One of the most painful parts of having concerns about women’s issues in the Church is that they are rarely, if ever, acknowledged by anyone on a general or a local level. Pretending that real issues don’t exist serves to alienate the many people who notice there are problems but feel like they’re not allowed to talk about them. Since so many women’s issues have never been mentioned from the pulpit before, you can imagine how intrigued I was when I heard President Oaks’ opening remarks to the women’s session of General Conference last Saturday:
“This Saturday evening session of General Conference will concentrate on the concerns of Latter-day Saint women. This will include the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the policies of the church that relate especially to women, and the general responsibilities and work of the organizations that include the women and girls of the church. …We honor the daughters of God in this special session by concentrating on their concerns and those of their organizations.”
I was excited. Even if the talks were full of apologetics, at least we’d finally get an acknowledgment that concerns exist about the policies or doctrines of the Church that are specific to women. But as I listened to the talks, I grew more and more confused, then disappointed. All four of the talks that followed, three by women and one by a man, were just typical Conference talks with both insightful points and cringy parts. There were no discussions of female-specific doctrine and policy. 95% of the session content was equally as applicable to men as it was to women. [1]
I found it ironic that, during Oaks’ preamble to the meeting, he unintentionally gave a case-in-point of some of the issues that are of concern to many women. He said, “Like all sessions of General Conference, the planning of speakers and music are designated by the first presidency.” [2] He went on to say that future Saturday evening sessions could be conducted by other [female] church officers as “designated by the first presidency,” and that they had invited “some priesthood leaders who preside over the participating organizations” to the meeting.
Even in a session of General Conference designated for women, men picked everything from the speakers to the songs. While a woman conducted the session, Oaks made sure to state that it was only because the male leaders had asked her to, and it was announced more than once that a man was presiding over the meeting. Further highlighting the lack of autonomy of these female-led organizations was the row of invited men who preside over the women’s organizations. What about the concern that women have no autonomy to run or conduct or over their own meetings? That a man is the last, longest, keynote speaker in every women’s Conference meeting (and in many local women’s meetings)? That women don’t preside over their own organization? The church organizations run by women have no autonomy, but these concerns were not addressed in the meeting.
Perhaps some may feel that the brief reference to Heavenly Mother in Elder Renlund’s talk constitutes female-specific doctrine, but I disagree. Suggesting that Heavenly Mother is only relevant to women or that only women long to know Her is equivalent to saying that Heavenly Father is only relevant to men and only men long to know Him. Elder Renlund’s reiteration of the Church’s charge to not pray to Mother God cuts off both women and men from their Mother. The only way Heavenly Mother would even be tangentially female-specific doctrine is if the Church allowed Heavenly Mother the same stewardships it allows other females, specifically that they are only permitted to hold leadership roles over other women. If that were the case, at least women would be allowed to pray to Her. But since She is fully veiled from both sexes, Her absence is equally applicable to all.
Is wanting to know more about Heavenly Mother (and the two minutes of talk addressing Her) the only concern President Oaks and church leadership think LDS women have? If so, that is extremely discouraging. LDS feminist and non-feminist identifying women alike have been outspoken for decades about their concerns with women-specific church doctrine and policy. A quick Google search would have revealed long lists of women’s concerns, or church leaders could have met with women and been open to their pain and the feedback instead of isolating themselves in echo chambers, or they could have read the 365 experiences of women highlighted in the #hearLDSwomen series. It is not hard to find the issues that women have with LDS doctrine and policy.
If they had actually wanted to address women’s concerns, church leaders could have talked about the sexist parts of the temple, leadership roulette, lack of women in the scriptures and lesson manuals and General Conference, how women aren’t ordained, the differences in opportunity between boys and girls in the church, and the infantilization of women. They could have addressed women’s absence in the creation as seen in the temple, Heavenly Mother’s absence from the godhead, the lack of knowledge about women’s place in the eternities. They could have talked about polygamy. They could have talked about husbands presiding over their wives. They could have talked about the problematic fixation on motherhood to the exclusion of all other aspects of womanhood and personhood. They could have acknowledged that some women don’t want children or don’t enjoy motherhood. They could have talked about violence against women, specifically violence committed against women by their spouses or other Church members. They could have talked about garments and how they are not appropriate for all people to wear all the time due to health concerns. They could have talked about the toxic way modesty is taught to women and girls. They could have addressed harmful chastity rhetoric.
And that list is just the things I came up with while using voice to text sitting at a traffic light.
No speaker in General Conference has ever acknowledged that many people find the temple to be a painful place, much less made mention of the sexist aspects of the ceremonies. Nor have any speakers in Conference acknowledged the unique issues women face in a patriarchal church, like having all of their leaders, both male and female, selected and released by men without women’s input, or how women are most vulnerable to ecclesiastical abuse and have no recourse when priesthood leaders exercise unrighteous dominion, or how gender roles aren’t feasible or appropriate for many people. I’ve never heard a speaker in Conference admit the glaring lack of allowances for women in church structure or in the Handbook, such as how there is currently no room for women and girls, barring witnessing, to participate in ordinances in any way, or how women are excluded due to their gender from many callings that don’t require priesthood (Sunday School presidencies, clerk positions, etc.), or addressed the glaring inequities between men and women in the church due to all males receiving priesthood and all females being barred from ordination.
