A woman’s prayer is spoken through a megaphone, illustrating misinterpretation of women and the Church.

Listening to Women—or Listening Through the Narrative We Prefer?

What does it mean to listen to women in faith communities? It means discerning voice from ideological demand.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The topic of listening to women recently made the rounds again in the online Latter-day Saint world as a result of a post by historian and podcaster Jared Halverson of Unshaken Saints. In the original post, Halverson, discussing D&C 25, lamented that women are leaving churches in higher numbers than men, and stated that women are “important in the kingdom of God” and, like Emma Smith, should “lay aside the things of this world.”

Often what is really meant is not “you’re not listening to me,” but “you’re not agreeing with me.”

While many women found his video deeply validating and powerful, others found it insensitive to the concerns of the women who leave the Church, especially those who do so because of issues related to gender. The most common sentiment in those comments was a call for Halverson and other men in the Church (including the male church leadership) to “listen to women.” Halverson subsequently posted a middle-of-the-night “apology for causing pain” and appeared on the Faith Matters podcast discussing matters of gender with a group of Latter-day Saint women, who largely seemed sympathetic to the women who didn’t like his video.

What would it mean for him and other men in the Church to “listen to women”? Listening is often rightly urged in public discourse—understanding the perspectives of others is important.  But often what is really meant is not “you’re not listening to me,” but “you’re not agreeing with me.” 

As Allyson Flake Matsoso has written previously in an article aptly titled “What Love Isn’t”: 

Without disagreement, there would be no need for tolerance. But now, tolerance has come to mean simply: accept what I believe or do as good and valid.  Yet validation is not true tolerance. Let’s keep the disagreement in the definition of tolerance. If we still hold to Christianity, or any form of objective truth, there must be disagreements, for we make the bold claim that our way is The Way.

During the 2020 “Great Awokening,” when I became deconverted from the social justice movement, I had many conversations with friends who insisted that I simply must not understand their positions or the lived experiences of minorities. No matter how well-versed in Foucault or Said or Derrida I was, my perspective was dismissed as ignorant and uncaring, rather than simply rejecting a worldview of which I had a deep understanding.

Likewise, when Elder Holland addressed BYU in what has now been dubbed the “musket fire speech,” he expressed deep caring and concern for LGBT+ Latter-day Saints, and noted the effort which the Brethren have dedicated to understanding and ministering to this population: 

Too often, the world has been unkind, in many instances, crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

And yet this claim was ignored, and he was willfully misconstrued as having called for “musket fire” toward LGBT+ students. 

While I find it truly saddening that individuals interpreted that talk as a call to attack, I also find it genuinely concerning that a call to defend the gospel was met with so much hostility. In the same way, Halverson’s genuine expression of admiration for women and concern about what a catastrophic loss it is anytime a woman leaves the Church was so twisted into a paternalistic caricature, it is almost hard for me to take his critics’ arguments seriously.

When faithful Latter-day Saint influencers concede ground to critics, it makes it harder for women of faith to express faithfulness. It grants authority to agitators.

Having received strong pushback in the past for some of my public writing about controversial topics, I do understand how emotionally challenging it can be to face a storm of social media criticism. I relate to the instinct of apologizing when someone expresses hurt to salvage relationships, rather than worrying so much about who was really right in the disagreement.

But when faithful Latter-day Saint influencers concede ground to critics, it makes it harder for women of faith to express faithfulness. It grants authority to agitators to set the boundaries of what is acceptable to discuss in matters of faith. It tells faithful Latter-day Saint women that, yes, the critics are right, when you say that you are happy in your role as a woman, that you aren’t interested in priesthood ordination, you are hurting other women

My friend Meagan has written powerfully about the eye-opening experience it was for her when she joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at 15 years old, and saw the way the Church molds boys and men “to care for women and about women.” This was in stark contrast to many of the men she was exposed to in her traumatic early childhood. Latter-day Saint men, through service in the Church, become thoughtful, generous, gentle, and selfless leaders. But the women of the Church also need men who are bold and courageous, who defend faithful women and their viewpoints against the kind of emotional terrorism that is so common in online discourse. In the case of Halverson’s video, hundreds of women poured into the comments with words of support. Their perspectives are also important.

So are men listening to women in the Church? I asked some faithful sisters I know about their experiences feeling heard by men in the Church.

One sister shared that she had recently had to request a release from a leadership calling in her ward because of a change in family circumstances. Her bishop asked thoughtful questions about what was going on in her life and not only honored the request, but made an extra effort to look after her family during their challenging time. 

Another pointed to the many additional garment materials and styles that have been introduced in the past 15 years, which allow for more comfort and flexibility in clothing. 

One friend recently participated in a focus group facilitated by the Church for a new women’s podcast pilot. She met virtually with women of diverse backgrounds and life circumstances to give feedback about the direction of the podcast and to share more broadly about what they would like to see more of in church media. 

For myself, I recall a Face-to-Face in 2018 with Elder Quentin L. Cook and the late historian Kate Holbrook, where Elder Cook deferred to Dr. Holbrook to teach and testify about church history, including tough topics like polygamy. I also think of my own family and the families of many of my friends—women are valued decision makers in Latter-day Saint homes, with the important stewardship of not only caretaking and nurturing but also secular and gospel education.

But as a general membership, we must choose which voices we listen to. We cannot hear and validate all perspectives.

