So I asked Chat-GPT to show two middle aged people…and this is what a middle-aged woman looks like apparently, but at least it shows the correct number of fingers.
In the Church we segregate certain callings by sex. In addition to the obvious Relief Society/priesthood quorum distinctions, primary presidencies are female, while clerks and leadership positions are male.
These distinctions are overlapping, but not exactly collinear, with the all-male priesthood and leadership issue, which is a much bigger question that I have addressed parts of elsewhere, but for the purposes of this post will put off to the side even if it touches on some of the same themes. So here I will take the fact that the leadership positions are male as a given, and address where we go from there in terms of sex segregation of callings (I’m going to use sex and gender interchangeably here, so sue me).
At the outset, I should note that If we want to make the practice/doctrine distinction, which I typically don’t, this is clearly in the practice, and not doctrine, category, and if the Church were to change on this it wouldn’t cause any great consternation on my part. Still, all things being equal I think the current course is the wisest for two main reasons; both of them, I am sure, contentious no matter how carefully worded.
First, if leadership positions are reserved for men for gender complementarian reasons, it then follows that some spaces should also be carved out and reserved for women. Gender complementarity is one of those things that are implied in the D&C and more explicitly in the Proclamation. The particulars of which things are assigned to which genders is another whole post or twenty, but suffice it to say that I doubt any framework for maintaining a male-only priesthood is internally very consistent without some sense of complementarity, that the two genders need each other to fulfill particular but differing roles.
And again, you may disagree with the notion altogether, and think that supposedly telos or ontic aspects of one sex or the other should be flattened in regards to Church functions, but again assuming a gender complementarian perspective it makes sense.
Point two is the potential risk for sexual mischief (cue eye rolls). “But Stephen C., responsible, functional adults in the real world work with members of the opposite sex all the time without getting into sexual mischief.”
But do they? Yes, most cross-sex employment situations do not lead to affairs and sexual mischief, but by the same token it’s incredibly naive to pretend like that’s not a major thing in the workplace where they work in intense, close quarter situations, travel together, etc. (Jobs where you only interact with your coworkers at the water cooler and the occasional weekly meeting presumably are less so, but I imagine they still happen.) Heck, even as a male of middling attractiveness I was invited up to a hotel room at a conference by a colleague in my younger and skinner days.
Of course, in the real workforce gender segregation is not and should not be an option. Such interactions, formal or not, are part of ladder climbing, so having some kind of workplace segregation would negatively affect the member of the sex with the less power, typically the woman. (That being said, I would be okay with a norm that, for example, male executives typically have male secretaries).
However, these dynamics are simply irrelevant to non-leadership Church callings. No woman’s career or ability to feed her family is going to be affected by not being a Young Men’s president, and people aren’t exactly Machiavellian about getting assigned the ward clerk job with all its attendant power, prestige, and wealth. Ward clerks spend a lot of time in close quarters with other clerks, spend an awful amount of time in traffic with them driving the tithing to the bank, etc. All things being equal, it would probably be better if it were members of the same sex on that team, and the same would go for members of other presidencies (e.g. Sunday School presidency).
Other callings, like Sunday School teacher, are more in the category of “water cooler” jobs. There might be the occasional mixed-sex meeting, but that is relatively benign compared to the sometimes intense and time-consuming involvement one typically has with fellow members of an auxiliary presidency.
I’m having a hard time finding really solid survey stats on this, but one survey cited by Forbes suggests that about one in five people at a workplace in a committed relationship have cheated on their spouse with a coworker, and nearly half of people know somebody who has cheated with a coworker. These numbers seem high considering that the GSS reports about one in five respondents have had affairs overall, but as far as I can tell that includes all respondents, married or not, so presumably the number is higher once you remove the never-marrieds.
Regardless, cheating in the workplace is a very real, much-too-common, thing, so nobody is served by simply rolling eyes or snickering at the implications of that fact. If you want to accept a certain number of intra-ward affairs as the cost of having mixed-sex clerks and Sunday School presidencies then so be it, but it’s naive to not think that there would be some trade-offs on this point.
One could easily rejoin with taking this to an extreme. Well, in that case why don’t we go full Taliban and require complete sexual segregation? And sure, across thousands of units taking such draconian measures would probably lead to a handful of fewer affairs at immense cost, but again it’s a cost versus benefit trade-off, and assigning auxiliary presidencies to one sex or the other is a relatively painless way to avoid some of the major risks incurred by having mixed sexes spending a lot of after-hours time together in intense, close proximity in a ward context.
