women as Sunday school presidents and men as primary presidents ?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

How come there aren't as many women Sunday school presidents or councillors etc, likewise men on primary presidencies ? What about 'non practicing' Temple recommend holding gay men teaching, or being on a primary presidency or auxiliaries ? Or non practicing gay women in auxiliary presidencies ?  Mixed presidencies in non priesthood callings . Also on another subject why do sisters still have to 'vail their faces' in a certain part of an ordinance in the Temple ? 

Edited by Guest
Too harsh title
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK celibate, temple-recommend-holding gays can serve in pretty much any calling in the Church (other than as bishops, since bishops are almost always expected to be married).

I think that integrated Primary presidencies are hypothetically possible and may even happen at some point; but I can also visualize situations where priesthood-holding counselors tried to explicitly or implicitly “pull rank” on female presidents, creating some really funky dynamics.  Plus, lots of units are already strapped for males to fill priesthood leadership positions.  Sunday school presidencies, I can also visualize either integrating or brought under the auspices of the Relief Society at some point; but with similar challenges.

I don’t demand changes to the part of the temple ceremony you mention, for the same reason Chesterton declined to move his hypothetical fence:  because I don’t yet know why it’s there in the first place.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) I'm finding it annoying when women are still treated as the 'lesser sex' in today's world and in the church .

In the USA and in the LDS Church worldwide, they're not.

2.) Also on the same note, how come there aren't as many women Sunday school presidents or councillors etc,

Sunday School Peesidencies are the responsibility of the Priesthood in the same manner that Gospel teaching is the responsibility of Fathers in the family.

3.) likewise men on primary presidencies,

The rearing of children are the primary responsibility of women in the same manner that the rearing of children are the primary responsibility of Mothers in the family.

 4.) what about 'non practicing' Temple recommend holding gay men teaching, or being on a primary presidency or auxiliaries ? Or non practicing gay women in auxiliary presidencies ?  Mixed presidencies in non priesthood callings .

Male Presidencies - Elders Quorom, Young Men, Sunday School

Female Presidencies - Relief Society, Young Women, Primary

Gay men are males, Gay women are females in the Church.  They are not barred from callings.

 5.). Also why do sisters still have to 'vail their faces' in a certain part of an ordinance in the Temple I always feel it very discriminating towards women when that happens. 

If you're looking for discrimination, you will find it everywhere including places where it doesn't exist.. I suggest you go through the temple again paying close attention to the symbolisms and what they symbolize.  If you're not sure about a certain symbol, like the veil, you can ask any of the temple workers to explain it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lehite said:

I'm finding it annoying when women are still treated as the 'lesser sex' in today's world and in the church . Also on the same note, how come there aren't as many women Sunday school presidents or councillors etc, likewise men on primary presidencies,  what about 'non practicing' Temple recommend holding gay men teaching, or being on a primary presidency or auxiliaries ? Or non practicing gay women in auxiliary presidencies ?  Mixed presidencies in non priesthood callings . Also why do sisters still have to 'vail their faces' in a certain part of an ordinance in the Temple I always feel it very discriminating towards women when that happens. 

Actual woman here.

I find it annoying when people try to tell me I have to be just like a man in order to be not be the "lesser sex". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you would agree @Lehite that God is not sexist. So the real question you should be inquiring of God is whether the different roles of men and women in the Church have come by way of his direction. If so then you will know that the differences serve a purpose in his plan. But as with any question we ask God we must be willing to accept the answer wholeheartedly and without reservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lehite said:

I'm finding it annoying when women are still treated as the 'lesser sex' in today's world and in the church .

Like, for example...men holding doors?

2 hours ago, Lehite said:

Also on the same note, how come there aren't as many women Sunday school presidents or councillors etc, likewise men on primary presidencies,  what about 'non practicing' Temple recommend holding gay men teaching, or being on a primary presidency or auxiliaries ?

Are you a Social Justice Warrior in training? Because you certainly take profound offense on behalf of others just like one. To answer your questions:

  • Women are not Sunday School presidents or counselors because the Handbook specifies, "Members of the ward Sunday School presidency are priesthood holders." Ergo, no women.
  • Men do not serve on Primary presidencies because the Handbook specifies, "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president." Women serve on presidencies with other women, not with men.
  • Gay men are called as teachers and to serve on auxiliaries. You are simply wrong on these points. It is possible that a bishop may decide not to call a homosexual man to teach children, because he wants other modeling. That is the bishop's decision to make.
  • Gay men are men. (You might have missed that.) They do not serve on presidencies with women, including on Primary presidencies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does any of these "annoyances" create a "lesser sex"? Do these "annoyances" extend to the Godhead as well, as the Godhead is the Father (male), the Son (male), and the Holy Ghost (male)? Are you therefore "annoyed" with the Father because his "presidency" is all male, and according to your frame of reference thus treating women as a "lesser sex"?

