Mary Magdalene was the first mortal to see the Resurrected Jesus. According to scholars, that one tidbit adds authenticity to the story of Jesus’ resurrection. Women were considered unreliable witnesses. The Bible records that when she told the apostles, they didn’t believe her simply because she was a woman. Then when Jesus appeared to them, they finally believed her. (With the exception of Doubting Thomas, who also needed a personal visit.)
It seems that sexism still exists today. Women can’t serve as official witnesses to baptisms, sealings, or any salvific ordinances. They can’t serve as Sunday School Presidents, financial clerks, ward clerks, or many other callings (even if they are accountants, legal clerks, or have professional training in leadership.) Do you think that policy should change?
Wheat & Tares 
As a non member, i firmly believe that this policy should change , because many women are feeling excluded from church activities just because they are women and it is not good to exclude people, the best thing to do is include people.
I do think the policy should change.
It is just a matter of time and in small steps.
I also think that policy should change. It seems counterintuitive to have our young women recite a pledge to “stand as witnesses” every week only to have them graduate to relief society and be told their witnessing days are done.
Yes, that policy should be changed.
Unfortunately, the steps are going in the wrong direction. Ten years ago, I was Sunday School President and the Sunday School president in my ward was a woman. Today, that’s no longer allowed.
See, women can’t be witnesses because we have to save some jobs for the men! Otherwise, the men will feel useless because they are spiritually inferior and can’t give birth!
…yeah, it doesn’t sound any more convincing when I say it…
Yes, it should change. I’m not holding my breath, but I imagine it will at some point. I feel like the brethern are trying to fix our current problems by doing more of the same. When they realize that doesn’t work, the bigger changes will be more likely start.
That picture says a thousand words. The Savior saw the worthiness of women to witness. Whose church is this supposed to be again?
Do witnesses have to be able to perform the duties? Like if something goes awry, is the idea that they’re able to step in?
No, witnesses simply watch. In the case of a marriage, they sign their name. Obviously women are too unreliable to sign their name… We all know name signing requires priesthood after all…
Eh, my earlier comment should’ve been “the Sunday School Secretary” was a woman. To my knowledge, women have never been Sunday School Presidents, but at least they used to be able to serve in the Sunday School presidency as secretaries.
Tim, you were right the first time. When I was a gospel doctrine teacher at BYU in the early 2000’s the Sunday school president was female. I remember going with her to teach lessons at the Slate Canyon Youth Correctional Facility (some of the best Sunday school lessons ever). In the late 2000’s in Indianapolis we tried to call a woman as Sunday School president and the name got sent back by Salt Lake after they tried to put it in the computer saying it had to be filled by a Melchizedek priesthood holder. So the change happened sometime between those two events.
I do think the reason is because reserving more positions and more high profile positions gives men an incentive to remain engaged in religious spheres where they participate in ever decreasing numbers. It would be helpful if feminists acknowledged these sociological realities of the feminization of spirituality rather than sarcastically dismissing them. We miggy figure out something that works better for everyone.
About 3 years ago, we did have a female Sunday School Secretary. To my knowledge, no orgies occurred even though it was a mixed gender presidency.
So, if it’s women who start getting disaffected from the Church, will we begin excluding men from positions of authority, so that the women have an incentive to remain engaged?
>>Do witnesses have to be able to perform the duties?<<
If that were the case, then a temple marriage could only be witnessed by another sealer (or sealers). After all, the vast majority of MP holders do not actually hold the keys of sealing. So, if the sealer keels over with a heart attack in the middle of a marriage, you've actually got to call in another sealer (and, presumably, an ambulance).
Aren’t the couple in the endowment session referred to as “the witness couple,” which seems to imply both man and woman are serving as witnesses? As for baptisms and sealings, I don’t think it has anything to do with someone able to perform their duties. Maybe it’s because the witnesses are part and parcel to the ordinance itself, and because it is a priesthood ordinance, the witnesses must also hold the priesthood. (At least with sealings the sealer actually mentions the fact that the parties are consenting in front of witnesses.) That is just a guess on my part., and don’t know why we need witnesses for baptisms and sealings but not ordination to the MPH or confirmations or initiatory. It’ll be a good question to ask in the next life.
I think yes. My feeling is that many of the steps the church has taken recently increasing the opportunities for women to serve in the church (lowered age for sister missionaries, added to decision making councils of the church, etc) is laying the foundation for this very scenario.
