ARE BOYS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GIRLS? The Conflict of Gender Difference and Equality in Mormonism
(Given at the Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 11, 2006)
“Are boys more important than girls?” This question was asked by an 8-year old Mormon boy who had been left behind with his mother and sisters while his father and older brother attended the October 2004 priesthood session of general conference. When the boy’s mother answered that boys and girls are indeed equally important, this eight-year old contradicted her with bracing candor: “I think,” he said “that boys are more important because Jesus and Heavenly Father are boys, and boys get the priesthood and girls don’t.” The very next morning, President Hinckley addressed the value and importance of LDS women in a talk entitled “The Women in Our Lives,” where he stated that “women are such a necessary part of the plan of happiness which our Heavenly Father has outlined for us.” The boy’s mother felt that the LDS prophet’s remarks were an inspired answer to her son’s question and supported her defense of the equality of women in the Church. Subsequently, she related this incident as a faith-promoting story in sacrament meeting in my sister’s ward.
But is President Hinckley’s statement that “women are such a necessary part” of God’s plan really an assertion of gender equality? In this paper I will address the question “Are boys more important than girls?” by examining five related questions:
1. Does God’s justice demand gender equality; and, if so, is it possible to achieve gender equality and gender difference simultaneously?
2. Is gender equality in the Church to be measured objectively by outward criteria or subjectively by the feelings reported by LDS women?
3. Does the Church have the moral duty to promote gender equality within its organization?
4. If the Church is failing in such a duty, how can concerned members work for change when they also believe it is divinely guided by priesthood authority?
5. And perhaps most important of all, what would it take to make an 8-year-old conclude that LDS girls are just as important as LDS boys?
Jurisprudentially, equality is defined either as equality of treatment, called commutative justice, or as equality of condition, called distributive justice. Commutative justice requires equal treatment of individuals under law. Distributive justice requires the equal distribution of wealth, privilege, and power. Each concept seeks to avoid invidious discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, or alienage. Human differences are what complicate the picture in either case, due to genetic endowments or environmental conditions. If justice is blind to such differences, then the socially or naturally underprivileged will be disadvantaged. Is it possible to honor difference and promote equality at the same time?
Much of the feminist debate about gender equality has centered on the implications of these definitions and problems. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the “first wave” of feminists emphasized women’s commonality with men, arguing that the human traits they shared with men should entitle them to common human dignity and equality under the law. This call for gender blindness and commutative justice dominated the suffrage movement. A later feminist wave, however, argued that this type of gender equality continued to privilege males and helped only those assertive male-identified women with inherent abilities to succeed in a patriarchal world, especially those who had not assumed the duties of wife and mother. Such “difference” feminists argued for a maternal or woman-centered equality that put nurturing and caring on an equal footing with autonomy and assertiveness. This position, however, was later criticized by postmodern feminists as essentializing women and reducing them to biological and psychological stereotypes that disqualify women from certain roles on the assumption that all women share common characteristics. So the feminist debate goes round and round. But what unites all feminist approaches is the goal of ending the domination and subordination of women and of all the underprivileged worldwide, such as children, the elderly, disabled, etc.[i]
How does this controversy relate to the gender question in Mormonism? What does equality mean in LDS terms? In 2 Nephi 26 we find a scriptural requirement for the equal treatment of all God’s children: “he [the Lord] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” In contrast to the proud who lift themselves above others and work for their own gain alone, God works for the “benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.” At the end of this chapter there is a significant clarification that the term “men” includes all races, genders, and ethnic groups. All are alike and equally privileged. None is forbidden in respect to receiving the goodness of God. The Book of Mormon asserts, then, that salvation is a gift available to men and women alike. But do men and women need to be alike to fully receive it?
In the 1995 document “The Family: A Proclamation,” the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve assert that the male and female sexes and role differences are part of eternal identity: “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” Inherent in this statement is a striking contradiction: Men and women are to be equal partners, and yet the male partner is always to preside and provide, while the female partner is always to nurture. The division would seem to make women eternally subordinate to men since sub means “under” and ordinate means “order” or “rank.” If one partner always presides, even in love and righteousness, this still makes the other subordinate, at least in rule, if not also in rank. Doesn’t the Proclamation, then, contradict the ideal of equality required in the Book of Mormon?
