In the early days of the Bloggernacle, I recall reading a post that listed changes the Church could make in its policies that would improve women’s equality and experience, without requiring ordaining women. (I’m unable to find the post again, and I’d love to hear if you know what I’m thinking of.) There was a whole long list, because the Church doesn’t only exclude women from doing things that actually require priesthood. It actually seems to exclude women as a kind of default setting, allowing them to do a thing that involves any kind of authority only after studied consideration (unless it involves children, in which case of course women are not only in charge, they’re expected to do all the work). For example, can women or girls pass the sacrament (or prepare it)? Of course not! There’s no scriptural reason for the ban. It just feels too priesthood-adjacent for the Q15 to allow it.
Of course some of these baseless bans have been lifted. Women can now give prayers in General Conference. They can witness baptisms (but just so women’s heads don’t get too big, so can baptized children). Just since Dallin H. Oaks took over the top spot from Russell M. Nelson, he finally removed the difference in the youngest age at which missionaries can serve, and just a couple of weeks ago, the Church announced that women can serve as Sunday School presidents. Like with witnessing baptisms, though, this comes with a caveat to make sure the ladies don’t get too uppity. Women and men can’t serve in mixed-gender presidencies all willy-nilly. They have to keep nice and separate, like it’s 1955, and women holding any kind of supervisory role is a new and dangerous idea.
I doubt Q15 members have read the blog post I mentioned, but I think in their heads they might have some sense of a similar list of changes that could be made to increase equality without ordaining women. And they’re going to dribble them out, once every year or two, to see if it can be enough to keep a few more women in on the liberal side, without going so fast as to disorient the all-important deeply patriarchal men who are still mad about being asked to mask and vaccinate during COVID and are anxiously waiting for polygamy to come back. At the same time, the Q15 are trying to shore things up with women by telling them that they actually do have the priesthood, but of course not in a way that would mean they could be in charge of anything, especially not men, just in a kind of pretend you’ll-feel-it-if-you-believe-hard-enough way.
I’m not encouraged by this glacial pace of change. I’d like to imagine that when someone more reasonable became Church president, he might do away with all the baseless bans in one fell swoop. But I honestly doubt this will happen with even the most reasonable Q15 member. More likely what we’ll get is two changes a year rather than one. Because from the Q15’s perspective, even the least sexist among them, these aren’t steps in progression toward a point where women can do anything that doesn’t actually require ordination, and then the next step is that they get ordained. It’s just a stall. As women face fewer barriers in the rest of their lives, their experience as fully second-class citizens in the Church is ever more jarring, so the Q15 strive to show at least some movement. And the fact is that at some point, someone more devoted to patriarchy will become Church president, and he could figure that the payoff in keeping more women in isn’t worth it, and undo all the tiny changes previous presidents have made, and–why not?–add some more.
I think it’s nice that women can be Sunday School presidents, but it’s practically meaningless in the sense that Sunday School presidents actually do much, and more importantly, I don’t think it signals anything hopeful about the general trend of the Church in its devotion to patriarchy and male-only priesthood and leadership.
I doubt if this change is to benefit women or to move toward better equality. Nope, I think it is only because some wards do not have enough men with warm bodies to fill all the callings only men can fill. They have to open up more calling that do not require priesthood and it cannot be the elders quorum leaders or bishopric. I mean, to me it is pretty obvious that the top leaders do not care about equality between the sexes. Nope, they only care about warm bodies to fill callings. My area is one of those problem areas. Lots of people moving in, but the area has small houses and trailer courts and all relatively inexpensive, perfect for retired people, widows, single mothers, and snowbirds. We do in fact have a lot of snowbirds. My last three ministering sisters have all been snowbirds. Some of those snowbirds attend here, but their records are in a “home ward” somewhere else. And that makes for a lot of people who can’t fill priesthood callings. I don’t know the percentages, but I know they really struggled to draw ward boundaries that allowed enough priesthood without getting more people than will fit in the chapel during snowbird season. It looks like they picked ten houses and drew an amoeba that could include those houses, because the ward boundaries swing out for every important priesthood calling. Kind of funny, but the bishop and his two counselors live right next to the ward boundary line. They didn’t even go one house past to make it look less suspicious. Down a couple of neighborhood, where homes are bigger, there are a lot more families who are around all year and those wards are divided by where the highway cuts across or actual city limits. So, I think this change is forced by lack of enough men to hold all the callings. They just looked at which callings do not absolutely need priesthood, because it is priesthood that wards seem to run short on.
