Acknowledging Institutional Mistakes is a Strength Not a Weakness: Wisdom from Oral Histories with Mormon Women of Color
I was elated to interview Nadine in 2015 for my dissertation on Mormon women of color navigating issues of race and gender (now a book). As an older professional Southern Black woman and somewhat recent convert, Nadine gave me a window into what attracted her to the church—clarity on religious questions, community, and opportunities for involvement. She also showed me a powerful strategy for dealing with some of Mormonism’s thorniest problems like polygamy and the priesthood-temple ban: prayerfully reject them.
What I eventually used was the principle of personal revelation, which I had believed as a Baptist and which was key to me in looking at the LDS faith. I prayed and the answer I received was that neither the priesthood ban and the temple ban nor polygamy had been of God. . . . [Joseph Smith] said that the key part of our religion is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And that everything else—everything else—was all just appendages to that key tenet. And I was like, I can go for that. And you know, all these other things, they are appendages, so I don’t really have to worry my head about that. I had already received clear revelation that the priesthood ban and the temple ban and polygamy were not of God—so I could join the church.
Interesting, right? By rejecting these practices and teachings that were confirmed to her through personal revelation as not being authored by God, she was able to embrace the church. She was able to choose baptism. She was able to participate and love all the good things the church did offer.
Nadine didn’t need the historical church to be perfect. She was a child of the South, raised in a context of overt racism. Historical racism from white-led institutions did not surprise her. She could accept that reality. What she couldn’t accept was the idea that racist practices—and practices which she found harmful to women and families—were authored by God.
Nadine’s experience of finding space to choose the church—through rejecting church practices she knew in her bones to be harmful and ungodly—has made me consider a) why more Mormons don’t do this and b) how the church might create space for members to do this and thus retain and gain more members.
Why don’t more Mormons who see troubling and hurtful teachings feel free to reject them and embrace the good in the church, like Nadine did? I think this is due to both Mormon culture and institutional church emphases. Mormon culture too often advocates a black or white, all or nothing, it’s all true or it’s all false mindset when it comes to church truth claims. It’s a very rare Sunday at church when I hear someone acknowledge something they find problematic or don’t accept regarding church teachings or practices. Rather, there are strong cultural norms to not dissent or challenge basically any teaching. Faith in Mormonland is generally characterized by agreement with institutional discourse—not by doing the hard work of sorting out what is godly and what isn’t in our culture and institution.
Institutional church discourse has certainly helped contribute to the above cultural phenomenon. Repeated emphases on prophetic authority and God/Jesus directing the church imply that basically all church policies and teachings are authored by God. There is some lip service to the idea that church leaders are fallible, but as the old joke about Catholics and Mormons goes, Mormons don’t tend to believe it.*
But what if church leaders could shift their discourse by offering more institutional humility? I for one would be a far more comfortable member if I saw church leaders acknowledging and yes, apologizing, for mistakes and harmful practices. I’d feel comforted if my leaders were people who were willing to admit to institutional shortcomings. That would build my confidence in my leaders and in this institution far more than repeated assertions of prophetic authority and God directing the church. The unwillingness to acknowledge shortcomings (so evident in the defensive tone of the church’s PR response to the recent horrific AP story on sexual abuse) indicates a serious weakness to me. Robustness, strength, and maturity entail recognizing humanity, acknowledging missteps, and committing to do better.
One of the most impactful articles I read as a young Mormon feminist is “Lusterware” by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (summarized in this post). She makes the excellent point that too often we church members mistake things in the church that are earthly, weak, and fault-ridden for things that are godly, perfect, and just as they should be. This can lead to disillusionment and the questioning of one’s membership when those things (or people) we held up as godly turn out to be fallible.
Like the essay indicates, members need to be more judicious about the things they pedestalize. But church leaders could certainly help members do this if they opened up more space for them to develop discernment in church contexts. Opening up space could entail introducing discourses that acknowledge institutional fallibility; that talk about how the institutional church is on a journey of progression; that its leadership is listening, learning, and making mistakes, but committed to doing better.
I’ve thought a lot about Nadine’s oral history, and I think she was really onto something. The freedom she felt to privilege her personal revelation and reject unjust and hurtful church practices ultimately enabled her to embrace the church. I wish more people could self-authorize and find that freedom. I’d like more people to feel free to stay or join, if that’s what they would like to do. I wish the institutional church would help create room for that through discourses of humility and progression.
*The joke is along the lines that Catholic doctrine states that the pope is infallible, but Catholics don’t believe it; Mormon doctrine states that the prophet is fallible, but Mormons don’t believe it.
