everybody in the ward to be where we are. So we really need to give each other grace and recognize that we’re all on this journey and we’re in different places. And the group as a whole, the church has its journey. The church is on its faith journey and, and its developmental, you know, formation path due, and the church as a whole group is, is learning and growing. And so we really need to honor both because we need community, we need belonging, we need to be part of the group and yet honor each other’s individual paths and not try to shut each other down or punish each other for being working on different things. Or being at different stages in our path. And that’s what I’ve tried to do in my work. I really am a champion of honoring the individual journey, because I’m a chaplain as well. I’m a trained chaplain and a trained mediator, and I served at Holy Cross Chapel for 13 years as a volunteer chaplain. So I learned in my chaplaincy training that you’ve got to honor where people are and, and help them find their answers. And that’s ministry. That’s true ministry is when we create a safe space. For someone else to explore and do and find their work and find their answers, because if we’re imposing our journey and our answers and our stage onto somebody else, that’s not ministry. That’s not ministry. And so we need to create a safe space for each other to, to do our own work and know that what, where you’re at, Michelle, where, what you’re working on, it’s not where I’m at, but I honor where you’re at. And, and where you’re at does not define where I’m at. It’s, it’s not imposing on me. You’re, you’re on your journey and I honor your journey and you honor mine. And that’s what we need to learn. As lay ministers in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Sciences, to, to know how to do real ministry, which is to create a safe space for someone else to find their answers and just hold space for them so that they can find the answers within themselves. We don’t, we don’t receive revelation for each other. We don’t, I don’t have the answers for you. You don’t have the answers for me, but we can create safe space for each other. A safe place to explore those. And one last thing I’ll say about that is I love what President Nelson said in conference a couple of years ago when he articulated very clearly that church leaders have stewardship and responsibility for their callings. They receive revelation for their callings. They don’t receive revelation for the individual members’ lives, he said, we receive revelation for our own lives. And, and directly from God, and leaders receive revelation for their stewardship. And I really appreciated that he delineated that because that’s how we strike that balance of belonging and being in community and honoring all these different journeys of all these different people on the ward and stake and church, but at the same time honoring our own and not Not trying to impose ours on somebody else or shut theirs down and not letting the group shut our journey down. We really need to honor both and so I, I think that’s important. So that’s basically how I did it. I just went on a long journey to study ministry and early Christianity, and I had to just. I, I needed to sift through all the things that I thought were true and the, the things that I thought were mistakes, and then kind of come up with. Um, a more solid, deep kind of testimony. And that brought me back to the church because I found that there was far more that was actually true and solid about the LDS restoration, especially its 1st 15 to 20 years than I had realized. And so when I went off into ministry and into other churches and searching, I found that there was more that was true and solid with the LDS restoration than I had realized. And so it brought me back.

[14:18] Michelle: OK. There’s so much wisdom in everything you just said. I love it. I love, well, first of all, I just want to say, in a way, your testimony and mine are very in sync because that’s, that’s my same stance is, yes, we have messines. And we have challenges and problems and things that are hard to grapple with, but the good massively outweighs the bad, is, is my perspective. And the truth actually outweighs the error in, in my view. There’s so much there. And I love, yeah.

[14:51] Maxine Hanks: Yeah, there’s so the church is so much more true, solid, amazing, revolutionary. You know, empowering and inclusive and equalizing than people realize.

[15:04] Michelle: Yeah. OK. I love that I love how you said that. Yes. And I also love your, um, statement about that we all need to allow room for each other, but also the importance of that tension, because the tension can be so challenging. I know that there are, you, you know, like what I am doing isn’t, is adding to the tension, and I recognize that. And I certainly feel it. Um, and it’s, and it’s, it is a burden, and it is a challenge, and it is very, um, difficult and also painful to navigate, right? But, but I am hopeful that there, again, is more good than bad in that. Tension that I, that I recognize I’m contributing to, which is hard for me because I’m such a people pleaser by nature. It’s hard for me to have people mad at me, you know?

[15:53] Maxine Hanks: Yeah, it’s hard. It’s hard for all of us. We’ve really got to hold grace for each other. It was hard for my family when I was excommunicated. It was hard for members, so many members who admired me and kind of as a, I was a missionary. And I was a teacher at the Missionary Training Center. And a lot of people kind of put too much responsibility on me for their faith. You know, we’ve got to have our own testimony. People were disappointed when I left. And then when I came back in 2012, so many feminists and, and disillusioned members and lapsed members were really angry at me for going back. And we just can’t do that to each other. We can’t expect each other to be where we are. We need to just hold space for each other and love this magnificent journey that’s so diverse and that we learn from each other. Don’t, don’t shut it down, you know, just because somebody else has a different perspective or they’re in a different place in their journey doesn’t mean you have to agree with them or be there. And, and even if you’re holding space for them, you don’t have to agree with them. It’s just that you’re holding space and we can learn from each other and we don’t need to be afraid of each other.

[17:00] Michelle: I love that. You also, we also don’t need to be threatened by someone who says something different than we say, right? It’s OK to, to, that’s, that’s what we are. I’m the conference that will have been the past weekend when this airs, we’re really hoping, that’s an aspirational hope that everybody there can hold space for the other perspectives that are there. We’re really trying to create something where we are actively doing that. So, thank you for telling me that story. I have a question that I hope it’s OK to ask, but, um, Can you tell me when you wanted to come back, did you have to retract anything or go, you know, like, like, were there any requirements you had to go through to sort of unstate things you had stated that led to your excommunication?

[17:44] Maxine Hanks: No, not at, not at all. In fact, it was mind-blowing when I came back and I interviewed, and I had to also interview with the general authority. Leader to come back because I had been excommunicated for apostasy, reportedly, which it really wasn’t, but it was seen that way back then. Um I, I wasn’t asked to recant anything or take anything back at all. As a matter of fact, everybody, my high counsel, my state presidency, and the general authorities I talked to, what they were interested in was, tell us about your relationship with Christ and how has that been for you? And and they said, Tell us, tell us. I, I actually had two apostles ask me this. Tell us what it was that enabled you to come back and made you trust us again and come back. Because they said, they said, we’re really worried that so many people have lost trust in the church, and they wanted to know, they wanted to hear from me what my journey was and why God led me back and how they wanted to know how I was able to let go and heal from what had happened and to trust the leaders again.

[18:55] Michelle: That OK, I’m so glad I asked. That’s beautiful. I Oh my gosh, what does that make you think about excommunication though, right? Because it almost validates that maybe you shouldn’t have been excommunicated in the first place.

[19:09] Maxine Hanks: Well, that’s a whole other podcast. I, I loved my journey, and at that time, it was just where everybody was. It was where the individuals were. We were doing our thing. The church was in a different place. We couldn’t bridge it. We tried, we all tried. There was no bridging that conflict back then, so it just had to play out the way it did. But then things don’t stay the same. Things change. We all evolved. The church evolved, I evolved. So when I came back, I wasn’t returning back to anything. I was entering into a new relationship. The church was in a new place. I was in a new place. And I, um, I think that we’re in a stage this last 10 to 12 years longer. I’ve seen this going on, like I said, since Julie Beck and, and also since the Joseph Smith papers started. That’s when I really saw this starting to heal. Heal the rift between scholars, you know, and leaders. Um, Joseph Smith Papers has been this giant healing bridge, but I think that um what I’m seeing is things coming together in new ways, people working together in new ways they’ve never worked together before. And so, uh, you know, I, I, it’s, it’s just a whole different scenario these days. But what still happens with local leaders excommunicating people this last 10 years, it, it, it’s kind of leader roulette. It, what I’ve watched, I’ve watched friends get in trouble. I’ve been there for them. I’ve contacted their leaders. I’ve intervened. I’ve done everything I can. Uh, but it’s a local leader, you know, mostly, not always. But it’s, it’s about a particular leader who, who can’t deal with something and it becomes unresolvable. There’s no Ability to let Christ bridge that. And what I’ve seen over and over again is I’ve seen some of these be solved where both parties are willing to let Christ bridge that gap, and other scenarios where neither side or one side is not willing to to bridge that gap. And that’s why I made that little speech about how we’ve got to honor each other’s journeys and know that somebody else’s journey is not our responsibility. It’s we don’t have to conform to somebody else’s path or journey. Uh, the, the nature of the church is that it’s everybody. It’s all of the gifts. It’s all of the different unique. You know, souls all coming together for the collection, you know, the glory

[21:38] Michelle: of the kingdom,

[21:39] Maxine Hanks: right? The wholeness. Yeah. Yeah. And so I see those clashes as more about a particular leader who can’t deal with something, and one or both sides are not able to bridge that. And it’s tragic and it’s wrenching and it’s terrible, and I don’t support the excommunication of feminists and scholars. I think the only time church discipline should be used. I, and I think the doctrine of Covenant spells this out, if you read it closely, is when someone has been breaking laws, you know, abusing children or wives or breaking laws. I mean, then there’s cause for discipline. But doctrinal theological differences, no,

[22:21] Michelle: or historical differences, yes,

[22:22] Maxine Hanks: historical differences, arguments over our history is so complicated. We, we’re just all working on it. Nobody’s got the, the one clear true total answer. Our historical issues aren’t solved. We’re still working through them because the way that history works with the present is that we use our present knowledge and. tools to go back and reexamine history, and we see new things we haven’t seen before. So we have to keep going back and re-examining our history. And then what we learned from that then reshapes how we see things today. Look at what I’ve been talking about with women in authority and priesthood. It’s amazing how the more we discover from the past and excavate, the more it changes the present. So the past and the present are reflexive. They’re in this, they’re in this reflexive relationship together where they’re reshaping each other. And so we can’t get too uptight thinking that we’ve got it all figured out. And I love how President Nelson keeps telling us the restoration is ongoing. It’s not done. We’re in the middle of this. We’re still doing it. So people, you know, we’ve got to be patient with that and not. Jump to conclusions about somebody being so wrong and so, so, um, erroneous that they need to be shut down and set straight. Um, so we don’t have all the easy, simple answers to all this stuff. We’re all working through it together.

[23:43] Michelle: OK, yep, I agree, and I think it is so tragic when we view the church as such a positive good with so much truth to Take people out of it and the implications that has for generations. And we do that over a temporary disagreement. I, I think that, yeah, I hope that we can see that happen.

[24:04] Maxine Hanks: We do so much harm to each other when we negate each other and try to shut each other out and punish each other. When I came back, I had to meet with apostles, and I had to meet with state high council, and I had to meet with 3 different levels of leaders to come back. Not one of them judged me or questioned me about the past. In fact, I kept saying, well, don’t you want to talk about what happened in 1993? And they were like, no, why? We just wanna know, we just wanna know who you are today. Tell us about your, tell us about your relationship with God and with Christ. Tell us, and they kept saying, tell us what you know. Tell us about what you’ve learned about. The church and about women and priesthood and and how you were able to come back and why you came back. They just wanted to hear what I had to say on all levels. So I find it interesting that there might be members out there who judge me. I encountered a member last summer who was trying to shut me down, tell me I was bad and misled, and I was really shocked, you know, that hadn’t happened to me for a long time. Well, that was just a member, you know, who I encountered. The apostles, the state presidency, they didn’t take that attitude toward me. They were so appreciative and humble. I was blown away. They wanted to learn from me. They wanted to know what I knew. And I remember at one point I met with Sherry Du because I wanted to propose some books to, sorry, a book. I’m used to signature books. And she said, Maxine. You’ve got to write your memoir. She said, we need to know, we need to know what you’ve learned and what you know, because she said, we’re not gonna take the path you took. Well we need, we need to know what you know because you know things we don’t. And I was blown away because I’m not a memoir writer and I keep promising I’m gonna write it. But I was blown away by her. She’s a sharp woman. She did her master’s in history. Mike Quinn was her mentor and advisor. At BYU, yeah, you don’t realize how sharp that woman is. I mean, we misjudge each other all the time.

