Last week I attended the Rexburg temple with my husband. The Idaho Falls temple is closed for a year and half for renovations so all temple traffic comes north this way. Knowing that we need to show up 45+ minutes before a session just to have a prayer of making it in, we went to do initiatories. I walked in and the wait for women’s initiatories was over an hour and a half. Over twelve women were sitting in chairs waiting their turn to do temple work. I went back to the hallway and asked a temple worker to grab my husband, who as it turns out only had a ten minutes wait. The workers suggested we do sealings, which had no wait.
Fifteen minutes later we walk into the sealing room. There were five women and four men. After a while a temple worker ducked his head in and the sealer said, “Wait! we need one more man for sealings!” Now we could finally seal sons to parents. One woman was participating in sealing a son to his parents and the rest of the four women sat and watched. Five men needed, one woman. When it was our turn to participate in the sealings I looked down at the altar.
It was covered with the lace covering that seems to be the standard decoration on temple altars. As I participated in the sealings I felt an affirmation that priesthood keys seal families together. I also glanced up at the sealer surrounded by two priesthood holders witnessing the sealings, and then glanced down at the lace covering and felt sadness. Each lace tatting represents dozens and dozens of hours of women attempting to consecrate their time and efforts into building the kingdom of God . . . in an absolutely UNnecesary way. Nothing would change our ordinances at all if there were no lace coverings on the altars of the temple.
I thought of all the hours and effort of service of women in the Church that happen in unnecessary ways. I noticed the four women sitting on chairs in the sealing room observing the sealings for 15 minutes; but being limited in the ways they could serve. No logical reason keeps them out of the witness chairs, but they sat patiently there waiting to take turns being needed. I thought of all the places around the world where faithful women live but cannot be organized in branches and wards because men are necessary to create them. I know deep down that the service of women (mostly mothers) in the church is valued as equally as men’s service is. I doubt many people dispute that. But we are sooo limited in the ways we can serve that often we dedicate hours of service into unnecessary things.
At General Conference Elder Uchtdorf referenced sisters making elaborate handouts and the need to simplify our discipleship. And when Pres. Nelson said, “[Sisters,] we need you to speak up 
and speak out,” I thought back to my mother’s day talk – when I asked to speak last my bishopric was so concerned about my unorthodox request they asked me to give them a summary of what I was going to speak about. Ummm, “Women of God?” It is my experience that you don’t need to speak to women about the importance of speaking up and out in their wards and stakes. If there are issues with women not speaking, by and large it’s because they’ve been conditioned to listen instead, and to sometimes speak… usually waiting to be asked first (but not too much!). If women aren’t speaking up enough it might not be their own fault and you may need to look at the cause that created the circumstance, eh? {sigh}
If the voices of women are so needed in building up the kingdom of God, why do we only hear from two (not including the women’s session) of them over the General Conference weekend? There are plenty of General Auxiliary leaders serving on boards in addition to our three female presidencies. There’s nothing but tradition holding us back from having more of our general female leaders from speaking.
So while I value the message of female empowerment Pres. Nelson shared, I accordingly think our understanding of the role of women in the kingdom of God needs to expand to match our “more empowered” women. Is our authority to receive revelation and preach and expound doctrine equal or not? Welp, then…..it’s really the men with the power to grant women more ways/space to serve, speak, and influence, isn’t it?
Wheat & Tares 
The lace is an interesting example. I’m going to ruminate on that one. Yes, this was similar to how Pres. Nelson’s talk struck me. My own view is that if he was talking to the men, that makes some sense. If he was talking to the women, I dunno, do some women need to be told to speak up? Maybe. But to do so they need to feel they will be listened to.
I have a good friend who was the Primary President a few years ago. She was well regarded in the ward, and she kept making requests for specific callings to be filled with certain people. She brought names forward repeatedly, but because the bishop didn’t follow up, callings weren’t getting filled. Then others would get precedent. She was one of the most faithful people I’ve ever met, yet when I caught her in an unguarded moment, she expressed strong frustration with how her requests were constantly dismissed or people she requested were given to others over her. That’s a feeling not uncommon to women in the church.