I hope there actually is a meeting someday that addresses women’s many and varied concerns with church doctrine and policy. This was not that meeting, and judging by the woeful disconnect between the promise made and what was delivered, that meeting will not be coming anytime soon.
[1] President Jean Bingham did obliquely address a couple of concerns about the temple:
“After interviewing me to determine if I was worthy, my bishop explained the covenants I would make. His careful explanation gave me the chance to think about and be prepared to make those covenants.”
One major complaint about the temple is that there is no informed consent; a person receiving their endowment generally is given no advance notice as to what they will experience or covenant. While this excerpt is relating a personal experience, not giving direction to priesthood leaders, hopefully those helping others prepare to go through the temple will take this story as permission to reveal details about the ceremony and covenants.
President Bingham went on to say, “Making and keeping temple covenants is available to every worthy member of the church. Young adults, you don’t need to wait until marriage or a mission to make those sacred covenants. You can prepare as a young woman to receive the protection and strength temple covenants give as soon after the age of 18 as you are ready and feel the desire to honor those temple covenants.”
Again, she isn’t giving directives to priesthood leaders here, but given the inconsistency of priesthood leaders in allowing women who aren’t getting married or going on missions to receive their endowments, hopefully this statement reinforces the fairly recent changes that allow all members, including women, to receive their endowments when they feel ready (Handbook, 26.5.1).
[2] Pres. Oaks did call the Relief Society President by her title, “President Jean B. Bingham,” which has been a refreshing change as there was a kerfuffle a few years ago where he called her President Bingham and the written account was changed back to Sister Bingham. It’s nice to see titles for women modeled from the top.
19 Responses
I watched the “regular” General Conference sessions with my husband, even though I don’t believe in the patriarchy, in the prohibitions against LGBTQ people, or the emphasis on tithing to get to the Temple, anymore. I was really hoping it would be different but, no, if anything my impression was that the Church is doubling down on its traditional message. That includes women but, more distressing to me, it never explains what is “evil” in the world, leaving us to conclude that anything that is not full LDS covenant living is on the evil side. It was telling that a man who had served as a Mission President in Kyiv (Klebingat) never once expressed solidarity for the people who had been under his care, instead whipping people up about not questioning the GA’s and ending his talk saying that they (the GA’s) were nigh on perfect. If they had chosen Klebingat because of his links to Ukraine, it was a slap in the face. We’re okay over here in the US and if by chance Putin does nuke us (not mentioned of course) then we are all headed for the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom so it’s fine. Never mind the people who suffer and die as we get there and never mind that no one else will be there except the select few.
I apologize if I have hijacked your post about women and not yet mentioned women myself. How can a feminist belong to this Church? It was a question asked of me 16 years ago and at the time I blithely said that the Church was not anti-feminist, that I could express myself completely as a woman, etc., etc…. How arrogant I was to think that because I had lived in Canadian wards where women WERE (almost) treated as equals and because, at the time, I appreciated men’s care as I was a single parent (Sister Abuerto’s talk resonated with me) that meant that the Church was a great institution for women. I moved to the Southwest after marrying my husband and soon had a rude awakening. I struggled on for almost 20 years but these past few years have admitted that, no, the Church is NOT for me. So, Elder Oaks, I won’t see you in the upper echelons of the Celestial Kingdom. But, then again, I won’t miss you either.
Oh and by the way, how is it that no one has ever mentioned that, after her landmark talk in (regular, men and women attending) General Conference in April 2020, “United in God’s Work”, President Bingham was never again invited to give a talk in “regular” General Conference. President Oaks followed after Bingham and he gave a few stinging remarks about men and women having different roles. But then maybe I was too sensitized by that time and saw things that weren’t there.
Thank you for sharing this. I had to turn off the women’s session about 15 minutes in. I don’t like being talked to like I’m unsure of myself and struggling all the time. It kind of seems like that’s an expectation of us. Sometimes seems like confidence is an unfeminine deadly sin.
A few months ago the first Face to Face event ostensibly addressed to single adults was held. Single adults offered the prayers, performed the music, asked scripted questions for Church leaders to respond to. But not a single line was addressed to the peculiar needs or concerns of single adults in the Church — everything, and I do mean everything, was utterly generic, as applicable to an audience of married adults, to men only, to youth, to converts, to Church teachers, to members in India, to blind members, to every other demographic I can imagine being assembled. Why even announce an event for a segment of the Church and then not speak to that segment?
This pattern, replicated as you have noted in the ostensibly women’s session, seems to be calculated, and I can’t guess at the reason — not solely a matter of keeping women “in our place,” because it seems to apply to every meeting. I say it’s calculated, because you and I would have to try very hard, probably do a lot of self-editing, to stand before a congregation that obviously had any given characteristic in common, and speak for an hour or two without addressing that characteristic. How does the congregation before you not suggest, even casually, a remark addressed specifically to that congregation?