So if avoiding sexual midchief is the goal, it presumably makes sense to take sexual orientation into account too, right? Should there be a policy against calling bisexual and gay men to bishopric or bishopric-adjacent positions? Would it be okay to call a gay man and a gay woman to serve together in the clerk’s office? Two asexual people?
You seem to take it as a given that gender segregation prevents sexual sin, do you know of any evidence of this? Just thinking anecdotally I doubt that’s true.
@Spencer: I’ve thought about a version of this question in regards to norms about bathroom use, and it can get complex. For example, I don’t think that a naked heterosexual man should be showering with teenage girls (or women at all) in a locker room. Partly because 1) we have a norm against showing members of the opposite sex our genitalia, and 2) the legitimate discomfort the women themselves may feel from a sexually charged man seeing them naked.
In principle an asexual or gay man won’t pose the same issue re #2, and then conversely a gay man would pose the same issue to showering in a men’s locker room that a heterosexual man would pose to showering in a woman’s locker room, so do we assign the gay man to shower in the woman’s locker room? That would resolve #2, but still fly in the face of #1 (I don’t think most mothers would want their underaged daughters seeing a grown man’s genitalia, whether or not that man is straight or gay). How far along the Kinsey scale do you have to be to be assigned to a woman’s locker room? Do you assign asexual cards? Do we rely on self-report or plethysmography? Obviously this is going places where nobody wants to go.
Some people would then use these minority cases to justify a sort of locker room nihilism (everybody can use everybody else’s locker rooms), but that’s also a place most wouldn’t want to go, so I think the best case here it to rely on the heuristic of men showering with men and women showering with women–I think there are good reasons for that particular cultural norm and to not worry about the off-diagonal cases, since validating and confirming those cases would require intrusiveness that nobody wants.
Anyway, I don’t mean to open up the can of worms about the bathroom debates here, but in essence I’d take that logic and apply it here. Sure, the orientation aspect would presumably come into play for the sexual mischief concern, but having the Church somehow empirically validate whether somebody is gay or asexual enough to be able to serve in a primary presidency is also a road I don’t think anybody wants to go down, so in the meantime the gender segmentation is sort of a good enough heuristic, since given that heterosexuals are a much bigger population, the chance that a mixed-sex pair of clerks are going to cheat with each other is much higher than the chance that a same-sex pair of clerks are going to cheat with each other.
E: There haven’t been any randomized studies assigning people to spend a lot of time with others of the opposite sex to see if that leads to affairs if that’s what you’re asking, so yes, this is a theoretical argument based on the prevalence of cheating in the workplace. And of course I’m not saying that it prevents all sexual sin (if only), only that it adds enough fuel to the fire to increase the probability enough to merit keeping some presidencies and such within the same sex.
Stephen, while I don’t know of any studies where people are assigned closer contact working with the opposite sex to see if infidelity goes up, there are cross cultural studies. And they seem to show the opposite of what you propose. Cultures where men and women work together on equal terms tend to teach men that women are human, not sex objects. Cultures where there is a Taliban forcing women to hide their bodies as completely as possible and really strong segregation of genders actually tend to increase male lust and affairs, they also tend to be worse as far as rape goes. Also, studies have been done comparing affairs in nudist colonies and guess what? Seeing naked people all the time is a real turn off.
So, I would say that getting rid of sex segregation and treat women as fully human and to be respected for more than making babies and valued for more than just their looks and it will actually reduce affairs at church. But also reduce the total responsibilities of bishops and other church callings to give people enough time to be with their spouse. Or, you know, Maybe make them paid positions so the poor guy doesn’t have two full time jobs
See, it isn’t just time in close proximity or intensity of work conditions but how the culture treats and values as humans instead of just sex objects or baby making machines that causes affairs and other sexual inappropriate behavior, especially rape and child sexual abuse.
But it depends on your overall goal. Reduce inappropriate sexual behavior or maintain male power. But then I’m a feminist and have gender equality and reducing rape and child sexual abuse as two of my main goals.