The church has tied it’s hands to their view of some importance of priesthood to do some things and I’m not sure they understand why…just that priesthood seems to be needed for some things. And so it is. Traditions.
While most leaders probably don’t view it as “we don’t trust women”…they are stuck with maintaining some loyalty and order on the way things work in the church. It’s another mortal imperfection in our church, I believe. There is no reason for it.
I hope I am alive to see the day they run out of reasons to change these policies…and let it go.
“Aren’t the couple in the endowment session referred to as “the witness couple,” which seems to imply both man and woman are serving as witnesses?”
You are correct in saying they are called the “witness couple.” However, the function they serve is simply to demonstrate what’s supposed to happen. In the case of baptism, the witnesses are there to make sure the person goes all the way under the water. If the witness spots a problem, then the ordinance is repeated. In the case of sealings, the witnesses are there to make sure the sealer gets the names right. Once again, if the sealer gets the names wrong, then the ceremony is repeated correctly. The witness couple performs no such task in the Endowment. In fact, though they are called the witness couple, they do not witness anyone else, and do not stop an ordinance from being performed incorrectly, and do not stop an ordinance in order to repeat it. Essentially the witness couple in the Endowment ceremony are living mannequins, used solely for demonstration purposes. In fact, they receive the signs/tokens a second time (unlike anyone else) when they return to their seat. As such, their role is quite different than a witness at a baptism or sealing. The term “witness couple” would more accurately be described “demonstration couple” because they serve no theological role in witnessing anything pertaining to anyone else.
“The Bible records that when she told the apostles, they didn’t believe her simply because she was a woman. ” Where does it say they rejected Mary’s personal witness “simply because she was a woman’? In Luke 24:11 we read “And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” Hardly an indictment of some gender bias. I imagine just about anyone could have told the disciples that Jesus was not in the tomb and the disciples ‘ reaction would have been the same. I can’t say our own reaction today would be any different no matter who reported the miracle. In Mark we read that Christ appeared to two other disciples and they reported to the others, and the others didn’t believe them, either. (Mark 16:13). I think it’s a bit of a leap to conflate the news of the resurrection with woman serving as witnesses or in callings.
You are correct in saying they are called the “witness couple.” However, the function they serve is simply to demonstrate what’s supposed to happen………Once again, if the sealer gets the names wrong, then the ceremony is repeated correctly. The witness couple performs no such task in the Endowment. In fact, though they are called the witness couple, they do not witness anyone else, and do not stop an ordinance from being performed incorrectly, and do not stop an ordinance in order to repeat it. Essentially the witness couple in the Endowment ceremony are living mannequins, used solely for demonstration purposes. In fact, they receive the signs/tokens a second time (unlike anyone else) when they return to their seat. As such, their role is quite different than a witness at a baptism or sealing. The term “witness couple” would more accurately be described “demonstration couple” because they serve no theological role in witnessing anything pertaining to anyone else.
No, there is language in the endowment where covenants are given before God, angels and “these witnesses.” They are there for more than mere demonstration of tokens. They are there to serve as witnesses to the patrons making covenants.
In the case of baptism, the witnesses are there to make sure the person goes all the way under the water. If the witness spots a problem, then the ordinance is repeated.
I think they are there to make sure the baptismal prayer is said correctly and the person goes all the way under the water.
In the case of sealings, the witnesses are there to make sure the sealer gets the names right. Once again, if the sealer gets the names wrong, then the ceremony is repeated correctly.
They are also there to make sure the patrons are holding hands the correct way.
I think there’s more to this witness stuff than you give credit.
MH – I’m not criticizing your understanding of what witnesses do. As a patron you observe one thing. However, if you are a trained temple ordinance worker, you are taught to observe other things, and its those other things that help one understand what witnesses do and why they are important. It still doesn’t explain why women can’t serve as witnesses for sealings or baptisms.
“No, there is language in the endowment where covenants are given before God, angels and “these witnesses.” They are there for more than mere demonstration of tokens. They are there to serve as witnesses to the patrons making covenants.”
