Church Admits Gender Inequality in the Church – Absence of a Reason Give No License to Change

At a recent stake-level women’s conference in California, LDS Apostle Dale G. Renlund addressed gender inequality in priesthood ordination. Note that while we’re a full report or transcript of his actual talk is not available, we have the following summary from the Salt Lake Tribune.

Renlund addresses gender equality

Speaking at a women’s conference this month in Arcadia, California, apostle Dale Renlund tackled head-on a question about the church’s lack of gender equality and representation.

“The reason for the asymmetry between men and women regarding priesthood office ordination has not been revealed,” Renlund said. “Any proposed reason for that asymmetry with regard to priesthood office ordination is speculative.”

The absence of a reason, the former heart doctor cautioned, “doesn’t give us license to change the asymmetry just because we want to.”

Renlund did, however, assure the hundreds of women gathered to hear him speak that “any unfairness that’s created by the asymmetry can and will be made right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.”

In the meantime, he observed, church leaders “haven’t done as good a job as I think we can” to address existing imbalances “within the bounds that God has set.”

He concluded: “So, we’re going to do better.”

Renlund’s comments about ordination in the faith’s all-male priesthood echoed a similar warning he issued three years ago regarding the church’s belief in Heavenly Mother.

“I wish we knew more and you may wish you knew more as well, but reason cannot replace revelation,” the apostle said at the time. “Wanting to know more, asking questions, is not a bad thing. But speculation can sometimes … divert us from what has been revealed.”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/03/20/lds-news-apostle-addresses-gender/

Dale Renlund’s statements reveal several patterns of thought and rhetoric often employed by LDS leadership when addressing difficult questions—particularly those regarding gender inequality and priesthood authority. His comments attempt to acknowledge the issue while simultaneously dismissing any expectation of change, reinforcing obedience, and discouraging inquiry. Let’s break this down.

Deflection and The Illusion of Progress

Renlund acknowledges the church’s gender imbalance but quickly pivots to uncertainty: “The reason for the asymmetry between men and women regarding priesthood office ordination has not been revealed.” This statement is designed to prevent further questioning while implying that the answer, if there is one, belongs only to God. He then warns that “any proposed reason… is speculative,” which serves as a way to dismiss critical discussion while absolving leadership of any responsibility to provide clarity.

However, despite claiming no one knows why women are excluded from ordination, he simultaneously asserts that the “asymmetry” cannot be changed simply because people want it to. This is a contradiction: if there is no divine revelation supporting this inequality, why should members accept it as immutable? Why assume the asymmetry is intentional rather than a cultural holdover? His phrasing suggests that obedience to the status quo is more important than the pursuit of truth or fairness.

Renlund also attempts to pacify his audience by stating that any unfairness caused by the asymmetry will be made right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This is a deeply problematic response. Rather than addressing the pain and exclusion women feel now, he pushes the resolution into the afterlife—essentially telling women to be patient, suffer in silence, and trust that all will be fixed later. This is a common tactic used to justify institutional inequalities: rather than taking responsibility to create justice in the present, leaders defer to a promised future where God will supposedly make everything fair.

Controlling the Narrative and Discouraging Inquiry

Renlund’s comments about “reason not replacing revelation” regarding Heavenly Mother mirror his remarks on gender inequality. This is another form of control—telling members that no amount of logical reasoning or moral questioning can be valid unless church leadership receives an explicit revelation. By framing speculation as dangerous, he discourages members from thinking critically about these issues. The LDS Church has historically relied on post hoc justifications for its doctrines (such as past teachings about race and the priesthood), so this statement conveniently shields leadership from accountability.

However, history shows that church leaders do change doctrine when social pressures demand it. Women once gave blessings, black men were once banned from the priesthood, and polygamy was once considered essential for exaltation—until it wasn’t. The refusal to address gender inequality is not due to a lack of revelation but a reluctance to challenge entrenched power structures.

Throwing God Under The Bus

When confronted with difficult questions about church doctrine and policy, leaders deflect, discourage inquiry, and shift responsibility onto God. However, history shows that the church has made significant doctrinal changes before—even when leaders once insisted that certain policies were divinely mandated. The contrast between past doctrinal shifts and the refusal to address gender inequality highlights a glaring inconsistency.

Historical Doctrinal Shifts: When Revelation Becomes Convenient

Renlund claims that the exclusion of women from priesthood ordination is based on an “asymmetry” whose reason has not been revealed. Yet, similar justifications were once used to defend the priesthood and temple ban on black members. Prior to 1978, leaders explicitly taught that the ban was the will of God, with some, like Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith, going so far as to claim it was a divine curse that would not be lifted until the Millennium. But when social pressure and legal concerns became too great—especially in the face of the church’s international growth—the First Presidency suddenly received a “revelation” reversing the policy. If priesthood ordination was once divinely restricted by race but later overturned, why can’t the same be true for gender?

Similarly, the practice of polygamy was once described as an “everlasting covenant”—essential for exaltation. Church leaders preached that the doctrine could never change because God directly commanded it. However, when political pressure and the threat of losing statehood became overwhelming, the church reversed course in 1890 with the Manifesto. Today, the LDS Church still teaches that polygamy is the form of marriage in the highest degree of heaven, and living prophets and apostles—including the current president, Russell M. Nelson—are sealed to multiple women. Yet, members are told that polygamy isn’t currently practiced because God changed his mind for the time being.

If God can command polygamy and then “pause” the commandment, and if God can restrict the priesthood by race and then lift that restriction, why is gender exclusion somehow beyond the reach of continuing revelation? The refusal to even consider change—especially when Renlund admits there is no revealed reason for the policy—exposes the underlying issue: this is about maintaining power, not about following revelation.