I agree with the OP. And as a rather staunch social conservative I believe that the church as got it right. I believe that young men should be led by men and that young women should be led by women–because the leaders of each group have (respectively) “been there.” I also believe that little children should be led by women. I know some folks will disagree with me–but (IMO) it’s just the nature of things. Women are better at nurturing little children than men are. And I absolutely agree with the church’s division of adult male and female organizations led by their respective sexes. I believe it’s imperative that the church stands its ground vis-a-vis these basic distinctions–especially at a time when we’re forgetting who and what we are.
Incredible that so many of the comments want to live in fantasy land. It doesn’t take studies to know that if a man and a woman (whether each are married or no) spend significant time together, things can happen that should not happen. They will not happen most of the time, but even once can totally shatter a ward or stake. There is no upside to having mixed company do the prestigious jobs of data entry, or driving tithing to the bank or ordering sacrament cups.
If the concern is affairs, presumably you’d have no problem with an all-male primary presidency or an all-female bishopric? Methinks the real concern is maintaining traditional gender roles.
When I was the ward’s Temple and Family History leader, we had mixed gender meetings all the time. The ward mission does likewise, not to mention the ward council. They’re still trying to get me to attend the stake’s single adult committee meetings (mixed gender), even though I have no calling to do so. If we can have all of those mixed gender meetings, I see no reason that a mixed gender bishopric or Sunday school presidency would present a problem. As for clerking, during my two years as financial clerk, I had face-to-face interaction with a bishopric member less than an hour once a month. Everything else (except audits) I did by myself. That’s not a level of contact that is going to spark fires.
Jack, I’m a late 40s male who has raised five kids in the church and held nearly every local leadership position outside of a stake presidency. I’ve also been in primary and young men callings. My kids have all served missions and married in the temple (so far). We’re all active and strong members by the church’s standards.
I’m I better mother than your wife. I’m sorry if that offends you. It’s just the nature of things. I’m naturally more caring and nurturing than your wife. Also better than your mother and other women you know. I’m just better than them all at nurturing.
Also, my wife is a way better father than you. She just is. Sorry again if that’s offensive.
Dave K,
I’m *not* a better mother than my wife–and the vast majority of men are more like me than they are like you in that regard–though I think I’m a pretty good dad. That said, I think the church is wise to take a conservative approach to these issues rather than rushing to accommodate the rare exceptions–especially where the happiness and health of children are concerned. We should never place the wants of adults above the needs of children. Never.
Anna: Avoiding mixed-sex presidencies isn’t the Taliban forcing women to hide their bodies.
Dave K.: The all-male priesthood is another topic, but yes, I would avoid an all-male primary presidency. We can make vague allusions to genders being complementary but be too scared to articulate what exactly the distinct attributes are, but sure, I’ll go out on a limb here and posit that the female-child connection that is nearly ubiquitous across cultures, time, and space, and is alluded in the Proc is more than just a false tradition of our fathers. That isn’t to say that men can’t also have stronger connections with their children, but I’m not quite willing to completely flatten and neuter all traditionally gendered functions. (Plus, if for no other reason men are responsible for the vast majority of child abuse, and to preempt a rejoinder on that, all-male leaders have less contact with children than primary presidencies do so it isn’t inconsistent to have that concern for primary presidencies but not bishoprics). But yes, I would be fine with an all-female Sunday School Presidency.
Last Lemming: As I mentioned in the OP, this isn’t aimed at all mixed-sex meetings, just contexts in which the interactions are particularly intense. Sitting in a big meeting with ten other people isn’t the same thing as meeting constantly with two other people to run a large and intense auxiliary.
If clerks are relatively autonomous and only meet with other clerks, then sure, I’d be fine with an all-female clerkship, but in my experience as a clerk at least we met and drove around with the bishopric all the time–that’s probably a function of ward size–they were always stepping in when a clerk didn’t show up to reconcile tithing and drop offerings off at the bank, so in those cases yes, I think they should be male.
Stephen, you do realize that lots of men currently serve in primary (I’d wager in the 100s of thousands)? Just as with women, they’re never alone with children, but the church’s policy allows two men to be together in a class with children. So a ward could conceivably have an all male complement of teachers, but no men in the presidency, and be in compliance.
That the church is fine with male primary teachers (a nurturing role) and yet limits primary presidencies to women (a presiding role) undermines your position that PotF gender roles should prevent an all-male primary presidency.
Even weaker is your concern with an all-men’s primary presidency leading to child abuse. C’mon, seriously. You’re okay with two men alone in a room with the sunbeams but worried about abuse if three men are leading junior primary?
