Last week news broke that changes were coming to youth responsibilities regarding proxy baptisms. Jeff Spector reported on it here at Wheat and Tares, and it was also discussed at length elsewhere. One of the more controversial aspects of the changes was the contrast between opportunities for Young Men to serve (priests can now baptize and serve as witnesses) and opportunities for Young Women (any responsibilities typically performed by female temple workers, like handing out towels). I wasn’t planning to write about the issue, but then I read a Deseret News op-ed this morning.
In “Why last week’s LDS Church announcement is about much more than towels,” Morgan Jones defended the new roles for young women. In her experience, holding towels were sometimes very sacred experiences, either in the temple or helping someone after a live baptism.
I know some will say I’m simply subservient, but I really do believe there is value in understanding that service isn’t always some glamorous made for Instagram photograph, or a reflection of earthly power or status. Most service means genuine sacrifice.
It came across like the author felt some uproar was about “earthly power or status.” Now, since we’re talking about handing out towels versus priesthood responsibilities, it can’t be about power or status. Everyone knows priesthood is about service. So why, whenever gender roles come up with the priesthood, is there an immediate jump to assuming people want “earthly power and status”?
But the op-ed isn’t the only thing that’s bothered me. Last week I witnessed a knee-jerk reaction from a Mormon guy when I told him about the policy changes. “Let me guess, people are complaining about it. It’s never going to be good enough. Why even bother offering anything when people are just going to whine and be ungrateful?” I had mixed feelings already, and the reaction felt like a slap in the face. How could I even respond to that?
Here’s the deal. I’ve had three kids be baptized, each in a different ward. The mom, for the most part, plans the program. The mom plans any refreshments afterwards. The mom packs the supplies for after the kids come out of the font, and she’s the one holding the towel when her kids come out of the font. In many wards, it’s customary for the mom to share a brief testimony, but it isn’t printed as a planned part of the program. It’s the bishopric just being magnanimous. But do you know what pictures I have of my own baptism? Me and my dad. Me and the men in the confirmation circle. Because the ordinances are the only things that actually mattered that day.
So don’t, DON’T tell me women are unwilling to serve. But having my daughter learn next year that her place is to hold the towel while she watches yet another ordinance performed by her male peers is NOT something I want pointed out at this time in her life. This daughter picked up several years ago (on her own) that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were all men, and she asked why there were no women. I said the truth, we don’t know. She thought deeply about it for a few minutes and then came up with, “Maybe men are just better leaders.” These things affect how girls see themselves.
When people say that boys will now be able to practice baptizing for their missions, what does that tell girls about their roles as missionaries? Heck, we had a homecoming recently for a girl, and the priesthood leader opened with explaining that missionary service is not an expectation for women like it is for men. At first I figured he was trying to emphasize how awesome it was that she chose to go, but he didn’t. Everything she was about to share, the life-changing moments, were nice and all, but it was unnecessary. Like a fun study abroad program.
Growing up, I had enough insecure teenage Mormon boys tell me women need to shut up and know their place. What’s actually offensive in this whole thing is not that girls will be handing out towels, but fellow members arguing that young women should be grateful for the opportunity, like it’s some great privilege. It’s just a different way of telling girls they should shut up and be grateful to have any place in the church at all. Because, you know, faithful people would appreciate the crumbs.
Wheat & Tares 
Wow, that felt like a whole lot of bitterness. So what would you like to be done about this situation that would be to your liking? The reason I ask is b/c my mom always told me its ok to complain if I propose a solution to what I was complaining about, but if I offered no solution then I shouldn’t complain about it. I don’t say that to you mean spirited, just sincerely want to know how you think the situation could be improved. Obviously you have very strong feelings about this.
“Maybe men are just better leaders.” Ugh. The Church has lost all credibility with my daughter over this stuff. She’s no dummy. DW and I have worked to keep God relevant by separating God from the actions of the Church on this topic. We’ve taught her that, despite what ignoramus leaders say, God loves her and respects her *equally* to the boys.
Robert, you must’ve missed that whole “slap in the face” line. I don’t know what can be done. Right now, nothing. This was more of a venting post, but I’m totally open to some ideas if you have them.
Robert: What can be done? Seriously analyze which actions require a priesthood holder and which don’t. Then remove the limitations on the ones that don’t (i.e. acting as a witness).
