Mormon Feminism in 2017; group narratives and parallels with white feminism in North America

by preston lindsay

Summary

The author outlines in this paper the lived experience and cultural norms found within contemporary Mormon culture, first establishing his own history within Mormonism and organizational norms. The paper is separated into three sections: background and context, cultural structures, and then moves into mormon feminism and the wider feminist narrative this brand of feminism fits within. Findings include feminist ideologies and practices within Mormon culture very similarly mirror those ideologies and practices found in white feminism when this descriptor label is admitted; with a lack of intersectional understandings sculpted by cultural norms within Mormonism, in-group party affiliations and default cultural othering, and racial privilege.

Background and Context

Firstly, I must admit a hesitancy to breach this topic; I am a white American cis-gendered male who grew up in the lower middle class till I was 13, and then in the upper poverty tier since. I’m a fifth generation Mormon ancestor who has since left the church. I fulfilled all duties and responsibilities the church and my mormon community asked of me, and did them gladly. I carried a deep desire to be the best self I could be, and still do. I hold no grudge or harbour any animosity to the church. On the contrary, it was only through the great generosity of the church that my broken home of origin was able to eat and have a roof over our heads in difficult times. There are a great deal more advantages that were either trained into, or bestowed upon me. It is fair to say I wouldn’t be me without the church. And especially on the topic of Mormon Feminism, I am in the role of default oppressor under both descriptors. Even though I had no knowledge of this at the time, I still enjoyed the privileges that were given to me by virtue of my gender, and non-consciously perpetuated both of these until I realized them. And even now enjoy western society’s privileges and lifeways that were built on the backs of slavery, mysogeny, Native American genocide, and economic militarism via international and domestic neocolonialism.

It wasn’t until my 33rd year that I realized I didn’t belong in the Mormon church. It was a slow and painful process with agonizing twist and starts, with no small amount of confusion. It took years for me to come to this awareness; to peel back all the layers of enculturation and longing. But when I did, instead of the epiphany hitting me like a ton of bricks, it ironically felt as though a ton had been lifted from my shoulders and a fog had dissolved from my mind. My wife at that time couldn’t have been more supportive at first. I had spent my life thus far in service to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and it wasn’t until then that the weight and in-group perspectives i had held so dear fell away. I wasn’t angry, nor am I now as I write on this. In fact, I’m grateful for a life well lived; I served an honourable full-time mission to the Canada, Calgary, South mission from January 2000 to January 2002; was happily married to my now x-wife in the San Diego temple on October 24, 2006; and I was an active member in the church since the day I was born to two ‘active’ parents—who served in the Church all my young life. I couldn’t have missed more than a handful of church services in all my 33 years of active membership. I was a devout member. I was an elder in the Mormon faith and did my utmost to serve and love and lead my little family the best way I knew how. I adhered to the ‘word of wisdom,’ as outlined in the church’s doctrine and never partook in any tobacco, alcohol, coffee or black tea, and tried my very best to take care of my mortal temple. But over the course of a few years of introspection and soul searching I found I simply just didn’t believe.

In a church where there is no middle ground, where you’re either in or out; in a religion that is the least likely to marry outside of itself in the world, I should’ve known better. As an elder in the ‘higher’ priesthood, and patriarch of our home, I should have guessed there would be fallout. For it was my responsibility to lead and guide my family in the day to day devout membership rituals; morning and evening family prayer, morning/evening scripture study. As well as the weekly responsibilities of family home evening, church service and attendance, and on and on. Paired with these devotions were the personal requirements of any lay member: daily scripture study, personal and evening prayers, self loathing . . . It should have been no surprise that my x-wife would have struggled with this new me who cold no longer lead as we’d both been taught I should.

It was a painful process, sometimes it still is. But i will always be bound to the church and its people. Hannah Wheelright, a prominent Mormon feminist, speaks to this.

