man with trust printed on his face
man with trust printed on his face
Picture of Guest Post
Guest Post
Exponent II features the work of guest authors writing about issues related to Mormonism and feminism. Submit a guest post Write for Exponent II.

Guest Post: What Man Can I Trust?

by Anonymous

Like many other people, I read the disturbing New York Times article that recounted the sexual harassment Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath (the creators of the Man Enough podcast) allegedly inflicted upon Blake Lively on the movie set of It Ends With Us. I’ve been wondering why the news felt like a gut punch to me. After a lot of processing, I think I pinpointed why I felt betrayed over this news: these men has held themselves up as male allies who were emotionally attuned, critiqued rigid gender roles, and embraced a masculinity that was caring and empathetic. In them I had finally found male allies that I thought were examples of the “ideal man,” and I am now terribly lost and don’t know which men to really trust.

I think that many LDS people specifically would wonder why I would ever be dramatic enough to say that I feel lost when it comes to finding examples of “ideal men” because they would just point to the massive list of male General Authorities and say, “Pick one! They’re men of God!” I believe that this way of thinking is a form of hero worship that demands people to view their priesthood leaders as infallible, incorruptible people whose opinions should be seen as doctrine and whose actions we should all emulate. There is no better quote that summarizes this pedestalizing than “If God is male, then male is God” (Mary Daly). These men release their books and go on their public speaking tours and create a culture where they are elevated above the average member simply because of a position they hold; whether this is intentional or not I’m not sure, but it does happen and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down.

I used to be a sucker for this kind of hero worship mentality as well. Ever since I was young, my family members and fellow ward members would really only speak about how great priesthood leaders were. I never heard the men of influence being referred to as human beings with complications and nuance — they were simply men called by God, so therefore they were without fault. The glass façade started cracking for me in 2022 with President Wilcox’s disrespectful and racist laden sermon at a stake conference and how it was simply brushed aside without any form of meaningful consequence. The other difficult component is that when I attempted to talk to the fully committed family members and friends about President Wilcox’s disgusting behavior, I was met with furrowed brows and dismissive words. It was more of a “well, we must forgive him” response and a moving on that felt way too abrupt and unresolved.

In the time period from Feb 2022 to the present, I have had many instances where I have witnessed troublesome behavior and actions from General Authorities down through bishops at local levels. I know now from very personal experiences with the Bay Area ban of women on the stand that you get “leader roulette” and that, no, not all of the leaders in the church actually care about women’s voices, safety, security, opinions, or progression outside the bounds of marriage and motherhood. Sure, many leaders will prop their wives up in meetings and have their wives talk about how they feel empowered in this church, but then the leaders don’t make space for their spouses at the decision-making table. Many leaders will claim to value your input but not include you in meetings of influence, nor make it easy for you to give them feedback, especially in what I call the “middle management,” which is the Area Authorities’ division. The leaders will say you’re a daughter of God but then when presented with damning information about sexual assaults/harassments you face, many will not use their priesthood authority appropriately and will shield abusers and leave you out to struggle alone.

Ad

I would also be remiss to not mention someone like Tim Ballard in this conversation. Tim was also a self-proclaimed truth seeker who was an “advocate” for trafficked victims. It wasn’t until he crashed and burned his own image that people started waking up about him. I found that Tim had become so much of what he claimed to be fighting, and that happens to many men regardless of religion, age, race, etc.

So, you can imagine the stirring of hope I had when I stumbled upon Jamey and Justin’s podcast. Here were two men claiming to be sincere, open, honest, vulnerable, and caring in ways I had never actually seen most of my church leaders be when it came to creating space for women. These were men having difficult conversations that I would never even imagine most priesthood leaders being interested in having. And to top it all off, these men claimed to want to be held accountable for their actions. Accountability, that pesky but wonderful word I recited every week in Young Women’s as part of the Young Women’s Theme. What does accountability even look like to our priesthood leaders? When mistakes are made, who do they apologize to and how do they go about repairing the harm they have done? What do they feel like they owe to the people who have been affected by their actions? And are they that interested in stepping aside if their actions have been too damaging and are distracting away from their callings to be representatives of Jesus Christ Himself?

In closing, I think this whole experience has been good for me because I have been confronted with the fact that I can’t just foolishly trust any man of influence and that the only men I can fully trust are my savior Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. Anything else is idol worship that I must steer away from. I now know that my “ideal man” is someone who is consistently humble, thoughtful, and inclusive. And, yes, I know that there are some LDS priesthood leaders who are consistent in all things good. Nevertheless, I now realize that from now on, I should remember the phrase, “It’s all men until it’s no men.”*

*”It’s all men until it’s no men” points to the fact that we are all embedded in a patriarchal system that harms women, even though individual men may themselves be beneficent. It’s also a response to the common reaction “Not all men” when hearing about the violence and/or inequity that women experience at men’s hands. “It’s all men until it’s no men” points to the proactive work that men must do as a group to address sexism and gender-based violence.

Advertisement

Exponent II features the work of guest authors writing about issues related to Mormonism and feminism. Submit a guest post Write for Exponent II.

