A few days ago, Peggy Fletcher Stack reported in a Salt Lake Tribune article that wards in the San Francisco Bay Area, where Relief Society presidents had been sitting on the stand during sacrament meeting, were told to stop this by the area president. She also reports that many women, both in the area, and in other places, are unhappy with the change. For example, over at the Exponent, Kelly Ann posted her letter to the area presidency, and pointed out that one of the people quoted in the Tribune article is also collecting letters to send.
I share the frustration of the women and girls quoted in the article. It’s sad that such a tiny step toward showing women in a position of authority was something that the area president felt the need to put an end to.
But I’m also utterly unsurprised at the area president’s response. It’s just another exhibit to add to the long list that shows that patriarchy is truly one of the core values of the Church. We might have documents like the Articles of Faith to tell us what our core values are, at least in theory. But what values does the organization of the Church exhibit? Statements like scriptures or proclamations tell, but our practices show much more clearly. And we have so, so many practices that show that the GAs have patriarchy as a default assumption. Men’s Church participation is assumed and requires no comment; women’s participation is unusual and requires consideration and explanation.
Of course many Church callings require priesthood ordination, so as long as the female priesthood ban remains in effect, women are going to be excluded from these roles. But sitting on the stand doesn’t require ordination, and yet the area presidency still felt it was out of line for women to do. I think this is in line with the idea Lynnette once explained that doctrine is like grammar, and you learn it by observing. If, for example, you always see only men in authority, you conclude that that’s the way it’s supposed to be. The area presidency didn’t like women sitting on the stand not because it violated any statement of Church doctrine or practice. It just felt ungrammatical. It’s just not a thing Mormons do to have women in positions of authority over mixed-gender groups, or even appearing to be.
So even setting aside callings that require priesthood, we still have exclusions like the following:
- Until 1984, women didn’t speak regularly in the general sessions of General Conference (and of course they remain only a small fraction of speakers).
- Until 2013, women couldn’t pray in General Conference.
- From 1967 to 1978, women couldn’t pray in sacrament meeting.
- Until 2019, women couldn’t serve as witnesses to ordinances like baptism (and when they were included, children were included too).
- Until 2021, women couldn’t be auditors.
- As Sam Brunson at BCC has repeatedly observed, there’s no scriptural reason girls (or women) couldn’t prepare or pass the sacrament. Yet still we ban them from doing so.
- Women can’t be ward clerks or executive secretaries. I’m sure the Handbook says these positions must be held by priesthood holders, but there’s no obvious priesthood role they serve.
- As ElleK recently pointed out at the Exponent, there’s no requirement that any women be consulted in the redrawing of ward boundaries. A stake president may decide to consult women, but most likely don’t.
I’m sure you can add to my list. Please feel free to do so in the comments.
If you’re more optimistic than I am, you might find it encouraging that some of the policies I’ve listed have changed. And I would certainly agree that the changes are better than not having made the changes. It’s better to have a few women speaking and praying in Conference than none. But I think the fact that these were even issues to begin with still shows that patriarchy is a core value or a default assumption for GAs. It’s also unfortunate that since Correlation, and of course long before, women’s authority in the Church has been reduced with changes like the Relief Society losing its autonomy and women’s blessings being effectively banned. So the changes haven’t gone only in a more inclusive direction.
I continue to hope for a future when GAs relent and agree to ordain women. But even before that, I really wish they would give up fighting tooth and nail and dragging their feet on such obvious tiny changes that could maybe include women just a little bit more. I think, though, that this isn’t going to happen until they drop their default assumption of excluding women from positions of authority.
We can certainly turn the page back to the 19th century and encourage them to bless the sick. I have not witnessed an overabundance of miracles on that front with the men doing the work.
In addition to women not being consulted about ward boundaries, they are also not consulted about leadership changes, which might be even more important to many people’s church experience. It’s standard practice for a visiting authority tasked with calling a new stake presidency to consult many of the male leaders in the stake for suggestions, as the visitor likely doesn’t know anyone in the stake. There’s no reason not to consult women leaders in the stake in this process, and there most certainly have been cases of men who would never have become stake presidents had women been consulted. No priesthood is required to have valuable insight into who would be good at leading a stake.