[26:03] Michelle: Oh no, I, I actually love Sherry do, so I

[26:05] Maxine Hanks: do. She’s amazing. I mean, what an amazing woman. But we, we need to know that it’s OK that we’re different. We disagree. Well, that’s what we did with our conference just this, this weekend. We had, um, scholars and feminists, you know, Non-scholars and, and scholars there from generations, from people in their 20s to people in their 90s, and across the spectrum. We had women there who teach at BYU. We had church historians there. We had women who had left the church who were disillusioned with the church. We had everything. And everybody said they felt so welcome and safe. And, and seen and loved and embraced there. Everybody. There were women who attended who said, I’ve never thought about going back to the church, but now after being here in this feminist safe space, it was basically a feminist conference of Mormon feminists. They said that they, it made them want to go back to church. They felt like the feminists were their safe space, you know? And there were people there. Who had had negative views of critics and people who lost some of their faith, who understood them better. And we had a panelist who was gay, and she talked about her journey and what she’d been through, and all of us were crying. I mean, it was just this incredibly inclusive space where everyone was honored for their own journey and nobody’s position or views. You know, had to be accepted by anybody else.

[27:32] Michelle: It that that is true. It was, it was incredible and it was so Um, aspirational, and, and so inspiring, right? From hearing all, it, it, it made, it made you more eager to pursue your own journey in the best way you could, because we saw so many different journeys that had been so well pursued. Right? And there wasn’t one pattern or one voice that we had to follow. It really was like the empowerment of, there were men that presented as well. So I don’t want to make it that it was, you know, but, but it was as a woman sitting there feeling like. God gave us each a voice and a purpose, and look at what happens when we step into that fully, right? Like, each of us, that’s what, and, and, you know, President, um, um, sorry, President Nelson, I have loved what he said. about women, we need you. We need your voices. We need your perspective. Like, like telling us that we have this important work to do that is, it is so true. And I loved the uniqueness of each woman there because they had pursued their own path so fully, right? And.

[28:41] Maxine Hanks: Yeah, and I love that you said that, and I love the way you said it, because when you’re in a space where everyone’s view and journey and life is valued, it actually makes you more courageous and more able to really pursue your own and speak your own. It really does. It’s it, because it, it, um, it validates everybody and it, and it gives you a greater sense of confidence.

[29:06] Michelle: Oh, yes. I, I, I love that. And that’s what, that’s what, um, relief Society at its best is, right? In a way, this conference, I know there were several men there. So, you know, but in a way, it was this beautiful example of what relief society maybe can be and aspires to be in some ways, right? And it, it

[29:26] Maxine Hanks: really was, in fact, that conference. And again, it gets at that tension that you mentioned at the beginning of this podcast. Our conference was trying to bring together the women’s exponent exponent to scholars, relief Society, all of it together to bring it all together and show that it all overlaps and it all works together and it all harmonizes beautifully.

[29:49] Michelle: So, OK, I have, I have several things I have to say in response. So first of all, since we’ve spoken so much about the conference, is it going to be available, the recordings, can I link them below because people hearing us talk will want to be able to watch them?

[30:01] Maxine Hanks: Yeah, your listeners are going to want to hear this conference. This conference was historic because we were, we were honoring Claudia Lauper Bushman, who is 90 years old. This may be the last trip she ever makes out here. She mentored all of us. She’s been mentoring all of us since the 60s. She’s like the mother of modern Mormon women’s studies and women’s history. She’s a historian who taught at Columbia and had a PhD. And so she mentor to all of us. And so what we had at that conference was generations of women from her generation to young, our youngest scholar, Hannah Jung is in her late twenties, I think. Um, and so your listeners will learn so much from all these generations of women and what they were sharing, but I will give you the link. It will be on the Mormon Studies Initiative website at the University of Utah. There’s a Mormon Studies program headed by Paul Reeve, who’s amazing. He’s written on race and um LDS Church, you know, religion of a different color. He’s got a new book out. And he’s amazing

[31:06] Michelle: because he wrote the little BYU, I mean, Deseret book published. Let’s talk about race in the talk

[31:11] Maxine Hanks: about race. It was really important. Thank you for mentioning that. That’s a really good place to start, and he’s got 2 or 3 other books he’s worked on. But he’s an example of a historian who has a strong testimony. He’s totally active in the church. He loves the church, but he’s been going back and recovering the parts of our history that we had forgotten. Particularly after the succession crisis and the move west, that’s when so much got disrupted. And so Paul has been going back and recovering the historical reality that black men were ordained to priesthood under Joseph Smith in the early church. And so he’s brought this back and it’s a time now when the the church is really ready for all this, the church historical department, church historians, they’ve all been working on all this, this history, black history, racial history. historyli society history, it’s just been exploding for the last 10 to 20 years. And so we’re ready for it now. And, and it’s a really exciting time. I think it’s the most exciting time in the LDS church history because it’s a time of recovery and integrating and moving toward that fullness. That Joseph Smith and Emma and Oliver and everybody envisioned that they wanted to restore the fullness of the gospel. I feel like now is that time that we’re coming into the fullness and so it’s pretty exciting, but that’s what we did with the conference was to try to bring that all together and so. The conference will be posted. The links to their YouTube page will be on that Mormon Studies Initiative web page that Paul created, and he’s, he’s created a whole Mormon studies program at the University of Utah that brings together people from history and from gender studies and from Cultural studies it’s a dynamic kind of department that he’s created uh it’s not really a department but it’s a, it’s an area where they will offer courses that bring people in from different areas in order to offer Mormon studies courses. I used to teach a course in the 1990s called Women and Mormon Culture because I did my degree at the University of. in gender studies with a minor in history. And then I was doing grad classes. And so my mentor, Bella Evans was teaching in both gender studies and communication, and she was a Mormon historian. So we collaborated and we created this course at the University of Utah called Women and Mormon Culture, and I created my book Women and Authority as a text for that course. So we were teaching that course. And so that the program up there, it’s really interesting that from time to time they’ll have a Mormon studies course, but that’s where our conference, long story short, that’s where our conference, um, recording videos will be located and the entire conference, our conference went for 12 hours, it went from 9 in the morning till 9 at night. It was, it was a lot, but every session was recorded and so your, your viewers will be able to watch all of our sessions and I think it’s. I think the conference really modeled what real relief society and real restoration and community looks like because it was so inclusive. It’s very instructive.

[34:23] Michelle: It is. And, and I wanna say, so I want to respond to a couple of things, cause I got to meet Paul, Paul Reeve. And, um, and I, I am a little bit of a, um, you know, you know, I, I have unconventional views on the topic of the history of polygamy. Maybe less conventional in some groups on the topic of the, um, divine origin of polygamy. I think people tend to agree with me more that polygamy was never of God, but struggle with my perspective that polygamy was not of Joseph Smith. But I have to say, like, Paul, I mean, I don’t know if he maybe felt a little uncomfortable when I was introduced to him and when I talked to him for a little while, but he could not have been more gracious and respectful and kind. I appreciated that so much. And other than a very few small exceptions, that was the general feel. And I guess what I mean is if, like, like the way that some of them see my views, that just as like as anathema, right? They just see my views with so much disdain, some of them. But Still, they were kind and respectful to me, which I really appreciate. And I think that that’s what you’re talking about. Like, we can do that, right? We can do that.

[35:34] Maxine Hanks: Oh, sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.

[35:36] Michelle: No, no, just we can do that with and for each other. I just say, you, I disagree with you on that, but I recognize your value as a human being. I recognize your, um, worth as someone of integrity and of, of intellect, ideally, right? And I’m willing to engage with you. And see what I can learn from you. And, and that’s what I’m doing with others as well. And I, I think that that is where we gain the most value. Not even when we just put up with each other or just, you know, but where we actually see the value in one another and that the value that they can bring to my life and that that I can bring to their life. That’s what I really appreciate and, and I’m hoping for, that we continue to. Have that grow.

[36:15] Maxine Hanks: Exactly. And very well said, we don’t have to agree to learn from each other. We don’t have to agree to talk to each other and treat each other with respect. We don’t have to agree. And at the same time, we can look, we can actually really listen. And maybe discover a couple of points here and there that we didn’t realize we agreed on. Like you and I are in our conversations I’ve come up with a few that surprised me, you know? And I’ll be happy to come back. I’ll be happy to come back in a month or so, and we can talk about polygamy. But, um, I, you know, I’ve been amazed by that just in getting to know you, Michel, that, that at first I thought we were further apart because I, as a historian and a feminist historian, I You know, I, I see Joseph Smith as having practiced polygamy. And so when I was first getting to know you, I thought we were further apart. And then the more we talked and the more we got to know each other and listen to each other. I was blown away, actually, that there were places in that whole topic where we actually agreed far more than I knew, even though we’re very different, you know, interpretations of Of, uh, polygamy and early Mormonism. So, that’s a good example, don’t you

[37:23] Michelle: think? I think it’s a great example. I was going to say I’m so appreciative of this, so people don’t know. There are times that Maxine and I, I’ve looked at my phone and we’ve been on the phone for over 5 hours. That, that’s happened. More than once, right? And, um, but the value in that and sticking in with that is, is what we have found like it helps us both finding where we agree and that’s helped clarify our perspectives for ourselves and saying. Like, like, like, like you have said, I hope it’s OK. Like, 00, that’s such a good point. That helps me see that more clearly. And that the same happens for me. And then also, even clarifying where we disagree helps us be better at our perspectives and our arguments and know what, you know, it, it like it’s important work that we’re doing in those long conversations that

[38:11] Maxine Hanks: I’ve learned things from you. I’ve learned some really good things from you.

[38:14] Michelle: Oh, I’m glad. Thank you. Thank you for being willing to say that. I appreciate it. And, and, uh,

[38:19] Maxine Hanks: you’re smart. You’re smart and you work hard, and I’ve learned, I learned from you.

[38:24] Michelle: Thank you, Maxine, and, and ditto, definitely. And then at the same time, um, Maxine and I have also had conversations just about our different life paths because I didn’t actually adopt the word feminist because it has the, um, Certain connotations, and then also, I have been rejected by so many feminist circles, because I’m a mother of 13 and I’ve homeschooled, and I’ve always been a full-time mom and I have a traditional role and some very traditional views. And, and Maxine, like, like loud and proud, where’s the term feminist and always has, right?