ElleK, so much yes to your long list of vitally important things that could have been addressed in this meeting if they really did want to address women’s concerns. In my many interviews with LDS women around the world, I have discoverd that domestic violence is a pervasive problem experienced by so many women the world over. If our leaders drilled down on that issue, continually and clearly condemned it, and formed support groups and counseling groups around just this issue, how many women’s lives could improve. Now that would be a meaningful meeting on women’s concerns.
Exactly. Elder Kearon’s talk felt more specifically applicable to women’s concerns than any other talk in conference.
The Relief Society isn’t a “women’s organization”, it’s an organization for women. It’s the same with just about everything in church as it relates to women. So the women’s session wasn’t as much about women’s concerns as much as it was about our male leaders’ concerns about women.
yes. this. After learning about the history of the relief society, I want to bang my head against the wall at how far we’ve fallen. We used to be autonomous; choosing to be a member at all, selecting our own leaders, exhorting each other to develop and use our gifts and talents, blessing others by laying hands, deciding our own initiatives, collecting dues and managing our own money and buildings; Joseph said something to the effect of you’re not going to be like these other ladies benevolent societies, you will be a kingdom of priests like in Paul’s day. I don’t know about your wards, but more often than not the activities are just luncheons where we focus on ourselves. It seems like we’re probably like those other ladies benevolent societies. I want to be my Heavenly Parent’s hands and heart in the world, providing relief where I can. I’m frustrated that that doesn’t happen in relief society. I’m sad that this organization, in the church I grew up in, with such a rich heritage of service, is an empty shell of what it once was and could be.
At least more women spoke in this conference than men… BY THE SMALLEST MARGIN POSSIBLE. ugh.
I love this list (well and I hate it because it makes me sad/mad). I too thought that leaders much be pretty out of touch to think they were addressing any “issues” relevant to my life.
The only specific mentioned in any talk was Sister Craven talking about … modesty. Good grief. Of the problems I see girls facing right now, that one is so far down on the list. And actually to the extent it’s a problem, modesty culture – which Craven doubled down on – is the problem.
Yes! Excellent list. And the lack of informed consent around covenants is HUGE. And I would be absolutely shocked if President Bingham’s bishop actually told her in advance that she would make covenants to her husband and not to God.
Thank you ElleK for speaking to so many of my concerns. And the comments too – wow. We have been through many of the same things. This year I chose, for the first time, to comment on two apostles’ IG accounts (Renlund and Oaks) just in case the social media church employee might pass it up the chain (???). One of them devolved into a flame war overnight. It’s clear that there are a lot of people, many women, who loved both of those talks. (Oaks’ Sunday talk is the one that drew most attention.) It feels like change will continue to be slow and I am old enough that I’m not sure I want to wait around for it.
I found Oaks’s preamble fascinating, too. For me, it underscored the choice of music, specifically “We Listen to a Prophet’s Voice.” Which voice(s) in this meeting would be considered the voice of a prophet? All of them, both male and female, or just the one telling us we were arrogant for seeking revelation?
I tuned out after Oaks pointed out that the First Presidency planned the meeting, selected the speakers and the music, and asked President Bingham to conduct. I AM SO DONE WITH ALL OF THIS.
Another excellent article! I had many of these same thoughts and had to turn the session off during Elder Renlund’s address because of how absolutely annoyed I was. This “Women’s” session seemed to start off well (we immediately noticed the female announcer) but I was quickly disappointed when yet again we were reminded that anything women do has to be approved by the men. Sigh.
“Nor have any speakers in Conference acknowledged the unique issues women face in a patriarchal church, like having all of their leaders, both male and female, selected and released by men without women’s input…” I feel this. So so much.
I live in Califonia and thus am not up on some the things occuring in the church back in Utah. After reading some of he comments concerning Relunds recent talk and discussing the conference with my sister in law who lies in Orem she said, “There is a geoup of female theropist in SLC who are telling womwn to pray to Heavenly Mother and that is the what gnerated the talk.” that seemed I litte short sighted to me and a bit dismissive. For me the isssues are much deeper than one talk. Love your Post
Perfectly said!
As far as female therapists telling women to pray to Heavenly Mother, yes, I did that as a therapist. When a Mormon woman would tell me that she just couldn’t pray to any kind of father God because her father had sexually abused her, I would suggest that she try praying to Heavenly Mother instead. That is, if she wanted to pray. To me it was better that they pray to their Mother, than to simply refuse to pray at all. But then, most people do not have a terribly damaged relationship with their earthly father, so they have no clue that the damaged relationship with an earthly father can destroy any desire to have any relationship with any kind of father figure, including a male God. So, maybe the GA# should ask why therapists might suggest such a thing, and then ask themselves if it is better to pray to our Mother or not at all. I doubt they considered that the choice might be not praying at all.
Outstanding post, ElleK. Like previous commenters, I love your list of possible topics of particular concern to women that have never been addressed in conference. It does seem like the GAs’ view of topics of interest to women includes the following: divine gender roles, encouraging pats on the head about what wonderful supports you all are to the real members (men, of course), reminders about the importance of not being too sexy and therefore distracting the real members. I know this is no revelation, but this list is *obviously* the product of what men imagine women should know, and zero percent informed by conversation with actual women.