Every once in a while, I like to do a post to assess progress for women in the church. Previous posts can be found here (2012) and here (2013).
The church has made some strides in elevating the status of women in the church. To name just a few changes that have happened since the inception of the bloggernacle:
- Women who are paid CES teachers are no longer fired when they have a baby. This was #3 on my first post linked above.
- Women were invited to pray at General Conference. This was #7 on my first post linked above.
- Pictures of women leaders were added to the conference center.
- Priesthood session was televised, available to all.
- Garments were redesigned and input from women sought before, during and after the process. (They still aren’t great, natch, but they were worse). This was #10 on the post linked above.
- Church HQ backed a woman’s right to wear pants to church, refusing to define “Sunday best” any further.
- Women’s session was included as a session of General Conference (while adding 8 year olds and up, greatly increasing the optics problem of infantilizing women).
- An essay on Heavenly Mother was released. (Buried in lds.org a little bit, and lacking in much substance, but so it was). This was #5 on my first post linked above.
- The mission age was lowered for women, creating much greater gender parity for mission service. (Women were also given limited leadership roles, only over other women, and with the caveat of “trainer” thrown in).
- Temple menstruation deemed OK.
- Including women in many previously all-male church councils. (While adding “and family” to the council name, because men don’t belong to families or ever think about them; only women do). This was #1 on my first post linked above.
- Beginning to back away from BSA to achieve gender parity in funding. (Early days on this one). #8 on my first post linked above.
Here is a starter list:
- Allow women to hold their babies during blessings.
- Invite women to serve as witnesses to ordinances like baptisms and sealings.
- Sunday School and Primary Presidency should be gender neutral.
- Merge HP and EQ to reduce redundancies in staffing ward positions.
- Mission President should be a title applied to both men & women.
- Hire women as church University Presidents.
- Allow women to be clerks, stake auditors, and Ward Mission Leaders.
- Allow YW and women to be interviewed by women leaders for temple recommends.
- At minimum, invite one woman to speak in each session of General Conference, including Priesthood session.
- Put the Relief Society President in charge of ward welfare decisions.
I haven’t mentioned two that are probably bigger than a bread box:
- Eliminate sexism from the temple. There are a few specific changes that would really help and would not be that difficult to do, but change to this is very slow.
- Ordaining women is bound to come up in the comments, and while it’s a “shortest distance between two points” approach, my preference for this post would be on changes that would be easy for leaders to execute without having to backtrack on something they just retrenched.
Let’s hear from our readers.
- Which of these, if any, do you disagree with?
- Which do you think would be most impactful?
- What suggestions would you add?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I agree with all of them, but I think that allowing, “Allow YW and women to be interviewed by women leaders for temple recommends” would certainly be the most impact in terms of decreasing emotional harm to the women of the church. I had not thought about combining EQ and HPG. I have been in a large branch and that was done for quite a while there and it worked fine. The only real difference between the 2 quorum meetings is the % of men that snooze during the meeting. And if it is OK for the RS to have 18+, the same should be true for men.
The women’s session of conference should be presided over by women, and the last speaker should be a woman.
I know it’s not church-wide policy, but it is apparently policy in my ward that only a male may speak last in SM (unless it’s Fast Sunday). The idea that “a priesthood holder (ie. a man) must always have the last word” may not be in any handbooks, but it’s definitely the pattern shown in almost every meeting of the church.
While we’re at it? Stop conflating priesthood with maleness. If you mean “men” say “men.” I don’t know if that would improve things for all women, but it would certainly improve things for me.
That’s encouraging for me to see that there have been some great changes made in the past few years. hurray! Still a ways to go, but progress is hopeful. Just a thought on what most perceive as sexism in the temple: the symbol is that Adam is Christ and Eve is the church. If you hear it that way, things make a lot more sense (and you see why some of that wording can’t be changed).
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t done.
Formally disavow the sexist teachings of the Apostle Paul in the NT. We ignore most of them anyway (like the prohibition on women speaking in church).
Remove the phrase “head of household” from our vernacular.
Exercise concern about domestic and sexual abuse commensurate with the concern we show around consensual premarital sex. Don’t simply say things like “brethren, don’t abuse your wives.” Give specific examples, even if it makes you uncomfortable. (I believe all men with stewardship over women should read ‘Why Does He Do That’ by Lundy Bancroft. There’s a PDF copy which can be downloaded for free.)