In talking to many active and believing Mormons over the years, both male and female, I have found that most feel that men and women are equal in worth but have been assigned different roles, as outlined in the Proclamation. One woman explained: “they have the same capabilities but different responsibilities.” The prevailing view of LDS women appears to be that, while the genders may not be equal in condition, they are equally valued and fairly treated. But is this ideal true in LDS Church practice? To answer this question, I will examine three pieces of evidence: First, President Hinckley’s talk “The Women in Our Lives”; second, some visual representations of men and women in recent issues of the Church’s Ensign Magazine; and third, the result of reversing references to men and women in LDS discourse.
President Hinckley’s October 2004 general conference talk, “The Women in Our Lives,” focuses on the equal value and dignity of women, contradicting the view of those men who think they are superior simply because of their sex. Echoing the Proclamation, President Hinckley states that the duality of male and female is God’s design: “Their complementary relationships and functions are fundamental to his purposes. One is incomplete without the other.” He further asserts that those men who “think they are superior to women . . . do not seem to realize that they would not exist but for the mother who gave them birth. When they assert their superiority, they demean her.”
Despite his obvious intent to correct what he sees as arrogant male chauvinism that can lead to divorce, abuse, and family stress, President Hinckley gives to men the central role of setting up the way the family system operates. He assumes that men have the right and ability to define women’s roles, to determine whether or not women’s condition is fair or unfair, and to establish the environment in which women can find happiness. While he links women’s value with their mothering function alone, he grants to men a nurturing role as well as a presiding one when he says: “I plead with the men of this Church, to look for and nurture the divinity that lies within their companions. To the degree that happens, there will be harmony, peace, enrichment of family life, nurturing love.” That President Hinckley addressed this talk to men when there were women present in his audience again assumes that agency and leadership ability center on males. He blames divorce mostly on men, assuming that men control the home and have the power and authority to avoid divorce by properly presiding over wives and children. He does insist that men should not make all the decisions in the home, but again the presumption is that the decision not to make all the decisions lies with men. On the positive side, President Hinckley is obviously trying to loosen men’s hold on power, encouraging them to share it more equally with their wives. But the presumption of male power underlying his talk reinforces the very thing he is trying to remedy. This is evident when he forefronts the creation of the world as solely a male enterprise: “The Almighty was the architect of that creation. Under his direction it was executed by his Beloved Son, the Great Jehovah, who was assisted by Michael, the Archangel.” After this all-male trinity created the cosmos, they decided the endeavor would not be complete without the introduction of a female as a helpmeet for the male. Of the various LDS versions of the creation of woman, President Hinckley emphasizes the account of her being taken from Adam’s rib, rather than the account that states that the male and female were each created “in the image of God.” This is a curious choice to contradict the denigration of women. He says, “Notwithstanding this preeminence given the creation of woman, she has so frequently through the ages been relegated to a secondary position.” But isn’t woman, in his account, relegated to a secondary position? Isn’t it secondary for an all-male godhead to create woman after the man as a helpmeet for him? To say that women are the culmination of creation rather than at its source is to say that women are derivative, not primary; important, not essential; helpers, not partners; separate, not equal.
I applaud President Hinckley for addressing the gender issue; I think his purpose is to elevate women. And yet the contradictions in his remarks reinforce the view of women not as active and empowered participants, but as receivers without equal power or authority to control the family or its environment. There are several important contradictions, in fact. First, no matter how much lip service is given to women’s worth and equality, the patriarchal, governing structure of the Church gives dominance and preference to men and their views, simply because they have the say as to how things are organized and defined. Second, women, as a group, cannot feel a full sense of their worth when they have to rely on male leaders, like Pres. Hinckley, to insure their fair treatment. That the problem is systemic, and not merely a matter of individual behavior, can be seen by the fact that women’s roles and input in the Church are entirely dependent on the way male leaders allow them to participate. Many have assured me that women have a voice in the Church because the male leaders they know ask women for their input. The crucial point is this: whether this happens or not, either on a local or Church-wide level, is entirely in the discretionary power of men. And finally, though male Church leaders repeatedly assert that a woman’s chief, indispensable, contribution is motherhood, this alleged indispensability is entirely subverted by the absence of women in their telling of the cosmic creation account. If Heavenly Mother is absent as an equal participant in the creation, what is the “mothering” principle really worth? If mothers are so vital, where is the council of mothers, either in heaven or in the earthly Church? Where are the female Church leaders with equal voices to men’s, women with equal authority to assure that nurture, care, and right relationships are fostered in the Church? And what are we to make of theories of gender equality that tie the worth of women only to their functioning as wives and mothers (even when single or childless), while these same theories tie the worth of men to their priestly ordinations that are not only independent of but often in competition with their functioning as husbands and fathers? These theories of different roles create different concepts of self-worth. It is true that single men are also not likely to be called to important Church offices—a fact that demonstrates that men, too, are limited by gender roles.