A presidency, with specific roles and responsibilities, does not make any sex of lesser value should the presidency be all male or all female. Just as the Godhead does not lessen Heavenly Mother, nor make her a lesser/weaker sex (I am pretty sure she doesn't feel weak or of a lesser sex to her companion).

"Blessed are the ameek: for they shall inherit the bearth."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lehite

i understand your concerns.  

To be honest, i think you will see the Church change their policies regarding this.  To an extent they already are.  But it takes time.  They move slowly, especially in matters like these.  My suspicion is that at some point, there will be a statement similar to blacks getting the priesthood, except it will be women getting the priesthood, and then the changes will take place very quickly.  Sadly, i believe there is a Biblical basis for the perceived 'inferiority' of women.  Some mentions of equality too, of course, but a lot of references to the woman being subject to the man.  And a lot of organizations have latched onto that and designed their organizations accordingly.  And most certainly, the world at large seems to function this way also.  Personally, i don't agree with these references in the Bible, and i tend to think this is more a result of the biases of people who wrote the Bible (Similar to Paul's talk on slavery), than because there is truth to it, though i am sure i will take some guff about this. 

Just be patient and try to be compassionate when you feel your concerns are trivialized.  By expressing them civilly,  i think you help bring about the change you seek.  We are all doing the best we can - but neither people, nor the organizations they run will be perfect in this life.  Nor is it fair or healthy for us to expect them to be.

In the meantime, know that how you're treated never has, and never should, control how you see yourself -or how God sees you.  You are plenty good enough and equal in the eyes of God to anyone else - including and especially any man.

Edited by lostinwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my 53 years as a member I only know of one sister serving as a Sunday school president and another on another Sunday school presidency. I'm glad some of you picked out  that gay men are still men and gay women are still women , I didn't realise that ?.

I think in the future we might see more mixed auxiliary presidencies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I have four children and soon to be 7 grandchildren ( not a big family as in Utah standards) . Three are married in the Temple and the youngest lad at 22 is autistic and is still at home . We love our children and grandchildren all the same, we have taught our children to respect and honour the role of motherhood and the equality of brothers and sisters. My wife and I work together as one and we don't treat each other in any lesser degree , we recognise each other's skills and talents and work together that way. At the moment a high councillor looking after a small unit of 60 + members, but also my wife is nursery leader again, and I'm able to assist her in her calling ( which she has told me she greatly apreciates ) we work well together, we only have 6-8 children in nursery and there are only two leaders called. It's sad that people refuse a calling in nursery, it's a wonderful place to serve . We teach the children to play, share and associate nicely together. Brothers and sister should work together more. Couples serve on missions together, why not members in units. Whatever calling my wife and I have had, we have served together and helped each other out. We should not just look at a brother or sister that can only serve in this way or that, the Lord uses them wherever he feels fit, he knows us more than we know ourselves and our best points. Maybe there will be change on the horizon,  I hope so, but until then, keep serving.  ( and if any of you get asked to serve in nursery ...DONT REFUSE. You are missing a lovely calling ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

 My suspicion is that at some point, there will be a statement similar to blacks getting the priesthood, except it will be women getting the priesthood, and then the changes will take place very quickly.  Sadly, i believe there is a Biblical basis for the perceived 'inferiority' of women.  Some mentions of equality too, of course, but a lot of references to the woman being subject to the man.  And a lot of organizations have latched onto that and designed their organizations accordingly.  And most certainly, the world at large seems to function this way also.  Personally, i don't agree with these references in the Bible, and i tend to think this is more a result of the biases of people who wrote the Bible (Similar to Paul's talk on slavery), than because there is truth to it, though i am sure i will take some guff about this. 

I don't think this will happen, as the LDS church main core is based on the scriptures of the LDS church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price).  In view of the proclamation to the family (which in essence, doubled down on the LDS idea regarding families), and it's adherence to that, I doubt this is going to occur.