And yet most of the issues women have aren’t local. My bishop who is wonderful and listens well can’t change the manuals, undo the church’s stance on polygamy, or eliminate sexism from the temple. He might even like to do those things, but he simply can’t. Those who can are out of reach.
I had such a hard time believing Elder Nelson since just a few talks earlier Elder Stevenson had outlined his call to apostle and ended by saying that he told his wife all about it afterwards.
I often think about this. If every woman disappeared from church on Sunday, things could carry on. Not so much if there are no men.
I remember back during the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina, our stake was called to give relief efforts. In our small ward, almost every man went (as well as many women) save a few who physically couldn’t. On Sunday, there were only four priesthood holders in attendance. It took quite a while to pass the Sacrament, because there was only one person who could do it. Yet all these sisters sat in the pews, unable to bless, pass, or even preside/conduct the meeting.
So yes- valued, but not needed.
Do keep in mind that most voice applications (e.g., the computer “speaks”) utilize a FEMALE voice b/c men are more inclined to pay attention to a female than a male voice. Supposedly the reverse is not true for women (e.g., they pay attention equally to either male or female voices). IDK where this was documented, but hence why Majel Barrett-Roddenberry was the ‘voice’ of the Enterprise computer on ST:TNG and so on.
I usually get far more out of what the sisters have to say even though the various brethren, especially the First Presidency, have much I want to hear (y’know, come listed to a PROPHET’S voice…). To me, they’re not as pompous as SOME brethren come across as being. I could do with more sisters speaking.
On my mission, since we had a higher than normal portion of sisters serving, they were organized into a Sisters zone, with several sister districts. This until the word came down that “NO”, the positions were PH-only, so the sister companionships had to be dispersed amongst the elders. Neither the sisters nor the elders were happy about that, b/c the sisters worked better and their ‘leaders’ were just as proficient in that role. While we had that Sisters Zone the other ZLs (I was one) had no trouble seeing the female ZLs as peers. And it had absolutely nothing to do with ‘feminazism’, or “Womyn’s Lib” (still a contemporary term), or other nonsensical egalitarian notions. It had everything to do with the sisters, by necessity of primarily teaching women, worked best and socialized best within their gender, and since no dating or other ‘hanky-panky’ was supposed to happen anyway, you’d think that’d be what the Church would want.
Like later on when in the service of Uncle Sam, I’ll do my work as directed, but that doesn’t mean that I like it. If I don’t, I’ll just keep it to myself and serve and at least try to put a smile on my face. Doesn’t help to be a “gloomy Gus” just b/c I don’t get MY way.
My reaction to the talk was the same. Funny that I had the same thoughts last time we did sealings. We waited and waited while there were many women available to serve. It makes me really sad.
I am glad he spoke plainly about women being equal leaders with their husbands in their homes, which sadly is still a problem I’ve seen, and basically say women need to have a voice in the church. But who decides whether a woman’s voice actually gets listened to and her advice taken? A woman can talk and suggest but that does not mean any of her ideas will be used. My experience in leadership has been that we as women are ignored. One bishopric member told the primary presidency that we were too needy, when in reality we were in desperate need of teachers. Decisions are up to a man ultimately. I want more than words telling me I’m important. I want actions.
It is absolutely ridiculous that women can’t at least serve as witnesses of a sealing. I guess they just can’t be trusted by God….. (facepalm)
My mother tatted many altar clothes. She was very pleased to do that.
Stephen, my grandmother and great grandmother and many family members also tatted lace and would have been honored if any of them were used in the temple (I’m not sure if any of them actually were). Of course women would be pleased to have their talents used – I just wish more of our talents were necessary.