Establish an abuse hotline to serve the VICTIMS of abuse.
Stop referring to Relief Society as ‘auxiliary.’
Either allow women with children under 18 to serve as temple workers, or do not allow fathers with children under 18 to serve.
Hmm, isn’t this one specifically the Bishop’s job as a matter of scripture/doctrine though?
“Including women in many previously all-male church councils. (While adding “and family” to the council name, because men don’t belong to families or ever think about them; only women do).”
Favorite one on your list!
If I had a couple it would be let girls pass and prepare the sacrament. I don’t see anywhere where it says any type of priesthood is needed to pass or prepare (bringing bread, filling up tiny cups) I think we just do it to give the poor deacons and teachers something to do, why not include the young women. I mean, half the time my mom delivered (not to mention purchased) the bread anyway. Does the holiness of the bread get ruined when my mom who buys the bread, undoes the twisty thing and then puts the bread on the trays? And if so at what point? Is it the twisty tie? She’s allowed to do everything up to the twisty tie, but wo unto woman and to the congregation that dare go further?
And let’s all just admit to ourselves that women are literally passing the sacrament every week! (I served in Bolivia and some wards, internalizing the policy that only allows deacons and up to approach the priests to take the bread, decided that women were not allowed the sacrament tray.) Again, at what point is the holy blasphemed? Obviously, women are allowed to pass trays while sitting down, and heck, if there is space between a woman or a girl and someone at the end of the row, she is allowed to stand, walk, and then hand the tray to the other member and I have yet to see any brimstone rain down as a result. At what point is “passing the sacrament” encroaching in on “the priesthood only” club?
Let sister missionaries be district leaders and zone leaders. This was something I never understood on my mission either, My mission president always reminded us that being a DL or a ZL was not a calling. We did not get set apart or sustained, it was an assignment. I always wondered if it was an assignment (and not a calling, let alone an office) why on earth sisters couldn’t do it.
My question “at what point” was meant read “at what point has my mom committed blaspheme? Was it untying the twisty tie?” Sorry.
“As twist ties in Zion we’ll all work together…”
Identical policies for men and women regarding cancelation of sealing.
I support all of the suggestions and, since you said it would come up in the comments, just want to point out that all baptized women (water and fire) have been ordained to the priesthood – they just haven’t had that ordination recognized within the church organization. (See Moses 6:64-68, Moroni 7:46-48)
Acw, “Just a thought on what most perceive as sexism in the temple: the symbol is that Adam is Christ and Eve is the church. If you hear it that way, things make a lot more sense (and you see why some of that wording can’t be changed).” You’re assuming the intent was either man/woman OR Christ/church. Early church leaders didn’t see a distinction. To illustrate, here are some of Orson Pratt’s thoughts on the matter from _The Seer_:
-“The male is appointed by the authority of God to be at the head of his family — to be a Patriarch and Saviour unto them.” (Page 108)
-“As Christ is one, and is the Great Bridegroom, being married unto many, so likewise the man, being one husband, one bridegroom, may be married unto many. As the bride of Christ consists of a plurality of persons, so the bride of each of his faithful servants may consist of a plurality of individuals.” (Page 154)
-“…where the head of the family stands forth as a patriarch, a prince, and a saviour to his whole household;…” (Page 155)
-“But if we have a heavenly Mother as well as a heavenly Father, is it not right that we should worship the Mother of our spirits as well as the Father? No; for the Father of our spirits is at the head of His household, and His wives and children are required to yield the most perfect obedience to their great Head.” (Page 159)
Acw, there are ways that the Christ=men church=women analogy does not fit, and it still is insulting to women that they are the lower half of the analogy. And if that is what the temple means, why doesn’t it just say so? I find the whole argument an attempt to make the temple not say what it clearly says.
I like and support all of the suggestions, but some of them will get, “but that requires priesthood.” For example, I don’t see why priesthood is required for witnessing a baptism. No different than when I acted as witness for my daughter’s marriage. But I read somewhere recently that it requires the higher priesthood (M).
Interestingly, #5 is happening naturally. I hear “when the So-and-Sos were mission president in…” all the time. The church, though, will probably give the Mission President’s wife another title, just like the Temple President’s wife is called the Temple Matron.
