To some, Mormonism is known as a highly conservative religion; a cult of

polygamists that worship Joseph Smith, get married at 18, have at least 12 children,

oppose gay rights and abortion, and most important to this paper, relegate their women to

spending their lives within the sphere of the home, ignorant of the outside world and

dutifully obeying their husbands.

Within Mormonism, women are championed as those divinely endowed with the

capacity for motherhood and are consequently a vital source of nurture and spirituality

within the all-important unit of the family. It is their duty to raise and teach their children

and thus the future of generations lies in their hands. This responsibility and power is said

to be equal to, if not greater than, that of their priesthood holding husbands, with whom

they are equal partners before the Lord and equally potentially worthy of eternal Godship

in the afterlife.

It can be seen that there is some difference of perspective here. Instructed to be

“in the world, but not of it” Latter-Day Saints have long embraced their identity as a

“peculiar people” that might not always be understood in context of the current social

trends. In a world where “women’s lib” is crusading for equality among the sexes through

things like reproductive rights and greater employment opportunities, the traditions of

Mormonism are ever requiring a unique paradigm to understand a religion that promotes

gender equality through chastity and motherhood.

The relationship between Mormonism and society at large is not static. Rather, as

society changes, so too must Mormonism make clear, and frequently adjust, its stances on

certain issues. A gospel of living doctrine and modern day Prophets, Mormonism is

constantly in flux and thus as society changes, it perpetually is reestablishing it’s attitudes

towards women. Yet, the common source of this re-establishment is always, and always

will be, through the lens of the family, said to be the key unit of society and the building

block of nations. Thus, it cannot be said that as society has “progressed,” Mormonism has

simply stayed stagnant. No, this would be altogether too simple. Yet, it can be said that as

society moves farther away from the traditional nuclear family, with single parent

household percentages nearly doubling since 1970, the gap between Mormonism and

society will be ever widening and thus increasingly difficult to bridge (Bergman, 3).

As this gap widens, a valid question emerges: can a Mormon be a feminist?

Given that there are a number of Mormon women that are self-declared feminists, the

answer seems to be a rather resounding yes. The following sections of this paper will

seek to explore the nature of this Mormon feminism, including its historical path and the

ways that current Mormon feminism diverges from third wave liberal feminism. This will

involve a topical analysis of the key ways that Mormon feminists both have defined

themselves uniquely and consequently diverged from mainstream feminism, while still

maintaining feminist objectives. The key characteristics looked at will be the way that

Mormon feminists have maintained absolute acceptance of the nuclear family, which

further causes them to construct their identity around their perspectives on motherhood,

patriarchy, and binary gender roles. Issues encountered among Mormon women within

each of these categories will be discussed, and a Mormon feminist response given and

contrasted with possible mainstream feminist critiques.

Walking a Fine line: Experiences of Mormonism with Feminism

Summarizing the dialogue among Mormon feminists and women’s issues in

general within the LDS community is extremely difficult. There are many suggestions,

but a lack of general consensus. This is likely derived out of a perceived threat that

feminist could possibly pose to Mormonism given that it forces critical examination of

the religion in ways that have been seen to be dangerously close to apostasy, that is to say,

dissent from the church doctrines that can result in retraction of church membership

status. This fine line is one that has been walked in two main ways; those of the 1970's

ERA period, which, for purposes of this paper, will be referred as radical Mormon

feminists, and those of the current day, which will be referred to as moderate Mormon

feminists.

Distinctions between the two are neither perfectly clear nor exception-proof; in

many ways they agree ideologically but diverge practically. Both groups support

Mormonism and believe that it has the potential to be an exemplar of gender equity. Both

accept past and present Church doctrine, including that the family is the fundamental unit

of society. For the most part, both support the church’s ideology of binary gender, and

consequently, accept “separate but equal” roles for women. Both believe in the mortal

right to agency and that women have choices, opportunities, and agency to choose those

opportunities accessible to them within Mormonism.