[38:59] Maxine Hanks: I have no children. I couldn’t even have any children. I have no children. And I’m in awe of your ability to have, because I couldn’t. I wasn’t, I couldn’t have any. I had endometriosis and surgeries. I could have no children. I’m completely in awe of your ability to have children. I’m amazed. Well,

[39:15] Michelle: and that’s one thing that I have loved in our conversations as well, is Maxine and I being able to come together and discuss our different life paths where, um, I don’t know. It’s made me, like my engagement with you, Maxine, has made me much more comfortable with the term feminist. I’m like, I am a feminist, not in any of the things that I, the bad, um, implications that might have, but I am one who cares about women and cares about the experiences and the voices of women. And wants them to be spoken and heard, right? And I guess that, anyway, so, so I have loved that Maxine and I have engaged and held space for one another with no judgment, but just admiration for our extremely different life paths.

[39:59] Maxine Hanks: And because it, you don’t need to agree with me. I don’t change you, you don’t change me, but we learn from each other.

[40:06] Michelle: And We’ve come to really love one another in our different paths, right? And so, so yeah, I guess, I guess this is really touchy-feely, but Maxine, I do have to say how much I value and appreciate our friendships and how much I genuinely admire and love you. I just, I’m so like, the first time that Maxine reached out and, um, invited me to go to lunch with her and Cheryl Bruno, I was like, OK, you know, and then I feel like since then we’ve really just become friends and I, anyway, so I, so I’m, I’m really thankful that we get to demonstrate this for people and kind of talk about this publicly because it’s been so impactful.

[40:42] Maxine Hanks: I think it’s really, really important and I’ll just add. We’ve all been through. I’ve been through it. You’ve been through it. We’ve all been through times when members and even family members or friends really judge us harshly and condemn us or create problems for us or want to silence us or want to exclude us. I’ve been there. I’ve been there my whole life, OK. I know that pattern and it’s ugly and it’s unfortunate and it’s not what Jesus modeled. It’s not what the doctrine and covenants tells us. We don’t have the right. To shut out a member. Of You know, the, the community. We don’t have a right to do that. And so the doctrine of Covenant really tells us that we need all the members, we need all the gifts, and that if there’s a problem, you know, that we’re supposed to counsel with each other and talk to each other. So anyway, I, I, I don’t, I don’t approve of any member who is trying to create problems for another member. We, that’s not what the gospel and the kingdom of God is, is. That’s not what it’s about.

[41:52] Michelle: Oh, thank you. I agree with you so much. Yes. And you’ve, you’ve walked that path. So, um, OK, so let’s kind of switch gears if that’s OK, because part of what I found so interesting, I, there were things I really did appreciate about this, um, relief Society broadcast. They, they were, um, sitting in the upper. Red brick store of the upper floor of the red brick store in the, um, in Navvo. And so they brought in a historical element, which was really interesting. And then it was beautiful to watch the love and appreciation between these women serving in this, in this presidency together. But I was, at the same time, I, I don’t know. I, I don’t want to be. You know, I, I already am, I, I don’t want to be critical. So I’m not trying to be critical. I’m trying to analyze my feelings in the comparison between those two meetings and just my experience in the meeting, right? And so, so part of the history of, like, in a way, they talked somewhat about the history of relief society, but I felt like they really didn’t talk about the history of relief society either. There’s so much for us to know and understand. Our history is so much more complex and in ways rich than The simplified view they gave us, and they weren’t doing a historical conference, so I understand, right? And, um, like, like, for example, when they were talking, they were talking a lot about Emma, or a bit about Emma, and they talked a lot about temple covenants. And so when they talked about Emma and covenants, they had to do this really careful middle speak where they kind of brought in baptism covenants when they were talking about Emma, because Emma didn’t. Didn’t participate in the Navo Temple, that wasn’t brought about until a year and a half after her husband’s death, which, you know, in your perspective, was, was somewhat changed from what what Joseph intended to, to bring him. Right? So, it’s so that that was an interesting, like, I watched that with interest going, OK, this is interesting. And then I’m just gonna like tell you some of my challenges, and then I’ll, and then I’ll ask my questions. And I also, I do personally, I have to say I struggle, and I didn’t always, but I do struggle with Not having enough opportunity to hear women’s voices. And so half of that conference was those three women talking in in the red brick store, and the other half was a was an address given by one of the male leaders and, and it’s the relief Society broadcast. So in a way. I’m like, oh, this hurts. Like, like it just, it just makes me, ah, you know, and so, and it’s nothing against what the leader said, you know, Elder Brendland, like, just the, the idea that I long to hear from. Inspired and inspiring women, right? And that’s what we got to hear at your conference. And so, so anyway, so I’ll, I’ll let you speak to that. And then I need to ask you to clarify, some people might not know what you’re talking about when you talk about the exponent and exponent too. And so we’ll go over some of the history after. OK,

[44:46] Maxine Hanks: no, you’ve raised some, you’ve raised some really good points and, and I think they’re important points to speak to. Uh, because it’s interesting, we had our conference on Saturday and the relief society meeting was on Sunday, and they did kind of cover different aspects of, of women’s authority and women’s tradition of ministry in the LDS restoration. So that was interesting. And we were focused more on the past and the history, and they were focused more on the present and the relief society. Yeah, and I like the fact that they were, they shot the the uh broadcast from the red brick store which the church now owns and um that it That they were there just, I love this. It was just the relief Society presidency, the three of them sitting next to each other very comfortably and casually, not super dressy, but more casual, and they’re sitting in the red brick store and they’re having this conversation as a really society presidency. I loved it. I loved the way that they brought the history in through location, through physical location of where it really happened, and it was just them. It was just the society presidency. And so they were recreating that notion of the relief Society presidency being elected, you know, in March of 1842 in that room. That’s where the first Society presidency was elected, and it was the women that elected them and the Relief society presidency had authority over all the women of the church, and they were not under the um. Uh, authority of the apostles or even really the first presidency. The released Society minutes, the historic minutes, which if you read them carefully, clearly. Define the relief society as being self-governing and that the relief society presidency is parallel to the first presidency and that they they were ordained to their offices, not to Melchizedtic priesthood, they were ordained to the relief society, which is the female parallel, it’s the preparatory female order. That prepares the women for the temple, just like the Melchizedek order prepares the men for the temple, and Eliza Arsena in her article that she wrote in July of 1842 and her poem entitled, which was published, it was, uh, her article was entitled Relief Society. What is it? And in her piece, in her poem, she says, it is an order fitted and defined to lift our souls to God. And so, and there are lots of descriptions of the relief society as being an order. Joseph Smith referred to it as the beautiful order. It’s a female order. And so I’m going to get to what these women said in the meeting in just a second that blew me away. But, and so what we saw there is a recreation of that historic moment when the Relief Society presidency is nominated and elected and chosen by the women. The, the women chose the relief society leaders and they led. And so I thought that was really beautiful. And then, but I also thought it was a beautiful balance that the Relief Society presidency in this broadcast focused entirely on women’s personal connection, direct connection to God and their ability to draw upon the power of priesthood and the power of God. And they went over that a lot. They talked about how. How, um, you know, we, we have this calling and it’s our responsibility as a relief society. To help God and Christ, uh, with the salvation of the whole human family that our calling is to bring the children of God back to God. And I thought that was really important, and they really focused on women accessing the power, the spiritual power of priesthood, and I thought that was beautiful. But one thing that President Johnson, Camille Johnson said that blew me away. Uh, was where she said, the Prophet Joseph Smith restored all things, including the ancient order of women. Oh, she said that. Go back and listen. Go back and listen. Yeah, I was blown away. The ancient order of women. And what she meant by that is, and this is exactly what Eliza R. Sau and the other early leaders said they were doing. And you can read about it in the book Women of Mormondom by Tollage. That’s a great book. That’s really co-authored by Eliza. She’s the silent co-author of that book. But those women believed that they were restoring the ancient order of female disciples in the Jesus movement. They believe that they, and they believed they believed that they were restoring that female order and I have so many quotes, so many sources, so many references to that in my work. And so some of what I’m sharing with you today is, is from a couple of papers I have in process that I hope to be publishing soon. But that’s what they believed that they were restoring, as Bathsheba said, um. And as Joseph Smith said in the Release Society Minutes, he said that the Relief Society was a kingdom of priests as in Enoch’s day, as in Paul’s day, that they were restoring this female order, and Bathshebas elaborated on that further, and she said he wanted to make of us a kingdom of priestesses as the women were in Paul’s day.

[50:25] Michelle: Wow. OK

[50:26] Maxine Hanks: the ancient order of female disciples. Well, guess what the female disciples were. You know what they were. They were the

[50:36] Michelle: first, yes, go ahead. You go ahead. They

[50:39] Maxine Hanks: were the first witnesses of the risen Christ. And, and in particular, three women. You know, the women who go to the tomb and then they’re walking from the tomb back to meet the other disciples, and Christ, the risen Christ, appears to the three women walking on the road. This is after he first appears to Mary Magdalene. He appears to her first. And, and then the women later, the three women are walking back and he appears to all three of them. She’s with Mary and Salome and Joanna. I think it’s, I think it’s Mary, Salome and Joanna. I’m kind of trying to remember. But what’s important about that is that they are the first witnesses. They’re the first apostles.

[51:21] Michelle: Yes. I, it also teaches us an important lesson. From the um male apostles reaction to the women’s testimony, and I think that that is, yes, it’s so that is something I wish we would hearken to because it’s so important to, it’s such a clear demonstration of the importance of heeding women’s voices instead of silencing women, right, which seems to be such a, such a common theme throughout throughout this. Well, yeah, go ahead. Yeah,

[51:53] Maxine Hanks: sorry to interrupt you. Yeah, exactly. The, the, the male disciples just didn’t believe them and thought they were crazy. And so it was only later then when Jesus appears to the male disciples that they realize, oh, the women were telling the truth, you know, the women were right. I guess they had to hear it from a man, right? Not from the women. Yes, but, and so there are lots and lots of references in those among, uh, in the Relief Society minutes and in Joseph Smith statements, and when the women are working on the temple in Kirtland and others and in the um To book and Women of Mormondom and others. I’ve got all kinds of sources. And, and also what Eliza Arseneaux says about what Joseph taught her, she said that she said the relief society, we learned from our beloved prophet that our society, our organization, was the same organization that had existed anciently in the church. Meaning that the women’s, that, you know, she’s basically saying that the relief society was the restoration of the the order of female disciples. And the uh-huh, and the women who led, the woman who led, who was, who was the woman who led the female disciples? It was Magdalen. She was the chief disciple and the first witness.

[53:12] Michelle: OK. And, and that’s the role that Emma stepped into. It was,

[53:16] Maxine Hanks: it was because the notion of the elect lady is really interesting. The El lady comes from the New Testament and 2 John, where he’s writing this letter and he says, from the elder to the elect lady. So he’s an early elder of the early Jesus movement, and he’s writing to the elect lady, and male scholars, they always thought that that meant, oh, well, that’s a metaphor for the church. No, it wasn’t a metaphor for the church. Feminist historians and New Testament scholars have discovered that it was the El lady is not a metaphor for the church. He says the elect lady and her children. The El lady is a title, and it, it’s, it’s a It’s a word that evokes the authority and equality that women had in the early Christian movement. The lady was basically the highest ranking female leader in that area or over that house church, and her children were the members of her house church. So she’s like a female bishop or a female apostle. Well, a female bishop or an apostle.