I think suggestions #1 and #2 are easy, #9 within reach (if not PH meeting), #6 within a stone’s throw, #3 possibly within reach (though I can’t picture the church allowing presidencies to be of mixed sexes, so maybe not), but the rest … not so much. Merging HP and EQ seems contrary to the D&C. Female clerks working one-on-one with a bishopric member (with donations, for example) in a windowless closed office isn’t going to happen. Missionary work is still viewed as a priesthood responsibility, the changes to women missionary service notwithstanding. Likewise, the bishop being the arbiter of worthiness and welfare decisions is unlikely to change for some time, if ever.
“Female clerks working one-on-one with a bishopric member (with donations, for example) in a windowless closed office isn’t going to happen.”
Female members meeting one-on-one with a bishopric member in a windowless closed office is okay as long as the bishopric member is asking her questions about her sexual purity, underwear choices, etc.
It’s not that we don’t like men and women to mingle in this church. It’s that we always take care to maintain an imbalance of power in favor of the man.
I would love to see all buildings retrofitted with Windows or at least peepholes on the doors for everyone’s protection. Each time I have brought it up, though, I am told it is a cost issue… tell me more about how much city creek mall costs?
hawkgrrrl, can you provide a reference for this: “Church HQ backed a woman’s right to wear pants to church, refusing to define “Sunday best” any further.”? In my neck of the woods we seem to still be having difficulty with this.
Earlier in the year a child was blessed in our ward. The child was about 9 months old. The grandmother of the child sat in a chair holding the child while the men circled and blessed the child. Was totally appropriate for the situation. I was impressed as this was the first time I have seen this approach.
JR, with the first Wear Pants to Church Day, a spokesman for the church said, “Generally church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the Savior, but we don’t counsel people beyond that.” http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23355976
But you also have this statement from the Mormon Newsroom about what to expect at Mormon services, “You’re welcome to wear any clothes that you feel comfortable attending a church service in. Men typically wear suits and ties, and women wear dresses or skirts. Children also usually dress up.” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-to-expect-at-church-services
Along the lines of these suggestions, I would add that I want to see more men quoting female leaders, especially when they are teaching other men. That sends a clear message that women’s words aren’t just for women’s ears. I would like to see this at all levels, from the First Presidency down to individual ward members.
I would also shout for joy to see the general RS presidency create and roll out their own RS curriculum. I think Daughters in my Kingdom was an attempt at that, but I want to see a full curriculum by and for women, not just a supplemental reading book that wards do or don’t use at the discretion of the bishop and as a side note to the main curriculum about the life and teachings of a dead white American man.
And I super second the idea of a) the general RS Pres as closing speaker at general women’s meeting, and b) if a male GA speaks in the RS meeting, then a female president speaks in the priesthood meeting.
In my opinion, eliminating sexism from the temple is way out in front – both in urgency and the impact I would expect from it. I think the gap between how girls view themselves and what the temple tells them is getting too wide to jump.
(And just plain eliminating certain verses of Section 132 would also make my list.)
Eliminate the sexist church discipline policies that are hostile toward women: do not allow a bishop to excommunicate a woman when it requires a higher authority to excommunicate a man. Do not allow women to be excommunicated by a council of four people while it takes 15 people to excommunicate a man. Do not allow women to the excommunicated without anyone speaking in their defense, while six people are assigned to defend man. Eliminate the “widely known” clause that makes discipline for a sexual sin that results in pregnancy mandatory for women but optional for a man. Include both men and women equally as judges on disciplinary councils or end this archaic system altogether.
AYB,just a point of correction. The division in a high council court is to to assign six men to be sure that he/she is treated fairly, not to defend them against the charges. I have no problem with the other points.
EJ – Our buildings in CA were all retrofitted with windows and peepholes (which pretty much means workers drilled holes in the thick oak doors). Every room except the Bishops’ and clerks’ offices. We were told it was a liability issue to protect teachers against charges of child abuse. I can’t imagine it is cost that kept those holes from being unanimously applied.
Are the other 6 high councilors there to ensure he is treated unfairly?
It’s a kangaroo court that feigns impartiality.
As is usually the case, I agree with Ruth. The most impactful would be changes to the temple and some important corrections to D&C 132. Frankly, I don’t think most men even notice the sexism in the temple since it doesn’t affect them, so it’s hard to get further light and knowledge about these types of changes.
“Mormon Heretic
Are the other 6 high councilors there to ensure he is treated unfairly?
It’s a kangaroo court that feigns impartiality.”