These gender tensions are not only evident in words but in pictures. Frankly, I hadn’t read The Ensign for some time. So last year I examined a number of issues and was pleased to discover more articles by women and more images of women in actions not formerly associated with their traditional service in the Church, such as women as gospel students and teachers rather than simply as providers of food and compassionate service. I will show you three pages from the January 2005 issue of The Ensign. In the first, a woman is thoughtfully studying the scriptures along with Church magazines. In the next, the same woman, presumably, is teaching a class of mixed men and women. In the third, the woman is at a pulpit speaking in sacrament meeting. These visuals are encouraging for gender equity because they create an unspoken sense of women’s authority in regard to doctrine. When I was young, there were few such images of women possessing doctrinal interest or being serious students of the scriptures. However, in the third visual, note the male leadership seated behind the woman, reinforcing the role of the male priesthood holders as governors in the Church. The woman speaks at the behest of men. Of course, men also speak at the behest of men with higher authority. But no man in the Church ever speaks at the behest of a woman.
The importance of priesthood authority is the most dominant message and pattern in all the issues of The Ensign I examined. The presence of male priesthood authority is felt on almost every page in pictures, authoritative statements, and in the magazine’s format itself. In this January issue, 5 out of the 12 named articles are written by women; and of the 7 by men, 5 are by general authorities. In another issue, 8 out of 17 articles are by women, and again 5 of the male authors are general authorities. Also, throughout the publication, quotes by prominent Church leaders, living and dead, are displayed along with their pictures in highlighted boxes for each major article in every issue. While this clearly functions as a teaching device to add material for further thought about the subject at hand, the underlying lesson is the importance of priesthood leadership in establishing truth by authority. In this picture, Elder Russell Nelson’s statement about the blessings of the temple is forefronted and set off in a touching article by a woman who describes how her faith in the ordinances of the gospel helped in her struggle following the death of her husband. More of the women’s articles in The Ensign deal with relationships and practical problems; more of the men’s articles deal with doctrine and history. Overall, The Ensign reinforces President Hinckley’s message that women are indeed a very important part of the Church and contribute to it in many ways, but men lead and define both the Church and women.
What if we reversed male and female references? What would LDS discourse look like? What if, as we flipped through the pages of The Ensign, we saw female leaders highlighted and quoted authoritatively and men in supporting roles? What if, instead of pictures of Christ, we saw pictures of Mary his mother, or Mary Magdalene, or a female savior? What if our image of God were female? What if we merely substituted the male pronoun for the female in scripture? Such a rewrite of 2 Nephi 26 should give you a taste for how this might feel:
For behold, my beloved sisters, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness. She doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for she loveth the world, even that she layeth down her own life that she may draw all women unto her. Wherefore, she commandeth none that they shall not partake of her salvation.
If this were the language that we read over and over in all scripture and other official texts, could men feel that they were full participants in the Church and gospel? Would they perhaps question their worth and eternal value and position?
As the 8-year-old boy could see: Jesus and Heavenly Father are boys. If the Godhead is boys, then boys are in charge. Mormon theology, reinforced as recently as October 2004 by President Hinckley, does not accord to women the power to create or save worlds. The highest authority is vested in males. Women are not final decision-makers. The Relief Society, touted as the largest and possibly oldest women’s organization in the world, is subordinate to men in every way with no chain of command from General Relief Society Presidency to each stake and ward Relief Society Presidency. Rather, at each level, general, stake, ward, and branch, women are called by, released by, and supervised by men, to whom they must report and from whom they must seek and obtain permission and money to act. Church resources rest entirely in the hands of men. Although often used by women, Church funds are never to be used without male approval. Women cannot even schedule the use of a chapel without male permission. They cannot create or present a curriculum that has not been approved by males. The current Relief Society textbook is taken entirely from the writings and utterances of males.
Women confess their sins to males, never to other females; and certainly men never officially confess their sins to women. Men hold all the judicial offices of the Church, whether in a disciplinary council conducted by a bishop on the ward level or by a president on the stake level, or on the general appellate level. Women are therefore never tried by their peers. On the other hand, Church leaders do not need the approval of women for any of their actions, nor are they required to receive doctrine or ordinances from women. Men define doctrine, policy, and practice. They define normative behaviors. They create the moral context for all departments of Mormon life. They literally hold the keys of the kingdom on earth and in heaven.
I have attempted to illustrate evidence for gender inequity in the LDS Church from the point of view of an outsider based on objective evidence of a pattern of male domination and female subordination in all formal LDS Church power structures. But is it right to look at gender equity only in this way? Another approach that might be employed is referred to as “third world feminism.” Third world feminism is a response to the hegemony of white, European-American women in the feminist movement. Such white feminists are often liberals who come to free native women from oppressive traditions, but without any awareness of the beliefs and desires of those they are supposedly trying to help, and end up inadvertently colonizing the native women instead. This white feminist hegemony is also represented by academics, so caught up in careers and theory that they dismiss everyday politics and lose sight of the real practices that affect women’s identities and status. Third world feminism provides a model for critiquing power structures while honoring women’s agency and self-descriptions. It suggests common concerns across racial, ethnic, and national borders without erasing important differences.[ii] The implication of this theory for the Mormon gender question is that gender equity cannot be defined without knowing how most LDS women feel about this issue.
I started this paper with the question of an 8-year old boy. His opinion, however, should not be given greater weight than that of his mother, who appears willing not only to accept President Hinckley’s assertions but her own role as evidence in some way of the equality of genders in the LDS church. A recent study by an intern at the Smith Institute at BYU showed that 70% of LDS women surveyed were content with their role in the Church. While the results have been questioned because of the way the survey was set up to solicit certain kinds of answers, they accord in large part with my own assessment based on informal discussions with hundreds of Mormon women over the last twenty years. I am not a social scientist and do not pretend to know how to interpret statistics mathematically, but I am trained to read texts and to interpret cultural signifying practices. I would not be surprised if a broader survey revealed a statistic even higher than 70% approval in some contexts.
When I have asked LDS women if they are satisfied with their current status in the Church, most active women say “yes.” When asked if they think it is fair for men alone to be in charge of the Church, most say they do not envy men this position and would not like to bear the responsibility of hearing confessions, holding disciplinary councils, and making hard decisions about Church policy, procedure, practice, and doctrine. Their answers are usually couched in language that shows that LDS Church leadership is so identified with maleness that for a woman to be dissatisfied with her exclusion from power is tantamount to her being dissatisfied with her sex and her mothering function—the very roles she is told her Heavenly Father has assigned her—a dissatisfaction that most Mormon women would see as synonymous with ingratitude to and even rebellion against God. One woman told me, “we [women] don’t hold the priesthood and therefore cannot be in positions in the church of great prominence, but that doesn’t bother me. I don’t care to hold the priesthood. . . I feel its power in my home. I don’t think it makes me a lesser person to my husband or to my sons; I just see my role as mother and nurturer as the role best suited for me.”
In my view, the reason why most Mormon women say they are satisfied with their role in the Church is that they have concluded, consciously or not, that the advantages of membership in what they deeply believe is Christ’s true Church outweigh any disadvantages. Since these women believe that salvation can come only through the Church, it makes sense from their perspective to ignore ecclesiastical stresses and problems and cling to the gospel of Jesus Christ and its blessings, letting God sort out the power issues that might arise. One woman said:
I guess it’s hard when, as a woman, you feel very strongly about something in the church, whether it is who to call in your organization, or how to proceed with an activity and the men always do have the final say. I don’t know how that could change with the nature of Priesthood callings. . . . I believe in sustaining the prophets who are called of God. If I ere [sic], I want it to be on the side of obedience, since, if a Priesthood holder is leading us astray or making incorrect decisions, the Lord can deal with that in His way and in His time.