Perhaps you are correct, but it seems to me that these witnesses are referring to the Officiator and the Follower (both male and female) not the witness couple. I will give you credit for noticing that female temple workers are witnesses for observing that the “salvific” ordinance of the endowment is done correctly, but the witness couple serves no such purpose. I suppose that Elder Oaks said that female temple workers do hold priesthood while serving in the temple, so perhaps there is a legitimate priesthood role in witnesses. Of course, these female temple workers still cannot function as a witness at either a baptism or a sealing (in or out of the temple), despite holding the Melchizedek Priesthood in their role as a temple worker. What gives there?
“I think they are there to make sure the baptismal prayer is said correctly and the person goes all the way under the water.”
I see no conflict with what MH said when he said “If the witness spots a problem…” In the temple, however, the witnesses are only there to make sure the person goes under the water. The Recorder is to insure the correct words are used. As a temple worker, we’ve been told this countless times that we are not supposed to stop a temple baptism for wording problems–that is the Recorder’s responsibility.
“They are also there to make sure the patrons are holding hands the correct way.”
Not in my temple. That is the sealer’s responsibility. As a trained temple worker, that is what we have been trained to do.
Maybe it is different in other temples, but our instructions are very clear on the role of witnesses in my temple.
TTW on the Endowment witnesses: The “witnesses” can’t include the officiator because he is representing either God or Peter. The Recorder is responsible for baptsimal prayer being said, but if he misses something, the witnesses at water’s edge chime in and note the mistake. Same thing in sealings. If the parties don’t break grip and the sealer misses it, the witnesses chime in.
And yes, I know the witness couple also represent Adam and Eve and the male and female patrons. But it wouldn’t make sense to cal l them the witness couple if, in fact, they weren’t witnessing something.
What is the witness couple witnessing? Don’t you agree that demonstration couple is a more appropriate name because the witness couple does not stop anything, whereas a sealing witness or a baptismal witness stop the ordinance if it is being done wrong? Does a witness couple have any idea if something is done wrong? I went with my fiance a month or two before we were married and we were asked to be the witness couple. I was never instructed to stop an ordinance if it was incorrect, nor would I have had any clue if it was incorrect (except for the handshake stuff.)
But you do have a point. I do believe they use the words “witnesses at this altar” in the endowment ceremony. I guess I would still argue that the witness couple is more demonstrative in purpose than a true witness in the sense of baptism and sealing. It seems to me the temple workers are the true witnesses. They are the ones checking that the clothing is right, the signs are done correctly, and the wording at the veil is correct. The witness couple plays no role in any of these important steps, and I would still argue that “Witness couple” is a misnomer for their true purpose.
Bryan H. wrote:
“I do think the reason is because reserving more positions and more high profile positions gives men an incentive to remain engaged in religious spheres where they participate in ever decreasing numbers. It would be helpful if feminists acknowledged these sociological realities of the feminization of spirituality rather than sarcastically dismissing them. We might figure out something that works better for everyone.”
This is my husband’s point of view. He essentially says, “take it or leave it.” He didn’t make men the way they are, or the world the way it is, so don’t blame him and this-conversation-is-over.
Okay, but please don’t be surprised when women start detaching and decreasing their investment. So far, LDS leaders aren’t willing to do even a few important things to signal their respect for women – doing away with our subordination in the temple and the most offensive piece of modern scripture, Section 132. I’d have empathy and confidence that they’re truly struggling with “sociological realities” if they would show us – 21st century women! – 21st century respect in our most meaningful place.
MH – As in the sealing, they are witnessing the patrons’ consent to the covenants being administered. I know we give a lot of attention to the outward things , but in the end, perhaps it’s the consent given to accept the covenants that matter most of all. FWIW I’ll repeat again that I don’t know why sisters can’t be a witness, and I have an unorthodox view of sisters and brothers serving in callings. To me, all auxiliaries , clerks and executive secretaries should be fair game for across the board gender roles. Meaning, I have no more problem having a sister serve as SS or YM President than I do a man serve as RS, Primary or YW President.
I’ll stop beating the dead horse but I disagree that the Witness couple serves a purpose equivalent to the witness to a sealing. Once again, the witnesses in a sealing stop the ordinance when there is a problem. The Witness Couple in an endowment does not. To me that is a stark difference.
My two cents: what is a witness? Someone who is there when an act is performed and testifies/could testify that it was done, according to the Lord’s law of witnesses. All the witnesses mentioned here perform that duty, regardless of other “practical” duties they may or may not perform. I wouldn’t be surprised if witnesses’ names are recorded in heaven along with their testimony that the ordinances in question were performed.