'I don't stay [active in the church] in the traditional way; I'm a Mormon in the unorthodox sense. I identify as Mormon because it's my people. I have five generations of Mormon pioneer ancestors on both sides of my family; it feels like my native language. It's such a part of my cultural and ancestral history; I can't deny that when I hear a hymn, or when I'm reminded of a sermon or scripture, that I feel, really deeply, a sense of peace and comfort and belonging. At the end of the day, even if that was some kind of intense brainwashing that I'm now forever tied to—which I don't think it is—it would still be a representation of my language, or my way of accessing divinity, or of accessing this all-encompassing sense of nature and peace and humanity.'

A further irony is that it wasn’t until I left the church that I was able to see how unhealthy some of the patriarchal responsibilities were to my x-wife. Up until that point I had always touted the partnership we worked on. In the Mormon faith it is the husband and father’s responsibility to provide and the wife and mother’s to nurture and tend. The argument heard in the church house was repeated that it came down to differing gender roles. That we were made to do different things, but we that we were equal partners. The way this plays out, however, can greatly limit both partners; and in a great deal more ways for the wife and mother. For example, after the birth of our son, we discussed and prayed about the right direction we should take on taking turns tending, or maybe even having her take a break from school to care for our son. We (most likely me) decided that she would take a break from school as I carried on so I could get my degree and then provide for the family. These were both implicit and explicit role descriptors acting on us at that time from our Mormon culture and upbringing. These decisions were based on a combination of socio-cultural and religious norms to which we were blind but still felt accountable. It means everything in the LDS faith to be worthy, to be good members of the church acting in righteousness before G-d and man.The analogy of the late David Foster Wallace’s fish not knowing she’s in water is apt. In addition to big decisions and their power to undermine, there were a whole slew of micro-aggressions/expectations attached to them.

These practices, norms, and mores are based on cultural understandings in the mormon church. And in order to fully understand these, one must hear it from the mouth of their prophet. One such document, often cited in sacrament and sunday school meetings is the ‘Proclamation on the Family.’ I have italicized relevant group narratives, gender roles and descriptions, as well as explicit conceptions related to feminist thought within the ‘Proclamation on the Family.’

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny

of His children.All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God

and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honour marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This declaration is saturated with ontological assumptions of personal and communal norms of identity and narratives whilst also providing dichotomous language against any other conception of family and identity roles as prescribed. This language frames the discussions and mental architecture with which members, men and women alike, judge themselves and others against. These have mass societal, political, and economic impacts.

To the Mormon church a family ordained by G-d starts with a cis-gendered man and a cis-gendered woman married in the temple. This is the reason the LDS church came out so strong against same-sex marriage, the LGBTQ community, and has remained so. To Mormons a family ordained by G-d is led by a ‘worthy’ priesthood holder. To Mormons a family ordained by G-d is one with many children [if possible]. It is only through these means and norms that an individual can gain a communal ‘earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life;’ not without.

In the mormon faith it is the patriarch’s responsibility to structure the family prayers, studies, and so on. Any degree of power sharing in the home is a result delegation of responsibility; which inadvertently shouts down the lesser power in the relationship (the matriarch) and making it non-consciously clear who holds the power.

After I left the church I began seeing these power dynamics more acutely, and the great impact they had on my x-wife. I found myself apologizing consistently to her for these subtle and not so subtle acts I had done in the past. I felt responsible for them, and for her as-yet unrealized affronts to her freedom and dignity. I had done these things, regardless of the frames and narratives we’d both been raised in. I saw myself as the problem. Even now, looking back on this time, i’m so disappointed with myself and the actions that limited her freedoms. But as disconcerting as these feelings and actions are, women by far have created deeper constraints, and limitations, and expectations for themselves within these structures than I can speak to fully here.

Cultural Structures

Utah Valley University professor Kris Doty, calls the socio-cultural systems within Mormonism toxic perfectionism. She claims the church's teachings on striving for perfection in this life lead to misinterpretations and consistently contribute to feelings of inadequacy in mormon women. In an interview with Deseret News at the 2013 Mental Health Symposium she said, “In the (Mormon and Utah) culture, people have just taken it too far. They think they can't make a mistake and so they become hyper-competitive and anxious. If you think you can make no mistake, you're setting yourself up for failure.” These same feelings of chronic inadequacy, but perhaps to a lesser extent, operate within the priesthood as well.