My take on this whole thing is that the brethren were just trying to up the odds of guys serving missions, and the girls were just an afterthought. You’d think it’d be clear by now that’s not a good way to operate, but I think they still, genuinely, don’t realize it’s a problem. My prediction: the dismay will penetrate the COB, a policy change will allow women to witness for ordinances, there will be outcry over why that’s not sufficient, and the brethren will throw up their hands and retrench again for at least a decade.
I don’t think it’s so much whether women have status or authority so much as a role in which their contributions are both valued and necessary. Many women feel they have that (my wife, for example), and many women don’t. I don’t believe girls necessarily need to be baptizing to have that, but passing out towels doesn’t cut it. The church is going to need strong women who inspire and lead, both in front and behind the scenes, and that should be modeled somehow.
I believe the patriarchal structure of the church has historically made a lot of sense. Men are less likely to be joiners in general and church participants in particular, and they’re viewed as being morally coarse. Which is a problem when they’ve been historically the ones leading everything. I believe the male-centric arrangement has had it’s advantages. But I think we’ve become just as likely to lose girls as boys. Worse still is that I don’t think we’re modeling the eternities (even as presented in our own theology now) as well as we could be.
Robert, here are some ideas: 1) allow women to be witnesses like they were for the first 100 years of the church, 2) have BOTH the YM and YW do equal menial duties, and extend that upward to the adult workers as well, 3) highlight how women are leaders in the church, not just in subordinate or passive roles (read the youth curriculum if you doubt that there’s a difference between the messages boys and girls are getting–it is HUGE), 4) as Pres. Uchtdorf said, our culture needs a dose of “Stop It.” The knee-jerk tendency is to judge people who ‘complain’ or who don’t like the status quo or who see the disparity in how the sexes are treated, just like you did. You tone policed Mary Ann who is literally the least complaining person I know in the bloggernacle. Clearly you are not someone who follows the blog or you’d know that, 5) include women at every level of decision making in the church: policy making, councils, curriculum, etc. Include them in equal amounts and give them equal air time. Even the least equality-minded woman will have insights into how things affect women differently than men.
We are so unaccustomed to listening to women that we don’t notice that women aren’t consulted. That’s a problem, and the more women gain ground in the public sphere, the more that is noticed. Women are beginning to leave the church in similar numbers to men (historically this hasn’t been the case). What a shame that is. What an easily avoidable shame.
That’s easy — they could at least have allowed young women to be witnesses at temple baptisms. When the Book of Mormon directs those being baptized to “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9) it did not make gender distinctions. There is nothing related to the exercise of priesthood in being a witness. LDS historians tell us that women were regularly allowed to be witnesses for ordinances until the mid-20th century — another one of those arbitrary policy changes that slowly morphs into eternal and unchangeable doctrinal truth in the minds of older priesthood holders.
Mary Ann, I’ll hazard a guess as to what might have happened to the priesthood leader welcoming the return missionary. He probably was going to emphasize how wonderful the Sister’s choice was, since she wasn’t obligated, and then realized how it would sound to diminish the choice of the Elders, who after all, HAD to go. I’ll bet he didn’t mean to diminish her service — I’ll bet he caught himself saying something dumb and tried to stop. That’s why you shouldn’t ad-lib very much when conducting a meeting. You can’t edit realtime.
Dave B: “another one of those arbitrary policy changes” I don’t think it was that arbitrary. Joseph F Smith was its author, and he had a very dogmatic style that usually goes hand in hand with consolidation of power under a male authority. It’s a conservative approach from a very conservative man (many of his positions have been quietly dropped over time because he went too far). If we could harness the energy expended by some conservatives to hold the line on protecting and furthering male privilege, we would solve the world’s energy crisis many times over.
I’ve been trying to make the point that holding towels isn’t the problem. My most spiritual experience in the temple came from cleaning it after it was closed. It’s not that the role is beneath me.
It’s the context. It’s the widening chasm of responsibility they didn’t have to make. It’s that my daughter has to get soaking wet in her underwear next to a peer. It’s that a 16 yo boy can witness when the Gen RS President can’t. For heck sake let’s all hold towels I don’t care, but don’t make things worse and sell it as an upgrade.
