NO ONE ASKS THE GIRLS. Therein lies the problem.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced earlier this week that it will return to having class names for the female youth groups. The previous names–Beehives for ages 11-13; MIA Maids for 14-15; Laurels for 16-17–had become antiquated (plus teen girls seemed to universally hate them) and so they were retired in 2019. Still, the tradition of having class names was missed. The powers that be at Church HQ have restored the tradition but with the alternate names Builders of Faith (11-13 year olds), Messengers of Hope (14-15 year olds), and Gatherers of Light (16-17 year olds). Colliquial usage will surely shorten the class names to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers. Sigh. Nothing antiquated here…

And there’s nothing that says, “We didn’t poll the teenager girls for preferences” quite like the names Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers.

Honestly, my first reaction was a positive one, formed along the “little steps” line of reasoning. Stripping the teen girls of their traditional identities saddened me. It felt rudderless. There is something unifying in “tribal” names and taking that away from LDS teen girls was one more way of making Mormon women invisible. There is power in naming things. So yes, I’m glad to see class names returned even if it does seem odd that they’d recycled age-group names that were used used over 100 years ago.

There has been rejoicing from the people who rejoice at anything the LDS church proclaims. Quiet, in-home grumbling from practical LDS, and outrage from some Mo Fem thinkers who say clearly they won’t be happy until the young women are called deacons, teachers, and priests.

You may expect this is where I’d fall, but it isn’t. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that LDS women need–indeed, the LDS Church needs–a parallel priestesshood that is separated from the oversight and interference of men and respected as having divine origin. Only then, in my view, would the Church align with its claim to be restored. If the church instituted such a female priesthood and chose to call the offices of the teen girls Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers, I wouldn’t balk. As is, I’m happy they have an identity that’s just goofy enough for them to have fun pushing against.

But the reaction from some in the Mormon feminist community was so strong that it left me wondering if there is a hidden subtext triggering them, something beyond the commonplace practice of LDS men-assigning-women-their-roles/identity. The moment I had the thought was the moment before I had the answer:

Messengers don’t have their own voice; they are carriers of the ideas of others. 

Gatherers don’t create; they bring in what’s valued from elsewhere. 

Builders may create, but builders use the plans of others to do so.

All rhetoric carries baggage. Often that baggage is heavy. For the growing segment of LDS women who acknowledge and understand that the unending, patriarchal oversight of men diminishes the value and voices of women, these class names seem a reinforcement of the same old oppression. Whether you see it that way or not remains irrelevant to the women who have experienced the patriarchal grip as harmful.

I began by stating that the problem is that no one asks the girls what class names they’d prefer. Perhaps someone with a hierarchical position did present a sampling of names to some young women. I can’t know whether or not they did, but I doubt it. What I’m confident of is that the death of common consent is exactly the issue that is the driving wedge within the church’s membership. The membership, regardless of gender, no longer have any influence on policy. For instance, we can’t reject the trans bathroom policy, the policies that protect child abusers, or have any say in how the church’s great wealth is distributed. 

I’d go so far as to suggest that we have no policy influence because we have no genuine respect from our leaders. They don’t trust us to come up with the right answer, which is, to their minds, their answer. To protect hierarchical power, they morphed the common consent of the early church into a contemporary practice that uses a symbolic gesture (the raising of a hand) to figuratively bind us to compliance with their announced policies. Our faith is demonstrated, they say, by our compliance to their will, which they proudly equate to God’s will. Mainstream members also proudly assert the will of the hierarchy is God’s will, problematic as that may be. The church has become entirely authoritarian.

I understand the logistical difficulties in using common consent to develop policy in a worldwide religion. The solution to that was never to end common consent but to end micromanaging the membership through overcomplicated policies and procedures that leave the teachings of Jesus in the dust. Apostles of Jesus Christ should be focusing on preaching the gospel and trust the supplicants who fill the pews to manage themselves accordingly.

Dare I say it? Its highly unlikely Jesus cares what the three classes for LDS teenage girls are called, but he just might care how those names bare down on the girls. So let them choose.

What would it hurt to ask the girls what names they’d prefer for their age groups? Oh sure, it’s within the realm of possibility that they’d pick Swifties 1, Swifties 2, and Swifties 3, if entirely unfettered. Maybe that’s below the dignity of a church institution. But it’s just as likely they’d choose names pulled from scripture. Maybe they’d choose from the names of the handful of badass women we find in the Bible, a woman like Esther who stopped a genocide; or Deborah, who served the people as a righteous judge; or the Daughters of Zelophehad who challenged Moses to win inheritance rights for women. The name they would choose wouldn’t be nearly as important as the fact that they chose it. The important thing would be the empowerment they’d taste.

God forbid that happen. Or rather, the hierarchy forbids it.
~~

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. (D&C 26: 2)

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