I agree, we are not functionally needed. Margaret Thatcher Ulrich gave a presentation once and challenged women to close the power differential with men by investing their time and talents into efforts which have historical permanence instead of traditionally female arts which are most often temporary. So, write your story in a journal or publication instead of decorating cakes or doing fabric arts. Women’s ideas and advocacy need to take hold somehow. Your thoughts remind me of her sentiments.
That being said, as a musician and a mason, I honor and respect the role of crafts-persons (men and women) who worship by temple-building. Paintings, music, upholstery, carpentry, fabric, architecture, stained glass, etc. are all part of our sacred devotion and (I argue) a necessary element of temple worship. We should give credit to the men and women- the saints- whose skilled craftsmanship is literally placed on the alter for God. It isn’t about gold or granite, it’s about the intellectual development and refined talent that is both received and given.
The tatting or crochet often reflects sacred geometry, involves mathematics and literally decades of practice. I’ve been crocheting lace for about 10 years now and cannot replicate the work I’ve seen in any temple. (I’m not even close.) A tatted cloth that size is composed of literally tens of thousands of knots tied in precision and could take even a decade to make (if the gauge were fine. A tatted bedspread cover is a lifetime project.) How many hours have the organists practiced in order to play? The violinists in the orchestra? How many years of learning were invested in training the architect? The stone masons? The carpenters who carved spiral staircases and detailed furniture?
I wonder whether our desire to simplify craftsmanship in temples is a result of our congregationalist-puritanical culture. We now prefer bauhaus design. Our chapels, our conference center, our modern crafts all reflect a type of almost Baptist/Amish simplicity. We’ve moved away from the old Utah Tabernacle and ward house art and uniqueness. We no longer desire to create Assembly Hall Architecture, install battlements, or forge curly iron gates like we have in Manti or Logan.
Your post is a stark example of a complete prioritization of function over form. I tend to think that in religion the form (dreams, the mind, the aspriational) is more important than function.
Mortimer, it was President Uchtdorf who said women spend too much time doing unnecessary crafts, during his Conference talk last weekend. I know he means well, but I think many women would not choose to devote their time to crafts if permitted to contribute in more meaningful ways. Arts and crafts and fancy handouts are delightful, but not needed.
Recently i attended the temple with my daughter and son-in-law and performed 81 sealings, which took two and a half hours. I was grateful to the brother who although his shift finished he stayed to make sure that my family were sealed. I was grateful to those who came and went in the time we were there, for not only completing their own cards, but helping with mine too.
As for women having a voice in the church, for 19 years i taught the gospel doctrine class, I have known sisters be the final speaker in sacrament, maybe that is just your Bishop, I have conducted meetings in RS and i have served a 2 year mission for Family Search, where i served a trainer. I have given presentations in ward and stake meetings too.
I think sometimes we sisters let what the world sees as acceptable cloud our thoughts about our divine nature. Having been a single sister for quite some years and a single parent I have not always felt like i fit in, but i have never felt like i have been doing unnecessary work.
Maybe the witnesses have to be male so there’s no risk of funny-business with the sealer 😉
^ is there a parallel club in the temple to the mile-high club that I don’t know about!?!
That was a great post; I loved all of it! I have the same thoughts everywhere in the temple – why can’t women check recommends at the front desk, stand by the baptistry and feed names into the projector, or be a witness to verify that an ordinance was done correctly? None of those things have any need for priesthood keys or authority, but they are still delegated only to men, even when the halls are lined with women, eager to participate in temple work somehow. It’s all cultural norms. I hope these things start changing soon, too.
I’ll just point out that women have ostensibly been given the same priesthood in the temple that the men have. They also serve as witnesses in the endowment sessions, plus perform initiatory duties with that authority.
So, what’s the reason that women aren’t authorized witnesses to sealings and baptisms?
