While researching the life of Amy Brown Lyman I was struck by the similarities between the active agenda pursued under her leadership and that initiated by Elaine Jack during her own term as Relief Society general president. I found it particularly notable that Lyman and Jack both presided over important anniversaries for the Relief Society—in Lyman's case the 1942 centennial, in Jack's the 1992 sesquicentennial. Both saw these milestones as opportunities to reinvigorate the organization. A few years back I invited three key players in planning the sesquicentennial to join a panel to share their experiences at the 2018 meeting of the Mormon History Association in Boise, Idaho. They graciously agreed and their papers were presented at an impressively well-attended session.These three panelists were Marjorie Conder, who was in charge of preparing the Relief Society Sesquicentennial exhibit at the Museum of Church History and Art; Carol Lee Hawkins, a member of the Relief Society general board and cochair of the committee planning sesquicentennial activities; and Hawkins's sister board member and de facto historian of the Jack years, Cherry Silver. Essays based on their papers follow mine.My role at the session was to provide some historical context about why their efforts were greeted at best with mixed emotions and sometimes outright resistance by church leaders. While many things have changed in the intervening decades, each of the following essays reveals the real anxiety the authors felt at the time about how their planning efforts might negatively affect them or the Relief Society's developing agenda. Ranking high among their concerns was the question of whether their endeavors would prove meaningful or enduring.Members of Jack's presidency and general board, as well as those joining them in planning the Relief Society's sesquicentennial, were remarkably devout Latter-day Saints and intensely loyal to the church and its leaders. So why did their efforts provoke negative reactions among some of the church's hierarchy? As LDS general authorities do not give interviews to historians, and the minutes of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are unavailable to scholars, we cannot say with certainty what stimulated their anxieties. But based on the circumstances of the period, as well as the public and semipublic statements of members of the church's presiding councils, we can construct a fair estimate of the reasons for their unease.To begin with, their concerns seem linked to the great number of uncertainties church leaders faced during a period of rapid and dramatic change. The Jack administration took place amidst a powerful convergence of such uncertainties that created an environment that ultimately impeded many of their good faith efforts. Some of these uncertainties centered around evolving understandings of the church and its history.Over many decades church teachings had presented a remarkably sanitized and sanctified narrative of God's dealings with His servants during the Mormon restoration. But by the later decades of the twentieth century, historians inside and outside the faith were bringing to light a more human side of events. To some members of the church hierarchy, this new information revealed by professionals using professional standards seemed to strip away the spiritual aura from sacred events. They wondered what would be the reaction to this “warts and all” view of their history: Would it lead to disillusionment and a mass exodus of members? Such a possibility led some to see this “new history” as a threat to the spiritual welfare of the faithful. By the time of Jack's call as general Relief Society president, a handful of significant confrontations between church leaders and historians had already occurred, with more soon to follow. In addition, only a few years before her call, the tragic and sensationalistic Mark Hofmann case had embarrassed the church and raised fears about the church's history to a high pitch.1Uncertainty about what was contained in the church's vast stores of historical records added to the anxiety of LDS leaders. I think it is fairly safe to assume that while the Nauvoo Relief Society minutes were restricted at the time we are discussing (as is noted by the authors who follow), few, if any, priesthood leaders had ever read significant portions of them. Nor were they likely familiar with the huge stores of other information contained in the church archives.In this already unsettled context during the sesquicentennial year (and as part of its celebration), Deseret book published the seminal work Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society, by Jill Derr, Janath Cannon, and Maureen Beecher.2 Many readers saw the volume as an inspiring treatment of the Relief Society's rich history, but others, including at least a few church leaders, saw it as a prime example of the kind of scholarly and measured history that should not be produced. Indeed, such a view led one apostle to initiate an alternative history that focused exclusively on spiritual aspects of the Relief Society's history. Researched and prepared in great secrecy, this eventually emerged as Daughters in My Kingdom. While a worthy product in its own right, it can perhaps best be seen as a supplement, rather than a substitute for Women of Covenant.3In addition to their concerns about history, church leaders were anxious in