For such women, their subjective view does justify the Church’s treatment of women, despite any and all objective evidence that the genders are treated differently and unequally. Any gender inequities are to them but the unintended consequences of a benign Church that requires men to provide for families and to protect the women, children, and weaker members in their charge from economic, physical, moral, and spiritual harm. Not surprisingly, I have found in talking to LDS women that their views on gender issues are closely tied to their individual experiences with the men in their lives. One woman explained:
I was raised in a home where my father thought very highly of my mother and her abilities. He always treated her well. I never sensed any feeling of men being better or more important than women in our family. My brothers had that kind of example and followed it . . . [D.] has been that kind of a husband also. I know that some women are not as fortunate as I have been, and may answer these questions differently.
Should the subjective feelings of faithful Mormon women resolve the gender question in the LDS Church? Or does the partial objective list of gender inequities mentioned earlier justify a challenge to the Church’s construct of male privilege? These questions are complicated by other factors. First, the positive or negative pictures given by women in questionnaires may not reflect their complete experiences. Because gender equity is a highly charged issue, it is difficult for those on either side to tell the truth about their feelings and experiences, even to themselves, especially under unspoken pressure from both sides of the question. The very fact that the issue is perceived as two-sided and polemical rather than multiple and complex is telling. Though unfair, many perceive as unbelieving those who question, while others perceive as unthinking those who conform. One woman interviewed expressed both serious concerns about women’s roles as well as many positive experiences as a Church member. But when asked to write her views, she expressed only the positive, despite assurances of anonymity. Many women expressed a desire to be more public with their concerns, but feared the consequences. One woman said, “I have a wonderful husband who wants our two sons to be raised in the Church; I can’t risk getting kicked out.”
There are few willing to risk Church membership by stating their concerns publicly. However, in the December 2004 issue of Sunstone, Peter Bleakley from Kent England described the damage he sees happening to women in the LDS Church:
All my life I have been surrounded by [women] spiritual giants with exemplary faith, who should never for a moment have to question whether they have value in God’s kingdom or a right to be heard. But because they are women, even when they hold senior callings, their ability to function and contribute depends entirely on the mindset and basic social skills of their priesthood line-managers. . . . When my own mother . . . who has devoted her life to raising children in the gospel . . . has started to seriously wonder whether women really are second-class citizens in the celestial kingdom, alarm bells ring with me. Something has gone seriously wrong. With the self-confidence our doctrines should give her, how could she become so demoralized?
Bleakley gets to the heart of the matter. In judging whether or not gender inequity is a problem in the LDS Church, the evidence and issues must be examined in terms of basic Christian ethics. The primary moral question must be what the current practice does to individual self-worth. The scripture that states that the “worth of souls is great in the eyes of the Lord” is central to an LDS theology of personhood.[iii] To block any soul from reaching her potential or from using his gift must be seen as an offense to God who is involved in the giving and receiving of those gifts. In looking at gender structures in the Church, we must ask how they affect each person’s ability to “partake of the goodness of God,” to return to the concept found in 2 Nephi 26. While this is a difficult question to answer, as I have tried to show by looking at women’s own statements and feelings about gender roles, still for the sake of fair treatment, there must be the freedom to question, which is presently lacking in the Church.