[54:17] Michelle: Right. And the thing that I love, the things that amaze me, like hearing you talk about that, because we see the elect lady come up in Doctrine Covenants 25, which is the lesson for this week. And, and seeing that Joseph Smith drew upon that and made that connection to Emma, who, not, it wouldn’t be till 12 years later that she was voted, sustained, chosen by the women to be the, um, president. So it was a prophetic, um, it was drawing. On the past and the future and connecting that and giving us more insight into what that calling means, what it means to be the elect lady. And

[54:53] Maxine Hanks: that’s really, that’s really well said. Everything you just said summarizes a lot of what I say in, in these two papers I wrote. But yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I agree, totally.

[55:02] Michelle: Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, I love that. And it also makes me, like, what you’re saying gives me more insight to into Joseph saying the church was never perfectly organized or fully organized until the women were thus organized. And And it’s almost like what I’m hearing you say, and you can correct it. These are, this is the way I’m thinking about it, but it’s like, we had the fraternity, but we needed a sorority. And, and that’s like, like, it’s like both, both organizations need to be in conjunction, you know, I, I, that might not be the perfect example, but it kind of is because it’s like, this is the male order, and then this is the female order. And from what you’ve taught me, Joseph empowered the women to sort of form their own order, right? It was.

[55:45] Maxine Hanks: He did, he didn’t, when people say that he organized the release society that bothers me because Joseph Smith was mentored by women, his mother, his aunts, Sally Chase, and Emma. He was mentored by women. He respected women’s spiritual connection to the divine and female revelation and female seers. He really got it. He really respected that. He didn’t tell the women what to do. He left it to them to bring it forth. And so the relief society begins in Kirtland. Because that’s where the women begin to organize and make clothing and and and uh tapestries and fabrics and veils for the Kirtland Temple, and the women are in charge of decorating the interior of the Kirtland Temple, and they intuitively. Revelationally, spiritually restore the ancient Women’s Order of Disciples in Kirtland. And that’s why Eliza Arsenaul and Edward Tollage talk about this in the Women of Mormondom. The very first chapter in the Women of Mormondom, if your readers read it, blow your minds because they talked about how the women in Kirtland saw themselves as apostles of Jesus Christ. That they were restoring the ancient female disciples, and they used the word apostles. They saw themselves as apostles of Jesus Christ. Female apostles in the tradition of Mary Magdalene and Salome and Joanna, the female disciples, they. saw themselves as restoring that. That’s what the really society was. It was the ancient female order of disciples that the women in Kirtland restored. That’s when they restored it. The women brought it forth themselves. Joseph didn’t give it to them. The men did not give. That it was they had to restore it themselves and bring it forth.

[57:32] Michelle: So it was merely formalized in

[57:35] Maxine Hanks: in

[57:37] Michelle: in

[57:37] Maxine Hanks: Navvo.

[57:37] Michelle: OK,

[57:37] Maxine Hanks: but it restored in Kirtland because what they did in Kirtland was exactly what they did in Navvo. They organized, they made all the clothing, the tapestry, the veils, and they organized themselves as a female society, a female order. The temple to prepare women for the temple. The relief society is a female order of priesthood that prepares women for the temple. It’s the perfect parallel of the Melchizedek order of priesthood, which prepares men for the temple. And then Joseph, so then when they get to Navu, and he had wanted to formalize it earlier, and he says he makes a statement later. in Navu where he says, you know, I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and I wanted to do it earlier, but I was busy getting the men organized and so now it’s time, now it’s time. So it’s formalized as an, as an official body of the church in Navo, but it, it, it begins, it, it comes forth and actually is first organized by the women themselves, and he leaves it to the women to bring it forth. And they do. And so the women created relief Society. They organized it. Joseph didn’t. He formalized it. And I’ll say one more thing here that’s a real mind blower that’s from my paper, my research paper. When the women are going in and finishing the interiors of the temple when they’re putting all of the tapestries in and they’ve been making, you know, the temple workers’ clothes, and they, they created veils and they were in the temple hanging the veils. And Joseph walks in and he sees them hanging the veils in the Kirtland Temple. And he says, He just kind of gasps, you know, and he says, the sisters are always the first in all good works. And he said, just like Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Lord, the sisters are the first to complete the interior of the temple. So he equates them with Mary Magdalene, the first witness of Christ.

[59:34] Michelle: Oh, OK. I’m so excited for your papers to be done. Will you please like let me know as soon as they are and come back. I will,

[59:40] Maxine Hanks: I will. But you can read that comment. It’s in Toll’s Women of Mormondom. That’s where I found it. So

[59:46] Michelle: I need you are, you are calling me to repentance because I have used Tollage mainly as a source about polygamy, and so I need to revisit it with not just focusing on Elizabeth Whitney or, you know, I need to revisit it. This is good. This is OK. OK.

[1:00:03] Maxine Hanks: Elias is the silent co-author of that book because remember, this is 1876. It’s it’s right around the time Brigham dies. I’m trying to remember. I should know this. I think it’s, it’s right around the time that Brigham dies because then my theory is. Then she feels like it’s OK to finally bring forth all this stuff that she’s been keeping and holding onto and preserving, because Eliza and my other three heroes, Bathsheba and Zaina and Sarah Granger Kimball, those 4 women are holding on to what they had with Joseph Smith in Navo and Kirtland, and they’re keeping it alive. And when Brigham dies, then this book comes forward and shares all this stuff that Eliza knows as the silent co-author of Women of Mormondom. OK, that book.

[1:00:51] Michelle: That, that is so helpful to have that different perspective on it. And this is one of the things, like, I’ll tell the audience, this is one of the things Maxine and I have talked about is our different views on Eliza, because with my work on polygamy, I struggle with Eliza, whereas Maxine, Eliza is one of your Heroines, because you, yes, yes, because you recognize this has been so insightful to me. And, and, and it’s modified my view, because now I kind of see, well, I think I did a little bit before, but more now I see Eliza as Picking her battles and doing something more important and so willing to make, um, compromises in certain areas in order to accomplish the things that were her higher priorities.

[1:01:33] Maxine Hanks: She goes along with Brigham Young as much as she has to, but she’s holding tight. And those all four of those women are holding onto. What they received when Joseph was alive, the equality, the parallel equality, because the way that the women were organized was in perfect parallel to the male offices and quorums and orders, and that’s what my paper shows. And so, and I love the statement that is made by a couple of the men, and I think it shows up in the relief Society minutes. It takes all to restore the priesthood. The priesthood was not fully restored until the relief society was formalized. And Joseph declared that they were a kingdom of priests. And so, and he let them come up with their own name of their own order. And when you go to the religious society minutes and read them, he also tells them. Um, that, that, that they can that they can choose for themselves their own offices, but they can also choose for themselves what to, what they want to call their own offices, whether you want to call yourselves teachers and priests as we do, or whether you want to choose other names for yourself. He leaves it to the women. To come up with the names of their own offices, female offices, and their female order. And they chose their own name, and it was relief Society.

[1:03:00] Michelle: Which, which, oh, this is all, I love, I love this so much because I actually love the story of John Taylor pushing back against Emma to change the name. And Emma, it shows me a lot of the character that I see in Emma of like, excuse me, no, this is what we’re calling it, and this is why, and this is our society and our organization. And so even an apostle is not going to change the name of our organization. And

[1:03:24] Maxine Hanks: she shut, she shut him down because, and here’s the, here’s the thing about Emma’s authority, and she knew that she had equal authority to Joseph and Oliver and, and especially the apostles. She, because she knew that she had parallel equality. Because she helped Joseph to found the church. It was Emma and Joseph who got the gold plates. It was Emma and Joseph who began translating the Book of Mormon, and then it was Emma, Joseph and Oliver. She knew that she had equal parallel authority. She had female offices. She headed the female order and the last meeting of the relief society. In March of 1844, she declared, and this is so important, she declared that she had as much authority as anyone and had it yet, and that’s exactly how Eliza recorded those words. Wow. And that refers to Joseph Smith, Oliver, and any apostle who the apostles were actually, they were in charge of missionary work. They were not in charge of the stake, and they were not in charge of the women. So yeah, she, she knew that she had equal parallel authority to Joseph Smith. And one last thing I’ll say about that. In the relief Society minutes, again, it’s, it’s pretty clear, if you read all of them and connect the dots, when the first presidency of the relief Society is ordained. Um, the way that it’s worded is that they will, um, preside. Just as the first presidency, or just as the presidency, first presidency preside over the church, and the commas, which Eliza puts in there are very telling where the commas are. Because the really society presidency is to preside just as the first presidency, comma. Preside over the church. Oh wow, relief society presidency is the parallel to the first presidency. They’re not under the first presidency. They’re, they’re the parallel female presidency, just like the early female disciples, Mary Magdalene, Salome, Joanna were really the first, you know, apostles, yeah.

[1:05:39] Michelle: OK, I have so many, so many questions I have to ask.

[1:05:42] Maxine Hanks: They’re parallel. They’re. It was set up,

[1:05:45] Michelle: yeah. It’s giving me an insight into my working model. Some people might not like this, but I have my own working model of the Proclamation on the family, which is as equal partners, husband and wife preside over their family in life, right? That’s, and so, so what I’m hearing is that you are saying that my, my working model of the proclamation is correct, and, uh, including on the church level, that it’s not that the first presidency. Over the whole church and then the women are an auxiliary that are over the women. You are saying these are parallel organizations parallel.

[1:06:19] Maxine Hanks: These are parallel orders. This is parallel priesthood. They’re parallel orders. Joseph didn’t presume to name women’s order. He let them name their own order. And so the Melchizedek order and the relief Society order are parallel orders of ancient priests. And so this goes back to our relief Society meeting that we listened to on Sunday where President Camille Johnson, who I think was so incredibly inspired to say that Joseph Smith restored all things, including the ancient order of women, to collectively bring the relief of Jesus Christ to others. Our objective from the beginning since 1842 to bring all of the children of our heavenly Father back home. Oh

[1:07:07] Michelle: my word, Maxine, you are giving me chills because um she gave me well, and hearing this is giving me so much more insight to see that women are still engaged in this great work of reclaiming, right of recovering, uh-huh. And when I am part of relief society, I’m not just being kept busy doing a little service project, right? I am. Harkening back to this ancient order of women caring for others in service of Jesus Christ, right? Like, I think that’s what they were trying to say, and I need to not be so cynical that I can’t hear the message.