Women of the Church who disagree with various church policies and doctrines are beloved daughters of God. They are worthy of all of God’s love and have valuable contributions to make in the kingdom of God. I believe the brethren should listen to these women and take their concerns seriously (and I believe the brethren do).

But as a general membership, we must choose which voices we listen to. We cannot hear and validate all perspectives; we cannot agree with everyone; we cannot caveat every testimony. What women am I choosing to listen to on matters of faith? I am choosing to listen to the women who teach and testify of the Savior and His gospel. 

I do not believe it was a coincidence that the parable of the ten virgins was cited at least five times during this last general conference. Our leaders are trying to help us refine our focus toward the Savior and prepare for His second coming. To that end, while we should all embrace our friends of all faiths—including our more heterodox or progressive Latter-day Saint friends—there is also wisdom in filtering our own social media so that it supports our faith in Christ, or at the very least is not actively working against faith. We need to turn off and tune out the voices that do not help us hear Him. 

President Camille Johnson of the General Relief Society recently gave wise counsel applicable both to influencers and podcasters and general church membership: “We are commanded to share His light. So, keep your lamp full of the oil of conversion to Jesus Christ and be prepared to keep your lamp trimmed and burning bright. Then let that light shine. When we share our light, we bring the relief of Jesus Christ to others, our conversion to Him is deepened, and we can be whole even while we wait for healing. And as we let our light shine brightly, we can be joyful even while we wait.”

About the author

Amanda Freebairn

Amanda Freebairn is an associate editor at Public Square Magazine. She is a proud wife, mother, writer and teacher, and holds an M.Ed. from Arizona State University.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Demanding Conversations About Violence

In the weeks since the premiere of the Under the Banner of Heaven miniseries, there has been a broad consensus that the show doesn’t quite work. Its attempt to paint Latter-day Saints as promoting violence just doesn’t land. And its depiction of Latter-day Saints simply doesn’t resonate because it’s too dissimilar. This of course must come as some disappointment to critics of the Church who had hoped the series would prompt more conversations around the issues they deem problematic such as how the Church promotes violence. Into this void comes a new argument made most prominently by Taylor Petrey, but also echoed by a student columnist at the University of Utah, and now promoted on Twitter by Benjamin Park—namely, that because there has been some violence done by some Latter-day Saints who use the language of their culture in perpetrating it, Latter-day Saints should watch the series with the intent to learn how to make their Church less violent. Both Petrey and Park had previously criticized the series for its poor job in portraying Latter-day Saints, but have since shifted. We don’t want to attack the Daily Utah Chronicle piece because it’s a student article. But Petrey and Park should know better. Some of us have been on the record defending Petrey as a serious scholar, despite the fact that his conclusions don’t often derive well from the available evidence. But Petrey seems to suggest in his article that any violence that uses the language of religion must have been inspired by that religion. We understand the temptation of this point of view. What else could we blame violence on if not the culture it arose in? But Petrey’s position assumes that human beings are naturally non-violent, and only become violent as a result of their culture. This is a major assumption in the Robert Orsi essay that Petrey relies on extensively. Parks’ tweets similarly assume that any conversation about Latter-day Saints and violence must concede that the faith contributes to the violence in some way. But the causes of violence are often complicated. Because of the importance of our innate nature in creating violence, even the most peaceful society would still produce fringe examples of extreme violence. Having a Latter-day Saint who becomes violent isn’t proof that the faith contributes to that violence, even if the perpetrator uses the language of their culture in perpetuating that violence. Cultural contexts can then increase or decrease the likelihood of that emerging, but no culture has discovered how to remove it altogether. And because Under the Banner of Heaven fails to present a clear picture of what most experience as Latter-day Saint culture, it doesn’t do much to establish whether a Latter-day Saint context is more prone to cause violence than others. Those who use Latter-day Saint or another religious language and context to perpetuate violence weren’t necessarily made violent by those cultures. But rather, violent individuals will leverage anything around them to perpetrate their violence. We’re aware of many other similar examples—of abusers, for instance, who used the language of therapy to perpetuate abuse. But it would be absurd to suggest that therapeutic culture caused that abuse. Even pacifist language has been known to be used to perpetuate violence by shaming survivors into silence. An abusive person will draw upon the most powerful language available within their given cultural context and weaponize that. This is not coincidentally the conclusion made by prosecutors in the Lafferty case, that the murder was about power and relationships and that religion was merely the pretext. Does the Church of Jesus Christ disproportionately create violent offenders? We’d be interested in reading any definitive social science research on the question, but unfortunately, those promoting this point of view or hoping to have this conversation have not yet presented any. And rather than attempt to answer this question clearly itself, Under the Banner of Heaven skips the question and takes it as a given. A study of this sort could start the conversation Petrey, Parks, and the student author hope for. Instead, we get a story about a 38-year-old murder that was notable mainly for how unusual it was among the Latter-day Saint community and perpetrated by someone who had recently been kicked out of the Church for their extremist views. It should not surprise anyone that it hasn’t prompted anyone to conclude there’s a problem with violence among Latter-day Saints.

A Crack Down the Middle of a Concrete Wall | Public Square Magazine | Has America Gone Crazy? | Has The World Gone Mad?

Has Half the Country Gone Mad?

It’s increasingly common to hear people argue, with utter sincerity, that half of Americans have gone bonkers. Is that really true? Or is this a paradigm shift in the making?

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!