By Tanya Spackman
The other night at Home, Family, and Personal Enrichment meeting, we had a Relief Society birthday party, which included hearing short bios of all of the general RS presidents. I was asked to cover Clarissa Williams, a wonderful woman. While listening to these bios one after another, there seemed to be a definite shift in the community activity (much of it quite political) of these women the last two to three decades, which also seems to correlate to a change in their overall message to the sisters of the church.
Let me state here that I don’t necessarily think these changes are bad or good. I believe all of the women who have served in the general presidencies, past and current, have served well and are great women. It is simply a noticeable difference and I’m trying to see the reasons.
Using Sister Williams as an example (since she’s the one I know best through my research), she was involved in Daughters of the American Revolution and the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. She was president of the Author’s Club and a member of the Friendship Circle, both literary clubs. During World War I, she served as state chairman of the Woman’s Committee of the National Council of Defense and on the Red Cross Civilian Committee. The other presidents up to recent seemed to be equally, if not more, involved. For example, other general RS presidents were very involved in the suffrage movement. Even up to the 1970s, the community/political trend continued: the general RS president was involved in the anti-ERA activities. Some of these activities were part of their lives before they became involved in the general presidencies or boards, and others seemed to be a part of their duties in those callings.
Their messages seemed to reflect their intense community involvement. Again going to Sister Williams, she focused maternal and infant health, emphasizing (very successfully) education and financing that greatly reduced mortality within a decade. She also emphasized higher education for women as a necessity rather than a luxury. The other presidents seemed to be similarly practical and proactive, though their specific messages and actions varied.
But since the 1970 there seems to be quite a difference. The presidents no longer seem to have much activity outside of family, church, or work. Their messages seem to be gentler, less of a call to action. Now it is “you fit in – you are a part of Relief Society” and “continue to be strong in your roles as women”. However, I also see a strong “come unto Christ” message, which did not seem to be emphasised earlier.
Why the change?
Obviously the world is different now, so the specific community and political activities would be different. Since the presidencies all have come from the U.S., even Utah, are they simply reflecting a general cultural trend toward non-involvement? Was involvement in the past much more common for everyone?
As for the shift in message, is the world so chaotic that we need Relief Society to be a haven rather than a place of action? Is it a focus on things that matter more (i.e., Christ and the gospel) over practical things that are more transitory from an eternal perspective? (This is also seen in the change from Homemaking, where crafts and canning were normal, to Enrichment, where spirituality is more the theme.)
Or is it something totally different? And are these two shifts (involvement and message) really related, or is it just a coincidental concurrent shift? Ideas?
Tanya Spackman is single and lives in Dugway, Utah. She served a mission in Chicago, and graduated from BYU in 1998 with a degree in molecular biology. She currently works for a contractor as a technical writer and editor at Dugway Proving Ground.