I see two obstacles to an open examination of gender difference and equality: first, an ambiguity surrounding the desirability of power; and second, the belief that the present Church structure must, and therefore does, reflect the will of God. Most women who complain, or even express pain or doubt, about gender inequity in the Church are immediately accused of being power hungry and out of line with Church doctrine and authority. Lorie Winder Stromberg asks why we assume that wanting power is a bad thing:
I’ve spent too many years on the defensive . . . It’s time I owned the term. Perhaps I am power hungry. And my question is: Why aren’t we all? If by power hungry you mean I desire the ability not only to accept responsibilities in the institutional Church but also to be part of defining those responsibilities, then, yes, I’m power hungry . . . . If by power hungry you mean I believe women must have a voice in the Church, then, yes, I’m power hungry . . . . If by power hungry you mean I would welcome a heightened ability to bless the lives of others, then, yes, I’m power hungry . . . . if by power hungry you mean I want the ability to participate in a model of power based on partnership rather than patriarchy, based on empowerment rather than domination, then, yes, I’m power hungry.[iv]
In LDS discourse the term “power” is not often connected with male leadership roles, even though priesthood is defined as “the power or authority to act in God’s name.” Rather, priesthood is usually connected to “stewardship,” “service,” and “callings,” terms that emphasize duty and downplay recognition. While men are allowed to view such callings as desirable, even central to male identity, many LDS priesthood holders do not have managerial positions and, like women, are deprived of involvement in the making of policy and interpreting doctrine. In talking to active LDS men over the years, I have found that they too feel a lack of self-worth if they have never been called to lead. Ecclesiastical hierarchy stratifies men as well as women. Because Church leaders are so highly revered and so important, it is difficult for male members not to see their personal worth as dependent on the type of Church callings they receive. However, Mormon men rarely complain about being pegged as only followers because of the strong, unspoken prohibition in the culture against “aspiring to Church office.” Mormon men don’t want to be thought of as ambitious for such callings. But silently many understandably are. Yet, most do not see that their feelings of lack of worth at being side-lined correspond to what women feel by their exclusion from leadership and decision-making.
As a feminist disinclined toward corporate power and inclined toward an ethics of care and relationship, I am uneasy with the Church’s modeling of priesthood authority upon the secular model of corporate management. In the last twenty years I have repeatedly asserted the necessity of reexamining and redefining in sacral terms the meaning and nature of priesthood. On the other hand, I agree with Lorie Stromberg that because power is the ability to act and produce an effect, power issues in a healthy community must be acknowledged openly as a fundamental part of both personal agency and institutional organization. When power issues are avoided, then power is more likely to be abused to gratify pride and ambition or to exercise compulsion, to paraphrase D&C 121.
I will now return to the question of whether the equal dignity and worth of all Church members can be promoted under the rule that men must always preside and women must always nurture. That is, in the LDS Church, can there be fair treatment of the sexes, including equal access to resources, privileges, protections, and avenues of participation when the genders in the Church are divided into these roles alone? The answer must be “no” for several reasons.
First, these roles limit women’s and men’s ability to express their agency and use their gifts. Though humans have different gifts that qualify some more than others for certain functions, those differences are not sufficient justification for excluding anyone from access to opportunity—at least not if we want impartial even-handedness in their treatment. My severe lack of talent as a singer should not prohibit me from taking lessons and auditioning for a choir. By the same token, my sex or race should not disqualify me from pursuing my desires either. Moreover, gender and race surely differ from talents or abilities as markers for exclusion or inclusion. Yet, the LDS Church promotes the assumption that gender disqualifies women from most Church leadership and management roles. Even if we acknowledge that gender differences connected to the body are eternal, we must also acknowledge that women can bear and rear children while serving as Relief Society presidents, even as men can serve as bishops while functioning as fathers. Fathers must nurture, and Relief Society presidents must preside. Because some women may have the “natural” ability to preside and some men the “natural” ability to nurture, to deny either access to these roles simply on the basis of their sex is unreasonable, discriminatory and damaging. And yet motherhood is said by Church leaders to disqualify a woman from leadership roles connected to priesthood, even for women who do not have children or will never have children in their care. By contrast, priesthood, which is available to all men, does not disqualify them from fatherhood. To say that the gender division of priesthood for men and motherhood for women is simply a matter of different responsibilities avoids the central issues of personal agency, growth, and development. This division is false and creates a damaging dichotomy. As with race, acknowledging differences based on sex is not discriminatory unless used to exclude, treat unjustly, or subordinate.[v] Yet the current gender role distinctions asserted by Church leaders put women in a subordinate position solely because of their sex. Nevertheless, strong and intelligent women continue to wield power informally, especially in the home and sometimes in the Church organization as well. This fact not only clouds the issue, it encourages women to resort to manipulation to maintain a voice.
