Hope Springs Eternal—And So Does Disappointment

Guest post by Judy Dushku

It is April 11 as I write, and our ward Relief Society is about to celebrate the founding of the organization with a luncheon and a rerun of the Relief Society worldwide broadcast that went out last month. It’s curious to me that someone thinks this address, which has already been circulated, critiqued, and responded to all over the Church—and the internet—will still hold genuine interest or appeal for sisters now. Presumably, we’re not the only ward getting a late turn, and others may see it even later.

But my negative feelings about the broadcast aren’t just about the timing. I feel disappointed, yet again, by the content of the messages it contains. And honestly, I feel disappointed in myself for even hoping there might have been something new and inspiring this year. With all the talk in and out of the Church about empowering women—while statistics show women are continuing to leave the Church because they feel ignored—I let myself hope. I’m an example of someone for whom hope springs eternal that something might be different for women in the LDS Church, when it is not.

I read April Young-Bennett’s fine essay about this broadcast here on the Exponent II blog, and I appreciate her work so much. She writes honestly about the hypocrisy in Sister Camille Johnson’s use of the theme of our “common legacy” in the Nauvoo Relief Society. That founding story is complicated and troubling. For years, we’ve known how women tried to organize their own female association—only to have it taken out of their hands and reshaped under Joseph Smith’s direction. The phrase “I turn the key to you” was, for decades, replaced in official discourse with “I turn the key in your behalf.” Only recently has it been restored to its original form, now that many early documents are widely available. But restored or not, the interpretation remains the same: a determined effort to avoid any suggestion that the priesthood keys might be transferred to women.

I would think that such an embattled foundational story would be too hot to handle for a worldwide devotional and might have been better left alone in such a public forum.

And then there’s Sister Johnson’s suggestion that the establishment of the Relief Society restored an order of women’s organization that existed in Christ’s church during His ministry. That’s quite a statement. As one commenter named Mary pointed out, Church leaders have never used early Christian women as role models for Latter-day Saint women—at least not in General Conference talks or official doctrine. Everything I’ve learned about women in the early church has come from other religious traditions. In fact, I’ve often heard LDS leaders treat those kinds of questions with disdain or even derision. So if Sister Johnson is announcing new doctrine here, I salute her and would celebrate her, but if something this significant was being suggested, you’d think it would have been picked up in general conference by someone with more authority in the hierarchy and elaborated upon.

I’ve seen this pattern before. Over my lifetime, Church leaders have used so many different rationales to justify why the patriarchy remains firmly in place. In the 1950s, we were told women were too spiritual and sweet to lead and needed to be protected. Then we were told that motherhood and leadership couldn’t coexist. Then, that if women had real power, they’d be so good that men would disappear from the Church altogether. Later, it was all about covenant keeping. And now, we’re told God wants us to be powerful in a new pattern of women’s power—one no one has ever heard of until now. It feels like another desperate effort to justify continued male dominance.

I have to ask: what are they afraid of? Why work so hard, year after year, to keep things like they are?

I actually have some affection for “our” women leaders. I suspect each one of them, when they were called, thought they might be the one—the one who could bring more respect and useful authority to women in the Church. Maybe they think they have, or still can. But I’m afraid, for all their time and energy and sincere, prayerful effort, the men at the top are so determined to hold on to power that they will not budge an inch.

At 83, I’ve spent a lifetime in this Church. I’ve worked to support change in ways that honor and inspire women. I’ve done that through Exponent II, and one-on-one, and in my family and community. I count hundreds of Latter-day Saint women among my dearest friends. But I’ve seen too much to sincerely expect institutional change. And if the Second Coming comes before this century ends, I think the Church will have blown its chance to change for the better for women and girls.

It’s the same doctrine, dressed in a new fashion, and it is as unappealing to most of us today as it was 100 years ago and more. I have to ignore it and take comfort instead in the rational and uplifting testimonies of women in the Church who know this old way is not Jesus Christ’s way. We keep our faith alive by communicating with each other outside the official channels.

Judy Dushku is a founding mother of Exponent II, a retired professor of comparative politics, and the author of the inspiring historical fiction novel, Is This The Way Home?