If it did occur, it could prove interesting.  Many of the conservative Southern Baptists actually have stricter bylaws in their church regarding women in leadership.  As they try to adhere as closely as they can to the Bible, they take what the New Testament states in regards to the different roles of men and women very seriously.

The LDS church used to be more conservative/closer to the Bible in some ways than these churches, but in recent times it does appear that the LDS church is slowly growing more liberal in some areas than the Southern Baptists or the evangelical Christians along the lines of the conservative Pentecostals and others.  I am not sure that this means the LDS church is going to get THAT much more liberal than it already is ahead of these churches.  My thoughts are that women gaining the priesthood the same as men is not going to be something the LDS church has in it's future.  It is probably more likely that Gay Marriage is recognized before that...and I give that as low a chance as pigs flying into an icy freezing lava flow which then has frozen over while paraded over by efreeti and fire imps...but I do not know the mind of the Lord exactly.

If the Lord so deems in the future...well...

Now, of interest, women can still hold the priesthood in two ways.  The first is one that is not well known by many saints.  A higher order of the priesthood that is still part of the Melchezidek priesthood, and is thus under it's domain of priesthood.  This priesthood is held jointly by both a husband and a wife.  It does not make the wife a usurper of her husbands priesthood, but it is one of the family unit where the father presides, but is also equal to the mother and should treat her as his equal and helpmate.  There should be no abuse, nor other such things, but as this priesthood is one that a man cannot have without the woman, nor the woman without the man, they should be one with it.

This priesthood order is the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood, which one can only obtain via an eternal marriage (aka...sealed in the temple for all eternity).

Quote

It is that we can enter an order of the priesthood named the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (see D&C 131:2), named also the patriarchal order, because of which order we can create for ourselves eternal family units of our own, patterned after the family of God our Heavenly Father.

It is that we have power, by faith, to govern and control all things, both temporal and spiritual; to work miracles and perfect lives; to stand in the presence of God and be like him because we have gained his faith, his perfections, and his power, or in other words the fulness of his priesthood.

This, then, is the doctrine of the priesthood, than which there neither is nor can be anything greater. This is the power we can gain through faith and righteousness.

Bruce R Mckonkie Talk on Priesthood

Why is this order so much greater than other orders of the priesthood, as Ezra Taft Benson states

Quote

The Church was created in large measure to help the family, and long after the Church has performed its mission, the celestial patriarchal order will still be functioning. This is why President Joseph F. Smith said: “To be a successful father or a successful mother is greater than to be a successful general or a successful statesman,” and President David O. McKay added: “When one puts business or pleasure above his home, he, that moment, starts on the downgrade to soul weakness.” And this is why President Harold B. Lee said, “The Church must do more to help the home carry out its divine mission.” (God, Family, Country, p. 223.) 14

That would probably ALSO include, it is greater to be a successful father or successful mother than a successful Stake President, or Seventy, or even apostle.  Failure in the home is greater than any other failure.  It is the family unit that is the focus in the LDS church, and therefore, the highest positions in the church are not necessarily the administrative positions some people yearn for (such as Bishop, or Sunday School President, or even Seventy) but that found in the home under that Patriarchal order in the callings of Father and Mother led by the Lord in righteousness.

As far as the LDS church goes in regards to the Priesthood, this article still seems valid today in many ways.

Marriage and the Patriarchal Order article in the Ensign

Quote

When a decision is reached in any matter, the two marriage partners must be as one in pursuing the objective, whatever it may be. A wise couple will learn to sustain and support each other in their proper roles in leadership and partnership. There will never be lobbying with family or friends for support against a decision made in the proper way. To do so would be to invite contention and competition which will surely be destructive to the happiness and harmony of the marriage.

Quote

Under these circumstances the importance of patience and adaptability is heightened. The wholesome qualities, interests, and attributes that are valued by both husband and wife should become a center of focus and be reinforced. Husbands and wives should concentrate on the points of acceptable agreement and avoid, as much as possible, those areas that incite disagreement and contention. This may mean staying away from haranguing discussions or arguments over points of doctrinal belief or over areas of personal conduct that cause friction. If a genuine love and respect for one another can be fostered in those areas of the relationship where harmony and understanding are easily achieved, then a foundation is laid upon which one can base some hope for eventual agreement and cooperation in the areas of present conflict.