Ps the biggest problem for me is not the changes, they could have made the changes and easily allowed YW an upgrade in corresponding responsibility by witnessing. Honestly the only reason not to is tradition.
Maybe I’m the only one who feels this way, but if boys had been allowed to baptize for the dead when I was a youth, I would never have gone. I was tormented and teased by the older boys in my ward as a youth. The thought that one of them would have been the one literally holding me under water, seeing me soaking wet, and so forth is just terrifying. There is no way I would have done it.
I also agree with everything that has been said from the point of view of the girls. The message is clear – girls are for cleaning up behind the scenes.
The LDS “Corporate Church” is so off the rails and insulting in some of these policies. Even in Joseph Smith’s time women were healing the sick and running THEIR OWN organization. The old Patriarchy is slowly but surely losing credibility.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. In case anyone is confused about why people are talking about women historically serving as witnesses, historian Ardis Parshall is quoted in the recent Trib article talking about when then-apostle Joseph Fielding Smith stopped the practice:
“Smith was surprised in 1959, when he heard that women witnessed temple marriages in Alberta, Parshall reports. “He asked for the temple president’s authority, and learned that it was a longstanding practice, based on ‘Item No. 53’ in the written instructions given to temple presidents.”
“To that, Smith replied, “Where the idea of having women for witnesses for marriages began I do not know, but my training convinces me that it is the proper thing to have the priesthood not only officiating but witnessing the ceremonies of the temple.”
“It has been that way, Parshall said, ever since.”
http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/15/mormon-girls-will-be-able-to-attend-new-priesthood-and-temple-meeting-but-they-wont-be-getting-the-priesthood/
Oh, and Robert…..Thank God none of my daughters will be marrying you. If they had, I’m afraid – you’d need some “Father in Law” tune-ups. Are you really this ignorant of the insult being given by the Church’s policy – and by the tone of, and method of your questioning?
I question the wisdom of having twitterpated teenagers engaging in baptisms together. I can’t imagine what it would have been like trying to balance teenage hormones and awkward crushes with a sacred ordinance- whether passing out towels, baptizing, or witnessing. Missionaries at the MTC aren’t allowed to do sealings together in proxy for a husband/wife for the same reason. I also think it is good to have some distance from the high school drama or teenage googly-eyes by working with adults who are often jokingly described as ‘working for the dead by the nearly dead’. There is a dynamic that occurs with the elderly and the youth . . . the intergenerational connection can be especially important, and I think there is a valuable role in looking to elders for spiritual patterning. That is intercultural- long-held, and valued for a reason! We don’t often have that as adults . . . we often work among our peers. One of the benefits of being a youth is having a more experienced mentor.
I personally believe that there is scriptural evidence for women to assume a role as witnesses in ordinances, as well as officiating themselves. (Another post, another day). I’ll just say that I don’t like the idea of teens taking these roles, I’d rather see adults continue to do so. I’d rather see elderly adults and adult role models mentor teens as they begin having these spiritual experiences.
My ward doesn’t have the YM and YW go together, but we have lots of temples to choose from. Where temples are farther away, YM/YW feelings may be an issue though.
I have gone to the Provo Temple, and every time it is crowded with college students, I’m sure many of whom are dating. Is twitterpated feelings a problem? I’ve never heard of it. Of course they are a little older and I’m sure a woman would politely decline if she didn’t like the guy….
Aside from polygamy we used to have an awesome church in Joseph’s day.
Not only did we not segregate based on race, all races were ordained to the priesthood.
D&C 25 had Emma as basically a councilor to the church and apostle since she was allowed to expound on the scriptures and exhort the church.
1843 Women had the priesthood.
Had we followed course, we’d have been in an awesome position in the 21st century.
Here’s what it says on lds.org about the change. I think it’s interesting they chose not to include handing out towels in the examples. Though I’m sure young women will.
“One of those ways is young women taking a greater role in helping temple baptistries function. Young women might, for example, be asked to record baptism and confirmation ordinances, greet and welcome patrons to the baptistry, issue baptismal clothing, and assign lockers.”
So what does “record baptism and confirmation ordinances” mean? This could be good. Does anyone have an explanation?