“Moderate” Mormon Feminists

Moderate Mormon feminists are typically are active members of the Church who

view the doctrine to be the optimal source of equity for women. They support orthodox

Mormonism, which they feel must be implemented fully and purely in order for women

to attain equal power with men as prescribed by Mormon doctrine, which is represented

in ancient texts of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl

of Great Price, and modern day revelation through the living prophet as revealed in

conference addresses, proclamations, and other writings approved by the appropriate

Church authorities. They see many of the deterrents for women’s equality found in

Mormonism as coming primarily from cultural mispractices, which they feel stand in

need of education and correction. When it comes to feminism, they argue that it is

inherent in Mormonism, that the two are intuitively interlinked and not in contradiction to

each other. They focus on applying their Mormon feminism to the rest of the world as

model for achieving the betterment of women’s situations around the globe. Within

Mormonism, they are seeking to rectify the cultural misperceptions and malpractices of

the patriarchal priesthood order that can marginalize and silence women. They hope to

work within the existing doctrine to shed light on the space there is for multiple

manifestations of what it is to be a woman and a mother in Mormonism.

The main strategies of discourse for current moderate Mormon feminists seems to

be through groups and blogs. It is interesting to note that among the most popular blogs

and groups, the same names repeatedly crop up and overlap with other organizations.

Many women who blog for feminist Mormon housewives, referred to as fMh, also write

for The Exponent, either in blog or print form. Further, several women that are bloggers

are also associated with the BYU feminist student group group, PARITY, and/or were

founders of the recent online support group for Mormon women, WAVE. This connect

the dots of sorts makes fairly clear the trends among moderate Mormon feminists, those

voices that are most accepted, and the topics of discussion that they most endorse. WAVE

states its mission statement as, “advancing gender equality within the LDS church” which

is further elaborated as entailing, “increased opportunities for women to contribute within

the Church structure, we ultimately hope to aid the Church's retention effort of

women” (ldswave.org). What is most clear is that overall, they present the image of good

standing members of the Church who fully embrace the gospel and seek to bring the

Mormon values of joy and fulfillment through motherhood, nurturing, and faithfulness

into feminism as a means to improve the lives of women both inside and outside the

Church.

Radical Mormon Feminists

I will admit that I was at first hesitant to label this group as “radical” given the

negative connotations that could possibly be associated with it and the fact that they are

most commonly perceived as radical only in context of their more moderate sisters. Yet, it

was a quote by Maxine Hanks, a radical Mormon feminist herself, that convinced me that

radical was an appropriate and acceptable term. Quoted by her contemporary, Martha

Sonntag Bradley, Hanks asserts that, “radicalism seeks liberation through the creation of

female systems and discourse. It seeks women’s control over their own bodies and

lives” (Bradley, 59). This seems a fitting description of radical Mormon feminists, and

one that they would approve of.

Radical Mormon feminists acknowledge the potential for Mormonism to be fully

representative of feminist ideals in light of a few doctrinal changes or reinterpretations.

Mormon doctrine is considered to be a living doctrine that is in a perpetual state of

revelation and consequently, change. It is understood among Mormons that Lord reveals

himself at times when his children are ready to hear his words. Radical Mormon

feminists are not challenging God by questioning his timeline, but rather challenge the

Church Authority’s ability to be inspired in a unequal patriarchal system that has been

misconstrued over the years and consequently held women back from realizing the full

extent of their womanhood.

Reaching their peak of societal recognition during the Equal Rights movement of

the 70’s, the association of radical Mormon feminists merged closely with the ideas of

women’s liberation that they challenged in totality the existence of patriarchy. So strong

was this sentiment, that it led Warenski to state that, “certainly the male authorities of the

Latter-day Saint Church must be profoundly aware that unless Mormon women reject

their patriarchal system, there can be no such thing as a Mormon feminist” (Warenski,

20).

Given the disagreement of many radical Mormon feminists with the Church’s

oppositional stance towards the ERA in the 1970’s, many of them focused their energies

on applying feminism to Mormonism as a means of resolving the paradox faced by

women; torn between “dutiful obedience to their church authorities, and that of their own

conscience” (Bradley, 12). Not until greater individual rights were given to women, could

they realize equality with men. This led to the defining emphasis on the securement of the

female Priesthood for all female members of the Church, and greater acknowledgement

of the divinity of a Heavenly Mother. Radical Mormon feminists do not feel that these

objectives are without precedent but rather assert that for a time in the 1800s, women

were in fact given the priesthood, and early church records indicate a dialogue around the

topic of the existence of a Heavenly Mother (Hanks 260, Warenski 31). Within the

Church, these have proven to be two incredibly taboo suggestions because they are

perceived as challenges to current understandings of the doctrine. Despite the radical

Mormon feminists' response that they are not outside the doctrine and it is authority

abuse by the Priesthood that has misconstrued the doctrine, their stances ensured nearly

every voice in favor of either of these propositions was excommunicated, which entailed

nearly irrevocable removal of membership records and consequent place in the lowest

ranking of hell in the Mormon version of the afterlife. Despite this, many who were

excommunicated still identify themselves as Mormon and feel closely tied to the religion.