Stephen, did you even read what I wrote, or just knee jerk react? Eeeeeeshshsh. No, all one gender presidencies is just that. But *forbidding* mixed gender presidencies sends a message. It teaches us something about the role of women. Did you honestly not get that? Com”on, you are not stupid. So, forbidding mixed gender presidencies teaches that women are temptresses. It teaches that men cannot be trusted to keep their pants zipped. It teaches that women are not human, but sex objects. It is part of rape culture. If men see women as fellow humans first and sex objects second, they will think twice about jumping into bed or worse. But no, Mormon men are taught that women are temptations and things. This mentality adds to MORE sexual indiscretions NOT less. We may not be as bad as the Taliban, but we do lean strongly in the direction of teaching men that women are sex objects. The very focus on “modesty” as covering women’s bodies is very objectifying. Modesty should be that the general authorities sit in rough wooden chairs, not red velvet ones, but no, in Mormon culture, “modesty is all about women coverings and not about humility. That teaches that women are sex objects.
Dave K: Enforcing a “men can’t be primary teachers” rule would be completely infeasible for staffing purposes, plus even if it was you’d disproportionately keeping women out of other other adult-related activities such as Sunday School at a large scale (when many of these women are SAHM and have fewer opportunities for adult interactions throughout the week, so again pros and cons, and carving out a female-only leadership space with the primary presidency seems like a relatively painless way to speak to the above.
Anna: There are a lot of different issues there and a lot to unpack, but to summarize; the Church doesn’t need to teach people that most of us are sexual people for things to happen, and having a norm about single-sex presidencies that cuts both ways does not reduce women to sexual objects any more than it reduces men to sexual objects, it’s just not naive about the role of sexuality. I assume there are plenty of workplace affairs in Sweden as well.
I have spent way too much time in Primary to buy that the Lord will reluctantly let me teach Primary despite my inherent inferiority in the role only because it wouldn’t be practical to have women do it all. We can acknowledge that the Lord thinks gender is important while being honest and humble enough to recognize that we have no idea why, and that most of the “inherent differences” people have pointed to as justifications have turned out to be unfounded stereotypes, the result of socialization, or only detectable with large data sets and good statistics and thus meaningless in dealing with individuals (as Stephen C described in a recent post). The Family Proclamation makes no such claims, only saying what fathers and mothers are responsible for. For all we know, Heavenly Father and Mother drew straws to see who would get what assignments during mortality in this world.
There is one excellent reason Primary Presidents need to be female: it gives women another voice on ward/branch and stake councils, where they are explicitly told to speak up on all issues, not just those involving children. I’d love to see Sunday School President become a women’s calling to give them another.
In the fairly near future, most of the Church’s top-level leadership will have spent their careers–including their early careers when what feels “normal” was set–working side-by-side with women. Women will no longer be strange, half-alien creatures with their own separate sphere of activity. How much difference will this make? I have no idea. I simply don’t know how much of the Church’s approach to gender is divine and how much is a hold-over from the culture our top-level leaders grew up in. We have historical precedent for cultural change making the unthinkable thinkable and then the Lord’s prophets can receive revelation on the topic; we have even more precedent for the Lord’s prophets telling us we need to be different from the society we live in. Be faithful and we’ll find out together.
As for the specific topic of this post, in the fairly near future the picture at the top of this post will not seem strange to our top-level leaders. They’ll be well aware that 99.9% of the time such collaboration does not actually lead to an affair. On the other hand, the whole idea of the “Protecting Children and Youth” training is that we should carry out our duties in a way that minimizes opportunities for abuse, and it may make sense to apply the same principle and minimize opportunities for inappropriate relationships between adults. Men and women have plenty of opportunities to work together closely in other settings.
I know of ward Relief Society presidents that would meet with the bishop alone and stake Relief Society presidents that would talk privately with the stake president. Should men be Relief Society presidents to avoid the mixed gender private meetings?
Again, I’m not making a case against mixed-sex meetings per se, just the kind of intense interactions inherent in being in a presidency with somebody.