#9 – reminds me that if nothing else (and there is far more “else” that I won’t begin to describe it for I am inadequate) the Sisters bring beauty and grace into this world, starting with their lovely selves. Any man worthy of remotely being described as one acknowledges that his eternal companion truly is his “better half”. Else methinks this world would be like one big “Death Star”…yea, functional and projecting all power, but cold, stark, and sterile, emphasizing only brute functionality. Never mind the persistent odor of stale beer and other fluids and all the empty beer cans strewn about.
This post is particularly timely for me as I am having my son blessed this coming Sunday. Both my husband and I have 3 sisters. He has no brothers and I have one who is severely mentally ill and lives out of state. Out of all our close family members, there are 3 who are able to participate in the blessing circle (including my husband). On the other hand, there are about 7 women who would be able to participate if women were allowed to participate. We will have rows of righteous women sitting there beaming up at the 3 men who can participate in the circle.
On a related note, when I told my sister about the blessing she jokingly said, “Can I go up and participate in the circle?” I told her that I’d be fine with her trying but I didn’t think she’d get very far. Her 8 year old daughter looked at me very sadly and said, “No, only boys are allowed to do it.” It broke my heart.
If a woman can be the first witness to Christ’s resurrection, then why can’t women witness other ordinances?
#18 – “Ponder”, if you will, dear brother Pete, as to why not just any woman, but THAT woman, was the first “Hew-Mon” to witness the resurrected Savior, and why the Gospel chronicler would feel inspired to record it. I have mine own opinion, but since it’s just the “Gospel according to Doug”, it remains that until clarified by further revelation if and when we get it.
Margaret Thatcher Ulrich
Is she the one who said “Well-behaved women do not penalize the successful”?
#17 – EBK – the ‘participation’ you’ve already rendered is far more meaningful. Your husband and fellow PH holders gathering in a circle and balancing the baby boy is but proverbial icing on the cake. Sure, afterwards, he’ll hold the child up, beaming proudly (“Looky what I done!”), but as a father of FOUR girls (three biological, one by marriage), and a slew of granddaughters, I already KNOW who did the “heavy lifting”. Since I’m the only male in the Church (and my older Sis has long been inactive) in my family, I know full well having but ‘strangers’ to stand in the circle with me. But of course, as the Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:19, they weren’t ‘strangers’ anymore.
I’m sure there’s many a sister in this Church that would very much like to see their spouse (if indeed they have one) be able and willing to perform ordinances that they themselves aren’t authorized to do so. Count your MANY blessings…I certainly do mine.
I think she meant Laurel Thatcher Ulrich….
First, wanted to point out that Family History is one of the most egalitarian aspects of the church. When you look at a fan chart, you are in the bottom middle. Half of your ancestors are women and half your ancestors are men. We do work for each individual: male or female, single or married, died young or died old. In the sealing session, one male and one female represent the couple. You then need one man to represent any sons, and one woman to represent any daughters. That’s equal.
The inequality is represented by the three male individuals officiating in the sealing ordinance: the sealer himself and two witnesses. It would seem that the witness position could easily allow female participants, but it would still require a major shift in understanding of the priesthood. To the best of my understanding, you cannot hold the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood without belonging to a specific office. So the Melchizedek Priesthood power in the temple granted to women is still slightly different, because they haven’t been ordained to specific offices. When church guidelines require witnesses to be Melchizedek Priesthood holders, it is implicitly understood to refer to persons holding specific Melchizedek priesthood offices (in the case of regular live baptisms, witnesses are only eligible if they hold the Aaronic office of Priest, or any office of the Melchizedek Priesthood). The brethren would need to view the position of a witness as not requiring ordination to a specific priesthood office in order to allow endowed women to participate.
