There
have been a few changes within Mormonism this past year. First, the General Authorities announced a change in missionary policy, lowering the age for both men and women. Men are allowed to serve at the age of
eighteen, women at the age of nineteen. Previously,
men went out at nineteen; women were allowed to serve at twenty-one, if they
were still unmarried. The service time
remains the same – two years for men, eighteen months for women. When asked why the change in policy didn’t
erase the differences between men and women completely, Thomas S. Monson’s
reply was “one miracle at a time”.
Women can now serve missions at
nineteen. This sounds like progress –
except that women are still not granted any authority in church matters. Within the mission field, only the male
missionaries will be allowed to fulfill leadership positions. Any investigator that a sister missionary
teaches will be baptized by a male missionary, who will receive the credit for
conversion. I view this change in the
policy regarding sister missionaries as a minor concession granted, with no real
change in sight. Authority – and the
ability to effect change – remains firmly in the hands of an all-male leadership.
Every position within the Mormon
Church that is filled by a woman is ultimately presided over by men. Mormon authorities point to the Relief Society
– an all-female organization – as proof that women are equal. What they don’t mention is that any decision
made by the Relief Society leaders can be over-ruled at any time by the male
authorities. As a teenager, I attended a
church girls’ camp in the summer. Our
leaders were responsible, capable women.
This was not enough; church policy required that each ward provide a
male chaperone, usually the bishop or one of his counselors. I left Mormonism while I was still in high
school; had I stayed, this dynamic would have followed me through my entire
life, as all-female gatherings within Mormonism are subject to male authorities
attending. All of the pretty talk about
respecting women is pointless when church culture is based on the assumption
that women are not capable or trustworthy.
The second big change has been in
the form of a website titled “Mormons and Gays” that is being touted as a new
era in Mormon-gay relations. The
Church’s official stance on homosexuality is at the top of the page and reads:
“The experience of
same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself
is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to
have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and
understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay
and lesbian brothers and sisters.”
In
other words – it’s okay to be gay, it’s just not okay to be gay.
This is
not progress. I define progress as
moving towards a new future. What I see
is a church that is being dragged into the future kicking and screaming. Granting token gestures towards marginalized
groups, in a manner that suggests the underlying attitudes are still intact, is not progress. There is now a website that says Mormons
should love gays, with the acknowledgment that being gay might be inherent. Accompanying this gesture is a huge asterisk, in
the form of a statement: “There is
no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right.” In other words, there has been lip
service paid to the idea of change, without any significant revision of the
underlying attitudes.
What about this can be labeled
progress?
The
Mormon Church has a long history of being forced into tolerance by the
surrounding society. There is now a satire
website called “Mormons and Negroes”, which draws on quotes from former leaders of the Mormon Church. As this website illustrates, the Mormon Church also has a very
unsavory history with race relations. Black men weren't allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978. Receiving the priesthood is a rite of
passage granted to twelve-year boys and is necessary for a full life
as a Mormon male. Lifting the priesthood
ban was heralded as a monumental step forward.
However, the reversal of the priesthood ban was prompted more by the
threat of legal sanctions rather than genuine tolerance. Perhaps this would be okay; no matter the
reason, the ban was lifted. However, the
Mormon authorities have never retracted their previous teachings or apologized
for the ban. As a result, attitudes
regarding race have changed in a slow and uneven manner, with a significant
number of members repeating the older teachings as truth. After all, the men that made these statements
are considered prophets of God – what argument can be made that these teachings
are in error? The only answer is to
forget or deny the past. As a teenager
in the late 90s/early 00s, I learned that black people were descendants of
Cain, cursed with dark skin for Cain’s murder of Abel. I also learned that Native Americans had been
cursed with dark skin for similar reasons.
Even in the post-civil rights era of my teenage years, these archaic and
damaging teachings were far from dead.
Earlier this year, Randy Bott, a
very popular BYU professor, re-hashed some of the attitudes surrounding Mormon
race relations in a Washington Post interview.
After public outcry, the Mormon Newsroom released the following statement.
"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."
There
was no attempt by Mormon authorities to address the past. There was no attempt to clarify that the
earlier teachings – which Bott had repeated in a national interview –
were not of God. Instead, the Mormon PR
machine tried to sweep the whole issue under a rug.
This is not progress. These are the actions of a church that is unwilling
or unable to change.
Change
is only effective if done willingly and with a full heart. I see evidence of change among the members;
Prop 8 was a source of heartache to many faithful Mormons. Most members have also moved past the racist
teachings of the previous leaders. These
are the people that give me hope for a better future. What I don’t see is any hint of change among
the authorities or even an avenue for change to occur.