Way harsh, there, dude. Back in the day when I was a bishop’s councilor and later as a stake clerk, the councils/courts I was part of were not kangaroo courts. We dealt with dishonesty and abuse of priesthood office and one case of repeated fornication. Not every case is a high profile heresy situation with some poor ecclesiastically abused member struggling against the soul crushing power of an unfeeling patriarchy. (what do you think, too much?) What I saw were leaders that just wanted to do the best they could to either get a person going on the repentance process or making official what the person has done to themselves. And I can tell you that nobody was happy to be there or having a good time.
Merging HP and EQ seems contrary to the D&C.
You don’t have to actually merge them–just make the HP quorum a stake-only thing whose members include the stake presidency, the patriarch, the high council, and the respective bishoprics. Everybody else would be a member of a ward-level EQ. I don’t see how that contradicts the D&C, which does not mention ward-level HP groups.
Given that one of the tasks my husband was given as a HC assigned the branch in our stake was to get the EQ to meet separately from the HP and to support and train the EQP, actively moving towards them meeting together looks like it is unlikely to happen, I’d say.
Why are those groups kept separate? I read once that Brigham said ‘a man with a higher priesthood cannot be presided over by a man with lower priesthood’. But Brigham said a lot of things.
GBSmith,
I probably was a bit harsh, and I was talking specifically of those accused of heresy, not necessarily sexual sins or dishonesty. For those accused of heresy (the Sept Six, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Simon Southerton, Jeremy Rennells, etc) it was a kangaroo court. There was no impartiality, and it was a sham with a predetermined outcome. From the situations I am familiar with, no high councilors EVER raised objections in support of the accused, and this “defense” was a sham.
I think it is important to understand the history of Bishop’s Courts and High Council courts. In early Utah (as well as Nauvoo and Kirtland), Bishop’s Courts, or early High Council courts presided over legal disputes, water rights, property rights, etc in addition to sexual sins. Even when Joseph Smith was accused of adultery by Oliver Cowdery, there were people who really were representing Joseph, and others representing Oliver. Obviously Oliver didn’t like the outcome, but I believe there was a real attempt to be impartial.
The problem is that after the US government disbanded Bishop’s Courts in Utah (who often heard cases about water and land disputes with non-Mormons and really did carry the weight of law) the Bishop’s Court and High Council courts no longer carry the weight of law, and have been converted to spiritual courts that adjudicate sexual sins, heresy, etc. Concerning heresy, it seems pretty evident to me that when an apostle violates scripture and wants Rock Waterman excommunicated, the court is a kangaroo court and clearly violates scripture.
I can’t speak to other church courts concerning sexual sins. Maybe there is some good in them, but I’ve heard of abuses and I do not believe that 6 men are there to defend the rights of the accused in the same way Joseph Smith was defended when Oliver accused Joseph of adultery. I think most of what we do now violates scripture 80% of the time or more.
Maybe there are some legitimate “courts of love”, but I hear more about the bad cases than the good ones. And GBSmith, I’d love to hear of a high councilor defending an accused of sexual sins or dishonesty. I suspect it happens rarely, if ever. All cases I’ve heard, the High Council court simply rubber stamps what the Stake President has predetermined for the outcome. It isn’t a place to bring evidence. The accused can bring witnesses, but has a witness ever changed the mind of a stake president? Has the council ever over-ridden a stake president’s recommendation? If so, I’ve never heard of a case.
I’m an ordained seventy and am presided over by a stake president who (to my knowledge) is not. So what?
My fat fingers accidentally down voted Happy Hubby, which was not my intention at all! Whoops.
It’s spelled out pretty clearly in Ephesians, though.
MH: “Maybe there are some legitimate “courts of love”, but I hear more about the bad cases than the good ones.” Uhm, yeah, there’s a good reason for that. Nobody’s publicizing how wonderful their church court was after they got caught cheating on their wife. You’re only going to hear about the ones where the person feels they were wronged or that the outcome was predetermined AND where they believe their offense was drummed up or unwarranted.
MH, I know you know about a lot of things, and I’m sure you know a fair amount about all the incidents you’ve referred to, but have you ever been present at one of those councils? First of all, the HC doesn’t get to override the stake president. In the end, the buck stops with him. He makes the decision. Usually there’s a strong desire to achieve unanimity on the decision, but with that many people (15!), I don’t know how common it is to actually achieve it.