Elder Oaks in a general conference awhile back tentatively suggested a philosophy of a type of priesthood authority/power available to women that exists somewhat apart from the power tied to specific priesthood offices, but I don’t think this idea is developed enough for the brethren to feel comfortable putting endowed women in positions currently requiring ordination to priesthood office. This non-office type of priesthood power is still considered subordinate to that tied to priesthood office. The power granted to women to participate as workers in initiatories and endowments is limited to administering to other women, not to men who hold priesthood office. I can’t think of any current ordinance that allows a woman to be in an authoritative position over a man who holds priesthood office. Being a witness is definitely an authoritative position.
Callings outside the temple can put women in authoritative positions over men, but these are not involving saving ordinances inherently tied to the restoration of the priesthood. Those situations are also limited to auxiliary organizations, not the core priesthood quorums.
The equality represented by the family participants is not meant to refer to the wording of the sealing ordinance itself. That is a different subject which I am purposefully not addressing right now.
Thanks Mary Ann – I guess my whole experience at the temple (and not *just* during the sealing) represented faithful, empowered, willing women who are content to wait 1.5 hours to do temple work or sit 15 minutes watching sealings to rotate w other women to participate when only two are needed; because that’s how we are limited in service. If we expand our understanding of what women can do we would get more work done instead of having them line up waiting to put their two pence in. (I was frustrated with the initiatory line….).
And yes, it would require an interpretation of Elder Oaks’ comments of women being delegated priesthood authority by those who hold keys that our patriarchy is not willing and ready to make yet.
Mortimer: thanks for your comments about appreciating the contributions of artists amongst us. We have lost a bit of that, haven’t we. I hope one would look past my story and see symbolically what the alter covering represented: the contributions of empowered women doing everything they can to serve God, and being limited in the ways they can do so. I meant no slight to handcrafters and their art, I hope one could see through that moment in time for me to see the message.
FWIW on the whole PH/authority issue. Handbook 2,,2.1.1, seems to be clear that everyone, short of the leader holding keys, acts under assignment and delegated authority. I think this is the principle to which Elder Oaks was referring when he was trying to explain how sisters are able to perform certain tasks as ordinance workers in the temple. Aside from that, I think leaders have been very clear that sisters do not receive the priesthood (at least in this life) by virtue of their receiving their initiatory/endowment or from being sealed. The next question then becomes: If one is acting under assignment and delegated authority (say, as the Sunday School President), then why limit that calling to one who holds the priesthood? For example, and specific to the SS president: H2 12.2.2 expressly says members of the ward SS presidency are to be priesthood holders, preferably MP. Why worry about them being MP holders if they are acting under assignment and delegated authority, and not by virtue of the MP which they hold, itself? I don’t have an answer for that. But, if we start removing gender restrictions under the guise of assignment and delegated authority theory, then it would, by extension, open up all callings. Male Primary, RS and YM presidencies, female SS and YM presidencies,and so forth. The quorums would stay limited to priesthood holders because of the keys issue. I don’t know if that’s what we want or not.
Kristine,
I really hear you on this. Your examples of lacy altar covers and willing women waiting around in the temple make me ache for women’s frustrated energy.
Another example of this is couple missionaries. I’ll grant that there are those who serve equally and even those who are called specifically for the woman’s talents. But I see many couples who are called for what the man can give.
For example, I know a couple in which the man is the kind who would serve mission after mission. His construction expertise is valuable to the church, so off they go to assignments where he spends long hours doing work he loves. As for his wife, she drops all the projects she has going at home (and I’m not talking craft projects) and . . .
Well, on one mission, she made herself useful by teaching the local women how to care for their babies.
On another, she filled the time by making a scrapbook of the construction project and baking cookies for the workers. This was a live-at-home assignment where it might have worked just fine if her husband went to the worksite every day like a man going to his job while she stayed behind to build on the stalled career that was her best way to serve.
Every time I think about this, I get a little hot under the collar.
Let’s see,
5 Women Speakers out of the 9 Women leaders, That is more than 55% in my book.
34 men out of the 109 = 31%.
It appears the women speakers were proportional higher.