Mary, most likely it’s taking care of scanning in the barcodes of the cards after the ordinances are done. The cards are officially stamped with the date and temple name at the same time. It’s the scanning into the computer that makes the ordinances show up as “completed” on FamilySearch. I know with sealings, I usually see female temple workers taking care of that after the session is done.
I’m sure you’re right. That’s kind of disheartening given the actual language that is used. Why not just say “the young women will scan completed ordinance cards”?
In a sense, this is nothing new. First, the new policy is simply an extension of the old policy to a lesser priesthood and a younger age. Second, the LDS church already teaches its young women in a hundred ways that they are less than the young men. This policy change just makes it 101.
So I’m trying to work out why this policy is so much more upsetting than other misogynist policies. Here are some ideas I’ve had.
1. It seemed like the church was making progress, which raised expectations.
2. This inequity is just really flippin’ obvious. It’s one thing to have men do something important and women excuse themselves from the proceedings. It’s quite another to have men do something important with women present, playing an obviously subservient role.
3. We adults know how to deal with the patriarchy, inequity and misogyny without it affecting our self-worth. But this policy is aimed squarely at our daughters’ self-worth. IOW, it’s a mama bear (dragon?) reaction to a direct attack on our children.
I think the root of the policy change might have been so that the large # of adult YM/YW leaders required to make a temple trip could be decreased — parents would be home more w their families and youth would be able to serve more often in the temple. Plus increased ways to serve. I’m sure The powers that be thought they’d just kill two birds with one stone and there are no drawbacks and everything’s perfect, right?? How could anyone complain about this!?
If I were more cynical I might feel like they set it up perfectly so that any detractors could be painted in the “unfaithful, never happy with any change” brush.
Honestly if they’d changed the witnessing policy I’d be jumping for joy and shouting from the rooftops. It is possible to be disappointed and have the ability to be content with progress. I just don’t see progress here. At all.
MH, Oh come on, do you mean that you’ve never seen a reason for Kimball’s “lock your hearts” lecture in your years in the church? This takes “flirt to convert” to a whole new level… “flirt to convert by proxy”.
I also don’t think that YW are always able to so easily politely decline.
Bishops and youth leaders may be able to arrange which YM do baptisms in particular sessions, but how often do bishops know exactly who is going out with who at any given time, or “what secrets lurk in the hearts of (not The Shadow, but…) a tween”.
I know an elderly couple who have worked occasionally in the baptistry. I don’t know what the man did (probably witnessed baptisms), but I know the woman handed out towels. She didn’t like it. She didn’t tell me exactly why, but I think it made her feel quite useless; she could literally be replaced by a shelf.
Now the YW will have the opportunity to do and feel the same, and I haven’t the foggiest idea what my elderly friend will be doing.
Years ago no one would have convinced me that women could be witnesses. I figured that if priesthood was required to baptize, than it just made sense that priesthood was required to witness. Similarly, when I heard of pioneer women giving blessings I thought it was heresy. This is the fruit of some many years of carefully correlated and controlled curriculum and leader worship: we don’t know our own history, and we don’t know the difference between doctrine and tradition. While many in this somewhat liberal blog see the action by Joseph f. Smith as evidence of a changeable tradition, most members will see it as divinely inspired direction regarding priesthood duties.
“Recording ordinances” does refer to scanning the completed cards in. But it’s more than just a formality. Until those cards are scanned, the ordinance hasn’t been performed. Full stop.
Now, is it parity to what the young men are doing? Nope. And that’s unfortunate, and we can and should do better on that score. But recording ordinances is, according to LDS theology (which puts heavy emphasis on the keeping of records), inherently sacred work.
To call it just “scanning completed cards” mischaracterizes the nature of the work, and does a disservice to the people who perform it.
I see some correlations. Joseph Smith was young, recieved revelation, and at a time when women couldn’t vote, he has them performing blessings, witnessing, and managing their own organization.
We now have old leaders (chosen by seniority), who would be killed by the rigour of recieving revelation, but who are socially conservative, and now that women do have the vote and are moving rapidly to equality, they are fighting to prevent that happening in the church. How the leadership has changed. As someone above said, imagine the church if we had leaders like Joseph in his prime. So leadership by revelation v leadership by political ideals.