Maybenot, how are the witness couple witnessing anything with respect to the other patrons. They are sat at the front. They don’t turn around to observe anyone else, don’t know who or how many people are there, or what those people are or are not doing. ..
HH – – largely symbolic but they are listening to the word “yes.” You can have an endowment session with only two people, who we still refer to as the witness couple.
I have bit my tongue not to answer the question in the title of “WHY CAN’T WOMEN BE WITNESSES?” with, “Because we are a patriarchal based religion.” Maybe MH is pushing for anybody to come up with support, but for me it just is that simple. Not saying all men in the church are MSP’s, but I think we have to admit we are at least a benevolent patriarchy.
Happy Hubby –
I’ve seen a lot of comments floating around the internet lately along the lines of “when someone says something hateful or discriminatory, believe them!” As in, believe that those comments show their true views and intentions, not as in believe that their views are factual or correct. The idea being to stop rationalizing and explaining away bias when we see it, but rather recognize it and treat it accordingly.
To that end, your comment reminded me just how often this church declares itself a patriarchy and uses the word patriarchal as a positive descriptor. From blessings to handshakes, the LDS Church proudly proclaims itself a patriarchy, and it’s time for us to believe them. The church is a patriarchy because its leaders believe patriarchy is good, and we’re never going to make any progress while that remains a fundamental belief.
ESD
How many successful female led religions can you think of?
Ronkonkma, about the same as the number of successful comments have you made.
Maybe Not, Remember that the officiator serves several roles. He represents both Peter, and God at the altar (as you said), but other times he serves other purposes. He witnesses that the prayer circle is done correctly (without being in the role of Peter or God.) The officiator also witnesses that clothing is put on properly (without being in the role of Peter or God), that the signs and tokens are done correctly. The Follower does this as well, and during the clothing part, the Officiator, follower, and female temple workers serve exactly the same roles. They are all witnesses to make sure the ordinances are completed correctly. But the witness couple serves has no impact on whether clothing, tokens, and signs are done correctly, meaning they don’t stop the ordinance or correct anyone for doing something incorrectly.
In the Salt Lake Temple, things are a bit different, and the signs and tokens are distributed to temple workers as well as Adam and Eve (who don’t come from the audience as at nearly all other temples.) In short, the Officiator is only Peter or God when standing at the altar. All other duties performed by the Officiator are done outside of the role of Peter or God.
MH: https://media.giphy.com/media/VCeVTCWnhNQt2/giphy.gif
Outside of the US women can and do serve as clerks and Sunday School presidencies. Our own theology and policy supports women in those roles – women should absolutely be allowed to witness and serve in those callings everywhere.
Hawkgrrrl – don’t provoke MH. You know what that will get you. On second thought, we can all use some entertainment.
Toad – Are you sure that is kosher with CHI for women to serve as clerks and SS Pres? I might have to go search for the (bootleg) online copy of handbook 1 and see what the wording is.
Happy Hubby – according to the church handbook women cannot serve as clerks and sunday school president. You are correct. However I have it on very good authority that it happens in Asian and other international congregations where there are literally hundreds of women to every man on the church records. If it were that unacceptable to the church (like giving them the priesthood) even making them clerks wouldn’t happen.
I guess I’ve always viewed the witness couple at the altar as a witness to be called upon at the judgement bar of God. Saying, yes, I was there when they made these covenants. They promised to do XYZ. When I act as part of a witness couple, I view it as a future responsibility I will have as another witness of the events. Then we may all hope, our Advocate will say, as witnessed by this couple, this person promised to do XYZ, and with my help they have done it.
Since I know very few people in the Endowment, I doubt I would be a reliable witness before God. I don’t think God will ask me anyway. “Were you a witness when this unworthy person tried to complete an endowment?” If the police wouldn’t trust my memory, I don’t think God would even bother asking me when I didn’t even turn around and scan the crowd to know if Individual B was even there.
I tend to think “Witness Couple” is used to mean a couple that gives the example of it, as in “Witness what they are doing, then do it.”
I have always felt bad, at my children’s sealings, as my husband takes his place at the head of the alter along with the father in law and the sealer. I am left sitting on the other side of the room with other “important guests”, my child’s
face looking the other direction as the sealer speaks. Even if it were only him signing the certificate, would it be too much to add a chair to either side, so all parents might be included in the inner circle?