[1:07:50] Maxine Hanks: Oh, it’s OK. We all do that. I’ve, I’ve had to heal my cynical side, my hurt side, my pain side. We all, you know, we’re all and growing together. But I love Elder Rendland. He said this, what you just said. Let me, let me, this was the other quote I wanted to share, because I loved how he got up and spoke, and I love Elder Rendlon. I think he’s so sweet. And he deferred to the authority of the relief Society. He said, you know, we’ve had this opportunity here from our relief society presidency. He was deferring to their authority when he first started, which I thought was really interesting. And then he said, they, he said, the relief society presidency has taught us, and the relief society was not intended to be just a social club or a charitable group. Its purpose was divine to help God’s children return to heaven. And to assist with the salvation of the human family, he goes on to explain that. So right there, he said, no, no, no, no, no, this is, he’s kind of restating what Joseph said at the very beginning, you know, I have something far better than just a constitution of a female society. There’s something far better here. It’s, it’s not just a female temperance society or charitable. He used that word. He said it’s not just a charitable group. How many times did we hear over the course of our life, the Relief Society is a charitable, you know, it’s all about charity. He, he just unpacked that.

[1:09:15] Michelle: What I’m trying, um, in my brain, and I do have to come back to the questions I was gonna ask you before, but in a way, this is what I’m recognizing and I’m struggling with it, and I don’t, um, I feel so, um, exhausted from feeling kind of pat on the head, patted on the head and, oh, you’re very important. And so, um, so it makes it harder to hear what they are saying and let it impact me cause I’m still feeling patted on the head. So that that’s the tension we’re speaking to, right? Like the the profundity of what this is. And so maybe we can go in a minute into some of the other history. But I do want to clarify two points that I think are so important that have shown up in our conversations, and I don’t know which one to do first. Let me go to this one first, but then I’ll come to the other one. So when you are saying women’s priesthood, our ears, both of these points, we are, we are suffering from presentism, is the word you used in our conversation last night, right? So when we hear women’s priesthood, people recoil and think, you’re a feminist, you need to be excommunicated because you’re saying women’s priesthood. So I, I want to let you clarify and help people understand that, like, try to help us let go of our presentist lens. Like you’ve helped me so you can help people understand and hear what you are trying to say.

[1:10:33] Maxine Hanks: Yes, that’s such an important point, and because people don’t hear each other, and they jump to conclusions, and so they use strawman attacks because they come up with a different interpretation. They don’t really understand that person’s premise. And meaning meaning and interpret it and so then they they project their own interpretation and then they attack their own projected interpretation. We all do it. People on all sides, active members, inactive members, critics, feminists, defenders of the faith, we all do it to each other. We need to stop. We need to stop doing that. We need to learn to really pay attention and hear what now what exactly is the premise here? We need to listen better. We need to hear better. And so, and there are a lot of different feminists and different feminists have different perspectives. There are feminists who want Melchizedek priesthood, ordain women was really demonstrating for equality and inclusion that kind of erased all different.

[1:11:30] Michelle: We want the same thing so I will say this is the feminism that kind of Um, turned me off and not, not the ordained movement. I, you know, I, I appreciated actually what they were doing because I thought they were asking important questions. Yeah, but the idea that women are just as good at being men as men are is, is a, is a form of feminism that I reject. not, not, I, I allow people to be there, but it’s not one that I want to claim. Because what I want to do is honor women as women. And so, so that you can.

[1:12:00] Maxine Hanks: Right. No. And those are two sides of feminism. And ordain women did really important things because they recovered the word ordained for us. In my book, I recovered our feminism and I recovered priesthood. I said in the introduction to my book that Mormon women had received priesthood powers in 4 different ways in those 1st 15 years of the church. I talked about the, in the gifts of the Spirit, in the confirmation when you’re confirmed and you get the gifts of the Spirit. Those are powers. Those are access to powers of priesthood. And Joseph Smith talks about that in the relief Society minutes. He tells the women, because there’s this tension between the women in the relief society where some of the women are saying, you know, they’re wanting to give blessings and do healings in the Relief Society meetings, and some of the other women are afraid of that, and they’re thinking, no, only the men can do that. And so the women, you know, have Joseph come in and say, no, no, it’s OK. Joseph comes in and says, You know, there’s, he, he, he makes these beautiful statements about how when women receive the gifts of the Spirit, they receive those rights and powers and privileges to, to perform blessings and do healings. They, all the gifts of the Spirit, you know, speaking in tongues. And he talks about how giving blessings and doing healings is no different than wetting your face with water, washing your face. You know, he’s, he’s, he kind of compares it. He, he said it’s no worse than, you know, Uh, you know, washing your face and so women are, um, there’s this tension even back then because in the restoration Joseph was giving women parallel equality of offices and orders and privileges and so there’s this tension because some women, I mean it was way ahead of its time. You know, way ahead, the Seneca Falls Convention about, you know, women and the vote doesn’t happen until 1848, and in 1830, Emma Smith is ordained in Section 25, the elect lady of the church, which is the parallel with Joseph and Oliver in section 24 as the first elder and the second elder. So in Section 24 and 25, we have the three highest ranking leaders of the brand new church in July of 1830, and it’s Joseph, Emma, and Oliver. They’re a primitive lay Christian like trinity of witness presidency. Yeah, before, and that’s before the first presidency over the male priesthood is organized, and that’s before the first presidency over the relief relief society is organized. So in 1830 in July, your three highest ranking members of the church are a lay Christian kind of ministry of the 1st and 2nd elder and the elect lady straight out of 2nd John in the New Testament. And so you have this parallel equality. And what I love about ordain women is they brought back the word ordain because in my book we brought back priesthood and feminism, but we didn’t really bring back the word ordained and ordained women went back and recovered that piece of our history for us to bring it back. And so there are feminists who, who like the idea of equality that’s undifferentiated. It’s just not gendered, that’s inclusive. And there are other feminists who really, really like. To, to celebrate and to recover the unique female authority perspective. And those are the two main sides of feminism. You’ve got all different kinds of feminism. I’m a feminist theorist. I taught feminism at the U of you. I did my bachelor’s in gender studies and There you can group all of the feminisms out there into two main groups, and this comes from historian Joan Scott, her work, I love her work, but all the feminisms are either doing one or the other. They’re either minimizing the differences between men and women, like the feminism in the 70s that I was raised on, where we could prove that we could hold any job and do anything a man does. We’re going to minimize the differences and we’re going to focus on The equal abilities and opportunities that men and women have and not tell women that they can’t do things that men can do. And so that’s equality feminism. It focuses all of the feminisms that focus on on women’s equality with men and giving men and women the same opportunity, the same jobs, the same pay for the work, the same opportunity to go to college and get degrees and become doctors and lawyers and and entering Congress and running for political office, that’s all. Feminism, ERA, that’s equality feminism, and it’s one half of feminism

[1:16:19] Michelle: and it has its important points. Yes,

[1:16:22] Maxine Hanks: it does. And the other side is called different feminism or cultural feminism or essentialist feminism. And it’s really important. It’s the other half, and it’s where women are, and a lot of this, uh, shows up both in, in the cultural feminism, the temperance movement, a lot of what women were doing with women’s spirituality in the 1900s, which the religious. fits right into, but also radical feminism and second wave in the 1960s and 1970s, they were focusing on women’s own unique needs because of a female body and what we go through in a female body and what we know and what we, what we need as female reproductive human beings. And so that’s the other side of feminism. It’s a difference feminism, and it focuses on the differences between men and women and the needs of women as a group. Of female reproductive human beings. And so we really need both because what happens is one side tends to diminish the other and we need both. And this is another reason why the LDS restoration was so inspired because in the Restoration and in women’s offices and in the ministry that’s established in 1830 with the late Christian ministry in 1842 with the ancient order of female priests and 1843 with the temple, we’ve got both. We have offices that are female and male and orders that are female and male, and we’ve got orders and offices that are ungendered inclusive like the Office of missionary. The president, the office of counselor.

[1:18:01] Michelle: It goes back to, it’s what I’m hearing, it goes back to what you were saying at the beginning about finding the gold and leaving the dross, right? Like this is so I, I want to respond to a couple of things that you were talking about. No, it, it’s so valuable. It’s so helpful. I love how much I learned when I talk to you. So, um, but this, this verse 7 in in section 25, right? And it says, and Thou shalt be ordained under his hand to expound scriptures and to exhort the church according that it shall be given thee by my Spirit. I focused a lot on that, on the episode I did on Emma, because I found this to be groundbreaking for the time, especially when we compare it to the New Testament statements that are attributed to Paul about it. It is a it is a shame for women to speak in the church, right? And here Joseph

[1:18:49] Maxine Hanks: he didn’t really say that. That, that comes from Timothy, and that’s not really Paul, but anyway, go ahead.

[1:18:54] Michelle: OK, that’s what I said attributed to Paul because I know that there are

[1:18:57] Maxine Hanks: different attributed to Paul, but it wasn’t.

[1:18:59] Michelle: Yes, but what

[1:19:00] Maxine Hanks: I’m hoping he said in Galatians, Paul said, all are life unto God. Yes,

[1:19:05] Michelle: he did. Yes, thank

[1:19:06] Maxine Hanks: you. And

[1:19:06] Michelle: so, yes, so, um, so, so what I What I’m hoping everyone can hear and what we can, what we can spread, right, is to recognize that our presentist lens connects the word ordained to Melchizedek priesthood, which is connected to the governing power structure in the church. And that’s, that actually wasn’t the case with Joseph Smith as we see from this verse. And so So when you are saying ordained, it’s like, like, like in some ways, I love that ordained women ask the questions they ask, but in some ways it did a disservice because it really locked the word ordained into this view of Melchizedek power structure in the church. Whereas the next work that I think needs to be done is to um um resurrect the word ordain and the word female priesthood, where you’re not, when you’re saying female priesthood, you’re not saying ordain women in the same way. You are saying women’s gifts, women’s, the power if priesthood is the power to act in the name of God, and the power to use God’s power in God’s will, woman, women have a connection to that and means to that, right? So I think what I’m hearing you say is, is encouraging and allowing women to. Connect to the power, the God-given power to women, right? Am I understanding?

[1:20:31] Maxine Hanks: Exactly. No, you are you are exactly right. You got it right. Because in 1830, in Section 24, men are ordained to male offices, and in Section 25, Emma is ordained to a female office. And in 1830, they’re not. They’re not really, he’s not really developing the ancient priesthoods yet, per se. I mean, that’s happening a little bit later. It’s really. Yeah. And, and so what, what they’re doing in 1830 is lay Christian ministry out of the New Testament. And, and so, uh, Section 25 is doing both at the same time, is talking about how she will be ordained, and he meant ordained. He didn’t mean set apart. It means something of he meant

[1:21:17] Michelle: the word he meant, yes, yeah,

[1:21:19] Maxine Hanks: he used the word he meant, and it’s perfectly parallel to what is said in in in section 24. So the Lord is using the word ordained because that means ordained of God. And it doesn’t mean ordained to Melchizedek priesthood. They weren’t really ordaining to Melchizedek priesthood right then. And um it was, they were being ordained to lay Christian offices from the New Testament. And so, um, and so what what they’re ordained to is the lay Christian ministry at that point. And the ancient priests, the ancient Hebraic, the Melchizedek, the Ionic, even though there are little bits of that starting to come through, you know, early with, with, um. You know, with references to John the Baptist and Peter James and John restoring authority, those are just the glimmers. Those are the early glimmers. That’s not what’s being organized in Section 20 and 24 and 25 and 26. It’s, it’s really the New Testament lane ministry at that point. And so Section 24 is the 1st and 2nd elders. Section 25 is the elect lady. Section 26 is everybody gets the vote. Women get the vote in the church. 18 years before the Seneca Falls Conference because consent is section 26 that that everybody um gets to vote in the church.