Also in consequence to this, the image of radical Mormon feminism is a small

circle of sisterly faces that have left their contributions behind in their books, their

journals, their journal articles, and their media attention. Some key pieces of the puzzle

put together by these women are Martha Sonntag Bradley’s, Pedestals and Podiums,

which recounts the experiences of Mormon feminists during the ERA movement. She

appears to be one of the few to have maintained her church membership, although she

speaks of her respect for Sonia Johnson and Lavina Fielding Smith, both of whom were

excommunicated. Sonntag was a professor at BYU for many years but eventually

resigned out of frustration and took up homestead at the nearby University of Utah.

Maxine Hanks, one of the media termed “September Six” for her excommunication along

with 5 other Mormon scholars in September 1992, authored Women in Authority where

she makes clear the need for female priesthood and a divine Heavenly Mother to worship.

In her work Patriarchs and Politics, Marilyn Warenski, although also apparently not

excommunicated but published around the same time as her fellows, details the ways in

which women of Mormonism have ultimately been held back in opportunity and equality

through the Church’s form of patriarchy. Sonia Johnson, the organizer of Mormon

Women for the ERA, achieved national attention for her efforts and was shortly thereafter

excommunicated; she is perhaps the most radical of all in her direct denial of church

authority by testifying in Supreme Court in favor of the ERA. Johnson also pursued a

relationship with another female and wrote a book discussing sexual practices not

supported by the Church, which served as further grounds for excommunication.

The resistance and the division that the women of the Church experienced during

the second half of the 20th century could be said to be indicative of the fact that Mormon

feminism indeed has theoretical bounds whereupon it becomes distinctly inconsistent

with Mormon doctrine at a certain point. Those that stand behind this doctrinal line are

today’s moderates, those that sought to push the boundaries are considered radicals.

Bradley puts it well when she says that, “reactions to the women’s liberation movement

are a litmus test for religious orthodoxy” (Bradley, 55).

Today, moderates and radicals do not have much of a recognized relationship. The

radicals of the 70’s are still publishing, and republishing; they do exist today. But the

moderates seem to be make up the vast majority of current Mormon feminists. Perhaps

because of the taboo scars of the past, moderates are going out of their way to separate

themselves from their radical counterparts that laid the foundation for them. In a recent

Guardian article, Tresa Edmunds points out that,

The future of Mormon feminism is filtered through its not-so-distant past.

It's only been ten years since the last of the high-profile excommunications

of prominent Mormon feminists, and the reverberations are still felt

throughout our community. Even now women are circumspect in their

public comments, afraid to come down definitively as feminist.

While Mormonism might lend itself to what could be described as an “inherent

feminism” in that it evolves organically from the doctrine, there are several places where

the paths of Mormon feminists have diverged significantly from mainstream liberal

feminists. The following section seeks to address some of these instances.

Womanhood as Motherhood

The errand of Angles is given to women,

And this is a gift that, as sisters, we claim,

To do whatsoever is gentle and human,

To cheer and to bless in humanity’s name

As Sisters in Zion, Latter Day Saint Hymnal 203

This lyrical except from the token song of Mormon women establishes the

prevalence of the ideology of motherhood as womanhood in Mormonism. The motto of

the Relief Society, the LDS Women’s Organization, reads in part, “we….dedicate

ourselves to strengthening marriages, families, and homes. [We] find nobility in

motherhood and joy in womanhood.” The emphasis on family in Mormon doctrine

naturally implies an emphasis on parenthood; mothers and fathers working together in

equal partnership, using their equal gifts of the spirit and shared blessings of the

Priesthood to rear righteous children of the Lord. The Family: A Proclaim to the World

was a key piece of Mormon doctrine revealed in 1994 and released for the attention of the

general public. It has since been the landmark document in reference to the relationship

of Mormonism and the family. A portion of it reads, “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” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2).

