Mormonism and gender issues/Women/Political and social

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Political and social issues related to Mormon women

Quick Navigation

• Question: What is Mormonism's stance toward the victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape, or incest?
• Question: Do Mormons believe that sexual assault victims ought to fight to the death?
• Question: Why did Mormon leaders oppose the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the United States?

1. REDIRECT The Church's position on abuse

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

General Principles	The Church's position on abuse Bishop interviews with youth Mandatory reporting of abuse Abuse victims and lack of culpability Child abuse in the scriptures
Specific Cases	Ritual child abuse accusations in the 1990s Abuse and the Boy Scouts of America Bisbee, Arizona — Adams abuse case

Does the Church teach that sexual assault victims ought to fight to the death?

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse

Critics of the Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women—to "fight to the death" in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

Statements from Church Sources

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase "fight to the death" ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin.

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.

In the early Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See DC 123:1-17) and are utterly denounced as "dark and hellish."

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. AoF 1:2

Elizabeth Smart and the Stick of Chewing Gum

On May 1, 2013, kidnap and rape survivor, Elizabeth Smart, gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University. She was invited there for a conference on sexual abuse and human trafficking. She spoke of the crimes committed against her when she was fourteen years old and living in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the time of her abduction and rape, and at the date of this writing, Smart was and is a member of the Church.

In her speech, Smart recalled a lesson taught in school where a used stick of chewing gum was put forward as an analogy for a person who had chosen not to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. The analogy is grim and loathsome. "No one should ever say that," Smart said. As Smart herself stated, the chewing gum analogy was not part of her religious education. In the Church, parents are considered the chief spiritual educators and guides of their own children. Smart recalled being taught by her LDS parents that virginity was precious but, she added,

I remember thinking of my parents and after, realizing that they would still love me; that just because I had been chained, just because I had been kidnapped, just because all these things had happened to me—that wouldn’t change their love. And I feel so fortunate in that I was able to realize that.

Some media have characterized Smart's 2013 speech as an indictment of her religious roots. It was touted in headlines as a speech denouncing abstinence education and advancing the idea that sexual purity is dangerous and universally untenable. However, a full examination of Smart's speech reveals the details wherein lie the truth. Her speech did not address issues of consensual sexual behavior. It was about reaching out to victims of violence and abuse and affirming their worth. It was about offering hope and healing to people like herself who'd had their choices taken from them. As seen in quotations from LDS leaders noted above, Smart's comments were exactly in line with Church teachings about victims of sexual abuse being free from guilt and being precious to God, their church community, and everyone else.

Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book The Miracle of Forgiveness written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and The Miracle of Forgiveness was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term "fight to the death" was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young.

Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons similar to the stick-of-gum Elizabeth Smart mentioned in her 2013 speech. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said.

Well-meaning but badly mangled interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

Feminist scholars outside the Church have noted that the notion of victims of sexual assault being expected to fight to the death existed outside the Church in mainstream American social and legal culture.

White men ... had a virtual license to rape, as the law required "true" victims to be ultimately innocent ladies who would rather fight to the death than give up their virginity.

Further, the argument is made that this underlying assumption about victims was powerful and prevalent enough to shape sexual assault laws up until the Women's Movement demanded something better. Though LDS leaders spoke of sexual integrity in terms of life and death they cannot be held responsible for inventing it. The idea had a cultural momentum that existed independently of the comments of LDS leaders.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in The Miracle of Forgiveness have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out." Mat 5:29 This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends "a struggle" against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape "condemnation." Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was "absolutely no voluntary participation" on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, "it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle." Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts would not convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict.

As a non-LDS feminist scholar explains:

Sexist gender norms were woven into the very fabric of rape law in the form of iniquitous obstacles to prosecution such as resistance and corroboration requirements...these rules tended to privilege rape defendants.

It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball did not invent these laws. He did not foresee any change in them. He could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived. And the reality was that, before the law, the victim of sexual assault who had physically resisted her attacker was "in a more favorable position."

Other Church Leaders

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to "fight to the death."

In The Miracle of Forgiveness, Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it."

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called "Dangers to Youth". In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself."

Clark speaks of the value of an "undefiled body" but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See Dan 1:8, Matt 15:11) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and "not guilty."

Virtue vs. Virginity

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See Moro 9:9-10) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See Deut 22:25-26). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words "chastity and virtue" to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying "virginity."

And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. Moro 9:9-10

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the "great abominations" of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See Deut 22:25-29) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her "chastity and virtue"—was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of "restitution" would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s "chastity and virtue" was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

Lingering Controversy

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church—have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to keep original contexts in mind and to ultimately use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

Did Elder Richard G. Scott teach that victims of abuse are responsible for their abuse?