4 Responses

  1. As much as I fully appreciate this is very much a female concern, it can also be (especially in the Church) as male concern.
    There are very few men I would trust with my thoughts, feelings, failings, etc. I am more likely to say things to my non-member boss than a priesthood leader.
    Last year my wife went to see our bishop. She was (still is) having issues with her member parents and siblings. He wasn’t much help and I escalated it to the Stake President to deal with their Stake President. Months later the Bishop’s wife invited my wife out to lunch. This sister is (and the Bishop) are 20 years younger than us, and were born in the year we married.
    Almost as soon as they sat down she started to quiz my wife on what had happened. It was evident she was fully aware of everything my wife had told the Bishop.
    I actually don’t have a problem with a bishop speaking to his wife to gain counsel and understanding. I have a problem with her taking it upon herself to try to take over the narrative, especially when it had been moved to the Stake President.
    People cannot always be trusted. It’s a shame.

    1. I hear you. I can’t even imagine an issue that I would take to one of my husband’s priesthood leaaders. (I do’t have the priesthood, so it doesn’t make sense that women have priesthood leaders.) There is better counseling just about anywhere, than through them. They may be well-meaning, but too often lack training, education, or people skills, to be of assistance. And confidentiality isn’t respected when a leader chooses to not keep a confidence. The Peter Principle is very often in effect; a person keeps getting promoted until they’re finally promoted to a position beyond their competency.

    2. This reminds me of a couple years ago when a bishop in my stake in Utah was arrested for using his position to sexually exploit children. I feel like this obviously points to the fact that not all priesthood leaders are called of God, but one time I mentioned the story to another missionary on my mission and her immediate response was to say “oh, well, sometimes people just make mistakes, but God still called him to be a bishop”. Basically, it was easier for her to believe that God purposefully called a pedophile to a position of authority than for her to believe that the stake president made a mistake when calling that bishop.
      I believed for years that anything a man said at church was automatically true about God. It wasn’t until I experienced a lot of my own abuse that I was able to separate my idea of God from the men in the church. From my perspective, smiling white men in suits are one of the scariest groups of people. I have an automatic distrust for them until they clearly prove otherwise

  2. This reminds me of when a man that was looked highly on in the church had his daughter come out and accuse him of s*xual abuse. My father-in-law called her a liar because no way this man could do such a horrific thing and just now his daughter ‘remembered’ it. I told him, “So would you call me a liar as well as I didn’t remember my abuser until his death.” My abuser wasn’t a member but I’ll never forget how quick my father-in-law was quick to discount the abuse as the man was in a highly respected position in the church.

    I had the opportunity to interview sx offrenders at the Point of the Mountain prison for a social work class I was taking from BYU. A number of the inmates were men who held leadership positions. One was in the stake presidency and had rped his teen daughter and other YW under his watch. He was angry at the church and his wife for divorcing him. When I shared my experiences at RS meetings I had a number of women gasp and tell me they’d never held of such a thing. As if a priesthood holder couldn’t do vile things. Heck, Ted Bundy was a member and look what he did.

    I don’t trust easily, especially with men. But it continues to boggle my mind on those members that excuse such behavior or are quick to say they made a mistake and we need to just move on. I disagree

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Our Comment Policy

  • No ads or plugs.
  • No four-letter words that wouldn’t be allowed on television.
  • No mudslinging: Stating disagreement is fine — even strong disagreement, but no personal attacks or name calling. No personal insults.
  • Try to stick with your personal experiences, ideas, and interpretations. This is not the place to question another’s personal righteousness, to call people to repentance, or to disrespectfully refute people’s personal religious beliefs.
  • No sockpuppetry. You may not post a variety of comments under different monikers.

Note: Comments that include hyperlinks will be held in the moderation queue for approval (to filter out obvious spam). Comments with email addresses may also be held in the moderation queue.

Write for Us

We want to hear your perspective! Write for Exponent II Blog by submitting a post here.

Support Mormon Feminism

Our blog content is always free, but our hosting fees are not. Please support us.

related Blog posts

It’s no secret that our church is built for men, specifically married men, designed to serve their needs and reinforce their authority. By contrast, the only way for a woman to have any semblance of power is to be power-adjacent. To be an influence, an auxiliary, a wife. The church limits itself by holding onto patriarchy with tight, stubborn fists. The lack of diversity in our leadership creates an echo chamber of ideas and perspectives. Problems surrounding inequality--instead of being met with real solutions--become frustrated, circular. Could this be what God wants? For an entire gender to remain stunted, voiceless?
Ultimately, if we really want our children to be strong individuals who choose for themselves, patriarchal blessings disrupt this process. In many ways, they serve as a safeguard against choice. I often find myself asking why God needs so many intermediaries to speak with us. Why is God's voice filtered so often through men? I would rather my children learn to listen to the spirit and speak to God directly for promptings and revelation.

Never miss A blog post

Sign up and be the first to be alerted when new blog posts go live!

Loading

* We will never sell your email address, and you can unsubscribe at any time (not that you’ll want to).​