A mainstream feminist might be inclined to immediately jump on this as an

example of relegating and limiting women to mere child bearers. Even I am personally a

little surprised that it doesn’t elaborate the role of a mother beyond “nurture” while

granting a wider range of adjectives to fathers. Yet, it should be made clear that the stance

of a Mormon Feminist is necessarily more complex. Working within the bounds of

Mormonism, the Mormon feminist would point out that the next line of the Proclamation

reads, “in these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one

another as equal partners.” If feminism is a politics of equality, then this is certainly

consistent.

Mormonism makes it clear that in the land of those fortunate enough to

experience mortality, agency reins supreme. This ability to determine right from wrong

for oneself is the fundamental aspect of Mormonism upon which the purpose of life rests.

It is further understood that this ability to be a free agent is equally granted to men and

women. It has even been pointed out, most specifically by Valerie Hudson, a women's

studies professor and director of WomenStats, an international women's research project,

at Brigham Young University, that the story of Adam and Eve, as told in Mormon

doctrine, portrays Eve as the divine source of our agency and thus is to be respected and

revered as the mother of our freedom, not the mother of sin (Hudson, 2). Although

Mormonism makes it clear that each human being is a free agent with infinite ability to

choose for themselves, it is also clear that free agency does not imply freedom from

consequences. Just as there are laws of the land, there are laws of eternity; moral

absolutes that carry with them a responsibility for one’s choices and consequences if a

choice is made that stands in contradiction to what is true. Many mainstream feminists

argue for a “right” to choose for themselves, and so do Mormon feminists, although from

a slightly different angle. Accepting the divinity of motherhood directs choices of agency

that optimize for the fulfillment of that divine role; for the betterment of women, for the

preservation of their equality before the Lord. This is not the stance of all Mormon

feminists, but has been seen to be the more moderate stance of those that have maintained

their status as active members of the church.

One example of Mormon feminists taking a stance that is intended to empower

women but stands in apparent contradiction to common consensus of feminism is the

issue of abortion. It is something that Mormon women have voted, conferenced, press

released, and rallied against. Given that it is perceived to be a matter that is distinctly

doctrinal and more to do with the nature of life than equality of women, it is not

considered to be a directly Mormon feminist issue. It is understood that because mother

and father both reign over the home, a woman’s reproductive rights are not hers alone,

they are the family’s and further, they are the Lord’s. In an October 1990 Conference talk,

President Boyd K. Paker asserted that, “in or out of marriage, abortion is not an

individual choice. At a minimum, three lives are involved.” (Packer, 84). Closely

associated with murder, the decision to abort a child of God’s life is seen as a most

grevious sin that trumps any women’s rights issue. The Church has made it's stance on

abortion very clear. In the gospel library on lds.org, the church designed website intended

to give the general public access to information and resources about the religion, the

header for the topic is an excerpt from True to the Faith, a church teaching manual,

“Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the

commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or

arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church” (23).

Yet, despite a dialogue of rights to life and a clear cut stance by the Church, the

issue has also been tied closely to motherhood and any action to diminish the divinity of

motherhood. One strong example of this is a 1973 conference address, by one of the 12

apostles at the time, Elder N. Eldon Tanner,

Satan and his cohorts are using scientific arguments and nefarious

propaganda to lure women aware fro their primary responsibilities as

wives, mothers, and homemakers. We hear so much about emancipation,

independence, sexual liberation, birth control, abortion, and other

insidious propaganda belittling the role of motherhood, all of which is

Satan's way of destroying woman, the home, and the family-the basic unit

of society.

Thus despite, the common argument that abortion is more to do with the right to life, the

Church's perceptions of its implications on motherhood connect it with issues of women's

rights and consequently, feminism.