Stephanie Lyon, writing in the Journal of Psychotherapy reports members of the LDS faith so highly structure their lives, encourage certain personality traits over others, that it causes severe emotional and mental repercussions.

'The LDS church places a high value on certain personality characteristics and encourages that these characteristics and traits be cultivated by members of the church. Some of these traits include industriousness, the carful use of time, restraint of aggression, control of temper and sexual impulses, and compulsive performance of religious and personal duties. This constellation of ideal traits can encourage Mormon people to be rigid, structured, ritualistic, and overly restrained in their way of approaching the world. While these traits may make an individual a more highly valued church member, these same traits could also easily become pathological. It has been suggested that the expectation of constant activity and the weighty demands of the church can serve to legitimize obsessive compulsive behaviour in Mormon people.'

Mormon identity is textured and woven into the ontological fabric of existence and ontological assumptions of everyday life, and its shortfalls. In this regard, Lyons continues to explain how feelings of guilt and self-condemnation are increasing likely under these circumstances. But particularly for Mormon women, it is the onus placed on obtaining a celestial marriage, and subsequent idealized family life that provides the context for the high stressors mentioned above. To make matters more difficult, Koltko explains Mormons feel personally responsible for unwanted thoughts and feelings contrary to these frames.

Lyons work in her piece, ‘Psycho therapy and the Mormon Faith,’ is seminal in its thorough breakdown of the mental frames and thought architectures Mormon folks swim in. One area in particular of interest in the LDS faith is the belief in personal and familial revelation, and who receives that for the family. Lyon states, “Another difficulty a therapist may face with devout Mormons is how to distinguish extreme religious beliefs from psychotic symptoms, because the line between religious thought or behaviour and mental disorder is sometimes thin.”

In Mormon led households, it is the father and husband who receives revelation for the family, for good or ill. Due to the institutionalized patriarchal nature of Mormon culture, not only does the patriarch guide all spiritual activity in the home, but is the only one (with counsel with his wife as an equal partner) that can make the final decisions there; in essence, holding all the power via his priesthood. It is then naturally the default position, even with the best of intentions, to non-consciously undermine the ‘revelatory’ power and decision making capabilities of the matriarch in each home and in each church house. This can also be found in leadership positions, or the lack thereof, within the church hierarchy. Wheelright, in her co-authored new book, ‘Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings, states,

'A lot of Mormon women would say that they feel equal within the church—a lot of women in my family feel that way. They [say] that there's not a problem, that we have complementary roles: Men preside, but women are equal partners. Which doesn't really make sense; I don't know how you can have someone preside but still have equal partnership . . . the church is a patriarchy that will not call itself a patriarchy. They will absolutely avoid saying that men are the only ones who can really be in charge. They talk about how they work together with the female leaders, they might really emphasize how husbands and wives counsel together. It all sounds really good, but at the end of the day only men can be ordained to the priesthood, and you can only be a leader over a mixed group of adult men and women if you have the priesthood. You can only become prophet if you're a man, we pray to a male god, and we're told that it's inappropriate to pray to a heavenly mother. What's really important for a lot of modern women to acknowledge is that it's fine if you feel equal, but you are not given the same opportunities. It really speaks to [what the church believes about] women's divine spiritual capacity.'

Mormon women, or men for that matter, who claim to be feminists can find themselves in a church that is less than encouraging, and can sometimes even obstruct that expression and stance. This active disenfranchisement was on display in an internal church leadership speech given by Boyd K. Packer, the president of the quorum of the twelve apostles in the church, in 1993. He taught,

'It is so easy to be turned about without realizing that it has happened to us. There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right. The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals. Our local leaders must deal with all three of them with ever-increasing frequency.'