Sometimes the person brought before the court really is destined to be ex’ed. I’m not sure that constitutes a kangaroo court exactly, but most of the time, the facts aren’t really in dispute. If the defendant shows up, then he’s usually either repentant or defiant, and either way, the proceedings are sort of ceremonial. In the first case, there’s usually a lot of love and grief, and in the second, which I’ve never seen, I assume both sides are just there to make their points and then ceremonially part ways.
The only time the Stake President presides over the court is when there’s a reasonable possibility a Melchizedek PH holder is going to get ex’ed. Otherwise, it’s just the bishop and his counselors (hence, the derived sexism, since women aren’t Mel. PH holders).
I know of a couple who’d gotten associated with a polygamy-pondering (if not practicing) splinter group and were ex’ed when a GA came through and said enough was enough. My understanding was that none of them showed up to the court, and even though the couple hadn’t joined the group and probably shouldn’t have been excommunicated, they were swept up in the purge. This couple subsequently moved into our ward when my dad was bishop. Back then, to be re-instated, you had to be re-instated by the same court that ex’ed you, and feelings had been so bad the couple wasn’t convinced they would ever be re-baptized. They had to travel back to the state they were ex’ed in, and my father went with them. The stake president there hadn’t wanted to call the court, because he felt it was a waste of time, but my dad had insisted. Going through the ceremony of the court, as prescribed, forced the HC and stake presidency to really listen, the couple to really open up, and to hear my dad tell the story, it was one of the most spiritual experiences of his life. The feeling went from barely civil mutual hostility to genuine humility and hugs all around.
I’m sure John Dehlin’s court wasn’t like that. And I think his was a couple years late, but no-one asked me.
MH, I will report a case of persuasion by a high councilor to you, though my information comes only from one of the participating members of the high council. This was long ago (early 70s) so the offensive issue must be understood in the context of that time. I was working then as a research/teaching assistant in a BYU department. Very late one evening, an exhausted professor showed up in the office wanting to talk. He told me he had just come from a disciplinary court for a young man who had informed his priesthood leaders that he was gay, but had never engaged in any homoerotic activity. When the court began this professor was the only one of 15 men who did not believe they were required to excommunicate the young man. It took the professor 3 exhausting hours, but he did succeed in persuading the stake president (and others?) that excommunication was not required and that any “discipline” would be improper. Sometimes, at least, the outcome is not pre-determined. In another case of persuasion, as a counselor in a bishopric I participated in a disciplinary council for a lonely and troubled woman who had confessed to making out/petting with her ex-husband. The bishop called her an adulteress. In deliberations, I was able to persuade him otherwise. He apologized. As much as I deplore the reported cases of ecclesiastical abuse. I am unable to generalize them as applying to all such disciplinary proceedings. This is not to say, however, that the system could not stand some very substantial changes for the better.
Hawkgrrrl-
I think you’re right about many men not noticing the sexism in the temple. Most men I have discussed it with had no idea that Eve stops speaking once she promises to obey. When I point it out, the usual response is that that’s how it should be, a woman submissive to her man. (WTF?!?)
The sexism in the temple used to be even more obvious (a la D&C 132), but the changes in the last decades haven’t actually reduced the sexism, they’ve just made it less noticeable. This imbalance of power in our highest rites has real and damaging consequences. My grandmother stayed with a man who emotionally, physically, and sexually abused her and her children because she believed that sexism– that she would be dammed if she dared defy him. There are real costs to avoiding change.
Hawkgrrrl, admittedly there is a problem with selection bias in the internet. You are correct that I hear the bad cases, not the good. However, I will add that the re-baptism rate for excommunicated is pathetic, so if it is a mechanism for repentance, it does a lousy job.
No Martin, I have never been present at any of these councils, but I did view Jeremy Runnells surreptitiously recorded court, and I am quite familiar with reports of the September Six, John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, and Kate Kelly. (Did anyone else attend–I’m pretty sure everyone was barred from attendance?)
Once again, this is a predetermined outcome. This is a kangaroo court. The purpose of the court is simply to hand down a sentence that the stake president has already decided. I’m not a lawyer, but there is no discovery process. There is no debate of evidence. In Rock Waterman’s case, only the stake president had actually read his blog, and clearly the accusations were out of context quotes from his blog. The accused is given a time limit to respond, and there is no way to defend oneself. Once again, this was a predetermined outcome.