regard to the dramatically shifting social norms of the period. Jack's presidency spanned one of the high points of the so-called “culture wars” over the future character of American society. Old values and traditions seemed to be rapidly falling by the wayside while changes were coming fast as the baby boom generation began to take over from the “Greatest Generation.”4 In light of recent developments in the twenty-first century it is easy to forget how tumultuous the 1990s were. To many, Bill Clinton seemed to represent everything about this generational change, even as his wife Hilary, an ambitious and accomplished career woman, became a lightning rod for divisiveness.Marjorie Spruill, an emeritus professor of history at the University of South Carolina, argued in her 2018 book Divided We Stand that during the last decades of the twentieth century, fractures emerged that came to wreak havoc in American society.5 Origins of these divisions were found not just in the struggle over the Equal Rights Amendment, but also in conflicts linked to the International Women's Year and associated state, national, and international conferences. These circumstances revealed a nation deeply polarized over a wide range of issues about the proper role of women. Spruill argued that when progressive women put forward their agenda it stimulated a reactionary response from conservative women who then cast feminism in moral terms as a sin. The brilliant and talented Phyllis Schlafly led this countermovement and commanded a small but extremely dedicated army of activists determined to defeat the proposed changes and to defend what they saw as “real” womanhood.Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere were not immune to these divisions, as historian Martha Bradley-Evans compellingly documented in her volume Pedestals and Podiums.6 Authors Conder, Hawkins, and Silver are all too well aware of the consequences of this conservative activism. Gayle Ruzicka, the arch-conservative leader of the Utah Eagle Forum who worked closely with the national movement, very aggressively deployed Schlafly's strategies to shape Utah politics and even to influence church affairs.7Priesthood leaders were certainly troubled by the aggressively expressed assertions of these counterrevolutionaries, including fears that the Relief Society's developing agenda was legitimizing the shift in gender roles and expectations. In turn, they voiced their anxieties about these matters to Relief Society leaders.8 All this, of course, took place in a larger context of second wave and even radical feminism that had become entrenched in many parts of American society.9 Meanwhile, by this time feminist thought had already begun to find a place among scholars and activists within the church. In December of the Relief Society's sesquicentennial year, Signature Books published Maxine Hanks's path-breaking collection of feminist essays Women and Authority.10 Church leaders probably wondered where these questionings of traditional gender relations might lead. One can be sure that they discussed issues regarding women and the priesthood, as well as the possible ramifications that might arise if there were any changes in policy or practice on the issue. They had only to look at the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ) to see the possible consequences: a 1984 RLDS revelation extending priesthood to women resulted in a serious schism. During these same years, other denominations, including the Anglican and Catholic Churches, also roiled over the issue.Other social trends affecting Latter-day Saints troubled church leaders as well. Increasing divorce rates among church members, while still lagging national averages, contributed to a growing destabilization of LDS families in the United States.11 Leaders questioned whether these trends were being fueled by the numbers of women leaving the home to find employment. In the wake of the booming 1980s, some church leaders, including church president Ezra Taft Benson, expressed concerns about raging materialism among Latter-day Saints, especially in the United States.12 The desire of women and men of the faith to “have it all” materially, appeared in the eyes of some to be the prime culprit jeopardizing spiritual well-being and family stability. A host of social problems were anticipated to follow.Church leaders sought to comprehend the implications of such issues as they were immersed and perhaps even overwhelmed by myriad problems arising from the expansive growth and increasing internationalization of the church. At one meeting with the Relief Society general board during these years, it was recalled that Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve explained how deeply concerned church leaders were about the challenges of rapid growth. Undoubtedly, some felt anxiety over the possibility of losing control of church affairs, especially in international realms. Given the challenges that confronted other faiths in similar circumstances, these concerns did not seem overblown. And in such a context it is not surprising that some church leaders were anxious about how a new Relief Society agenda might affect this mix.13At the same time, the old “sacral” narrative promoted for generations in Sunday School classes asserting the near infallibility of church leaders now created problems for those presiding over the institution. In particular, as the