In a discourse given in the April 1992 General Conference of the Church, Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles speaks to victims of abuse.

During the course of his talk, Elder Scott stated the following:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1–4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life. As a victim, do not waste effort in revenge or retribution against your aggressor. Focus on your responsibility to do what is in your power to correct. Leave the handling of the offender to civil and Church authorities.

Here is a video of the address:

Is Elder Scott teaching that victims of abuse are responsible for their abuse?

We count on the patience and maturity of our readers as we briefly explore this deeply sensitive question. We affirm unequivocally to those who have faced abuse that "[t]he abuse was not, is not, and never will be your fault, no matter what the abuser or anyone else may have said to the contrary. When you have been a victim of cruelty, incest, or any other perversion, you are not the one who needs to repent; you are not responsible." That said, there may very well still be important things that we can glean from Elder Scott's talk.

Elder Scott's Meaning May be Obscured by Clunky Wording

The first thing that we might strongly claim is that Elder Scott's meaning needs to be evaluated within the course of the talk. Otherwise, it's likely that his admittedly clunky wording here is obscuring what he actually meant to say. Earlier in his discourse, Elder Scott slowly and pointedly underscores "that when another’s violence, perversion, incest cause you deep harm, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty." How can Elder Scott simultaneously claim that a person is not responsible and that the victim may hold "a degree of responsibility for abuse"? There's a good chance that Elder Scott meant to say something that we're not understanding.

Not A Good Word for the Type of 'Responsibility' that Elder Scott May Have Been Referring To

The abuse victims face is not their fault. One of the big problems surrounding these discussions is that there is not a good word to refer to the type of 'responsibility' that Elder Scott was likely referring to. We'll illustrate that with a couple of scenarios below.

Those That Are Faced With Abusive Situations Should Feel Empowered to Leave Those Situations

The abuse victims face is not their fault; but those who face it should feel empowered to leave abusive situations. We don’t need to stay in abusive situations and it’s not our fault that we are in them. Elder Holland has told us that we may be in the midst of an abusive or violent marriage and that abuse/violence may justify exiting it.

There Are Things We Can Do To Avoid Abusive Situations

The abuse victims face is not their fault; but there are times where we do things that aren’t wise that might put us in dangerous situations and we should do what we can to avoid those situations. There’s a reason that, when walking or jogging somewhere at night, we should try and stay in lit areas. There's a reason that a Trump supporter would be wise to not show up to a Black Lives Matter rally in full MAGA regalia. There's a reason that a black person would be wise to not show up at an alt right or Nazi rally. While we aren’t at fault for whatever kind of harm or action comes on us during those moments (since that would be the product of another’s choices), there are still dumb things that we can do that more likely put us in harm’s way. We should take appropriate measures to reduce the likelihood of that happening to us. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about the many types of dangers that could come upon us and we would be able to go wherever we like, dress however we want, and act however we please. We don't live in a perfect world, though, and thus can't act, dress, and go where we please. We have to take precautions.

The Abused May Abuse Their Abuser

As Elder Scott rightly points out in the course of his talk, the abused may begin to abuse their abuser. The abuser should, in this instance, reflect on how their actions contributed to the retaliation that they are facing. The abuse that such a person faces is not their fault, but there must be some recognition of how their actions contributed negatively to their chances of not facing retaliation from their victim.

Notes

Question: Why did Mormon leaders oppose the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the United States?

The Church did not oppose equal rights for women. However, it was opposed to the potential consequences of the brief, vaguely worded ERA

It's sometimes mistakenly assumed that because the Church opposed a proposed amendment to the United States constitution known as the Equal Rights Amendment, the Church must have also opposed equal rights for women. As explicitly stated by Church leaders, the Church did not oppose equal rights for women. However, it was opposed to the potential consequences of the brief, vaguely worded ERA. The concern was that the amendment would unintentionally have a negative impact on women's rights and families. Furthermore, the Church felt the Constitution already prohibited gender discrimination, making the ERA an unnecessary risk.

What is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)?

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was proposed as an amendment to the constitution of the United States. It was first introduced in 1923 and rode the tides of American politics until it failed to be ratified by the required minimum number of states in 1982. It has never been enacted.

The proposed amendment read, in its entirety:

• Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

• Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

• Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The Church’s Position on the ERA

In 1976, during the strongest, most vocal push to ratify the ERA, the Church made an uncommon move and took an official position on a political issue. The First Presidency—then comprised of Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney—issued a statement opposing the ERA. It went on to urge American Church members to work as citizens to defeat the proposed legislation.