Further, because it is an issue that is highly relevant to current mainstream

feminism, is it something that Mormon feminists have had to consolidate with their belief

sets. How have they done this? Recent email correspondence with Dr. Valerie Hudson,

sheds some light. She says, “most Americans agree that abortion in a context of rape,

incest, grave health consequences, or unviability of the fetus must be allowed. In all such

cases, a woman has every right to claim a superior right over what is happening with her

body.” It's interesting to note the usage of the term “superior” in reference to the women's

pregnant body; indicating that in other such instances, she is in subordinance to her body;

a carrier of life. This is where the right to life argument enters and where the issue ceases

to be a primarily feminist issue, within the Mormon context. Yet, when asked how to

discuss this with a non-Mormon feminist who is pro-choice, Hudson's response was,

The partners in consensual sex must account fully for the possibility of pregnancy

as an inalienable part of the experience....What is unfortunate is that it is women,

and not men, that face their accountability in consensual sex because of biology,

but that unfairness doe not obviate that accountability. But the issue of unfairness

must be confronted. I have consistently argued that the abortion problem is a male

problem. Sperm causes abortion. Let's talk about this; let's name it a feminist

issue. The fact of prevalent abortion is a neon-light indicator that something has

gone dreadfully wrong with male-female relations in society; and that to the

detriment of women specifically.

Hudson's remarks are not only indicative of her stance on abortion, but give some hints at

the Mormon paradigm. Given the priority of the family in Mormonism, it's assumed that

sex occurs for purposes within these bounds, consequently sex for non-procreation

reasons, for non-committal reasons, is simply not something that comes to mind. Where

many mainstream feminists are arguing for women to take personal hold of their

sexuality, to liberate themselves, and have sex simply because...they want to; Hudson is

arguing that it is the men that need to change and realize that sex cannot happen simply

because they want to unless full accountability for their choices is also taken into

consideration.

This stance is consistent with common assumptions of Mormonism, and hence the

current moderate Mormon feminist, such as family being the priority, heterosexual

relationships, and marriage as a form of necessary sexual commitment. Searches on fMh

and The Exponent reveal little discussion about abortion. This is very likely due to the

fact that it is rather cut and dry: it is a question of taking life, and it is only called into

question in instances of rape, incest, or serious health concerns. Consequently, those that

do discuss it are usually those taking a more radical stance, a suspicion which is

supported by the interestingly frequent usage of the term “fringe Mormonism” by those

that discussed the topic. Most of the arguments centered on a question of a woman's right

over her body, not in response to objectification of the pregnant body politic, but more in

relation over her right to chose when to have children, which again, comes back to the

stress on family and motherhood as key ways that Mormon women identify and define

themselves and shapes the paradigm of the Mormon feminist.

Presiding Patriarchs

Brethren, pow’r by earthly standards,

Comes by rank or wealth or sword.

But the pow’r above all others

Is the priesthood of our Lord.

-The Priesthood of Our Lord, LDS Hymn 320

As mentioned earlier, The Family: A Proclaimation to the World makes it clear

that, “by divine the design, fathers are to preside over their families.” It is understood that

to preside is to lead, which further is clarified by the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum

Manual, “in the perspective of the gospel, “leadership” does not mean the right to dictate,

command, and order. On the contrary, it means to guide protect, point the way, set the

example, make secure, inspire, and create a desire to sustain and follow. Literally, the

husband is to lead the way” (5). This might lead to the question, if men are to lead, are

women resigned to a life of mindless following? In a critical and highly respected text,

Mormon Doctrine, Elder Bruce R. McConkie explains that, “in the true Patriarchal Order,

man holds the priesthood and is the head of the household,….but he cannot attain a

fullness of joy here or of eternal reward hereafter alone. Woman stands at his side a joint-

inheritor with him in the fullness of all things. Exaltation and eternal increase is her lot as

well as his” (544).

The responses of Mormon women to institutionalized patriarchy through the

priesthood have been varied and tense. It should be understood that women having the

priesthood is not a commonly discussed issue. The very real threat of excommunication

has kept it rather under wraps over the years and the examples of the likes of Maxine

Hanks and Maraget Toscano, radical Mormon feminists referenced earlier for their

excommunication, have made it clear that when it comes to power, Mormon feminists

must use alternative means. Radical Mormon feminists of the 1970’s rejected this with

the thought that there is no alternative. Purely and simply, as long as women are withheld

from the priesthood, men will have power over them and they will never be equal

(Warenski, 20). Moderate Mormon feminists, and the broad base of Mormon women

today, respond to this with the thought that men and women are different; men have the

priesthood, women have motherhood. In their ability to be spiritually guided and

fulfilled, they are equal, only through different means. Just as one who does not hold the

priesthood cannot serve in many roles in church, cannot pass the sacrament, cannot give

blessings of inspiration and healing; so too can men not bear children, or achieve the

same acute understanding of nurturing and care-giving that women are inspired with.