I suspect that although the senior leadership were in positions of power in 1959, as women witnessing baptisms and sealings doesn’t fit their view, they have forgotten it ever happened. Now that it has been brought to their attention, you would think the only reason to not change the rules to allow women to witness throughout the church, would be pride? Gospel leadership?
I’m torn in both directions but only on a personal level regarding my family. My daughter has a tracheotomy and ventilator that prevents her from physically being immersed for baptisms. At the temple she can only help with confirmations. I see this as an opportunity to increase her breadth of participation in the temple. However, there is nothing about her physically or mentally that would prevent her from being a witness to baptisms or other ordinances if only this was presented as an option for her.
My wife who is fairly orthodox heard about the new policy and said in a sarcastic tone “neat – we can hold towels now.”
As far as recommendations – my recommendation is that the Q15 actually listen to women and include them in the decision making process. Maybe women don’t get the Priesthood (yet) but give them a vote. Not being able to take constructive criticism sounds like abuse of power.
Trying to be diplomatic as my own interest in church participation has waned over the past year, but it’s things like this that really test the concept of the church being divinely led. Perhaps too heavy-handed a metaphor, but it feels like “salvation” in the mormon church is the “stability” in an abusive relationship that keeps the victim from leaving.
I am just so tired. This is emblematic of the problems I have with Neylan McBaine’s book, all window dressing and no substance. I agree with those commenting on the pairing.
On the one hand I feel any task serving others ought to be viewed as a holy undertaking (cue Ardis Pashall’s first post on the topic), that many of these tasks are viewed as menial and consistently undervalued by society as whole is probably not something to be addressed in the comments of this particular post, except insofar that apparently the tasks that men are assigned are the ones given status, whether that be in terms of pay, or priesthood or whatever. It’s all part and parcel of the same thing so far as I am concerned, and it’s as prevalent at church as it is anywhere else in the world. And I can’t stand the gendering of any of it. So yes this does feel very much to me like “if we put girls in their place young enough they’ll be habituated to it by the time they’re old enough to work out what’s going on”, and that makes me angry.
I’ve got to the point where I just don’t want to care about priesthood or authority or hierarchy or any of that rigid constraint, which seems to me to imprison men as much as it excludes women. It’s poison. It feels a long way from any God I would want to worship.
“It’s the context. It’s the widening chasm of responsibility they didn’t have to make.” – Kristine A
This is how I feel, too. Another term that comes to mind is unforced error.
I came to a conclusion a while ago that the church doesn’t feel as though it is need of my skills and talents. I don’t say this in bitterness, it’s just a fact. As a social worker, I am aware of many organizations and causes that do need my skills and services. It doesn’t make sense for me to hand out towels when I could be doing meaningful work in the community, work that exemplifies the life of the Savior. This doesn’t diminish my viewpoint on the importance of temple work, but handing out towels isn’t temple work. I refuse to marginalize the sacredness of the temple by pretending that the role being offered to women in the baptistry equates to baptisms, witnessing, or confirmations. It just doesn’t. If I were to be asked to serve in a towel holding capacity, I would offer to purchase a shelf and continue with my community work. I apply this logic across the board in my church service. Often talented women are spinning their wheels in made up fluffy callings. The world doesn’t have time for that type of silliness.
Governing Myself, Thank you! I have reached the same conclusion, but never put it in so many words. Seriously, I feel like printing out your comment and taping it to my mirror.
@Governing Myself: That was a profound comment. Thank you for sharing.
Recording temple ordinances involves more than just scanning the ordinance cards after the ordinance is performed. Both the baptism and the confirmation ordinances include someone acting as the recorder. The baptism includes the person performing the baptism, the two witnesses, and the recorder. The confirmation includes the two people performing the confirmation and the recorder. The recorder is the person who confirms that the name of the deceased is spoken correctly, that the prayer is spoken correctly, and then puts a check mark on the ordinance card to confirm that the ordinance has been performed correctly. I don’t know if the intent of the new policy is to extend this work to the YW but I really doubt that the temples would allow any youth to enter (i.e,, scan) the ordinances into the computer system since that work is currently only performed by trained temple workers.
Pouring your whole soul out to Heavenly Father can include expressing extreme frustration. This blog post could basically be a prayer. Take it to God, give Him all your frustration and sorrow, and ask if He will give you some understanding and peace. And know that He loves you.