These teachings have not gone unnoticed. Even if left unspoken in uneasy or tense conversations in homes and church houses around North America, their absence may as well be non-conscious shouts from the rooftops; delegitimizing, breaking up, and causing untold pain in the lives of its members—especially its member in the LGBTQ community. Wheelright speaks of the further impact of this speech on Mormon Feminists.

'. . . in an internal speech he [President Packer]said the three greatest threats facing the church were feminists, gays, and intellectuals. That attitude really pervades the rest of church culture and the way the church is run; if you call yourself a Mormon feminist, you're not in a leadership position in the church on a national or global level. There are lots of everyday Mormon feminists who have a role within their congregations, but as far as thought leaders in Mormon feminism [go], they're either bigger names outside of the church, or they're not in the church.'

The implications of a culture of suppression and intolerance can be difficult to see amidst glowing smiles, pastel dresses, and angelic choral hymns. Culture is inherently sticky and defaults to non-conscious schemas and thought patterns built on theology, power structures, and value systems. Kevin Avruch speaks to this in his book, ‘Culture; Conflict and Resolution.’ He says, “Culture appears as a sort of optical or perceptual illusion . . . although always a presence, it can best be seen when thrown into relief by the quality of the difference.” It is here, in the spaces between that the most insight can be gained. Carl Jung speaking of human cognition and behaviour said, “These subliminal aspects of everything that happen to us may seem to play very little part in our daily lives. But they are the almost invisible roots of our conscious thoughts.” The results of these subliminal aspects of everything have very real and very damaging effects. For example,

'. . . Utah is over 60 percent Mormon. The Utah state legislature does not do something unless the LDS Church has given their approval or would be OK with it. That's a big deal; that's a way that the church directly influences politics. It affects college graduation rates in Utah; fewer women are graduating than men. Utah has one of the worst pay rates for women in the country, and especially for women of colour. So even though these things originate in spiritual inequality, they have huge, very visible effects that a lot of people push aside . . . There are really serious ramifications that people should be paying attention to.'

Basquiat, In her article, ‘Reproducing Patriarchy and Erasing Feminism,’ also touches on the nature of constructed reality, hegemony, and hierarchies within Mormonism.

'. . ideologies are "called into being" by a preexisting desire for meaning. Gramsci argues that this epistemological desire or "critical understanding of self takes place . . . through a struggle of political 'hegemonies' and of opposing directions, first in the ethical field and then in that of politics proper, in order to arrive at a working out at a higher level of one's own conception of reality. Consciousness of being part of a particular hegemonic force ... is the first stage towards a further progressive self-consciousness in which theory and practice will finally be one. For Gramsci, the realization that the individual plays and is played by larger hegemonic forces is the first real step to understanding not only popular conceptions of reality but our place within that reality, thus melding theories of ontology with practical experience. Nowhere is this melding of practice more closely intertwined with personal ontology than within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), for within the realm of Mormonism, the theory is the practice, and vice versa. . . A hegemonic order's willingness to embrace change, to view different expressions of experience as either alternative or oppositional, is inextricably linked to its claim on a particular cultural practice. As Williams states, "The difficulties of human practice outside or against the dominant mode are, of course, real. It depends very much whether it is in an area in which the dominant class and the dominant culture have an interest and a stake." When the dominant culture has a significant stake in what is being challenged, it makes a move either to incorporate or appropriate these alternative or oppositional practices within the lexicon of acceptable everyday practice, or to "extirpate" them . . Although everyone is a "child of God" in Mormon theology, some people are inherently more spiritual than others and are therefore part of the ruling class. This application of the Marxist term "ruling class" is hardly a leap when connected to the General Authorities of the LDS [Church.] These men make the law and, more significantly, offer the only real, and thus accepted, interpretations of it. It is also not a stretch to widen the definition of the ruling class to include all men of priesthood age. Men automatically become priesthood holders at the age of twelve. From that point onward they have more.'