Men are the leaders; women are the nurturers, not followers. When one thinks in terms of

differentiated roles, the idea of desiring a female priesthood neither comes to mind, nor

appears very logical.

Yet, there are some scholars and a few of the more radical Mormon feminists that

are quietly eager to shed light on a greater sentiment of dissatisfaction with the priesthood

than the Church lets on. To some extent, parts of this have been acknowledged by today’s

Mormon feminists. In her 2001 sociological study, Lori G. Beaman discusses the way

that women have negotiated their social boundaries within the context of Mormon

patriarchy. She too speaks of a “paradox” faced by Mormon women who are told that

they are equal with their male counterparts, and yet are told to follow them absolutely.

This echoes of a paradox that Bradley speaks of as, “being torn between duty to authority

and one’s own individual conscience” (21). According to Beaman, many women have

consolidated this apparent contradiction through a “cognitive restructuring” of their

environment (2). Some methods that her research found to be common methods of

restructuring are by simply changing their view on the priesthood, by perceiving it as yet

another huge church responsibility that would only serve to make them busier and further

stressed (8). Beaman notes that this boundary negotiation leads to a more “textured”

understanding of human agency. As touched on earlier, it is understood that Mormon

women have full rights to be free agents, but it manifests itself in a form of bounded

agency, induced not only by doctrine, as spoken of in the example of abortion, but also by

themselves, as a means to reconcile apparent instances of cognitive dissonance in their

lives.

Denying and going against church authority is simply not an option for the

Mormon woman, or anyone for that matter. An August 28, 2010 blog entry, regarding

priesthood, on the Exponent was titled, “I’m not one of those women, I’m just thinking,

don’t worry.” Further, challenging authority is something that the ideal Mormon woman

simply would not desire to do, consequently many Mormon feminists have focused on

ways to correct rather blatant cultural inequalities that have resulted from misuses and

misinterpretations of the Priesthood. In reading through the topics of discussion regarding

the Priesthood on the Exponent, a reoccurring theme was a call for mothers to be

permitted to be included in the blessing of their babies. A traditional practice that occurs

shortly after a child is born, in front of the entire local congregation, it is the formal

acknowledgment of a new life in the congregation and a very special moment for

mothers. Mormon feminists assert that nowhere does the doctrine state that women

cannot be a part of this. Yet there are stories of women that have been denied permission

to so much as hold the microphone. This is a key topic for Mormon feminists with

regards to the Priesthood and a way that they have negotiated change, without changing

the doctrine.

Acknowledging a difference between the doctrine and the culture, Mormon

feminists, and the Church, have also not been particularly shy to point out grievous errors

of Priesthood authority. Former President Gordon B. Hinckley noted with sadness in an

October 2000 General Conference address, “I have seen fathers dictate every decision in

the home….and I have seen the consequences of that” while he does not make clear the

possible consequences, it is very clear that he perceives these consequences to be

negative through his further discussion of the necessity of teamwork and equality in

marriage (Hinckley 2000). The doctrine makes it clear that men and women are equal in

their roles and duties and potential. Issues such as using the priesthood to exert absolute

authority over women are the result of a culturally enforced misunderstanding that stands

in gross need of correction through awareness and education. In this sense, the Mormon

feminist asserts that the solution is found in patriarchy itself; implemented in it's purest

form as prescribed by the doctrine.

Woman is not without Man

In the heav’ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason, truth eternal,

Tells me I’ve a mother there.

-O My Father, LDS Hymnal 292

This hymn’s lyrics were originally penned by Eliza R. Snow, a prominent woman

from the early years the Church in the 1840's. Known for her leadership in the Relief

Society and efforts in first wave feminism, Snow is highly respected by both moderate

and radical feminists alike, although each camp looks at her slightly differently. For

radical feminists, it is Snow, and this song, that they often refer to evidence for the

existence of a Heavenly Mother that is in greater need of worship. It’s relevance for this

paper though, is found in the line, “the thought makes reason stare.” Even this woman,

still considered liberal and progressive by Mormons today, accepts binary gender roles as

a true, and eternal principle.