Twas not the case in Kirtland when Oliver accused Joseph of adultery with Fanny Alger. The council was divided half for Oliver, half for Joseph, and even the prophet himself theoretically could have been sanctioned for adultery if the council had found him guilty.
In Runnell’s case, he was repeatedly told “we’re not here to answer questions, you are.” That’s clearly not fair, and the scales of justice are tilted against the accused. Justice is not the intent of the meeting, supposedly it is discipline. Why have the farce? If the apostle wants to excommunicate John Dehlin, then the apostle should do it, instead of lie and say it is a “local matter.” Most stake presidents want nothing to do with John or Rock or Kate, and would prefer to ignore them. The D&C clearly says that apostles are only to be involved where no stakes are present.
JR, I’m glad to hear of a few cases where a councilor was able to persuade. Most people who serve don’t have time or desire to spend 3 hours overriding a leader’s decision. They’re not paid to be there. They serve at the will of the stake president/bishop, and if they act too forcefully against the leader, they will be removed. This is why it is a kangaroo court in most cases.
I recently asked a former stake president if he ever dealt with a case of apostasy/heresy, and he did not. I suspect cases of heresy are pretty uncommon, but I do agree with JR that the system could use improvement.
MH,
The first thing you have to remember is that disciplinary councils are not courts. I know that was the old name and in the early days they likely functioned that way. Now their function is to determine what discipline to give because the investigation and typically the person’s own confession is what has lead to the council in the first place. When the high council or bishop’s councilors vote it’s to sustain the decision about discipline so it may seem to be a rubber stamp but the reality is that the person is there because of that they’ve done. Heresy and the examples you’ve given are in a totally different category given the attitude of the accused, the influence of a GA, and how well the SP or Bshp knows the person and understands his motivation. I remember some years back Tom Murphy showed up for an interview with his stake president along with a reporter from the LATimes to discuss his book about dan and the BoM expecting to be ex’d and after a brief visit the SP told him to go away and the planned news conference was cancelled. A few comments back you’d mentioned about no high councilors raising objections but interestingly I came across this yesterday in the ex and post mormon reddit. Please excuse the language in the comments.
I was a clerk with a former HC that had spoken up for someone that had committed adultery but it was to ask for mercy given the circumstances not to speak for his innocence. Again he spoke not to dispute the judgement but only to influence the decision. I can understand your feelings but it’s easy to conflate apples and oranges in these discussions. I agree that the Sep 6 should have never been treated the way they but for some that came after I’m surprised that they were surprised at what happened.
Glad to hear there are more cases. Sorry Hawk, for taking a side trip.
As for females in need of a “court of love”, I think it would be good to have women there too.
“I suspect cases of heresy are pretty uncommon” Indeed. I suspect the majority of cases are related to adultery and abuse with fraud running a distant third. As pointed out above, women are not involved in a disciplinary council because that’s only for Melchizedek PH holders. Women are only subject to a ruling by a bishop and counselors. See April Young Bennett’s comment.
I have 4 daughters, the youngest is 40 next year. When they were younger they would often count how many suits it was taking to conduct sacrament meeting today.
I remember looking in the handbook some years back and there did not seem to be any reason the priesthood was required to conduct sacrament meeting. Would it make a dramatic difference to have the RS presidency rotate with the Bishopric conducting Sacrament meeting.
I was at a leadership meeting where Elder Bedinar said, if the handbook didn’t specifically forbid it you could do it. I don’t think the handbook specifically forbids it, what do you all think/ If not Hawk could add it to her list.
I am not trying to poke at anyone (and MH even apologized) and maybe I am just becoming an overly sensitive feminist, but this post is about improving the status of women, but about 1/4 of the comments are diving into stake courts where women generally are not present in any way. And a woman brought this topic up.
I applaud Hawkgrrrl for bringing this up. It needs to have light shined on it again and again. Hawkgrrrl, what about making this an annual topic on International Women’s Day (March 8th) reviewing the last year’s progress? On the plus side, some years that blog post will be very quick, as in “not much to say this year!” /snarcasm
I’m an ordained seventy and am presided over by a stake president who (to my knowledge) is not. So what?
lastlemming, your stake president is a high priest. That’s a level up from seventy. He ranks you. Not sure what your point is here.
