Former U.S. vice president Mike Pence was famously lampooned for declining to attend social events featuring alcohol, for refusing to have dinner alone with a woman, and for referring to his wife as “Mother.” In the age of #MeToo, his critics on the left wondered if he might have been incapable of controlling himself around women. Rooted in his evangelical Christian beliefs and traditions, his reticence around women made him a target of late-night comedians. Mr. Pence’s behavior was all-too-familiar to me, having been raised a boy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Gender-Based Social Distancing
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the term “social distancing” is known to all. In the context of virology, social distancing is a set of behaviors that prevent the spread of disease, such as avoiding large crowds and maintaining physical distance from others. Treating sexual attraction as a disease, evangelical leaders in the United States have advocated a different form of social distancing called “The Billy Graham Rule.” These days, sexual social distancing is less-often associated with Graham and more-often associated with Pence, but the idea is that one should avoid potentially-compromising situations with the opposite sex as a “personal rule.” In the evangelical Christian world, the idea has been has been around since at least as far back as 1950s. In the broader context, it seems obvious that this goes back much, much further. I am no expert on the topic, but I would be willing to surmise that this practice has been commonplace in all patriarchal religions for centuries.
Puritanism and Victorian holdovers inform our culture. Personally, I believe that this behavior is an impediment to social progress, an obstacle to achieving equitable power structures, and a frustrating barrier to forging genuine relationships between people on opposite ends of the gender spectrum. My beliefs notwithstanding, my Mormon upbringing still causes irrational emotional reflexes around women (even close friends) that I wish I could easily dispose.
Since men and women in all religiously-conservative traditions have lived their lives this way, it is not surprising to find such social barriers entrenched in Mormonism. After all, the mythology of Western civilization is rife with sexually-alluring women that either potentially or literally “caused” the downfall of men who succumbed to temptation. From the bible’s Bathsheba and Potiphar’s wife to the sirens of Homer, men’s fear of women is as old as humanity. But in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it manifests itself in uniquely-Mormon ways.
Cultural anxiety around “illicit” male/female relationships in the Church emanates from multiple sources: from Mormon scripture, from the counsel and personal anecdotes of General Authorities, from missionary rules, from the implementation of virtual chastity belts in university honor codes, from fear-inducing urban legends and stories, from policies in the General Handbook, from the temple rites, and from the traditional emphasis in Church teachings on “avoiding the appearance of evil.” As I explained in an earlier blog post, the commission of sexual sin has dramatic stakes in Mormonism. In Mormon scripture, illicit sex is the sin next to murder, a destructive teaching which greatly amplifies the fear.
Attraction Paranoia
I’ve mentioned on this blog that I am an alumnus of Brigham Young University, but I transferred there after my mission. Before my mission, during my freshman year, I attended a secular university that was closer to home. The university had one of the largest singles’ wards in the metropolitan area. One weekend, we hosted a conference of singles’ wards from all over the region. During this conference, one of the members of a neighboring stake presidency gave a talk where he admonished us for not being careful in avoiding the temptations of the opposite sex in our social environments. He focused particularly on “French kissing,” claiming that it was a grievous sin because of “what it represents.” He did not explain himself, but we all understood that “French kissing” was being compared to a simulation of penetrative sex, where the tongue of one partner is a “penis” and the mouth of the other partner is a “vagina.” I was a pretty devout and believing Mormon, but this was a little too much for me. Others defended the statements.
I also remember a story from a church leader in which he related a temple trip he attended as a chaperone for a youth group. His local stake was located a few-hours’ drive from the nearest temple, so the group had rented a tour bus to drive to the temple to do proxy baptisms for the dead. When he boarded the bus, however, he saw that there were a lot of attractive young women in the seats. Relating it to the story of Joseph reacting to Potiphar’s wife, he decided that he would “flee” the situation and drive his own vehicle. Supposedly this was a demonstration of godly behavior: he was placing a barrier between himself and the teenage girls to avoid being sexually tempted. He clarified (unnecessarily?) that he would not have, under any circumstances, gone through with any bad behavior. He was merely placing “extra buffers” between himself and temptation, a practice that had served him well throughout his life. Somehow, this story was intended to be uplifting. Unfortunately for my pride, I have to admit that at the time, I found his story admirable.
Sexual paranoia is ingrained as we progress through Mormon life. Though the natural distancing between males and females is, of course, a normal experience as children enter puberty, the Church culture and teachings amplify this to unhealthy extremes. Don’t get me wrong–I am not an advocate of co-ed locker rooms for pubescent teens. I have no strong opinions on gender-based boarding schools, either, and I am also not equipped to provide any answers about how to properly reckon with non-binary gender issues in educational settings. But I do have very strong feelings on how incredibly harmful the institutional distancing is between boys and girls in the Mormon Church.
Institutional Gender Separation
The separation of boys and girls in the Mormon Church starts at around age 12. Children graduate from Primary and enter the youth programs, with boys ordained as deacons in the Aaronic priesthood and girls starting down the path of “personal progress” that leads to motherhood. Before the two-hour block was instituted, this meant that the third hour of church was dedicated to boys-only and girls-only instruction. (Under the two-hour schedule, the separation happens on alternating Sundays.) This gender-based instruction continues into adulthood. It always proves to be awkward for investigators that are visiting the Church for the first time.