Glacial is right. About 50 years ago, I was executive secretary in a BYU student ward. Our bishop was way ahead of his time. He wanted to call a young and very capable sister as Sunday School president. He sent the idea upline and received back a resounding NO. Should have happened then. It only took 50 years for the Church to catch up with that inspired bishop.
When I heard the announcement, I wondered what the SS President did other than pick up class rolls and arrange for/be a substitute? The curriculum is set from the top. The classes are separated by age. Not a whole. lot to do. I don’t even know who the wArd SS presidency includes. It’s not a high profile calling, and maybe that’s one of the reasons why this has been opened up to women – the tasks are low stakes. I don’t feel anyone should be campaigning for any calling for status, but we all know there are those that want certain leadership positions for the ego boost. Sunday School president doesn’t seem to be one of those plum jobs, apparently.
Ziff, I agree completely!
This isn’t progress. It’s performative optics.
And the timing is… convenient. Right as some wards are already experimenting with 60-minute sacrament-only church, suddenly women are “given” Sunday School leadership? The saints have been less than thrilled with this week’s announcement of the new 60-20-20 model, so it’s possible the saints themselves will actually kill Sunday School by complaining about the schedule during the next year or two. What happens when Sunday School dies?
Then what exactly were women given?
I’ll tell you what. They were given a last-minute handoff of a program that’s already being phased out. A dying portfolio with sinking stocks. A dud. A lemon. Not power, just cleanup duty and a black eye.
It’s like watching a DMV office move into a strip mall. That’s not growth, it’s a death knell for the mall.
Give it a few years. Sunday School isn’t long for this world, and the “win” will go with it. Not only that, the Patriarchy will be able to say “tisk tisk, sisters, we’ll just take back the steering wheel thankyouverymuch. Better not let a woman do a man’s job”.
Have the Brethren seen this coming? Of course they have. They sit on the data and play the long game.
And no, none of them wants to be the captain who personally euthanizes Sunday School. That’s not how executives roll. Executives do not like being associated with decline, closure, downsizing, or institutional failure. They want their names attached to the winning projects, the timeless buildings, the new initiatives.
So they do what executives always do: they pass the buck. Hand it off, rebrand it, starve it, wait for bad customer reactions, while focusing on whatever is currently shining. Even when true stewardship calls for an honest and courageous ending, bureaucracies are not designed to reward it. Executives know to be Teflon Dons. Never let the stink stick to you.
By the way, why did our legal eagles Oaks, Christofferson, and Cook ever allow children to be witnesses to baptisms?
Minors can’t legally witness most formal civil acts because they lack full legal capacity. In some countries it’s a big deal. Witnessing baptisms and weddings should be done by capable adults. Unless of course, it’s not that important. why would it not be that important?
I’ve heard a lot about one hour church but not seen specifics. Is this being piloted in certain regions and does anyone know if there is a plan to change all church to one hour?
Meanwhile…I just watched the “solemn assembly” section of today’s Conference and noted something very curious.
The first two Solemn Assemblies I watched were for Hunter and Hinckley…at Hunter’s they actually read out the entire list of the Presidency and Quorums of the Seventy (not done at sustaining votes for years before nor ever since) and at Hinckley’s they had the unordained Relief Society and Young Women stand,which I think they had not done for Hunter.
This time the groups all voted ONLY on the First Presidency and Twelve…the GA 70s,Area 70s,and Presiding Bishopric were all treated as one voting group,and NO vote by ANY group was asked to sustain them in their offices,let alone the other General Officers.