I tend to agree with Hawk that the ordination of women would be the straightest distance between two points, but I also think that it would be too big a shock for the system to sustain, at this point. We’re in a position where, as several commenters have pointed out, most men don’t see the inequities in the endowment ceremony, and most who do think it’s right and proper (to quote Elizabeth St Dunstan, WTF?!?) It has probably never occurred to many men that Sunday School presidencies could include women, nor was the change forbidding female stake auditors much noticed outside leadership circles. We have a long way to go before we take the enormous step of ordaining women – not because it would be the wrong thing to do, but because it might just blow things up completely. I think in some way the Lord takes those things into account. (Which is very different than saying that we humans always do.) The RLDS/CoC experience with ordination of women is a case in point; it caused a major schism from which the group has never recovered.
To Hawk’s #3 I’d add the caveat that allowing male participation in Primary presidencies opens the door to male-dominated Primary presidencies. I can see in some wards the possibility of that. To #4 I’d add, “stop ordaining Men of a Certain Age as high priests just because they’re older and the HP group is small.” I like the idea of the EQ and HP groups working together more closely. Sometimes it seems that the only difference is that the HPs are assigned to home teach single women, presumably because there’s less chance of Something Bad happening.
lastlemming, your stake president is a high priest. That’s a level up from seventy. He ranks you. Not sure what your point is here.
Pre-1986 you could make that argument. Now, the authority of seventies is firmly placed between that of apostles and high priests. My stake president answers to the area presidency, all of whose members have been ordained and set apart as members of one of the quorums of seventy. All stake presidencies report to members of one quorum of seventy or another.
My point is that my authority derives from which quorum I am assigned to, not what office I have been ordained to. When stake quorums of seventy were abolished, I was assigned to the ward EQ. Now, I am assigned to the HP Quorum and serves as the ward’s HP group leader. If ward-level HP groups were abolished, I would be kicked out of the stake HP quorum, just as I was kicked out of the stake seventies quorum in 1986. I would return to the EQ and be presided over by an elder, just as I was then. As I said–big deal.
I used to get so excited every time the church made a change affecting women. Now, I just roll my eyes and get discouraged, thinking Is this the best we can do?? The lack of progress in opportunities for women is the number one reason I’m distancing myself from church. I can’t understand the retrenchment and the refusal to change even the lowest of the low hanging fruit (letting women hold babies during blessings, for example). If this organization is really God’s, then God doesn’t have much use for women. Or that has been my experience, at any rate.
I would love to see the church include women’s professional experience in the biographies for new mission and temple president couples. As it stands now, the husband’s age and profession are listed in addition to all the callings previously held. The wife’s age is omitted, and instead the number of children the couple have is listed. One could assume that none of these women have had careers.
Example:New mission presidents
I agree with those who think ordaining women would be to much of a shock, and that the fallout from it would be too great. I think instead, we might begin with a restoration of the lost history of Relief Society, with official encouragement to learn about the past, including the healing blessings that were once among the duties of visiting teachers. As well, I’d like to see more autonomy in women’s curriculum. Women know what they need much more than men do, but we defer so much to their authority, and we are so restricted by all the taboos of violating it — so much that we cannot even talk about many topics vital to the interest of women in the church, in our own meeting. It’s a mess, and as good a place to start as any.
LastLemming, first of all, I’m surprised that you haven’t been officially ordained a high priest. My dad was ordained HP shortly after they abolished stake Seventies.
Of course there is a difference between a stake Seventy and a GA Seventy. A high priest is higher in office than a stake Seventy, but lower than a GA Seventy.
Great list of suggestions, Hawkgrrrl. I also really like Elizabeth St Dunstan’s idea about men quoting female leaders more. That has the advantage of being completely doable right now. I also think April Young Bennett has great points about the inequality of disciplinary councils.
Kind of a random thought, but what if we had women called to travel around the stake giving talks like we have high councilors do? (I realize that’s not all they do.) That might help with the speaker imbalance. I know this would be a small step, but like Elizabeth’s suggestion, it could be done immediately without requiring policy or doctrinal change.
Yes, perhaps the stake RS, YW, and Primary presidencies could travel. With 4 in a presidency, that would be one each month!
“perhaps the stake RS, YW, and Primary presidencies could travel”
They do that in my stake, also the stake Sunday School Presidency do too. A member from the auxilliary presidency is paired with the HC speaker each month. But it’s 3 people per presidency not 4. I’ve never seem the secretary get a speaking assignment.