Mormon Feminism within Wider Feminist Narrative

This doesn’t mean that in the ‘active’ Mormon women’s circles there aren’t those that ascribe to feminism. ‘I’m a Mormon Feminist’ is a web forum created in 2013 for women to gather at to explain why they are both feminists and Mormons. They can choose to use their names or not, and there are plenty of women sharing their stances, histories, and reasoning. There are also the Mormon Women’s Project, Aspiring Mormon Women, and Feminist Mormon Women of Colour organizations pushing for wider equality and intrapreneurial awareness to the oppression and heavy hand over proceedings in the church; but presented in a mormon cultural language that underplays the weight of these practices and highlights the cross to be born by them and the joys of faith. There are also a smattering of Mormon feminist articles which have been released explaining why women either are or aren’t feminists and how that fits within their faith tradition. Women’s voices are beginning to be heard, and these steps are important, however small and simple their beginnings.

On the whole, however, there is a tendency to avoid the title of feminism within the church, in no small part due to the church’s stances mentioned above and the processes used to promote them. Political party affiliation and subjective concept mapping as party platform politicking in in-group versus out-group narratives also play a large role. According to the Pew Research Centre,

'Mormons stand out from the general population and other major religious traditions for their conservatism on both cultural and political issues . . They also are considerably more Republican than any other major religious tradition, including members of evangelical Protestant churches, and tend to take conservative positions on whether abortion should be legal or illegal, whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged by society and views of the size and role of government. On issues of foreign affairs, Mormons stand out for their view that the U.S. should be active in world affairs and for being slightly more likely than others to favour military strength over diplomacy. Fully 70% of Mormons identify as Republicans or lean Republican; fewer than a quarter (22%) lean Democratic . . This places Mormons to the right of all other major religious traditions on a continuum of ideology and partisanship; in fact, they are somewhat more conservative and Republican than members of evangelical Protestant churches. Two-thirds of Mormons (68%) say homosexuality should be discouraged rather than accepted by society. Mormons are distinctive in their views on the origins of human life. When asked about the theory of evolution, only 22% of Mormons say it is the best explanation for human life, with three-in-four (75%) disagreeing.'

Nationalism is particularly strong in the Mormon faith as a result of high percentage Republicanism and American exceptionalism within these schemas. This is a bit of a cultural leap for Mormons, due to their religion literally having an expulsion/ extermination order placed upon it by the government in 1883, that wasn’t rescinded until 138 years later. But the republican party has accommodated their clean cut, pro business, all-American look and value set, just not enough to elect one president. As research by Harry Anastasious demonstrates, nationalism, particularly American nationalism,

'. . perceives its own nation not only in terms of its military superiority but also, if not more so, in terms of its presumed moral superiority . . These unspoken, fundamental assumptions of nationalism determine adversarial perceptions and derivative actions, even beyond the partisan selection of facts that underpin them and the stereotypes that generalize and sustain them.'

The Republican party platform has been less than accommodating to suspected out-groups and has actively contributed to racial disparities, gender inequity, and toxic masculinity and an anti-feminist agenda since the Nixon administration strategized to undermine these communities in 1968 alongside his domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman. These same policies then shifted into wider appeal and subsequent acceptance by the Republican Party electorate during the Reagan administration, by the careful guidance of Lee Atwater who led the notoriously racist Southern Strategy. Ehrlichman later said in an interview by Dan Baum,

'The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.'

In 1981, Lee Atwater promoted the ‘needed’ transition,

'You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

With these strategists and the outright acceptance and integration of their strategies into the current Republican Party platforms, it is easy to see how ethnicity and race have also influenced the lack of intersectionality found within mormonism, and thus mormon men and women’s schema of feminism. In 2009, 86 percent of Mormons were white, 3 percent black, 7 percent hispanic, and 5 percent of other origins. Though these numbers are obviously watered down culturally speaking, the sharp dichotomy between racial and ethnic representation also drastically provide the Mormon membership with a non-conscious default setting of out-grouping those of other races while simultaneously aligning party loyalty to a party that represents familiar frames and ontologies. Due to these frames, feminism within mormonism bears a striking structural resemblance to white feminism.