Will there be a vote on them separately or are they henceforward to serve “unsustained”?
I feel the same way. It is glacial. This is the sort of thing that should have changed 40 or 50 years ago. Now it just makes me upset because they could have done it earlier. All of these changes for women are things that could have been done earlier.
The Sunday School President does impact things a little bit because they can go to ward council. Have an additional woman there is helpful when a bishop listens to input there. So that means something.
However, the fact is that Stake Sunday School Presidencies are still men only. Because you need to be a man to be in charge.
To follow up on my earlier comment…the second session DID have a vote on the remaining General/Area Authorities.
Of note is the fact that the Hong Konger Benjamin Tai was named to the Presidency of the Seventy and is ten years younger than any other member of that presidency (born 1972,Dube was born 1962 and the other five born 1957,1957,1958,1959,and 1960).
The eight new General Authority Seventies include (besides Henry B. Eyring’s son Matthew) a Nigerian and a South African and the new Primary General President is Malawian (though for some time now a Utah resident).
I always like to start with the positives first, and there are multiple with this change. The most important will be another woman serving on the ward council. Sunday School may have limited reach – especially with the new block schedule – but real issues are discussed and decisions made in the council. Family ward councils can now have 25% more women. YSA ward councils can have 50% more (previously just the RS; no primary or YW). That’s a big deal, especially for the singles. I expect nearly all single wards will have women SS Presidencies.
Secondly, more men will now serve under a woman’s leadership. Until now, that only happened for men who served in Primary, and generally there men were called to team-teach with their wives, so it wasn’t just them reporting to a woman alone. Now male SS teachers will report to a woman. This may seem a small issue in our modern world. I think it significant. One of two main hinderances to expanded female leadership (priesthood or otherwise) is that our church culture doesn’t see men report to women – e.g., in the temple women can work as presenters at the veil but not receive. A glacial thaw is still a thaw. As our church body gets comfortable with male teachers reporting to a female SS President, we’ll be more ready for female clerks, ward mission leaders, and even bishops.
(BTW, the second main hinderance is that women, very understandably, don’t yet trust that men will share the work they traditionally perform if women ‘s roles are expanded into traditional male ones. A good policy change to push on that angle would be calling men into Primary Presidencies, though of course there is the counterargument that takes away a traditionally female leadership role).
On the negative side, I agree there’s no defensible reason to not allow women to serve as Stake SS Presidents. All the benefits I discussed above exist equally on the stake level. Moreso, in my stake the stake women’s leadership take rotations with the high counselors for monthly speaking assignments in the wards. It’s taxing on the women because there are relatively few of them (even with counselors included). Adding a women Stake SS Presidency would greatly expand the pool of women’s voices in our stake.
I’ll conclude by looking at the larger picture. In our church structure, priesthood ordination is necessary for many key leadership roles (not to mention performing most ordinances). Those of us who want to expand women’s leadership need to be honest about that and take a stand on women’s ordination. I support it. Too often I see women say they want more leadership roles – for women in general, not necessarily aspiring themselves – but demur on whether they want to be ordained (I’m not pointing fingers at anyone on this discussion).
To be blunt, that’s chicken advocacy, similar in effect to chicken patriarchy. If we really want equality, women must be ordained, and that will not happen until sizeable numbers of women seek ordination. It’s not President Oaks holding us back. It’s my dear mother and women like her, who serve extensively but baulk at ordination because they don’t want to risk being called as bishop.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I think the point several of y’all made about Sunday School being reduced in length with the new schedule later this year is a good one. And it’s also true that Sunday School really hasn’t been a big deal since the three-hour block in 1980. I’ve been a Sunday School president and it was a nothing calling. Basically I was the designated substitute for the teachers of youth when the regular teachers were gone.
Dave K., you also make good points about positives. It’s always a good step when more men in the Church can get practice being subordinate to women, and when ward councils get a chance to have another woman as a part of their discussions.