The second reason current LDS gender roles are not equal is that they prevent women from developing all of their talents. If a woman must invariably nurture and is forbidden from exercising her other abilities, these other talents become meaningless to her and may in time be lost as well (a “hiding your light” analogy). There is currently no place for a woman to bless the Church with prophetic insight because this particular spiritual gift is connected solely with priesthood office, which is true of many other spiritual gifts as well.
The third reason that current gender roles in the Church are not equal is that they deny women full agency to participate in defining and authorizing doctrines and policies that shape cultural and personal identity and practice. Because most decisions about the management of the Church and the direction of spiritual affairs are made by priesthood councils, women do not have a full voice or “vote” in the Church. Thus, the Church’s current gender roles promote, at best, a gender-based policy of “separate but equal.”
I am aware that no matter how persuasive my arguments may be about gender inequity in the Church, they will be perceived merely as feminist criticism, or worse as “anti-Mormon,” as long as the current gender roles are seen as divinely mandated. This fact leads to my final questions.
Can’t we assume in a Church run by revelation from God that the current structure is God’s will and that any change must come from the current prophet? There are many problems with this line of reasoning, but the short answer must be “no.” There are numerous historical precedents, starting with the Church’s about-face on its policy of withholding priesthood from black men that expose the fallacy and danger of this position. To assume that all current Church policies and teachings are correct is to assume that human mistakes and misjudgments cannot infect the Church, a view plentifully contradicted by the scriptural history of God’s dealings with his people and his repeated calls for repentance. Some argue that though individual members can sin and are imperfect, the Church is perfect and its leaders acting unanimously represent the will of God. Such a view puts the Church as a whole in a position of self-righteous pride that keeps its membership from a thoughtful self-examination that serves as the foundation of on-going repentance. Do we really think that we are the only generation that has not sinned collectively? Or that our Church leaders have become infallible? Could President Kimball have received the 1978 revelation if his heart had not been open to the wrongness of the Church on this issue? Had we willing admitted that denying blacks the priesthood was a human prejudice instead of God’s will, we would have avoided generations of collateral prejudice and severe damage to our brothers and sisters.
The Church’s primary duty is to promulgate the gospel of Jesus Christ, to assert that each soul is equally precious in God’s eyes. Any Church policy that contravenes or offends this principle must be questioned. Our scriptures admonish us to aid the oppressed, to notice the poor, to bind up wounds, to nourish those who hunger and thirst. It is the Church that bears the principal duty to promote equality of treatment, of dignity, of value, and, to the extent possible, of distribution of wealth as well. If current Church policy or practice can cause an eight-year old boy to conclude that boys are more important than girls, then the Church must repent of its policies. The only way to reject long-standing false traditions that have assumed institutional legitimacy is simple renunciation, just as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Brown v. Board of Education—where it publicly repented by reversing its doctrine of separate but equal as just plain wrong. The Church must do the same. It must admit that separate but equal in matters of gender is just plain wrong, an affront to the equal dignity and worth of women and men both.
It is ironic that the principle of continuing revelation in Mormonism, meant to facilitate change, is currently employed to preserve the status quo. Yes, we must be realistic about the resistance of people to change, especially when it involves vested personal and institutional interests. And we should creatively deal with problems in ways that do not alienate members. But surely, in a Church that claims the legitimate priesthood authority to act for God, social injustice based on race, gender, or class, must be eradicated not only as threats to the faith and well-being of members but as worldly sins intolerable in the sight of God in the Church that has been called out of darkness and obscurity to be a light unto the world and a city on a hill.
[i] See the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on “feminism” and “justice” for helpful summaries of the scholarship on these issues.
[ii] Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s Feminism Without Borders is a good representation of third world feminism. I owe thanks to Roberta Micallef, my former colleague at the University of Utah, for introducing me to these concepts.
[iii] D&C 18:10.
[iv] Sunstone Magazine, December, 2004.
[v] I do not have time in this paper to explore the complexities of defining gender difference and the issue of constructed versus “natural” difference. My argument here assumes difference while attempting to promote the welfare of all.