The all-male priesthood of the church keeps women at a distance from important decision-making processes. The male leaders may claim that they have made strides in including women in leadership councils, but in my experience, the “boys’ club atmosphere” in the church belies this as an empty placation. A great deal of important business happens in unofficial priesthood settings (such as the meetinghouse corridors), and women are almost never participants in these conversations. If the bishop is the type to go out of his way to include women, it is only his benevolence that makes that happen. Structurally, the church is not set up to include women in executive roles in any meaningful way. The women’s organization inside the Church, the Relief Society, is a force for good in certain aspects, particularly when it comes to helping members that are struggling financially or otherwise. But the Relief Society certainly isn’t a means of empowerment. I can’t speak from first-hand experience, of course, but I doubt my ex-Mormon female readers would disagree. Consider the words of Emma Smith on the purpose of the organization:
The object of the Society—that the Society of Sisters might provoke the brethren to good works in looking to the wants of the poor—searching after objects of charity, and in administering to their wants—to assist; by correcting the morals and strengthening the virtues of the female community, and save the Elders the trouble of rebuking; that they may give their time to other duties, &c., in their public teaching.
Emma Smith, as quoted in Charity Never Faileth: History of the Relief Society, 1842-1966 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1967), 18
Notice how the original purpose of the Relief Society was to act as a supportive structure to the men in charge. It is not, nor has it ever been, a co-equal branch of Church government. I believe its modern-day de-facto function is to placate women, keeping them in another room so that the boys’ club can operate free from scrutiny.
Doctrinal Gender Separation
The doctrinal basis for gender separation can be better understood from the following excerpt from the Church’s The Family: A Proclamation To The World:
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…
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 honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The Family: A Proclamation To The World, www.churchofjesuschrist.org
The statement was issued in 1995, the same year that Gordon Hinckley took office as President of the Church. It was a reactionary statement against the acceptance of non-traditional marriage in broader American culture. At that time, it was a common misunderstanding that sexual orientation and gender were closely linked, so emphasizing the importance of “eternal” gender identity must have seemed important. Perhaps Hinckley thought that emphasizing the doctrinal foundation of gender would counterbalance what the General Authorities saw as a slippery slope to legalizing gay marriage.
Consider also the sexism apparent in the temple endowment. When patrons arrive at the temple, they head to separate dressing rooms. The women dress in long, white temple gowns with a veil on their heads (used to cover their faces during the final prayer). The men dress in white shirts, white pants, and a head cap. Upon entering the ordinance room, the men sit on the right side and the women sit on the left side, separated by an aisle. Until very recently, men and women made different covenants with God. Women promised to “hearken to their husbands” as their husbands hearkened directly to the Lord. The physical separation between men and women in the ordinance room means there is little interaction between married partners until the ceremony ends. Fortunately, recent changes have made the endowment less blatantly sexist. When the recent changes were first implemented, however, there was a preface at the beginning of the ceremony that urged Church members not to talk about the changes. Was the Church concerned about appearing too accommodating to public opinion?
Virtual Chastity Belts For Young Adults
Young men and women serving full-time missions for the Church are implored to live by a strict moral code, codified in a pocket-sized rule book affectionately called the “white bible.” Here is the section of the missionary rule book that describes relationships with the opposite sex:
Never be alone with, flirt with, or associate in any other inappropriate way with anyone of the opposite sex. Do not telephone, write, e-mail, or accept calls or letters from anyone of the opposite sex living within or near mission boundaries. The only exceptions are for communications between sister missionaries and their mission leaders, mission-related telephone calls (such as calls to confirm appointments), and letters of support and encouragement to converts.
Report immediately to your mission president any situation that might cause you or your companion to violate this standard. You and your companion should not visit or accept rides from individuals of the opposite sex unless another responsible adult of your own sex is also present. Always obey this rule, even if the situation seems harmless. You can often avoid these situations if you emphasize teaching families and involve members in every teaching appointment, if at all possible. Do not counsel members or nonmembers on personal problems. Refer members who need counseling or professional assistance to their bishop. If you feel a nonmember needs such assistance, talk with your mission president. Do not counsel missionaries of the opposite sex, even if you are serving in a leadership position. Such talk can lead to inappropriate feelings and relationships. Always refer such cases to your mission president.
Missionary Handbook, p. 33-34, www.churchofjesuschrist.org
Young people are still learning about relationships with the opposite sex when they enter the mission field, and many young men have never been on their own as adults. At a time when most of their peers are entering college and learning how to navigate adult relationships for the first time, missionaries are forced into a paranoiac bubble of protectionism.
The honor code at Brigham Young University is also quite restrictive. On the one hand, the Church leaders strongly encourage students to pursue marriage partners. On the other hand, the Church doesn’t want single students to have sex. Students are not allowed to enter the apartment or dormitory of someone of the opposite sex after midnight. All single students are required to live in sex-separated housing units.
The strict rules that I lived by in the mission field and at BYU haunted me for years. When I served as Young Men’s President as a young husband and father, I remember feeling guilty about giving rides home to teenage girls after youth activities. I also remember feeling like I was committing some offense when I visited a single woman as an elders’ quorum home teacher without the presence of my home teaching companion. Just walking into the Relief Society room on Sundays to get my wife’s attention for a personal matter seemed wrong. I can’t be the only one who felt this way.
The Long-Term Impact of Sex Wedges
The “wedges” that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints drives between men and women are grounded in the hierarchy’s desire to maintain strict heteronormativity. It is mostly based on the fear of illicit sex, but also serves to perpetuate the power structures of the Church hierarchy. The problem for me and for many ex-Mormons is that we have been stymied in establishing mature relationships with the opposite sex. If we have any close friends of the opposite sex (not our spouses or partners), we consider it a victory. I have to confess that I still feel trepidation with platonic relationships. Though it is a constant battle, I am feel more human with each passing year.