But what is white feminism? As has been written about by academics and journalists alike, white feminism is a brand of feminism that fails to address the intersectionality of narratives and experiences lived by women of different races, ethnicities, genders, and faiths. Gina M. Florio explains,

'White Feminism marginalizes women of colour. White Feminism fails to give feminists of colour a platform to discuss how racial inequality relates to gender inequality. It consistently reminds us that the beauty standard in our culture remains thin, blonde, and white. Moreover, white women leading equality campaigns in Washington, D.C. blatantly requested that black suffragists walk at the back of their parades. As a result, some black women chose not to march at all, refusing to participate in yet another form of segregation . . The plight of a middle-class, straight, white, American woman is not the same as that of an uneducated, gay, American woman of color. While the former fights for equal pay and paid maternity leave, the latter is more concerned with stopping race-related police brutality, acquiring better funding for inner-city public schools, and developing more comprehensive treatment programs for HIV. . . [while] white feminists are concerned with equality, feminists of color (especially black feminists) are battling injustice. She says, "One kind of feminism focuses on the policies that will help women integrate fully into the existing American system. The other recognizes the fundamental flaws in the system and seeks its complete and total transformation.”

A working definition for white feminism, according to the blueprint above, is the opposite of intersectional feminism. Intersectional feminism is the examination of the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender, but on race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, physical ability, and other marginalized identities. This convergence of lenses and histories and narratives can be difficult to explain without the concept of white privilege attached. Francis Kendall in his foundational work, “Understanding White Privilege,” explains this well for the demographics in Mormon culture.

'Privilege, particularly white or male privilege, is hard to see for those of us who were born with access to power and resources. It is very visible for those to whom privilege was not granted. Furthermore, the subject is extremely difficult to talk about because many white people don’t feel powerful or as if they have privileges others do not. It is sort of like asking fish to notice water or bird to discuss air. For those who have privileges based on race or gender or class or physical ability or sexual orientation, or age, it just is—it’s normal. The Random House Dictionary defines privilege as ‘a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.’ In her article, ‘White Privilege and Male Privilege,’ Peggy McIntosh reminds us that those of us who are white usually believe that privileges are, ‘conditions of daily experience . . [that are] universally available to everybody.’ She says that what we are really talking about is ‘unearned power conferred systemically. For those of us who are white, one of our privileges is that we see ourselves as individuals, “just people,” part of the human race. Most of us are clear, however, that people whose skin is not white are members of a race. The surprising thing for us is that, even though we don’t see ourselves as part of a radical group, people of colour generally do see us that way.'

Conclusion

Contemporary feminism within the LDS faith tradition has suffered from systemic and blatant disregard internally, while sharing narratives and folkways as a singular privileged racial group and economically advantaged political party and platform externally. There is no small amount of cognitive dissonance as structured norms, beliefs, and behaviours are projected upon women and men within these frames as value judgements; of how the world should be. These schemas and standards tend to other all those who don’t adhere to this in-group narrative sculpted by in-group psyche. For this, and many other reasons, feminism within the mormon faith and culture isn’t so much overtly anti-feminist and anti-intersectional (although there has been that in the past) as much as caught in an undercurrent of white privilege that has been able to afford to non-consciously ignore the plights of other intersectional disparities due to the prominence of their particular contemporary socio-cultural place and structural foundations. This, as well as the combination of a traditioned theology woven into the cognitive inability to view different expressions of the human experience as either alternative or oppositional, whilst also being bound by lopsided power structures to the latent in-group default political systems reinforcing this privilege. Regardless of how this came to be, with the absence of intersectional feminism (or even the aversion to claim to be feminist within mormonism), the prominence of white privilege, and the strict adherence to dichotomous schemas, norms, and practices have shown that when feminism and the movements for equality and social justice are addressed they are bound within the frames and thought architectures of white feminism and fail to include the voices most oppressed by the same systems from which their privileges are enjoyed.