I am not suggesting that this kind of adaptability should lead either of the partners to compromise on ideals and commitments that are essential to self-respect and a loyalty to true principles. I know of no enduring benefit that has come from this kind of compromise. I am speaking primarily of focusing energy and attention upon the things that do not require such compromise, but that bring mutual satisfaction and a wholesome respect for each other.

The most important thing is to avoid judgment, contention, and criticism. These are destructive to harmony and peace. To do so may require great forbearance and patience, but there are many instances where such patience and forbearance have been rewarded with eventual transformations of belief and performance on the part of the nonconforming partner. In any case, every husband and wife is under the absolute necessity of exhausting every possibility for bringing about success and happiness in marriage. Setting arbitrary deadlines and threatening to dissolve the relationship are of little benefit.

The entire article is a good read, but there may be some things you might not agree with.  I, however, have also put in some quotes above some things that may be of interest to you. 

The core unit of the LDS church, and the most important is not the ward, or the stake, but the family.  It is the family that our doctrines are centered in in regards to exaltation, and the family unit which holds the greatest success or failures in regards to leadership, unity, and service as well as love to one another that we have in this earth (In my opinion).  This is the importance of that priesthood and that of the Patriarchal order itself.

As I said before, no other calling is greater than that of one called, and ordained under the Priesthood of the Lord into that Patriarchal order to be a Father or Mother in a family unto the Lord.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lostinwater said:

@Lehite

Sadly, i believe there is a Biblical basis for the perceived 'inferiority' of women.  Some mentions of equality too, of course, but a lot of references to the woman being subject to the man.  And a lot of organizations have latched onto that and designed their organizations accordingly.  And most certainly, the world at large seems to function this way also.  Personally, i don't agree with these references in the Bible, and i tend to think this is more a result of the biases of people who wrote the Bible (Similar to Paul's talk on slavery), than because there is truth to it, though i am sure i will take some guff about this. 

 

Sounds like you need to write your own Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lehite said:

I'm finding it annoying when women are still treated as the 'lesser sex' in today's world and in the church . Also on the same note, how come there aren't as many women Sunday school presidents or councillors etc, likewise men on primary presidencies,  what about 'non practicing' Temple recommend holding gay men teaching, or being on a primary presidency or auxiliaries ? Or non practicing gay women in auxiliary presidencies ?  Mixed presidencies in non priesthood callings . Also why do sisters still have to 'vail their faces' in a certain part of an ordinance in the Temple I always feel it very discriminating towards women when that happens. 

Opinion only:

Different people might treat women as lesser in and out of the Church. The reasons for this are varied and are complex but charity would resolve it.

If you feel a calling in a Sunday School or Primary presidency is not inspired, by all means have a discussion with the Church leader who called them.

I've seen worthy gay men serve in a number of teacher and auxiliary callings (but why are you specifying the Primary presidency for them?). The same with worthy gay women.

I think mixed presidencies of three presidents would be problematic in most cultures, and generally it takes more than a married couple to form an auxiliary presidency. I'm sure there are instances where a couple might have been called to serve as a Sunday School presidency, depending on the demands of local requirements.

Any Handbook guidance is there because experience has shown that it needs to be; that too many people have asked; too many have failed or faced problems with the alternative; etc.

The gender differences in the temple covenants and actions are symbolic in a number of ways. The veil is one of them. Some are behind the scenes, so one sex would not know what the other is covenanting unless they shared some rather detailed specifics, or otherwise found out. This offers insight into the use of the veil. I could offer a few and none of them have nothing to do with sexism, only with unfathomable blessings. But ask your temple president!

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Opinion only:

Different people might treat women as lesser in and out of the Church. The reasons for this are varied and are complex but charity would resolve it.

If you feel a calling in a Sunday School or Primary presidency is not inspired, by all means have a discussion with the Church leader who called them.

I've seen worthy gay men serve in a number of teacher and auxiliary callings (but why are you specifying the Primary presidency for them?). The same with worthy gay women.

I think mixed presidencies of three presidents would be problematic in most cultures, and generally it takes more than a married couple to form an auxiliary presidency. I'm sure there are instances where a couple might have been called to serve as a Sunday School presidency, depending on the demands of local requirements.

Any Handbook guidance is there because experience has shown that it needs to be; that too many people have asked; too many have failed or faced problems with the alternative; etc.

The gender differences in the temple covenants and actions are symbolic in a number of ways. The veil is one of them. Some are behind the scenes, so one sex would not know what the other is covenanting unless they shared some rather detailed specifics, or otherwise found out. This offers insight into the use of the veil. I could offer a few and none of them have nothing to do with sexism, only with unfathomable blessings. But ask your temple president!