[1:22:38] Michelle: I hadn’t even thought through to to ask whether that included women,

[1:22:44] Maxine Hanks: so women were

[1:22:44] Michelle: voting to sustain. I know they have,

[1:22:47] Maxine Hanks: yeah, they, the whole idea that all members can vote comes through in common consent in Section 26. They don’t really start practicing it until about 1832 and 1933, they’re starting to vote in the in the meetings, and this is what the relief Society does. The relief society in 1842 is using voting. An election and these kinds of procedures and that’s 6 years before Seneca Falls Convention is talking about this kind of stuff with women getting the vote. So yeah, and so, um, so what you said is right because they’re ordained. Women are Emma is ordained and it’s both. She’s promised that she will be ordained. Um, to this role, this office, and that her office, if you read 24 and 25, her office and her duties are perfectly parallel to, to Joseph and Oliver’s. But she’s also told that she will receive the gifts of the Spirit. She will be confirmed. So she’s going to be ordained and confirmed. And there’s a couple of different ways to read this because this doesn’t happen at this time. They have to wait until Joseph gets taken away and then comes back. And um, so in August, in section 27 is the fulfillment of Section 25, where Joseph is going out to get wine, for communion, for sacrament. That’s Emma’s, that’s Emma’s first communion and first sacrament meeting. That’s where she’s, she’s confirmed that she finally gets confirmed a member of the church in August at that meeting. And so it’s fulfilled. And so what’s interesting is that Section 25 is predicting, it’s describing both her ordination to the highest office in the church, highest female office of the left lady, but it’s also predicting her confirmation and receiving the gifts of the spirit. And so Section 25 is talking about both her confirmation as a member. Which is a kind of ordination to the lay ministry because it’s receiving, it’s receiving power, the gifts of the spirit by the Lea hands, but it’s also describing that she will be ordained to the office of elect lady. And later in 1842 when Joseph is formalizing the religious society and the officers are elected and they’re being ordained, he says, Emma’s already, she was already ordained. We don’t need to ordain her again. She was already ordained to the office of the elected lady. Back in 1830, and he explicitly spells that out. So she was ordained to the highest female office of the church in August of 1830 in fulfillment of Section 25, which happens in Section 27. So she gets both. She gets her confirmation as a member of the church as a lay minister of Christ, which gives her the gifts of the Spirit, and she also gets ordained to the high office of El lady so that Joseph, Oliver, and Emma are the three highest offices, and Emma. As far as we can tell, was the first woman in America, in the United States. To be formally ordained to a high church office governing co-governing a whole church with the congregation congregation accepting this as valid. What we have in early US history is women being called or ordained to be ministers or preachers, but this is highest church office. This is a pretty amazing precedent in 1830.

[1:26:18] Michelle: Oh my goodness. This, OK, this is fascinating. I’m loving what we’re talking about. And in a way, um, part of the work of restoration that Joseph did, if I’m hearing, if I’m interpreting it correctly, is restoring the calling of elect lady, right? That was part of the restoration and that he, so, so it’s something that we We should maybe pay a little more attention to.

[1:26:41] Maxine Hanks: We really should. And I just have to say, President Nelson back in 20, now I’m not remembering which it was October conference, I think it was 2017. He urged, he talked about Section 25 and he urged all the women to go back and really study it and read it. And he said, The authority and power of God that you need to draw upon is the same as what Emma. Go, I’m paraphrasing, and he said, read section 25 because You know, that that authority and that power for you to draw upon and to bring forth is the same thing that Emma got in Section 25. And he said a mouthful when he said that. We haven’t fully impacted that.

[1:27:29] Michelle: OK, that I’m gonna have to go back and look into that. I’m glad you brought that up because that, OK, this is all, this is all so important. So I want, this is the other question I wanted to ask you along these lines, because, um, I was actually a little surprised when you told me how, um, Sarah Granger Kimball is one of your heroes, because I know about, um, a quote of hers that has, that has rubbed people the wrong way. So I, it was so valuable to me when you unpacked this quote from me and helped me understand what she was saying, because, um, Um, President Johnson mentioned this as well when she said that the relief society was organized. What did it say? Um, under the priesthood and after the pattern of the priesthood. And I’ve heard that discussed in kind of a negative context, like that she was selling out later on in Utah. So, but, but, but that’s not who Sarah Kimball was. She was never a polygamist, right? She was never, she never sold out. So I want to hear your interpretation of this, if you wouldn’t mind, because it was mine.

[1:28:28] Maxine Hanks: She was not only, she was never a polygamist, plus she was the one who brought the women in and organized them in her home to reconstitute the relief society, to bring back what they had done in Kirtland and form it because their, her idea and Eliza’s idea was, let’s formalize this. We did this in Kirtland, but let’s formalize this. Let’s write a constitution and have a legitimate legal society and organization. That’s Sarah. She’s the one who who organizes that in her home. And so she’s seen as really the organizer of the relief society. She knew exactly what the relief study was, so did Eliza. They all did. They knew it was the parallel.

[1:29:09] Michelle: Well, we can’t say they all did because Mary Anne Young didn’t, but those 4 women all did that you’re talking about,

[1:29:17] Maxine Hanks: the heroines, the women, they were, they were learning, they were understanding, I mean, they were learning in relief society. These were lessons and You know, these really society meetings were pretty revolutionary because they were organizing and electing a self-governing organization of by for women. And then Joseph was coming in and teaching them about priesthood and about their portion of priesthood, their side of priesthood, you know. And, and so when Sarah Granger Kimball is making that statement later. It’s in the context of she’s this big suffragist to get the vote in Utah, she’s organizing that. She’s the relief society president of, of her ward in Utah. She was trying to flesh out and finish the relief Society authority. People don’t know this, but she was organizing young women in quorums of deacons and teachers.

[1:30:11] Michelle: I didn’t know that

[1:30:12] Maxine Hanks: in her ward, and she and Eliza were working together because they wanted to finish naming the female offices that they’d been told to do in Navvo, but that all got disrupted with the martyrdom, the move west. So Sarah Granger Kimball was trying to reconstitute and recover what they’d lost and finished to flesh out the relief society authority in naming the offices. So they were electing boards and they had relief society presidency and secretary, and then they had boards. They were electing almost like their own. Kind of, you know, quorum of female apostles, and then they were she was organizing the young women in quorums, and they were experimenting with using the titles of deacons and teachers for the young women. And that’s what they were calling themselves. And so she also said she made the statement that when the relief Society was formed in 1842, the sure foundations of the suffrage cause were laid.

[1:31:09] Michelle: Wow, because they were voting, right?

[1:31:12] Maxine Hanks: Yeah, they were using election and voting. And she, so when she said that the relief society was organized in and of and after the pattern of the priesthood, she wasn’t saying Melchizedek priesthood. She wasn’t saying and Eliza never says Melchizedek. Eliza, when she talks about the priesthood that women have and the temple and everything, it’s, it’s always the holy order. OK, so this is, she doesn’t use Melchizedek, and so, so what Sarah Melissa Granger Kimball is talking about is she’s talking about a larger pattern of priesthood, just priesthood itself regardless of which order. She’s talking about priesthood itself, and she’s talking about the statements Joseph made about how the women were going to be a kingdom of priests. It’s a larger dimension of priesthood beyond just one order of Aonic or Melchizedek or patriarch. Or any of those. So it’s, it’s a she’s, she’s basically saying priesthood per se, priesthood itself. She’s not saying, she’s not saying they’re organized in Melchizedek priesthood, and she’s not saying that they’re organized under where where men have authority over them. She’s basically saying that women also are organized in priesthood. They are part of the priesthood.

[1:32:31] Michelle: OK, this was so important for me to hear. I hope, I hope people can hear it because this makes sense to me, especially knowing who Sarah Kimball was, how you helped me because what it’s showing is actually that still in 1883 when she made this statement, she is still declaring their independence in a way because What what I liked is, again, recognizing we can’t attach our presentist lens to her statement, because when she says under the priesthood, she is not saying under the Melchizedek priesthood that’s going to govern that be the governing body of the church in the 20th and 21st centuries, right? That’s not what she’s saying. She is saying under God’s priesthood, right? Under the power to act in the name of God, men and women hold independently in parallel. And after the pattern of that same priesthood, so she’s attaching it directly, she’s saying, under God, in God’s power, after the pattern of the ancient of that that women and men have had anciently, right? Yeah,

[1:33:34] Maxine Hanks: because, because priesthood itself is It is a power of God, but it’s also an order. It’s an order of heaven, you know, and

[1:33:43] Michelle: she’s

[1:33:43] Maxine Hanks: really

[1:33:43] Michelle: could have just as well have said under the priests, priestesshood, like we could use the term priestesshood to define specifically women’s priesthood,

[1:33:51] Maxine Hanks: right? Or she could have said order of heaven, and it comes up a lot in references even back in Navvo, and there are references that talk about the order of heaven and that the church is being organized according to the order of heaven. But also I will say, you know, that after they get to Utah, so much has changed, so much is forgotten. There’s a lot of confusion. I call it the mixed message period, you know, between the 1860s and, and when women really start to lose their power at the turn of the century, their equality, there’s this real mixed message period that also John Taylor participates in when he ordains Eliza to be president of the Relief Society formally in 1880. You know, he’s really giving this mixed message, and he’s sort of saying, Well, she’s not being ordained a priesthood. That’s not what this is, you know, I was there in 1842 and I ordained them and I know what they were ordained to, but he’s creating confusion because, no, they weren’t ordained to Mic priesthood. Those were ordinations to female offices in the female order. And so what happens is we, we, we’ve tended to think that Priesthood and ordination are only Melchizedek, that, you know, it’s not Melchizedk priesthood, it’s not priesthood, and it’s not ordination. But it is. And so there’s just, and I’ve kind of thrown out a lot. I probably said more than I intended to. I really need to publish my papers so that I can lay this out and people can see it, but, but. Uh, it’s, it’s, it’s so it can be confusing, especially because of that whole mixed message period of time of when, when everything that had been established in Kirtland and Navvo was so far ahead. Of society at that time, that when Joseph dies and they moved to Utah. They’re kind of, the women are holding on to it. They’re preserving it. They’re doing everything they can. The men are pulling back. The bishops are resisting the women, Eliza and Sarah, and they complain about how the bishops are resisting them. In 1850s and 1860s, the women are trying to bring back and flesh out what they had. And uh there’s a lot of resistance and the relief society doesn’t even really start to reconstitute until Brigham needs the women to help with Native Americans and they create what they call Indian relief societies. He’s realizing, OK, I need the women to help. That’s how the relief that comes back. After, you know, in 1845, he tells them, I don’t want the meeting, and he tells the 70s, if, if you hear that the women are gathering and meeting, you know, put a stop to it, and if they tell you that Joseph organized it or, or, you know, that Joseph authorized it, it’s a lie, you know, don’t believe. Well, so he, he, he doesn’t want them to meet anymore. And, um, but they still kind of meet in secret and in private. Uh, and, but then they’re, they’re called to come back and reconstitute it in about 1865, 1966 because he needs help. He needs the relief society to come and help with Native Americans. And so they formed what they call Indian relief Societies.