The terrible specter of Jeff. So the ratio under discussion, it seems to me, is 9 to 109, and I have no doubt that you are clever enough to know that. What’s to be admired in what you said, however, is its stirring the pot nature.
The irony is that more men than women are required to staff the temple, yet church culture and policies contribute to less men being able to serve in the temple. Full-time work and heavy administrative church callings leave little time to volunteer at the temple. Once guys hit retirement age, you start running into the life expectancy issue (women outliving men). Once kids are school-age, stay-at-home moms have more opportunity to do temple work. When I attend the temple in the middle of the day, it is almost always a 2-to-1 ratio of women to men. I have had similar experience with others in submitting family names directly to the temple – the temple work for women always get done way faster than that for men.
Kristine, you are correct that we have a disproportionate number of women willing and ready to serve. The whole priesthood thing really needs to get clarified before any changes will be made, though.
Kind of a tangent, but Kris Wright has some really interesting posts on Juvenile Instructor about women’s material contributions to temples historically.
Is there any reason the temple receptionist, who checks your recommend, and sometimes welcomes you, couldn’t be a woman?
When I asked my local temple president he said a group had tried to storm a temple in the Philippines, and so we had to have a man do it. A few minutes later there was a frail old fellow in his 80s fending of the hordes of philippinoes. Why could not women be witnesses to baptisms, and sealings?
I don’t think the kind of men who are called to be temple president are likely to use their initiative, they are not changing anything unless they are told from above in the heirachy.
After spending some time being the receptionist on the front desk I noticed that the front inner door was restricted from swinging inward, and about a third of patrons crashed into it, so I removed the stop. It took a bod from Utah to notice and demand it be restored.
I’m sure he would notice a woman serving inappropriately too.
I would like to think that talks like Elder Nelsons are warming us up for change, but I don’t really believe it when I think about the new Apostles.
Geoff-Aus, if you don’t think Elder Renlund has the capability to see expanded roles for women, then you haven’t been looking closely enough. Both conservative and liberal women have been absolutely smitten by the impressive credentials and views of his wife. She is the female equivalent of President Uchtdorf.
Kristine A.,
Great post. Yes, I see and agree completely with your point, but just see the symbolism in the metaphor differently as I greatly admire craftsmanship and see temple craftsmanship as one of the best places for gender equality in the church. Both men and women are the craftspersons for our temples, with very little (if any) boundaries. Who’s playing the violin? Organ? Who painted that? Who sewed that (a tailor or seamstress?) We don’t know. Men and women both contributed and here- thank G–, it doesn’t matter. Talent and passion are the great equalizers. But, yes I agree that in other areas, women’s contributions nearly everywhere else are frustrated into trivial areas by limiting gender roles.
April Young Bennett,
Well, if the Silver Fox said it, then perhaps women will take note. The “craft” debate is contentious. There are women who will not put down their glue guns. Women are their own worst enemies. No one is stopping local RS groups from revolutionizing their communities with service projects, with literacy initiatives, with welfare interventions. No one is stopping a local RS ward from teaching each other advanced lessons in art, science, business, music, literature, philosophy, religion, politics, ethics, etc. We set our OWN “enrichment” meetings, and usually end up making $2 crafts like “pine-cone snowmen Christmas tree ornaments” that eventually end up in the trash. And we wonder why we can’t get YW (millennials) to join us when they turn 18.
So, Elder Echtdorf has a point and it’s about time someone said it at the pulpit. Amen brother. Amen. (Some GA sisters have called for moving away from crafts too, we just didn’t listen.)
I love this post, Kristine! Thanks so much for saying this. I really like your example too. It’s a pity that it’s so easy for people to get hung up on it, though, perhaps in an effort to avoid addressing the central issue of women being marginalized.
http://thegoateskids.blogspot.com/2009/11/chapter-sixteen-patriarchal-order-of.html?m=1
If you read my previous entry/link in full, you will see that the glories of the world do not matter to faithful LDS women.