Ward temple and family history leader is a position which (bafflingly) requires the Melchizedek priesthood. This became a bit hilarious and sad when I (a college student minoring in genealogy) and my husband (0 genealogy experience) were called as a committee member and the leader; respectively. I mean, it’s not like I was craving the high prestige (sarcasm) of the “ward temple and family history leader” calling. It did kind of feel like I was having my lack of a Y chromosome rubbed in my face though.
I clip ZD’s actuarial charts for Q15 and ruminate over them. I feel the Q15 is stacked with ultra conservative, patriarchal stalwarts in the same way the Supreme Court is stacked with republicans. It isn’t going to change in our lifetime. Monson, Benson, and Nelson (all more conservative than Hinckley) called 10 (soon to be 11) of the Q15. They in turn will call likeminded others in their stead. The system cannot change, unless God intervenes. Patriarchy is here to stay.
It seems to me that we may be missing the point here. This is not about “patriarchy.” In fact, I know as a man who has sat in many ward leadership positions that the men I’ve been in bishopric meetings with almost never think about patriarchy, male power or male dominance. However, they do worry about doing things correctly according to the Church policy handbooks. They trust that these Church policy handbooks are aligned with God’s will at any given time. They essentially believe, as we all should, that the Prophet is the Lord’s mouthpiece (albeit not flawless) and that he and the rest of the Q15 are doing the best they can and until they receive revelation that things should be done differently, they will not change.
When you look for reasons not to support the Prophet/Q15, you are on the road to apostasy. This is one of our trials here in this life. We must look for the good and not speak ill of the Lord’s anointed. Essentially, we must follow the Prophet. He will never lead us astray. Instead, he will only bring us closer to Christ.
With all of this being said, I have wondered why women don’t do certain things, but rather than trying to change God and His ways, I humble myself and support whatever His will is. No righteous man desires to dominate over women and society. This thought has been infiltrated into society by the father of lies.
The fact that you are bringing in political persuasions into the thought makes this discussion even more troubling. Most ultra conservatives actually think the Q15 are much more on the liberal side. I think both sides are missing the mark. These men have no political objective. In fact, they only have one objective and that is to do as the Lord desires of them. We may need to reevaluate our perspectives from time to time to ensure they are not taking us off course.
SM, I appreciate that you can mouth the phrase “albeit not flawless” about the Q15, but it’s clear that you don’t believe it. If you honestly seriously believe that the Church handbook represents the very will of God, you believe in the practical infallibility of GAs. Which I think is manifestly nonsense.
I have no doubt that the Q15 and the bishoprics you’ve worked with are doing their best, and aren’t trying to oppress women. But what you’re missing is that so much of the work of patriarchy (no need for scare quotes, by the way–it’s a real thing, even mentioned in glowing terms in Church manuals) is done by unquestioned assumption, by traditions handed down by our fathers and not questioned because they just feel normal. Consider the possibility that the Q15 can’t imagine ordaining women, for example, not because God ever said so, but because they literally can’t conceive of the possibility that women could hold any real authority.
I encourage you to consider the possibility that the Q15 could be not only fallible as an apologetic dodge, but in actual fact. What if the priesthood/temple ban for black people should have actually been rescinded in 1977 rather than 1978? Or 1961? Or 1949? Or never put in effect in the first place? Now extend that reasoning to the female priesthood ban.
Look, I understand that it’s a simpler life to live if you just act as though the Q15 are always right. But facing the fact that they aren’t not only has the virtue of being true, it also gives you a place to consider your response when they make a policy that kicks you or your loved ones in the teeth. You won’t be limited to just thinking “I must be in the wrong for not appreciating getting kicked in the teeth. I only have to work out how they’re right and I’m wrong.” You’ll be able to hold onto your sense of reality and actually critique their error.