Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may no longer have the same degree of influence and practical authority over members that they once held.
I first made this observation during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many members rejected vaccination despite the efforts of church President Russell M. Nelson and other general authorities to promote it. Since then, I’ve noticed many other examples of members exerting their own authority, particularly over their bodies. It’s a trend that mirrors a broader skepticism toward institutions within contemporary American culture. It’s also a sea change for a faith that has functioned for so long with top-down authority.
In April 2022, apostle Dale G. Renlund cautioned members against speculating about Heavenly Mother. The talking about her, however, didn’t stop. Deseret Book still carries popular titles such as McArthur Krishna and Bethany Brady Spalding’s “A Girl’s Guide to Heavenly Mother,” along with “Boy’s Guide.”
In the April 2024 General Conference, church authorities stressed the need to wear garments “continuously.” This message fell on many deaf ears. Research by Religion News Service columnist Jana Riess suggests that noncompliance with garment wearing is widespread among younger members of all genders. Her Next Mormons Survey found that “more than 8 in 10 baby boomers and older (born before 1965) said they were wearing their garments on the day of the survey (84%). That compares with — wait for it — just 42% of Generation X, 36% of millennials and 41% of Generation Z.” In my own circle, more women seemed liberated by the conference talks into making their own choices about garments than brought back into the fold of strict compliance.
In popular culture, “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” Hulu show now prominently features women who claim Latter-day Saint identity while rejecting many of the church’s teachings. For these women, individuals rather than church authorities should define who is Mormon. While the women depicted on this show may be extreme examples, the hot debate surrounding them reflects how strongly the institutional church has controlled the boundaries of Latter-day Saint identity in the past and how many people appear to resonate with the idea of retaining a Mormon cultural identity while making their own choices about how to practice their faith.
More ‘cafeteria’ members
It’s probably past time for members to assert their own spiritual authority and emphasize personal revelation when it comes to applying gospel principles to their particular lives. Latter-day Saint women, especially, must bridge the gulf between church teachings and modern economic realities. It is fitting that they themselves are increasingly playing the lead roles in crafting a faith more responsive to their needs. Whereas prior generations of Mormon feminists largely sought to work with male authorities to enact change, younger ones seem more inclined simply to make choices that work for them rather than ask men’s permission.
Yet the rise of a generation that increasingly rejects institutional authority also raises significant questions about the church’s future and the meanings of Latter-day Saint identity. The fact that the church now encompasses many members openly taking a “cafeteria” approach to their faith is a significant change for a high-demand religion in which even daily issues such as what congregation one must attend or what underwear one must wear have been historically dictated by distant authorities.
In particular, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has historically (though perhaps unintentionally) enforced the boundaries between members and nonmembers largely through its members’ bodies. Performance of a certain lifestyle and aesthetic was a tool that served to unify the church as it became more geographically dispersed and less economically unified after polygamy. Garments, especially for women, have been visible markers setting Latter-day Saints apart, while the church’s rejection of alcohol and premarital sex has the practical effect of pushing members toward socializing with one another. Yet Riess’ research also found that fewer than half of American Mormons regularly adhere to the Word of Wisdom. The visible markers of Latter-day Saint identity are eroding, and members are adopting various levels of orthopraxy.
Where does the church — and the broader Mormon culture — go from here? What unifies us when we look beyond the familiar performance of our bodies and lifestyles? What will change if, as seems likely, the church must increasingly compete for its members’ support rather than assume their compliance with centralized teachings, practices and policies?
Covenants vs. community
Perhaps the church will be forced to more widely offer community programming that better meets members’ needs. Perhaps it will provide more satisfying answers to members’ questions or expand women’s authority. Perhaps it will begin consulting more with members before making decisions that impact them. Competition can be a good thing.
I worry, however, that politics has replaced church authorities as the primary source of moral authority. I can easily imagine a future in which the weakening of church authority gives rise to isolation and division rather than renewal of community and gospel teachings.
For now, the church appears to be focused on pushing temple covenants as the focal point of the faith. Yet it’s unclear to me that attending the temple provides a sufficient sense of daily identity and community. It is an experience members are instructed not to discuss outside temple walls. It is also accessible only by compliance with some of the practices members are rejecting, including garment wearing and worthiness interviews with local male authorities.
Many (including me) would welcome less policing of their bodies and more responsiveness to our modern realities. But it’s also far easier to police bodies than to articulate shared political, economic or ideological commitments for a global church.
(Natalie Brown) Natalie Brown, Salt Lake Tribune guest columnist.
Natalie Brown is a Latter-day Saint living in Colorado. She is writing in her personal capacity. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the church or her employer.