then current generation of leaders was well aware, such views encouraged unrealistic expectations about their own actions. For some among the leadership, perhaps typified in the mind of many by Elder Boyd K. Packer, the proper response in such circumstances was retrenchment. Those holding such views felt it was better to dig in by reasserting old verities rather than risk the possible consequences of accommodating to change.14 It should be noted, however, that in regard to the Relief Society, such ideas were not shared by all church leaders.15And Relief Society leaders themselves took a different approach to these challenging times. Rather than resisting innovation, they moved up to the front lines and went down in the trenches as they tried to understand precisely the circumstances affecting LDS women, not just along the Wasatch Front, but throughout the church. What they learned led them to plan out a course adjustment in policies and programs. They recognized that while some women had left the confines of the home because they wanted to work and found needed fulfillment in doing so, many more were compelled to work to ensure personal or family survival. This was true not only in poorer areas globally where the church was rapidly expanding but even in the United States given the ever-increasing cost of living. Linked to this was the large and growing number of single parent families in all areas of the church, as well as the large numbers of single women. Indeed, in the face of such realities and given the absence of programs addressing their needs, many LDS women had come to feel somewhat excluded in the church and the Relief Society. Aware of these circumstances, Jack and her board sought to reenergize the Relief Society to meet the spiritual and temporal requirements of new generations of LDS women who faced a range of unprecedented challenges. The sesquicentennial year was envisioned as an opportunity to provide a launching pad for these efforts.16This brings us to one of the fundamental problems that Relief Society leaders faced at the time: how to adequately inform general authorities about what they had learned through firsthand contact with women throughout the church. In particular, how were they to make male leaders aware and appreciate the full consequences of the wide-ranging challenges women faced on a daily basis. And how would they convince priesthood leaders that the solutions they devised through research, study, and much prayer, were the right ones. At the time, a key hindrance to their success was their lack of regular access to the highest level of church leadership. This situation stood in rather stark contrast to the experience of earlier generations of Relief Society leaders who enjoyed comparatively easy interaction with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in both formal and informal settings.17While the diminished access that confronted the Jack administration had developed over the course of the twentieth century, it became more pronounced in the wake of the explosive growth the church experienced in the century's later decades. This worldwide expansion resulted in dramatic increases in responsibilities for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. In response, they found it necessary to create an increasingly elaborate bureaucratic structure to help manage the church's increasingly more complex affairs. But that growing bureaucracy could—and often did—prove stifling to effective communication, and sometimes even hindered the church in carrying out its mission.18 As for the Relief Society, not only did this further limit their access to church leaders, but by the time of Jack's administration, it meant the organization was in danger of unintentionally stumbling into administrative turf wars.19 Consequently, as Relief Society leaders sought to develop and carry out their agenda, they felt themselves sometimes confronted with and confounded by individuals in the bureaucracy who seemed determined to defend their developing satraps from all threats, real or imagined.All of this was already posing daunting challenges for Elaine Jack and the members of her administration as they planned the activities for the Relief Society sesquicentennial. Yet, despite resistance and pushback to their initiatives, the authors of the essays that follow show that these Relief Society leaders were determined to address the needs of increasingly diverse Latter-day Saint women. Their achievements were significant: they bequeathed to coming generations a far richer understanding of their history and heritage and promoted a greater appreciation for the role played by their sex in church and community affairs.Though some of their initiatives would be prematurely cut short, while others have yet to fully bear fruit, they left a vital foundation for future leaders to build upon. As pioneers at the forefront of perceiving and anticipating the challenges faced by women of the faith, their activities warrant close examination even as they serve as signposts for current leaders of the church and its Relief Society. And, as indicated by the interest demonstrated when the authors that follow presented their remarks at Boise, the activities undertaken during the Elaine Jack administration still seem relevant and motivating to LDS women today.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Jan 11, 2024
Mengping Yang + 4
Open Access