[1:36:47] Michelle: And I think he also needs help with them making hats and making things for the economy that he’s trying to establish so they don’t import goods for anyone other, other than, um, and so, so, but this is the question, this is where I want to go for just a few more minutes if, if, if it’s OK, because I think this is really important. Because that was part of the, um, I guess sort of the struggle I was having listening to. Like, I love seeing the relief Society presidency in the red brick brick store, but I also felt like there’s some whitewashing going on here that made me struggle a little because it’s really important to understand. The full history of relief society, including the fact that Brigham completely shut it down, right? In that 18, 1845 meetings we were talking about. Yeah, I mean,

[1:37:35] Maxine Hanks: and, and I actually was really thrilled with what they did and what they said. I thought this Relief Society meeting was so good. I, I was so moved and inspired by it. But yeah, and this brings up a whole lot of history. Brigham didn’t, he didn’t disband or shut the relief Society down in, in terms of Stopping the meeting they already stopped meeting because of all of the conflict over what was happening there, we won’t go into that, but the, the, the, there was so much conflict in Navo. Navvo was just so conflicted at that time. And there were conflicts in the church at that time they were pulling the church apart, which led to Joseph’s and Hiram’s assassination. And so the relief Society stopped meeting due to all the stress and conflict and chaos. It stopped meeting. But what Brigham did shut down. Was their authority.

[1:38:22] Michelle: That, well, that’s what I’m, yeah, that’s right. Because, I mean, he did have his statements of like, what are relief societies for to relieve us of our best men, right? He really intentionally blamed, and he said that. He said, God knew what Eve was. He’d been aware of women for tens of thousands of hundreds of tens of thousands of years, like, Brigham really was the, um, the paper. Patriarchy coming in and what he what he

[1:38:46] Maxine Hanks: did. And exactly. He didn’t have that expansive, inclusive vision that Joseph had. He was Brigham was committed to restoring the kingdom and the church, and what he did was amazing. I don’t think anybody but Brigham could have gotten the whole church across the plains out to Utah and finished building, literally building Zion. I mean, I give him credit for all that. What he did was Beyond miraculous. But the problem was that in 1845 and 1946, he puts women’s authority under men’s authority, and that wasn’t how it was set up. It was set up so that male and female authority were perfectly parallel in the lay church with the, you know, first elder and second elder and elect lady, and with the relief society presidency and the first. Presidency, and we haven’t realized this. It sounds strange to our ears because we’re so accustomed to the women being under the apostles, but it was Brigham and again, this is from my paper. I’ve got all the documents, all the research laid out, but Brigham is the one who put Uh, the relief society and the women and, and everybody under the apostles. The apostles were, they, they were lifted up to the highest level of leadership, and it’s, it’s a long complicated story, but to put it, to boil it down really simple, the, the, the authority of men and women was parallel in 1830 on the late church level in 1842 at the relief Society in the Melchizedek forums and in the temple. They got men and women under Joseph Smith got the same endowment. Women were not under men. They were not ordained to their husbands. Both men and women were ordained priests and priestess to the Most High God directly. And so that parallel equality that was instituted with Joseph and Emma, and Joseph and Emma were presiding over that temple holy order, the anointed quorum. They presided together. And so it was parallel, and what Brigham did was he shifted it so that the women were, it was hierarchical under the men rather than parallel. And that’s the simple version. That’s all I have time to go into today. And I don’t, I can’t give my whole paper on a podcast. I. But that’s just to simplify what, what happened. And so he didn’t eradicate the relief society. He didn’t eradicate their authority. He subverted their authority under his authority. That was true. And they continued to function and do so much, you know, they continued to function as priestesses. They were at Emma and the other women, they were inducting the women into the temple ceremonies. And so the relief society did continue to function, although he stopped them from meeting from about, you know, after Joseph died until like the 1860s when he needed them to come back. But they still had a lot of what they had before, but it’s just that he put their authority under his.

[1:41:34] Michelle: OK. OK. So, OK, I’m here. I’m, I’m, I’m seeing it, yeah, I’m seeing a little bit of a difference because there are a couple of different things that I see because in some ways, uh, like, like, maybe, and, and maybe you’ll disagree with us, and I’m trying to just make sense but in my mind because I actually want to get to the full trajectory because it seems to me that in a way, Brigham. Um, didn’t just, I mean, he put everything under the apostle, apostolic, right? He put the entire church. And the women specifically, it seems to me he tried to shut it down, right? And I, and the women kept meeting, but not with any, like, like Brigham said, if you see females huddling together, um, With the matter, right? So he did, he did. He shut it down. And so it kind of went back to maybe where it was in Kirtland, but not a where the women kept meeting because women are going to keep meeting and keep doing good because that’s who women are, right?

[1:42:25] Maxine Hanks: They had stopped meeting. Emma had stopped holding the meetings because of all the stress that was going on. But he forbade them from continuing because they were wanting to continue.

[1:42:35] Michelle: They wanted to start up again

[1:42:36] Maxine Hanks: 45 all those what’s that? Sorry, I,

[1:42:39] Michelle: it sounds like they wanted to start up again and he was like, no, no, I mean,

[1:42:42] Maxine Hanks: I think some of them, yeah, some of them did want to keep meeting, but so what he did was he forbade them from continuing to meet. He said, if you see, if you see the sisters gather, veto the process, shut them down. So he did. And you know, it’s kind of hair splitting, you know, some people say he disbanded the relief society. I say he disbanded their authority and subverted their authority, but he did forbid them from meeting until he needed them to come back to form Indian relief societies in Utah in the 1860s. So, and

[1:43:12] Michelle: so this is, this is. The question that I think becomes important in this is that the original relief society set up independent, completely independent and in parallel. Then we get sort of the set, the first reboot, you know, the, the re-relief Society under Brigham Young in the 1860s when it started again. And it was, it was strange because it was, um, almost a modified because they were actually still independent in so many ways, in so many ways. Even though Brigham, they were under Brigham much more than they had been originally under Joseph. They were under Brigham, but they were still independent. And then we moved forward and get the the 19. 1970s. And so that’s, I guess, what I’m like, like we’ve had the and I’m sure there are more versions of Relief Society, but these are the big ones I’m seeing right now, that we had Relief Society organized by Joseph and Emma and Sarah Granger, right? And then, then we had Relief Society reorganized by Brigham and Eliza, that was different in some ways, but still had independence. Then we get the 1970s, which completely redefined relief society a third time. anyway, I didn’t need to need you but I want to let you speak to that because the question is who are we as relief society which are we? What are we looking to?

[1:44:29] Maxine Hanks: No, that these are great questions and yeah, no, you’re right, you’re hitting the key points and I’ve outlined those in the past and And things I’ve done. But yeah, the key points are that it’s, it stops meeting in 1844, and then he brings it back in the 1860s when it’s needed. But, and, and Eliza is, is the acting president, but she’s not the ordained president because the president of the Relief Society was the parallel. To the president of the church, and so she held that office until her death. So Eliza could not be ordained to replace Emma until Emma died. Oh,

[1:45:10] Michelle: cause Emma was still alive. Oh, interesting. Did Eliza understand that? Eliza,

[1:45:16] Maxine Hanks: yeah, they all understood it. That’s why Eliza couldn’t be ordained until 1880 cause Emma Smith died in 1879.

[1:45:23] Michelle: I did. Oh my gosh, you’re blowing my mind. OK.

[1:45:25] Maxine Hanks: The 1st 4 presidents, the 1st 5 presidents of the relief Society, they were intended to hold office until their death, and they did. The first Relief Society president, and this is in my book, in the introduction to Women in Authority, the first relief Society president who was released before her death was the Emmeline Wells. In like 1921. And that’s a whole story. It’s in the introduction to my book, Women in Authority. And I hope I get the paperback version out again soon. It’s right now, it’s only in Kindle, and I need to get the print version out. But so the Office of the El Lady, you know, you have the Ladies Relief Society. The ladies are the parallel to elder. It’s not elder and sister, it’s elder and ladies. And you have the elect lady who’s the president of all the ladies, and you have the first elder who was over all the elders. This is how that was set up. But you have, um, so the, the elect lady was the parallel of the president of the high priesthood, the male priesthood, the president of the church. And so the elect lady held that office to her death. So Emma didn’t die until 1879. So Eliza was acting relief society president. He was not ordained. The actual elect lady until 1880, which John Taylor did. John Taylor was the one in this mixed message period where things were getting confused. And then the next president. was Zaa. And Zaa held the office of elected lady, relief cited president to her death. And then Bathsheba was the relief Society president until her death. So Emma held the office to her death. Eliza held the office to her death, and I think she died in 1887. Then Zaina Huntington Jacobs, who was married to also to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, she was relief Society president, held the office till her death in 1901 for 13 years. Then Bathsheba Bigler Smith, the A cousin of Joseph Smith, who was, and, and these four women, these are my heroes, and they were there at the first organizing of the relief Society in Navo. Bathsheba Bigler Smith was the 4th relief Society president, and she held the office from a turn of the century, I think it was around 1901 until 1910, until her death. Then Emmeline Wells came in and was the fifth relief Society president. She expected to hold the office to her death, but Huru Jay Grant released her. Wow, the trauma and the shock and the heartbreak of being the first relief society president, the first elect lady, the president over all the women of the church to be released instead of holding that office to her death like the president prophet, the male prophet president did, that it, it so severely traumatized her, she died a couple of days later, she died of heartbreak.

[1:48:11] Michelle: Oh my gosh. So it was almost, it was almost a coup.

[1:48:14] Maxine Hanks: It killed her. Yeah, like, like kind of killed her. It was that, that’s when the office of the El lady, the, the president of the Relief Society, that’s when her office ceased to be an office until that she held until her death, was with Eli, uh, Emmeline B. Wells. I think it was I think it was 1921, trying to remember. Yeah, I

[1:48:36] Michelle: would be fascinating to go research more. I have to reread the book.

[1:48:39] Maxine Hanks: So long story short is that female authority was set up to be equal and parallel, and in some ways, there were some offices that were ungendered that were totally non. Non-essentialist, non-gendered, and there were other offices and things that were. So the church, the other church was set up to include both, to include the gendered offices and orders and also the ungendered offices. The lame ministry of disciples is an ungendered order. That’s the primary order of the church. We are all ordained. When we are confirmed, it’s a form of ordination to a lay minister of Jesus Christ in the ungendered inclusive order of members of the Church of Christ.