The First Presidency’s statement reads, in part:

There have been injustices to women before the law and in society generally. These we deplore. There are additional rights to which women are entitled. However, we firmly believe that the Equal Rights Amendment is not the answer.

Even with an endorsement from the First Presidency, no Church funds were used to campaign against the ERA.

Mistaking Opposition to the ERA for Opposition to Gender Equality

The Church was not the only organization in America to oppose the ERA. Religious groups sponsored by Catholic and other Christian and Jewish faiths also opposed it. Secular organizations, most notably Phyllis Schlafly’s STOP ERA, campaigned against it as well. The Republican Party wavered in its support for the amendment and still managed to win the 1980 election. Clearly, the American populous – inside and outside the Church—was not without reservations when it came to the ERA. However, this does not mean the majority of the nation was against women’s rights simply because it was unsatisfied with the ERA. A popular slogan of the day was “Equal Rights, Yes. ERA, No!”

Critics of the Church, both in the twentieth century and today, often equate the Church’s opposition to the ERA to opposition to equal rights for women. This misconception continues despite clear, unequivocal statements from the Church to the contrary.

Long before the ERA became well-known, leaders of the Church were already speaking of women’s rights. In 1942, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostle, John A. Widtsoe said:

In the Church there is full equality between man and woman. The gospel … was devised by the Lord for men and women alike…The privileges and requirements of the gospel are fundamentally alike for men and women. The Lord loves His daughters as well as He loves His sons… This makes individuals of man and woman—individuals with the right of free agency, with the power of individual decision, with individual opportunity for everlasting joy… There can be no question in the Church of man’s rights versus woman’s rights.

Opposition to the Vague Language

The ERA was written in very brief and general terms. Those concerned about the wording feared the amendment was overly vague and too vulnerable to unintended consequences.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, addressed this in 1977:

I recognize that the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment may be well intentioned in their desire to improve the status of women. We need to be very alert as to what the amendment would do besides what is intended. It is so easy to set about to solve a problem and end up creating yet a greater one.

Rex E. Lee, (a legal scholar, an Assistant Attorney General in the US Department of Justice, and the person who would soon become the 37th Solicitor General of the United States) warned:

By its nature, [the ERA] will either do too little or too much…The highly vague language of the ERA has the potential to do far more than simply add one additional suspect classification (sex) to existing equal protection doctrine. How much more? I really don’t know. And that is the greatest problem.”

Several states passed legislation with similar wording to the ERA and unintended consequences did indeed arise. In Maryland and Pennsylvania women were deprived by the courts of spousal and child support as direct results of ERA-type state laws. In one case, a man succeeded in proving in court that he could no longer be prevailed upon to pay his wife’s medical expenses. Cases like these bolstered the notion that the ERA was flawed and risky.

Opposition on the Basis of Redundancy

Opponents of the ERA pointed out that the legal principle of the equality of all citizens was already guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the United States’ constitution which reads,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, all US citizens—regardless of any individual characteristics including gender – are entitled to “equal protection” under the law. When the fourteenth amendment was applied in courts in matters of gender discrimination, such discrimination was rejected as unconstitutional.

This would have been the interpretation Boyd K. Packer envisioned when he said of gender discrimination:

Existing laws, if properly enforced, could effect the corrections necessary. Even some proponents of ERA have admitted that a Constitutional amendment is not really needed to achieve the desired legal reforms. They argue, however, that its adoption represents some kind of a symbolic gesture, some overcorrection of a long neglected cause…I am for the equitable enforcement of existing laws. There are sufficient of them to protect the rights of women and of children and of men. Or to enact judiciously and wisely any needed legislation to correct particular circumstances.”

The special Ensign publication on the ERA provides “a partial list” detailing eight acts which make gender discrimination illegal in the United States. According to the Ensign, “existing laws…prohibit discrimination, on the grounds of sex, in virtually all areas of American life—education, employment, credit eligibility, housing, public accommodation.”

Rex E. Lee said:

In all the debates over ERA in which I have participated, I have yet to hear anyone suggest a single discriminatory law, which a majority of Americans would want repealed, that would not already be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Opposition on the Basis of Democracy

The ERA was seen by many as an attempt to wrest political power away from elected local authorities and put it in the hands of unelected federal judges and bureaucrats. As proponents of democracy – what the Book of Mormon calls “the voice of the people” Alma 29:26—Church leaders were troubled at the prospect of this kind of shift in power.