When it comes to establishing gender roles in the church, the endlessly quoted

scripture is 1 Corinthians 1:11 which reads, “man is not without woman, and woman is

not without man.” This becomes the basis for the strong assertion in Mormon doctrine

that man and woman are equal; they are mutually identified through each other. This

equality is further supported with the frequent quotation of Matthew 25:40, “even as ye

have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me,” which is used

to convey the equal worth of all beings before God. The deeply doctrinal roots of this

sense of equality leads to a pointed noted by church historian, Cornwall Madison, who

states that, “empowerment....came through spiritual channels, not secular, and was thus

not subject to the secular indices of equality” (Bradley, 12).

Drawing the concept of equality through gender interdependence back to

beginning of time, doctrinal scholars in the church have spent a considerable time

addressing the biblical definition of “helpmeet’ in reference to the Eve of Genesis. A 2007

Ensign article clarifies, “the original Hebrew for meet means that Eve was adequate for,

or equal to, Adam. She wasn’t his servant or his subordinate. And the Hebrew for help in

“help meet” is ezer, a term meaning that Eve drew on heavenly powers when she

supplied their marriage with the spiritual instincts uniquely available to women as a

gender gift” It is clear that in context of Mormonism, not only is binary gender implicitly

accepted, but also it is promoted as the means to which equality of human beings is

achieved. In a leadership training address, Elder David A. Bednar states that, “gender is

an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and

purpose and in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and

what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different,

distinctive and complementary” (Bednar, 2006).

There has been little direct discussion about gender exploration among Mormon

feminists, both radical and moderate. In general, because the concept of binary gender is

so absolutely accepted; like motherhood, and like the family unit, most discussion is

centered on achieving equality within the bounds of gender differentiation. In a sense,

Mormon feminists are the champions of the “separate but equal” ideology, to the extent

that more than one blog on the Exponent and fMh’s talks about “avoiding” the

conclusions of Freidan’s Feminine Mystique. The fine line that gender

reconceptualization walks with second wave feminism seems to be a little too close for

comfort for Mormon feminists.

Some might argue that this refusal to address gender leaves many Mormon

women who are outside their prescribed gender role with nowhere to go. While there

haven’t exactly been a lot of Kate Chopin inspired throwing of selves into oceans, there

have been a number of hurt feelings and consequent church inactivity resulting from

accusations of a women “wanting” to be a man, of women who have “penis envy” (and

men who have “womb envy”), or women who “actually think” they are men (WAVE).

For a woman who is not primarily sweet and nurturing in ways that a Mormon woman is

told to be, what is she to do? The Mormon feminist response is one of peace and

tolerance. There have been significant efforts to expand gender identities within this

binary reality. This includes efforts to spur dialogue on the many ways that a woman can

apply her varied skills to motherhood, and a general push away from the idea of a “one

size fits all” Mormon woman.

It could be said that this acknowledged dependency of the genders both limits and

diminishes the equality of women. Bradley interestingly points out the verse after the

commonly quoted 1 Corinthians verse reads, “man’s duty is to God, woman’s duty is to

husband (Bradley, 17). A quote from the Church published Manual for Women hints at a

similar point, “she needs to be able to give her full support [to her husband]. Her heart

should be centered, not in the things of this world, but in the things of eternal life.” (56).

It is through God that man achieves eternity, but through her husband that the woman

finds it? How then can the woman have an individual relationship with God?

Mormon feminists have an interesting point to make. In a blog post on the

Exponent, Jessawhy says that, “it is obvious that Mormon women have no real

institutional power. However, we do have influence. Yes, if men didn’t show up to church

we couldn’t even call Sacrament Meeting to order, let alone participate in sacred

ordinances. But if women refused to meet the expectations of their male leadership, the

church would cease to exist. Make no mistake, there is power in this.” In essence, this

turns the concept of women being beholden to the men of the Church on its head. The

men may have ultimate institutional power, but women have the option to say no. They

have the option to refuse to participate in decisions or callings or activities that are not in

keeping with the gospel. The men cannot do whatever they want, because although

women are dependent on men, men are equally dependent on women. This could be

taken so far as to make the point that the women ultimately guide the church. How can

they then be perceived as powerless? Any silence, any wrong doings, and

misrepresentations of the gospel can be corrected and it takes knowledge and strength to

bring this to pass. In a sense, this is the hope of a Mormon feminist in a nutshell: to

encourage and inspire that knowledge and strength. Very feminist, if you ask me.