[1:49:21] Michelle: We’re given the Holy Spirit. We take His name upon us, right? So those are the In elements of being OK,

[1:49:28] Maxine Hanks: we all get the gifts of the spirit and the gifts of the Spirit are one way that we access those those powers, those priesthood powers of God. So I hope that kind of brings it all into, we’ve covered a lot of territory. Sorry, but I think it all comes together because this gets back to your original question about tension. But what are we? What, what are we then? What have we lost? And here’s what’s amazing, and this is one of the things that brought me back to the church in 2012. It’s all there. It’s still intact. The male leaders have not presumed to name the female offices. They have not presumed to. To dictate or define relief society, they’ve continued to let the women um run it, but it’s, but it’s been mixed there, you know, during what well, to get back to the key points, um, I’m kind of getting ahead of myself, but at the turn of the century, that’s a big shift when, when we lose the authority of the relief society president is being over all the women. And then in 1970 with priesthood correlation, the Relief Society ceases to be an independent organization. It’s brought under the priesthood correlation and under priesthood leadership, so it’s no longer. A self-governing organization which in 1884 in the women’s exponent Eliza Arsena, this is how she’s holding on to that equality and authority. She says in the Women’s exponent, she says the relief Society was designed to be a self-governing organization, not to go to the bishops, not to be under the bishops. They’re self-governing. They take care of all. Their needs, all their problems themselves. If there’s any issue, you go to your relief society president, and she goes to her state relief Society president, and then they go to the general board and the general relief Society president, and that’s the line of authority. And she outlines that in 1844. So to answer your question, what are we, it’s still there. It’s, well, let me, it’s still there, but we’re not seeing it clearly because the Because we’ve changed the terminology. We don’t call it ordained, we call it being set apart. And the relief society authority has been brought under priesthood correlation and under the apostles, and so, The organization is still there and the men have not presumed to define female offices, but what I’m seeing happening is this knowledge is coming back and now women, the relief society leaders are taking more of their authority back and they’re starting to look at, you know, they discontinued the beehives, the laurels, the Maya maids, and they’re looking at now what are The young women offices, so it’s coming back and when I heard President Johnson make that statement, I thought, OK, it’s coming back, it’s coming back. It’s just this process of recovering what we had and finishing it to finish naming our order and our offices that’s and so what I see relief Society as is it’s survived, it’s intact, but we’ve got to finish. Naming it and we’ve got to operationalize it so that it’s very clear that women know that these are ordinations to the female order and these are female offices of female priesthood in the relief society and then that’s not the only one. Then we still get to go and enter into an inclusive ungendered order of priesthood in the temple, the holy order. That’s where the male priesthood of Melchizedek and the female priesthood of relief Society, or whatever we eventually end up calling the female order, we might change the name of it. Those two male and female orders come together in the temple in a new inclusive order, which is the ultimate final stage, and it’s the holy order of priesthood.

[1:53:09] Michelle: OK. So what I’m hearing, oh my gosh, Maxine, I have loved this conversation. And what I think I’m taking away is kind of the same, like, like, I am a member of this church and I love this church, and I fully, um, participate in this church. And I, um, Look, look forward to the day when some of the false traditions as I view them, are not still held by the church. So in a way, what I’m hearing is, I do the same thing and I just harken back to the origin of of relief society and the original. Um, the original vision and understanding, and look forward to, right? I keep that alive in my heart and as my intention as I go forward as a member of relief society. I don’t view, I need to stop viewing myself as a member of this little organization that’s patted on the head and controlling and told what to do. I need to instead, just even just spiritually and emotionally and mentally, step into the space of what I actually am connected to. And then if it takes a little while for everything else to catch up, that’s OK, cause I’m gonna be there. Is that kind of what you’re saying?

[1:54:27] Maxine Hanks: Yeah, and that’s what I’m seeing. That’s, I’m reading between the lines of what the leaders are saying. I’ve been hearing Julie Beck say this. President. I’ve been hearing President Nelson saying this, talking about Section 25 and talking about the release society, and we’re in this weird kind of space where, where You know, the men and the religious society leaders are encouraging us to go deep and pull out what’s there to be ready for because we’ve got to finish bringing this back. And, and so it’s not a matter of the men just coming in and saying, OK, here’s what it is, here’s what we’re going to call it, here’s what the female officers are going to be. No, no, that’s not what they’re saying. They’re the. Female leaders and male leaders are saying, go deep, read this, see what’s there, and start to pull this out. And I’ve been watching this come back since, since I came back to the church 12 years ago. I saw it really starting to come back. This was the big sign for me when I heard Julie Beck speak about relief society as a quorum of priesthood and about accessing those cars. And she’s the one who I really heard. Uh, really recovering that idea of relief society as priesthood.

[1:55:39] Michelle: And wasn’t she the one that told us to study our history, that told the sisters to study the history of relief society? And what I’m, what I’m finding amazing right now is that you heard that and saw it because you had ears to see, I mean, ears to hear and eyes to see, which I didn’t have because I didn’t. Understand the history like you have. And so as you are spreading your, um, historical work and your understanding of the meaning and origin of relief society, you’re giving more of us eyes to see and ears to hear and hearts to understand, which is what is required for us to be able to see the messages that are being That’s beautiful to me, that now I can hopefully hear it in a different way because of what you’ve helped me understand. I appreciate that so much.

[1:56:27] Maxine Hanks: We have to be ready for it. I saw it. I saw it 30 years ago and got in trouble for saying it too soon, but I saw it and I saw it in Julie Beck, and I saw it in Gene Bingham, and I, I see it in, um, You know, President Johnson. Yeah, Camille Johnson. And so it’s there, but we’ve got to, we have to bring it forth. The sisters brought it forth in the 1830s and the 1840s. We have to bring this forth, and it’s a partnership. It’s a partnership. And it’s an exciting time. And I think that, uh, the more we, the more we see what’s deeper there and that everyone has contributed. And so even though there’s this tension between what we had and what we lost and where we are today, everybody’s contributing. Ordian women contributed. The releaseciquicentennial, they contributed, you know, Julie Beck and and Gene Bingham contributed, um, President Nelson contributed. We’re all contributing to this. Recovery of the fullness, because we had so much under Joseph Smith, it was like drinking from a fire hose, and, and a lot of men and a lot of women weren’t ready for it yet. And, and, and so we lost ground, we backtracked in some ways, but not totally. The organization is still intact. It’s still there. What’s missing is our terminology of ordain and our understanding that these are female offices, and we, you know, we just have to finish flushing this out like Saraher, Kimball and Eliza were trying to do in the 1850s and 1960s. They were trying to finish naming the offices and there was too much pushback. It just was still too new and too You know, um, Just unorganized and so. And they were trying to do it in this,

[1:58:19] Michelle: they were trying to do it in a polygamist culture, which was going to be a challenge, right? And in this, like, like, we now, the world is, is ripe for us to be able to do this because the other part we’re missing when you were naming what we were missing, I wanted to also say our our independent parallel authority, right? We’re also missing that. But in a way, this is what’s so interesting. What Joseph, well, and Emma and the women brought forward was way ahead of its time, and so it struggled, but now, Now the world has caught up and we are way behind the rest of the world. Whereas if we kind of swapped, do you know what I mean? If Joseph had the structure that we had now, it would work out OK. And if we had the structure that Emma and Joseph had then, we’d fit in like there wouldn’t be any tension in the different experience women are having in the world versus in the church. Isn’t that a fascin I, that’s a fascinating, like epiphany I just had. And so in a way, if we Look back to the original structure with Joseph and Emma and Eliza and Sarah and your other heroes. Like that would solve our problems, many of our problems that we’re having right now.

[1:59:33] Maxine Hanks: Yeah, there, there are these gaps, historical amnesia, loss of memory, historical drift, and we’re, we’re we’re all working together, historians, feminists, leaders, male and female leaders, members. We’re all working together to, to close this gap. And to bring us together and to flesh out the fullness. And that’s what we’re after is we’re after the fullness of the gospel and the fullness of the priesthood. The men and women both got the fullness of the priesthood in the temple. They both got it under Joseph Smith. It wasn’t just the men. The women got the fullness, yeah. And it wasn’t, and it wasn’t just about marriage. It was individual men, individual women, each got the fullness. That’s what the endowment was. And that’s a whole other paper I won’t go into. But the point is, We’re recovering that fullness, and it takes all of us to restore the priesthood. It takes all of us. That was a prophetic statement made in 1844 that it takes or whatever year that was made, but it the leader who said, the male leaders who said it takes all to restore the priesthood. And that’s where we’re at today. And so these tensions that you’re picking up on that we’ve all been dealing with, historians deal with it, feminists deal with it. Um, it’s, it’s just that the gaps that we’re trying to bridge and close as we figure out what we had and how to really bring it back in a way that That honors that full authority and empowerment that each member was intended to have both in the lay ministry as an ordained minister of Christ and in the ancient priesthoods, the male and female priesthoods, and in the temple Endowment, and I really see it coming back. It’s just a complex big process.

[2:01:16] Michelle: Oh my goodness. OK. Well, that’s where, that’s where my focus is going to be. I’m so thankful for this conversation. I, I just, I appreciate you so much. I really value what, what you’ve, you’ve said here, what I, what you’ve taught us. I think it’s so important. I’m going to Look at our relief Society presidency differently and, and maybe we have to rewatch this meeting and obviously reread your book. And I am waiting on pins and needles for your papers to come out because I think those will be, those will be so important. So, Maxine, thank you so much for coming and talking to me. Do you have any final words or?

[2:01:55] Maxine Hanks: No, I just, I love you, Michelle. I really love you and there’s so much I admire about you. And it’s OK that we disagree about plugging in. It’s OK that we fight an arm wrestle about certain aspects. That’s what the early leaders of the church did. They were arguing about everything, and I love it because it takes all of us. You have brought back in your work certain pieces of information that are really important, that are part of this picture. And it takes all to restore the fullness, not just the male leaders, not just um The, the historians employed by the church and, and not just the people who consider themselves, you know, to be right and us to be wrong. It takes all of us, cause we’ve all, we’re all, we’re all holding a piece of this fullness and um Uh, we just need to hear each other and appreciate each other more, and, and know that it’s OK to disagree, and that doesn’t. That that doesn’t destroy anything.

[2:02:54] Michelle: Oh, I love it. Zion being of one heart is exactly, I think, what we experienced, what we’re demonstrating here and what hopefully will be demonstrated on our panel on Friday and at that conference, being able to disagree and love one another. That’s what being of one purpose, right? Yeah,

[2:03:13] Maxine Hanks: you and you and Cheryl and I are going to have 3 different feminist views of Emma, and they’re different. You know, it’s gonna be fun. It’s gonna be fun.

[2:03:21] Michelle: Excellent. Yeah, I hope everyone got to see it. And, and, um, cause now, because it will have been on Friday, but it’s gonna be great. So, Maxine, thank you, and I’m looking forward to talking more in the future.

[2:03:33] Maxine Hanks: Me too, me too. And I’ll come back. We’ll, we’ll talk

[2:03:37] Michelle: more. I am looking forward to it. Thanks.

[2:03:39] Maxine Hanks: OK, take care.

[2:03:41] Michelle: Another huge thank you to Maxine for coming and spending time, even in the midst of getting ready for the Journal of Mormon Polygamy conference, which we are preparing for right now, even though you will see this once it’s over. But thank you so much for all of those who supported us at this conference and for all of you who continue to tune in. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you as we go on this journey together. I’ll see you next time.