IN MY PREVIOUS POST, I make the controversial assertion that LDS men who recognize LDS women don’t have fair, much less equal, footing in the Church should resist edicts of up-level priesthood leaders when those edicts diminish the visibility and influence of women. The essay was a reaction to Bay Area leaders removing Relief Society (RS) presidents from the stand during Sunday meetings after being instructed to by an area authority. In general, LDS will acquiesce to higher authorities, even if they object on ethical grounds, to keep their callings. Giving in on this, they reason, will let them positively influence on that later. I don’t fault anyone for wanting to continue serving as best they can in a flawed system. However, as long as our forward-thinking, local priesthood leaders continue in this pattern, the status quo lives on. LDS men and women share responsibility to even the playing field within the Church. In the future, I’ll address a woman’s responsibility, but today, men still have my attention. 

If you’re someone who believes that the patriarchal order is God’s one way of governing humanity, this post isn’t for you. If, on the other hand, you’re someone who thinks women deserve a seat at the table with men, please think through what I’m saying, especially if you’re an LDS man.

Let’s start with a definition of hard and soft power:

Mormon feminists sometimes point out that LDS men have the hard power in the church and that women only have soft. However, our system, like others that utilize hard power, is more complex than that. The power (authority) of men is constantly shifting between hard and soft.

First, let’s agree that hard power (authority) is a governing force in the LDS Church and behaves as the graphic denotes. Many will resist this idea because, in D&C 121, leaders are commanded to use gentle persuasion rather than coercion. Hard power sounds like unrighteous dominion because it is. Remember, “almost all men” will govern by hard power if they suppose themselves to have a little authority.

Coercion (unrighteous dominion, or threat coupled with punishment) is a fact of church life. The area authority didn’t need to say, “Get RS presidents off the stand or be released.” It’s understood. It’s also understood that parents suffering financial setbacks who pay rent instead of tithing know their Temple Recommend will be revoked. And on and on.

Some will argue that losing a Temple Recommend for insufficient tithing is a consequence, not a punishment. But punishment is the imposition of a penalty; a consequence is a natural result of in/action. The natural consequence of strapped parents paying rent over tithing is that their children have a roof over their heads. The revocation of a Temple Recommend is a verdict imposed by a “judge in Israel.” 

Others might downplay the “tangible threats” because punishment isn’t consistently distributed. For instance, the institution may or may not impose disciplinary action on members who won’t support its exclusionary LGBTQ policies. However, the fear of discipline is enough to keep dissenting members silenced. Goodbye persuasion, long-suffering, meekness, and love unfeigned (D&C 121: 41-43). 

But let’s return to the matter at hand. When LDS men swallow their better judgment by command, they’re acknowledging the obvious: their power isn’t actually hard at all. There’s only one person in the LDS church with unadulterated hard power. Currently, that’s Russell M. Nelson.

The hard power of a bishop, stake president, area president, etc., is illusory. Every male leader who isn’t the church president understands that conditions exist under which his hard power turns to mush. Trust me, Mormon feminists feel this. The influence these male leaders hope to maintain is soft power.

An LDS man who uses his influence to make his ward or stake seem more validating for women has a good heart. But “seem” is the operative word. A local bishop may want RS presidents on the stand but what does that change? Little girls growing up in such a ward are being fed an illusion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints validates women in leadership like it does men. Being fed and being nurtured are not the same thing. There will be a reckoning.

The Church touts incremental improvements for its females–handing out towels in the temple baptistry, sister missionaries in slacks if it’s cold enough, carrying a sacrament tray into the Mother’s Lounge–but these improvements are as inconsequential as they are small. In my ward, the teenage girls are now the ushers for Sacrament Meeting. They don’t look happy standing at the chapel doors, passing out programs. My initial reaction to their drawn faces was a desire to tell them about the brave LDS women who’ve been challenging the status quo so that they could stand there, but I quickly realized how pathetic that is and kept silent. Yes, these girls have ward visibility but what they’ve been asked to do is something a table can do. They know this. Ushering is no equivalent of the ordination of teenage boys.

For decades, “radical” LDS women have asked to do the same things LDS men can do, and they’ve been alienated, chastised, and, in some instances, disfellowshipped and excommunicated, including those who’ve asked for far less than priesthood. The worst parts of this have been 1) seeing men take credit for giving women insignificant “advancements,” knowing their expectation is female admiration, and 2) experiencing traditional LDS (particularly women who benefit) villainize the Mormon feminists who’ve risked their standing by calling attention to ways our gender is undervalued. 

In my previous post, I wrote that LDS men can’t open doors for LDS women unless they stand up for us first. Look, I get it. It’s natural for a good man to want to maintain whatever positive influence he can. But good men should also recognize that they’re victims of this patriarchal system right alongside women. LDS women can’t do the stuff LDS men can do, but men are expected to live beneath their authentic values in order to keep it all running, the good and the bad. I don’t envy that. Eventually, LDS men will understand that the only genuine power they possess in our patriarchal system is the power to say no, to keep hold of their integrity and ideals, to stand as disciples of Christ in all times and all places even–and especially–when it’s risky. 

Male leaders, take that risk. Every time you acquiesce to an edict you know to be unjust, unkind, ill-informed, unhealthy, unthinking, unloving, or elitist, you reinforce your own instability within our church system and chip away at your personal, spiritual authority. You may move up the chain of command, but the higher you climb, the more stringent the rules, the tighter the patriarchal grip, and higher the chance you’ll be seduced into using unrighteous dominion (see D&C 121: 39). Take the risk and follow the example of Jesus. Tell them they aren’t without sin and to put down the stones they aim at women. 

I want our forward-thinking men who recognize that women deserve more from the institution to be as brave as the Mormon feminists of the past and those advocating today. Only when our men cry out for gender equality will we see it happen. If you’re a man waiting until a crowd of other men forms for this purpose, you don’t deserve to be called a leader. Stand up. Because if you don’t prove you want us inside the Church with equal footing, women will continue walking out. 

~~~

Jesus heard that they had cast [the blind man he’d healed] out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?  And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord. (John 9: 35-36 KJV)

Be sure to like and follow Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt on Facebook by clicking here.

To learn how the Church uses its wealth and political influence, read Greg Prince’s Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences