Women as Sunday School Presidents

[askandanswer]

I was wondering if there is any reason why a woman can't be called as a Sunday School President. It seems as though a Sunday School President would require no more than the type of keys and authority already held and exercised by a Primary President or a YW President. Is there anything distinctly different about the role of Sunday School President, as compared to a Primary or YW President, that means that the role can only be performed by a Priesthood holder? 

Edited August 23, 2016 by askandanswer
added two more words

[CV75]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I was wondering if there is any reason why a woman can't be called as a Sunday School President. It seems as though a Sunday School President would require no more than the type of keys and authority already held and exercised by a Primary President or a YW President. Is there anything distinctly different about the role of Sunday School President, as compared to a Primary or YW President, that means that the role can only be performed by a Priesthood holder? 

I understand exceptions have been made in branches where a sister as called to clerk, executive secretary or Sunday School President. The only rationale I can think of for requiring a priesthood holder would have to do with the defined priesthood role (as put forth in D&C 20) to oversee, by delegation, the specific teaching program for that hour. Relief Society, Young Women and Primary Presidencies oversee broader responsibilities in addition to the sole teaching of classes.

[Edspringer]

Hi, @askandanswer

In the Church Handbook 2, item 12.2.2, we read:

Ward Sunday School Presidency

“Members of the ward Sunday School presidency are priesthood holders. Where possible, the president holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. They work under the direction of the bishopric. They receive orientation and ongoing support from the stake Sunday School presidency”.

 

There are four auxiliary organizations in a ward or branch:  Sunday School, Relief Society, Young Women and Primary. Only Sunday School presidency is composed by priesthood holders. Why?

We need some historic background to try to understand why only men can preside Sunday School. The first formal Sunday school in the LDS Church was held on December 9, 1849, Salt Lake City in the Salt Lake City Fourteenth Ward Other Church congregations followed the Fourteenth Ward's example and adopted Sunday school programs based on the Richard Ballantyne’s (a former Sunday school teacher from Scotland) model. At this stage, each Sunday school was completely autonomous and under the sole direction of the local bishop.

Anxious to bring a standard structure and organization to the over 200 independent Sunday schools that had been created, president Brigham Young ordered that a union of the Sunday schools be carried out. On November 11, 1867, President Young plus Daniel H. Wells, George A. Smith, Wilfoord Woodruff, George Q. Cannon and Brigham Youn Jr organized the Parent Sunday School Union. President Young appointed Cannon as the first general superintendent of the Sunday School, a position he would hold until his death in 1901. In 1872, the Sunday School organization was renamed the Deseret Sunday School Union.

The organized Sunday School addressed lesson topics and source materials, grading, prizes and rewards, use of hymns and songs composed by members of the Church, recording and increasing the attendance, developing an elementary teaching system, and libraries. It also sponsored the publication of administrative guidelines and materials for classroom use, resulting in increased uniformity lesson content.

Until the turn of the century, only children were taught by the Sunday School. Eventually, classes were added for the youth of the church; in 1904, an adult Sunday School class was created.

The 1970s saw dramatic change within the Sunday School. In 1971, as part of the Church Priesthood Correlation Program, the name of the Deseret Sunday School Union was changed to simply Sunday School, and the Sunday School general “superintendent” was renamed the general Sunday School "president". Additionally, curriculum planning and writing became more centralized and coordinated; for the first time, the Sunday School stopped providing unique lesson manuals each year, and the Church began a four-year curriculum rotation pattern. In 1979, Hugh B. Pinnock became the general president of the Sunday School, the first general authority of the Church to hold the position.

Here is the Sunday School Board since its creation:

Time	President
1867–1901	George Q. Cannon
1901	Lorenzo Snow
1901–18	Joseph F. Smith
1918–34	Daid O. Mckay
1934–43	George D. Pyper
1943–49	Milton Bennion
1949–66	George R. Hill
1966–71	David Lawrence Mckay
1971–79	Russel M. Nelson
1979–86	Hugh B. Pinnock
1986–89	Robert L. Simpson
1989–92	Hugh B. Pinnock
1992–94	Merlyn G. Lybbert
1994–95	Charles A. Didier
1995–2000	Harold G. Hillam
2000–01	Marlin K. Jensen
2001–03	Cecil O. Samuelson
2003–04	Marril J. Bateman
2004–09	A. Roger Merrill
2009–14	Russell T. Osguthorpe
2014–	Tad R. Callister

 

 

So, since the beginning, only priesthood holders have been called to be part of the Sunday School  General Board, and this has also been a pattern in stakes, wards and branches.

I hope it was useful to you!

Best wishes!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by Edspringer
mistakes in writting

[Guest]

I would assume that there's a priesthood responsibility in overseeing the teaching of the members. Can anyone verify this?

Is the Primary under the Sunday School's stewarship, organizationally?

[MrShorty]

Good question; I don't know the answer. My impression is that there is an element of tradition (cue Tevya) to this, as EdSpringer points out, but I am not aware of any doctrinal reason for this policy.

I can see an element of "balancing" the responsibilities of men and women in this policy. Women (again seemingly by tradition) have always been in charge of the Primary, and the CHI, as I understand it, mandates that women be installed in the Primary presidency, and does not allow men to serve in that capacity. Men are assigned to preside over the SS and Women are assigned to preside over the Primary, and so you get a balance of influence.

Perhaps there is also a concern over having mixed presidencies. The intimacy generated in a well functioning presidency could easily create some concerns over marital fidelity if we allowed mixed presidencies. Perhaps organizationally, it is just easier to assign men to SS and women to Primary, rather than making it either men or women, but be sure to never have a mixed presidency.

So, I see policies rooted in tradition, but I am not aware of any scriptural or doctrinal that underlies these policies. I will be interested if others are aware of doctrine that underpins these policies.

Edited August 23, 2016 by MrShorty

[zil]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

I would assume that there's a priesthood responsibility in overseeing the teaching of the members. Can anyone verify this?

Is the Primary under the Sunday School's stewarship, organizationally?

The primary are under the bishop's authority, directly.  Not Sunday School's.

Please note that nothing in what I'm about to say should be taken as meaning I personally think Sunday School presidencies should be (allowed to be) women or that priesthood authority is not needed by the Sunday School presidency.  I'm just making observations.

It is an interesting question.  The Sunday School president does not, as far as I can tell, perform ordinances as part of his calling (so that couldn't be the reason for the priesthood requirement).  It, RS, YW, and Primary are all auxiliaries who answer to the bishop and operate under his authority.  From a purely functional standpoint, I can't see why any more priesthood authority is necessary for that presidency than for any other auxiliary presidency (history notwithstanding, and the history can easily be explained the same way lots of historic things can be explained).

The difference, however, is somewhat obvious: RS deals only with the women (makes more than sense for it to be run by women), YW deals only with young women (ditto comment), Primary deals with children (see the family proclamation for who has "primary" responsibility here).  SS deals with adult men and adult women both (as well as mixed young men and young women).  Historically, when that happens, the church puts men in charge of it.  So, it is consistent, and I can think of at least one good reason for it to be and stay that way (which reason I decline to share).

FWIW.

Edited August 23, 2016 by zil
PS: Handbook 2 is your friend. :)

[FogCity]

the optimal most correct option is lets get rid of that second hour and just simply have Sacrament meeting and a 45 minute Priesthood/Relief Society meeting

Problem solved.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, FogCity said:

the optimal most correct option is lets get rid of that second hour and just simply have Sacrament meeting and a 45 minute Priesthood/Relief Society meeting

Problem solved.

That problem has already been solved by those who decline to participate.  Personally, I'd be just fine if church were 3.5 hours:

0:00 - 1:10 = Sacrament Meeting (standard 1:10)

10 Minute break

1:20 - 2:20 = Sunday School (now they get the hour they've been trying to take all along)

10 minute break

2:30 - 3:30 = RS / Priesthood (hooray, 10 extra minutes!)

IMO, people who want less church already have all the options they need.  Those of us who want more church don't.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Edspringer said:

There are four auxiliary organizations in a ward or branch:  Sunday School, Relief Society, Young Women and Primary.

Young Men.

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

Is the Primary under the Sunday School's stewarship, organizationally?

Nope. The Primary president reports directly to the bishop.

12 minutes ago, zil said:

Personally, I'd be just fine if church were 3.5 hours

You and me both, sister, though I get the impression we're a minority.

[Edspringer]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Young Men.

Nope. The Primary president reports directly to the bishop.

You and me both, sister, though I get the impression we're a minority.

Thanx,Vort

Young men is not an auxiliary organization,  but is part of the priesthood organitazion.

Please check https://www.lds.org/manual/priesthood-and-auxiliary-leaders-guidebook?lang=eng

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Edspringer said:

Thanx,Vort

Young men is not an auxiliary organization,  but is part of the priesthood organitazion.

Please check https://www.lds.org/manual/priesthood-and-auxiliary-leaders-guidebook?lang=eng

"The auxiliaries are Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School."

[Edspringer]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

"The auxiliaries are Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School."

Sorry, but I don't think I understood you. Is that right that you are saying that Young men is an auxiliary organization?

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Edspringer said:

Sorry, but I don't think I understood you. Is that right that you are saying that Young men is an auxiliary organization?

Yep. Not worth fighting over, but YM is an auxiliary, not a part of the quorums. It even has its own presidency.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Edspringer said:

Young men is not an auxiliary organization,  but is part of the priesthood organitazion.

 

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

"The auxiliaries are Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School."

Ed,

Vort is correct.  Remember that the YM presidency does not hold any keys.  Therefore, they are an auxiliary.  If the president has to hold keys to perform the function, then it is priesthood.  If not, it is an auxiliary.

YM is listed specifically here:

https://www.lds.org/manual/priesthood-and-auxiliary-leaders-guidebook/auxiliaries?lang=eng&query=auxiliary

[Edspringer]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yep. Not worth fighting over, but YM is an auxiliary, not a part of the quorums. It even has its own presidency.

Yes, now you made your point in a way that I could understand.

Young men is an auxiliary organization that, let's say, hosts quoruns of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Thanx, once more!

Edited August 23, 2016 by Edspringer

[Edspringer]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

Ed,

Vort is correct.  Remember that the YM presidency does not hold any keys.  Therefore, they are an auxiliary.  If the president has to hold keys to perform the function, then it is priesthood.  If not, it is an auxiliary.

YM is listed specifically here:

https://www.lds.org/manual/priesthood-and-auxiliary-leaders-guidebook/auxiliaries?lang=eng&query=auxiliary

Thanx, @Carborendum

Now I got it. You guys are right!

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Edspringer said:

Young men is an auxiliary organization that, let's say, hosts quoruns of the Aaronic Priesthood.

"advises" would be a better word than "hosts" - see the handbook 2 chapter on the Aaronic Priesthood.

[Edspringer]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

"advises" would be a better word than "hosts" - see the handbook 2 chapter on the Aaronic Priesthood.

Thanx,

I really needed a better word on that!

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I would assume that there's a priesthood responsibility in overseeing the teaching of the members. Can anyone verify this?

Is the Primary under the Sunday School's stewarship, organizationally?

Everything we do in the Church units falls under the priesthood responsibility to oversee, even if some functions are delegated to subordinate quorums and auxiliary presidencies to oversee. But because D&C 20 specifically aligns teaching with the calling and duty of the various priesthood offices, as Ed pointed out, it seems the default call is to a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, though exceptions can be made.

[FogCity]

in my opinion the Sunday School President has the difficult task of ringing the bell and watching out for hang gliders

.

.

.

 

too soon?

[zil]

I'm not sure what the reference to "hang gliders" is, but I wish we had a bell and I wish they'd ring it.  We have one SS teacher who's too nice to stop comments and another who gets off to such a slow start that the lesson doesn't start getting good until the last 15 minutes, and that's not enough time for the discussion which then ensues... <sigh>

[Colirio]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If the president has to hold keys to perform the function, then it is priesthood.  If not, it is an auxiliary.

I figure you already know this, but thought I'd say it anyway for others so as to avoid misunderstandings. 

 

The Sunday School president does not hold priesthood keys either. 

 

Speaking solely on the ward level, only quorum presidents hold priesthood keys. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Colirio said:

I figure you already know this, but thought I'd say it anyway for others so as to avoid misunderstandings. 

 

The Sunday School president does not hold priesthood keys either. 

 

Speaking solely on the ward level, only quorum presidents hold priesthood keys. 

Yes, that was my point.  I actually had an altercation with one leader who did not understand this.

A disagreement about the sacrament was had between a member of the YM presidency and a teacher.  I was only the advisor.  I deemed the youth's interpretation to be quite normal.  But I also thought the adult leader had a point that ought to be considered.  But the leader insisted he was doing it wrong and proceeded to undo the sacrament preparations.  I had to inform him that he shouldn't be doing that.

The teacher's preparations stood.  But I admitted that the only reason I went along with it was because I was following the proper chain of command based on proper priesthood keys.  The teacher had an assignment from the teacher's quorum president (who held the keys of his task).  The leader did not.  As the only one present who received direct orders from the quorum president, the teacher was in the right -- even though I thought the leader had a good point and his advice should probably be followed.

The following week I had a special lesson where I read a printout from the Handbook regarding auxiliaries and keys.  I then presented the issue to the quorum president with the arguments for both sides.  The president considered for about two seconds and decided that the leader had good advice and ordered that a change be made.

While I think the decision was a good one, the point was that whether he was making a good judgment or not, the leader was putting forth his hand to steady the ark by essentially displacing the teacher from his duties.  Because he lacked the keys, that was wrong.

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Colirio said:

I figure you already know this, but thought I'd say it anyway for others so as to avoid misunderstandings. 

The Sunday School president does not hold priesthood keys either. 

Speaking solely on the ward level, only quorum presidents hold priesthood keys. 

I for one appreciate you choosing to be explicit.  In addition to non-members and new members who would have no clue about this stuff, a lot of single sisters, especially those without sons, are never taught things about the priesthood (particularly organizational or procedural details) that I think many / most men in the church assume everyone knows.  It's not entirely unusual for me to trip over little things that everyone else drops as if it were common knowledge, but which I've never heard before.  (Nothing major or doctrinal, more procedures, policies, culture, and the like.)

Just last weekend we had Stake Conference and the Seventy who was speaking in the adult session Saturday night mentioned something (no details, just a reference) said in the priesthood leadership meeting, and the context implied he expected this information to make it into homes (not to just stay with the priesthood), and my initial thought was, "That works for homes with a priesthood holder, but I wonder if anyone has thought to communicate that to homes without a priesthood holder."  Later I realized it was a priesthood leadership meeting, so if it was going to make it to every home, they'd have to make a plan for that anyway.  Still, I think the wondering is still valid.

[askandanswer]

 

What I’ve read so far seems to suggest that always calling men to be Sunday School Presidents seems to be more a result of history and tradition rather than anything to do with the Priesthood.

So if the church decided to respond to those who claim that women in the church have an inferior position and are denied any real leadership role (and we know how false that claim is) by calling women as Sunday School Presidents, would that be a violation of any fundamental doctrine, or just a variation to a historical practice?