Changing Doctrine When Convenient, Refusing to Change When It’s Not

The LDS Church often defends its past changes as “ongoing revelation,” yet when members seek change today, they are told to stop speculating and simply obey. This selective approach to revelation reveals that church leadership is not seeking divine truth as much as they are maintaining institutional control. Revelation, it seems, only comes when it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the church.

Renlund’s attempt to pacify women by promising that “any unfairness will be made right in the afterlife” is the same rhetoric used to justify racial exclusion before 1978. It is the same excuse used to justify polygamy’s continued doctrinal presence while insisting it is not relevant today. It is a way to silence concerns without actually addressing them.

If past policies that were explicitly taught as doctrine could change, then there is no reason gender roles within the church cannot change as well—except that the leadership refuses to consider it. This refusal is not based on divine will but on a desire to preserve the status quo, just as it was before 1978 and just as it was before 1890. The difference now is that members are increasingly unwilling to accept “we don’t know why, just obey” as an answer.

Excuses for Inaction

Renlund’s remarks ultimately reinforce the church’s rigid hierarchical structure while offering just enough acknowledgment of the problem to prevent outright revolt. He assures women that their concerns are heard but insists that change is impossible without revelation—a revelation that only men in power can receive. This dynamic ensures that the current system remains in place while shifting the burden of patience and faith onto those who are most disadvantaged by it.

If church leaders truly believed in continuing revelation, they would actively seek answers rather than using the absence of revelation as an excuse for inaction. Instead, they rely on obedience as a virtue while conveniently keeping power in the hands of those who already hold it.

Empty Promises of Improvement

Renlund closes with the vague assurance that church leaders “haven’t done as good a job as I think we can” and that “we’re going to do better.” This phrase is a classic appeasement tactic—offering a vague promise of improvement without specifying what, if anything, will actually change. Similar statements have been made for decades regarding racial issues, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and gender equity, yet meaningful change only comes when external pressures become too great to ignore. He points those bothered by this prejudice, or as he calls it, asymmetry to the Atonement of Jesus Christ which he says can and will make everything right. Women just need to stick with the status quo, endure to the end, and Jesus will make it right, basically, do nothing. This is the same advice church leadership gives for members to give feedback to leaders they may disagree with.

Is Brad Wilcox the example of church leadership “doing better” at addressing the imbalances? He’s infamously known for dismissive statements about women and the priesthood by ridiculing those who think this “power” should be shared across the aisle. He even retorts by comparing the priesthood to malaria in an absurd talk.

This same talk further discussed the topic, claiming that when members ask about women and the priesthood, they are likely asking the wrong question! He gaslights those questioning why women don’t have the priesthood, saying, “what the heck are you talking about?? Your life exudes priesthood” and splitting hairs about the priesthood and priesthood keys and concluding that Women simply don’t need priesthood.

A follow-up article in the Salt Lake Tribune further analyzes the position of Women in the church,h referencing these remarks and more from Renlund and others.

Overall, the church is telling women, “We need you, but stay in your place.”

… Whenever leaders bring up the Relief Society history, I am reminded of how the organization lost its independence in the 20th century. While in the early days it was a side organization to the church, with its own leaders, fundraising and finances, the Relief Society is now run by the church and its male leaders… This narrative totally erases privileges women have lost from not being allowed to oversee their own organization anymore…

We can infer the church is splitting hairs over definitions to keep women in their place…

The leaders know this is a problem. At the Arcadia meeting, Renlund said, “The reason for the asymmetry between men and women regarding priesthood office ordination has not been revealed.”

Part of me wants to shout, “You are the revelators! You are the ones to ask these questions!”

And while he acknowledges church leaders “haven’t done as good a job as I think we can” to address gender imbalances “within the bounds that God has set … so, we’re going to do better,” these three statements together do not give me hope they are going to improve any time soon.

Salt Lake Tribune, Emily W. Jensen, March 24, 2025. Commentary: What does new LDS messaging really say about women in the church? Essentially, women in the patriarchal faith, are being told: “We need you, but stay in your place.”
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/03/24/commentary-explores-what-new-lds/

A Call to Question, A Call to Share

Renlund’s remarks are part of a long-standing pattern within the LDS Church—one where difficult questions are met with vague dismissals, where obedience is prioritized over understanding, and where change only comes when it is unavoidable. History shows that church leaders have reversed policies once described as doctrinally unchangeable. Yet, when it comes to gender inequality, the leadership refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of change, despite admitting there is no revealed reason for the status quo.

For those who see the contradictions and feel the weight of these unanswered questions, the struggle is real and deeply personal. Many who have wrestled with these issues know the pain of cognitive dissonance, of feeling unheard, and of being told that their concerns will be resolved someday—just not today. But waiting for justice in the next life does nothing to ease the suffering and inequality of the present.

If you have felt dismissed, if you have struggled with the church’s shifting doctrines and unequal policies, you are not alone. Your experiences and questions matter, and they deserve to be heard. At wasmormon.org, you can share your journey, connect with others who have walked a similar path, and find a community that values truth and authenticity over blind obedience. By telling our stories, we take back the power to define our own narratives—rather than allowing church leaders to define them for us. Visit wasmormon.org to share your experience and be part of a growing chorus of voices seeking honesty, accountability, and change.

• Lorenzo Snow Taught Women Have Less Light and Knowledge Than Men
• Church Leaders on Power and Authority Broadly Given To Women
• Oaks Demonizing Criticism and Avoiding Accountability
• https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/03/20/lds-news-apostle-addresses-gender/
• https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/03/24/commentary-explores-what-new-lds/
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/womens-service-and-leadership-in-the-church
• https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1jgfq0g/renlund_addresses_gender_equality_at_california/