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.
I’m intrigued by your idea of a parallel priestesshood. How do you imagine that functioning?
The church’s existing priesthood has two primary functions – ordinance validation and church governance. Would a female priestesshood have separate ordinances or just serve as another option for the existing ones? Would women priestesshood holders be subject to the male priesthood or would they run a separate organization (or maybe even have stewardship over the men)?
This could get complicated quickly. As just one example, would my wife pay tithing to a female bishop and I continue to pay to my male bishop?
I’m all for expanding women’s roles but without any details it’s tough to get behind the notion of a priestesshood or see it as other than unnecessary duplication.
That’s an excellent question and my answer is not meant as advocacy for perspective. Your question deserves an answer, so I offer one. Or at least my thoughts at this present time.
Lurking behind the question is the very Mormon habit of thinking of hierarchy as a ladder. The word “hiearchy” is Greek for “rule of the priest.” (Thank Google for the definition. I don’t pretend to know Greek!) Perhaps the English translation the reinforces the notion of one person being above another. (Think “higher-archy.”) Its surely the traditional way of looking at religious governance and shows up in most large churches. Your wording reflects a concern for knowing who exactly gets to be boss, which is understandable. But should that thinking be challenged? Yes. It should.
LDS doctrine says that the LDS church is a restored church, including in its organization. Yet, when I read the scriptures, I don’t see Jesus establishing a church even if I do understand the traditional way LDS interpret the idea. I see him selecting disciples (apostles) and telling them to spread the word. He instituted what we call the Sacrament (Eucharist) and baptism, but I sense he was more interested in a creating a community than in establishing an order of authority. Why would everyone in the community that is built on Jesus’ name need hierarchy?
The human answer is basically so we know where the buck stops. The Mormon answer has evolved to be so we know who is charge and who tof follow. But why is the gift of the Holy Ghost available to us in an individual way if we don’t *need it to direct us when we only need to look at that guy in SLC who heads the church to know what God expects of us? The hierarchical system we currently have simply does not jibe with the gift of the Holy Ghost. Nor does it work successfully with the LDS concept of the Light of Christ, a term I never hear anymore but that used to mean the human conscience. The Light of Christ, we used to say, is given to all people, regardless of affiliation to help us understand right from wrong. Under current LDS theology, if either the Light of Christ or the Holy Ghost tell us something isn’t spot on that comes out of the Church president, first presidency, or Q12, we are to reject it as some kind of spiritual deception and “follow the prophet.” I don’t recall this teaching as being as direct 40 years ago when I joined and attended BYU. In fact, I think 21 year old me would’ve been shocked if I’d been told the prophet trumps my own inspiration or revelation. I didn’t realize that LDS people are bred to accept that idea from birth.
I’ve written in the past that I believe the gift of the Holy Ghost is the great gender equalizer. After all, no man in any calling who needed to make a decision has ever praying to be guided by his priesthood, sent from on high. Nope. He will pray for the guidance of the Spirit. So it is with women. It is the precise concept of authority–of one human being above another–that has crippled this religion and most of Christianity (not all).
So as I envision a return (to and I do mean a return), or an inclusive acceptance of female priesthood, our traditional sense of hierarchal authority evaporates. All it has done for us is give us a corporate religion when Jesus hoped for a community of people dedicated to loving God and one another. When I speak of a parallel priestesshood, I am not speaking of repeating the structure men have established for women. I’m talking about a priestesshood that allows women to organize themselves as they wish. Remember when Joseph Smith agreed with Emma, the “elect lady,” that the women of the church would benefit from something specifically designed for the women? He got out of her way. What I envision would be much like that. Of course, Emma did mirror the established idea of an LDS presidency having three members, but JS left it up to her to chart her own course. The first Relief Society had no jurisdiction over the men, nor did the male leadership under JS didn’t exalt themselves over the Relief Society. For that oversight to happen, it required Brigham Young’s authoritarian ways, and then, later in our history, the obscene act of correlation that robbed women of the blessing of self-governance.
I don’t know how such a priestesshood would form itself except to say that it would most likely have a very different focus than our corporate church. But I feel confident a priestesshood would quickly set about the work of countering the foibles of our current, male-only, top-down church system. Look to Emma’s example. She intended to root out the great and awful (sort of) secret of plural marriage until Brigham Young compelled the Relief Society to disband and assigned the men of the church to stop women from gathering to talk entirely. Emma could’ve save us, but an authoritarian male with power didn’t let it happen. What interesting things would’ve happened had Joseph remained alive and Emma remained his Elect Lady, running the Relief Socity?
If a parallel priestesshood were ever to come into being, its formation would mostly depend on the inspiration of the woman called to start the ball rolling and the Holy Spirit. If I had any influence in it, there would be no governance of men over women nor of women over men. Yes, there would be growing pains. All growth begins when tension exists. But iIt seems to me the ultimate goal would be for each to serve the other within a theology/ideology/philosophy (pick a word) that completely rejects the premise that “higher-archy” must exist. We cannot get there as long a patriarchal authority remains the norm.