Conclusion

To be feminist is not necessarily to be Mormon. In fact, sometimes, to be feminist

is to be proven to be not Mormon, as in the cases of the second wave Mormon feminists

of the ERA period. When it comes to be being a Mormon feminist, it is clear that

Mormonism comes first. Yet, Mormon feminists assert that rather than have to

“consolidate” their feminist leanings with the ridigity of Mormon doctrine, it is precisely

through their adherence to their beliefs that their feminism emerges. In this sense, to be

Mormon is to be feminist. Certainly their feminist paradigm is bounded by the gospel, but

these are bounds that they accept to be correct and appropriate. This is key. Where the

mainstream feminist might argue that motherhood is a constraint, that Patriarchy is

corrupt, and binary gender roles limiting; the Mormon feminist asserts that it

motherhood, Patriarchy, and binary gender are not only acceptable but precisely the

means through which the equality envisioned by their feminism is made possible.

Ultimately, to be feminist is to possess the ability to envision a world devoid of

power dynamics where all human beings, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or

otherwise, are equal. This is a normative ideal. Mormon feminists are not in contradiction

to this. Some might critique that the paradigm required to understand social equality in a

Mormon feminist sense is overly ideal, but who’s to say? Who is to say that the Mormon

paradigm doesn’t work? We all have lenses, we all have paradigms, we all have our

ideals and our boundaries. So do Mormon feminists, and according to them, theirs is one

of equality, peace, tolerance, and happiness.

Bibliography

“Ask a Feminist” WAVE: Women Advocating for Voice and Equality. Ldswave.org. November 9, 2010. Accessed November 9, 2010.

Ballard, M. Russell. Counseling With Our Councils: Learning to Minister Together in the Church and in the Family. Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1997.

Beaman, Lori G. “Molly Mormons, Mormon Feminists, and Moderates: Religious Diversity and the Latter-Day Saints Church.” Sociology of Religion (2001) 62 (1): 65-86.

Bednar, David A. “Marriage is Essential to His Eternal Plan.” Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting: Supporting the Family, Salt Lake City, Utah. February 2006.

Bergman, Mike. “Single-Parent Households Showed Little Variation Since 1994.” uscensus.gov. Accessed December 2, 2010.

The Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1989.

Bradley, Martha Sonntag. Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority, and Equal Rights. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. “The Family: A Proclaimation to the World.” Lds.org. Accessed Oct. 18, 2010.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Latter-Day Saint Woman: A Basic Manual for Women, Part A. Lds.org. Accessed November 5, 2010.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. True to the Faith. Lds.org. Accessed November 5, 2010.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. “Official Motto of the General Relief Society.” Lds.org. Accessed November 5, 2010.

Edmunds, Tresa. “Mormon, and feminist too.” The Guardian, August 10, 2010.

Faust, James E. “What it Means to be a Daughter of God,” Ensign, Nov. 1999.

Hanks, Maxine. Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992.

Hanks, Maxine. “Perspective on Mormon Women: A Struggle to Reclaim Authority” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1994: Opinion 7.

Hinckley, Gordon B. “The Women in Our Lives.” General Conference Address, Salt Lake City, Utah. October 2000.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1989.

Hudson, Valerie. “I am Mormon because I am a Feminist.” (2010). Unpublished.

Hymns. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1992.

Kimball, Spencer W. “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood” Ensign, Mar. 1976.

Lds.org. 2010. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Web. Accessed Oct 18, 2010.

McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1959.

Mouritsen, Maren M., ed. Ye Are Free to Choose: Agency and the Latter-Day Saint Woman. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Publications, 1981.

mraynes. “The New Mormon Feminism.” Web-blog entry. The Exponent. July 12, 2010. Accessed November 12, 2010.

nat kelly. “Some easy, non-doctrinal changes.” Web-blog entry. Feminist Mormon Housewives. November 6, 2010. Accessed November 7, 2010.

Packer, Boyd K. "Covenants." Ensign 20 (Nov. 90):84-86.

Taner, Rodney. Woman and the Priesthood. Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1972.

Tanner, N Eldon. General Conference Address. 1973.

Warenski, Marilyn. Patriarchs and Politics: The Plight of the Mormon Woman. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978.