Opposition on the Basis on Gender Homogeneity

Both inside and outside the Church, opponents to the ERA expressed concerns that the amendment would erase important distinctions between men and women. In the words of Boyd K. Packer:

Among the great dangers in the [ERA] is the fact that it would deprive lawmakers and government officials alike of the right by legal means to honor the vital differences in the roles of men and women.

The concern was that a codified homogenization of genders would limit women’s power to choose to fulfill traditional roles. Without certain “necessary protections and exemptions” it was feared that women would be forced into difficult positions through:

• being made subject to compulsory military service even if they were raising small children
• lapses in court orders for child and spousal support payments
• weakening of sexual assault prosecutions
• loss of existing spousal benefits such as medical insurance
• changes to the tax system that might make it more difficult financially for people to live as married couples.

All these potential effects of the ERA were seen as damaging to family life in America. Boyd K. Packer said:

We [the Church] analyze the effect of every influence that comes along, as it may ultimately change by way of strengthening, or threaten by way of weakening, the family. We have the lingering, ominous suspicion that the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have paid little, if any, attention to the family at all.

The ERA and Church Discipline

The special ERA section of the Ensign states:

Contrary to news reports, Church membership has neither been threatened nor denied because of agreement with the [ERA]. However, there is a fundamental difference between speaking in favor of the ERA on the basis of its merits on the one hand, and, on the other, ridiculing the Church and its leaders and trying to harm the institution and frustrate its work.

It’s likely that attention was drawn to this question due to the case of Sonia Johnson, an ERA activist who was excommunicated. Her excommunication came after she gave a speech, titled "Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church." She spoke several more times on the topic, always harshly criticizing the Church and its leaders. Johnson often cites her stance on ERA to be the reason for her excommunication, although there is no evidence besides her claims that this is actually the case. The reasons for an individual's excommunication are rarely publicly released by the Church. However, Johnson and those close to her claimed that she was excommunicated for apostasy. No other individual has ever claimed to have been excommunicated for their stance on the ERA, although a number of other members did publicly disagree with Church leaders on the issue.

Johnson's later remarks in Chapter 5 of her book, Going Out Of Our Minds: The Metaphysics Of Liberation also make it clear that there were other issues at work, though in keeping with the Church's practice of disciplinary council confidentiality, they were not revealed by the Church, and have only become public knowledge because of Johnson's decision to speak about them publicly.

America without the ERA

Of course, it’s impossible to know how the United States might have developed differently if the ERA had been ratified in 1982. Some of the effects opponents of the ERA were trying to avoid—such as the proliferation of abortion and same-sex marriages—eventually became parts of American society anyway. Maybe the ERA would have brought on these changes sooner – or maybe not. It’s impossible to know.

Since 1982, the Fourteenth Amendment has continued to uphold the principle of gender equality before the law. Still, gender discrimination continues to exist. It’s no longer overt or common in institutional settings but it endures in the everyday lives of American women. It continues to be a disgusting though pervasive and enduring fact of life. It doesn’t seem realistic that any act of government could have undone millennia of prejudice and abuse. As the special section of the Ensign explained back in the days of the ERA:

The ERA does not automatically guarantee equal rights…the ERA would not affect many inequities that result from attitudes and customs. It would prohibit only governmental discrimination.

Gender inequalities are much more complex and insidious than any law has the power to lob off in a single stroke. To say otherwise is to oversimplify and trivialize women’s struggles for equality. These facts highlight the ERA’s status as a symbolic gesture – an attempt to promote awareness and attitudinal changes about gender equality more than an attempt to effect real change. It was the position of the Church that such a move was not worth the risk of inadvertently losing rights women already enjoyed.

In the company of many other organizations, the Church opposed the ERA. However, it explicitly did not oppose the principle of equal rights for women and men

In the company of many other organizations, the Church opposed the ERA. However, it explicitly did not oppose the principle of equal rights for women and men. The ERA was brief and vague and considered too vulnerable to unintended, unfortunate interpretations. It was deemed unnecessary since equal gender rights were already protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It was feared the ERA would erode democracy by moving power away from elected local officials and giving it to unelected federal courts. Another concern was that the ERA would dull the salience of important gender differences and cost women their access to child and spousal support and benefits and their exemption from compulsory military service. Despite claims made in the media of the day, the Church did not discipline members merely for disregarding the First Presidency's stance on the ERA.

Gender inequalities are much more insidious and complicated than any law has the power to lob off in a single stroke. To say otherwise is to oversimplify and trivialize women’s struggles. The ERA was largely a symbolic gesture – an attempt to promote dialogue and attitudinal changes about gender equality more than an attempt to effect real change. It was the position of the Church that such a move was not worth the risk of inadvertently losing rights women already enjoyed.