I didn’t mean to imply that I was never ordained a HP. I was, but 4 years after I was reverted to the EQ. My ordination as a seventy nevertheless remains valid. If I am ever called to be an area or general authority seventy, I will not be reordained–I will only be set apart as a member of a particular quorum. If they abolish ward-level HP groups, the same would be true of my HP ordination after I revert to the EQ. If I were later called to the high council or to a bishopric, I would not be reordained a high priest–just set apart to whatever calling I am given within the stake HP quorum.
There is a difference between the General and Area Authority seventies and the MH priesthood office of seventy, which used to be what stake missionaries were ordained to. Your general and area seventies are all high priests. You, holding the office of seventy in the MP, are right where you’ve always been, between the elders and the high priests.
My ward still has one remaining seventy who hasn’t been high priestified. I favor leaving him alone as a sort of living history display.
The priesthood office you hold is high priest. You are not a seventy, except in the abstract sense that you are able to perform the duties of any lesser priesthood office – in other words, you are also an elder, a teacher, and a deacon.
You are not a seventy in the sense of the general and area authority seventies in the churchwide quorums. You’re a little unclear on the concept, to put it politely.
You, NI, are a little unclear on the point I’m trying to make. Somebody speculated that elders and high priests could not be merged because Brigham Young said ‘a man with a higher priesthood cannot be presided over by a man with lower priesthood’, which I took to mean that somebody who had been ordained a HP could not be presided over by an elder. Forget my example about high priests and seventies. The fact that I, as am ordained seventy, was presided over by elders for a while is sufficient refutation of that argument. There is no reason I, now as an ordained HP, could not again be presided over by elders if ward level HP groups were abolished.
Dudes, you’re killing me. On a thread about improving the status of women, the last 5 consecutive comments have all been about whether a 70 is a HP or whatever. Srsly!
Focus!
In the early church local administration was by bishop’s and there was a traveling ministry that was originally apostles that over time grew to include women. It would evangelize and oversee the bishop’s but by about 200 c.e. women started to be phased out and were finally lost to the ministry. It seems to me that general board members traveling with or in place of GA’s for stake and regional conferences would be a could place to bring back that which was lost. It might take a little effort for local leadership to take council from women but if it was done “with meekness, kindness, and love unfeigned” they could probably handle it.
Hey guys (as in males) – STOP IT! You are embarrassing me as a guy. This is a thread talking about women in the church and there are too many comments (IMHO) talking about ranking of priesthood offices.
Someone much smarter than me made me go look up “Lewis’ Law” and here it is:
Lewis’ Law is an internet axiom asserting “The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.”
Please don’t prove that law here! I will now step off my soap box. Plus I need to go wake up my wife so she can make me breakfast. 🙂 jk
One definition of “paradigm”:
“A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject.”
I’m always pushing for the big paradigm shift before long lists of (good!) suggestions. Because even after the list – assuming we could accomplish it, or that they’re all good ideas – we’d be left with an underlying worldview that doesn’t match practice.
I know I am late to this party, but I want to point out that there is no scriptural or doctrinal reason that young women could not prepare and pass the sacrament. This is the change I would like to see.
I have children under the age of 18 and work in the temple baptistry. I can do this because I’m not an ordinance worker; they call us volunteers. During our prep meetings, the baptistry coordinator and temple presidency couples take turns conducting and giving the spiritual thought. The first time I noticed that the sister coordinator was conducting and the matron was giving the spiritual thought while the men sat and listened, I was really surprised. And thrilled. It doesn’t happen all the time by any means and we have a lot of work to do, but I was so happy to see two sisters up there running the meeting. It was frankly ridiculous how happy it made me, and I thought to myself, “We need more of this!”
Diverse group of new mission presidents gather for annual seminar
Maybe we could try using women’s names instead of lumping them together in some amorphous group. If there was room in the article to list every man that spoke at the meeting, there should be room to name three women individually. It’s not like there’s a space limit on webpages.
“Maybe we could try using women’s names instead of lumping them together in some amorphous group.”
Absolutely. at their own session of general conference the auxilliary presidencies are not named in the ‘opening credits’, whilst every male GA on the stand is named. I find that quite outrageous.
Hedgehog,
I emailed the author of the article at Deseret News and asked that she include their individual names. She made the change last evening. I also asked her to forward my suggestion that women’s professional experience be included in mission and temple presidency biographies. Maybe if enough speak up, this will change as well.