 

Missed the full stop. That sentence wasn't intended to isolate just to primary, but was referring to any auxiliary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Grunt said:

Sounds like you need to write your own Bible.

Thanks Grunt.  We definitely agree that any attempt by me to do that would be a complete disaster. :)

However, it's my opinion that the idea that anyone who challenges an aspect of the Bible is automatically campaigning for it's replacement is inaccurate.  

It's far too common for people  - myself included sadly - to conceals one's doubts (and so never deal with them) or muffle one's conscience when we view everything in absolute terms.  Our society tends to encourage it, i think.  It makes the world a simpler place to understand.  @Lehite is expressing concerns many people feel.  Not all of course, but many.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

The rearing of children are the primary responsibility of women in the same manner that the rearing of children are the primary responsibility of Mothers in the family.

 

But yet there are numerous men called to be Primary teachers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't make changes in the church purely to increase inclusion if a perceived minority. If I were a quorum president and chose a counselor who was black and another that was Asia on the basis of increasing inclusion, I would not be acting by revelation, but by my own agenda.

The same can be said about changes in policy. It needs to be coupled with revelation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I guess if we are going to have dissension in the church; it should ought to be about things that really do not matter.   With all that is problematic with humanity – someone wants to worry about this stuff?  I can understand the logic of going for low hanging fruit – but going for fruit rotting on the ground????

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Isn’t God absolute?

Thanks.

Yep, no disagreement there.

For me though, God is not equivalent to the Mormon church.  If they were, then there would be no errors, no mistakes, etc., - which of course there are.  And why should i expect there won't be?  People like me are involved, after all.  i know this is a fundamental difference in the way i view things from most people on this forum, and readily admit it is only my opinion - being worth just about what you paid for it.

i am not saying that God does not work with the church - i think He does.  i think God works with everyone and everything.  

But i've grown very wary of someone who tells me to stifle my conscience because they speak for God.  There's been an awfully lot of people who've said exactly the same thing over the past few thousand years.  Sometimes, good results - but from everything i've read, that's the exception and not the rule.

i apologize if i've taken this thread off it's topic.  i guess my opinion/message to the OP is that not everything that is was meant to be, or will be that way long-term, and that struggling with something and coming to a conclusion people tell you isn't an acceptable conclusion doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong or a bad person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lehite said:

I think in the future we might see more mixed auxiliary presidencies. 

lol . . .yeah right.  People seem to have lost their scruples.  Okay this is easy.  Men are naturally attracted to women and women naturally attracted to men. Generally speaking presidencies have a lot of one-on-one meetings together.  Women are (in general) better about making sure everyone is there (1st,2nd,secretary, etc) but there are going to be plenty of meetings at either the Church building, someone's house, getting up early to go to meetings where it will lead to a one-on-one situation.

I trust my wife, and she trusts me, but no way in hades I'd want her as part of a mixed auxiliary and the same for me. . . . .(sigh) whatever happened to common sense.

Oh yeah that's right, it's now sexist of me to not go on a business trip with only a female co-worker and to not go out to dinner in the evening . . . (sigh) . . . idiots.

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Actual woman here.

I find it annoying when people try to tell me I have to be just like a man in order to be not be the "lesser sex". 

Amen.  I find it so annoying to completely demean my wife when someone says she needs to be just like me in order to be equal. Her job is extremely important, and I value everything she does; I couldn't do what I do without her and she couldn't do what she does without me.  Her job (of raising children and ensuring a proper home environment) is of paramount importance. 

Working together in her role and me in mine we can create something much greater than our individual parts. This is the beauty of family, the beauty of life.  Equal doesn't mean and never has meant same.  Equal means the man is not without the woman and the woman is not without the man; without the other they are incomplete. They each bring their own unique inherent designs into a relationship to create something more.  They are different and different is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

There's been an awfully lot of people who've said exactly the same thing over the past few thousand years.  Sometimes, good results - but from everything i've read, that's the exception and not the rule.

Yeap, it's the "new" age of enlightenment.  God bless us because we are so, so much better than those racists, misogynist pigs who lived in the past.  We are the best that have every lived-no one in the past has ever had the knowledge that we do to look upon the "wisdom of the ages" and spit upon them.  Thank you God b/c we are so great!!!

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share