I recently read “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood and watched the first season of the Hulu adaptation. I am now reading Atwood’s sequel, “The Testaments.” Just on page 9, as narrated by a young girl raised in the misogynistic, supposedly righteous nation of Gilead:
“Arms covered, hair covered, skirts down to the knee before you were five and no more than two inches above the ankle after that, because the urges of men were terrible things and those urges needed to be curbed. The man eyes that were always roaming here and there like the eyes of tigers, those searchlight eyes, needed to be shielded from the alluring and indeed blinding power of us—of our shapely or skinny or fat legs, of our graceful or knobby or sausage arms, of our peachy or blotchy skins, of our entwining curls of shining hair or our coarse unruly pelts or our straw-like wispy braids, it did not matter. Whatever our shapes or features, we were the innocent and blameless causes that through our very nature could make men drunk with lust, so that they’d stagger and lurch and topple over the verge… and go plunging down in flames… We were custodians of an invaluable treasure that existed, unseen, inside us; we were precious flowers that had to be kept safely inside glass houses, or else we would be ambushed and our petals would be torn off and our treasure would be stolen and we would be ripped apart and trampled by the ravenous men who might lurk around any corner, out there in the wide sharp-edged sin-ridden world.”
I must, of course, have been inspired to read this so soon after Stephen’s disgustingly sexist blog post! /s
Stephen, welcome to Gilead. Apparently you have eight sons. What the HELL are you teaching them?
Sitting in a big meeting with ten other people isn’t the same thing as meeting constantly with two other people to run a large and intense auxiliary.
I’m fine with EQ, RS, YM, and YW all having single-gender presidencies. But I think that Sunday school and primary presidencies could be gender-integrated with few problems. I don’t know about primary, but I can assure you that there is nothing intense about SS presidency meetings. (I had a female secretary during my first stint in the calling. She was pretty and competent, but serving together did absolutely nothing to draw us closer.)
But now that I think about it, I have grown closer to certain sisters that I home taught. I even ended up marrying one of them. Maybe that’s where you should focus your concern.
“Intense interactions!” What does that mean. I work in an engineering group that’s about 60/40 men to women with females in leadership and in engineering spots. Sadly, we spend more waking hours with each other than our spouses on weekdays including one on one meetings, lunches and travels. We know each others spouses, kids, and interests and, believe it or not, no one’s had an affair. People who have roving eyes will be unfaithful regardless of the situation. Stephen’s attitude is more of the patriarchal drivel that keeps women oppressed. Men and women are evil. We must control evil women to help evil men. Let’s tell them how to dress and wear underwear too. Women are equal in all areas of life now except, in general, religious environments and they’re leaving. It used to be that the man didn’t go to church but the woman took her kids. Now women are leaving and taking kids and husbands with them. The church has a problem. I have faith in the upcoming generation. They’re used to coed sports teams, female and male mentors, and females excelling in medicine, business, and law. Perhaps the church will change before it dies in the western world.
Hi guys, please look up the wikipedia article on effect sizes. If you think mixed presidencies aren’t a big deal and won’t lead to a significant number of inappropriate dalliances, then single-gender presidencies aren’t a big deal and won’t lead to mass exodus and/or the implementation of Gilead in your local chapel. Y’all sound unhinged.
As Carolyn Hax, the advice columnist once said, it’s not a question of “if” you will be attracted to someone other than your spouse, it’s a question of “when.” We seem focused on full blown affairs, but haven’t given any weight to the emotional intimacies that occur when two people are friends and then some. I don’t have any female friends. I have a whole lot of female acquaintances, most of whom are my wife’s friends. That doesn’t mean I don’t talk and joke and converse with them all the time. But, there are some huge espirit de corps issues that can crop up when a team develops, whether it be at work or church. I have no doubt men and women can work in close quarters and intense situations. However, the odds are very good emotions will get the better of many of them. While I appreciate the lived experiences of some of the commenters, I appreciate the wisdom of 15 prophets, seers and revelators even more.
Stephen, I’m curious if you (or others) have insight into the policies and practices at church-run schools and businesses. I have to believe there are plenty of mixed-sex working groups and leadership structures at the BYUs, DI, Farmland Reserve, facilities management, and even the church headquarters. Assuming I’m right, isn’t there just as much (or more) risk of flirtation and affairs in those orgs as in lay callings? Why would church leadership allow such risks to exist?
I agree 100%. Which is why I am violently opposed to women, young or old, having to do “worthiness” interviews alone with a male priesthood leader.
Dave K: I’ve already addressed that in the OP in regards to gender segregation in the workplace.
You can’t make this argument without weighing any benefits to mixed-gender leadership. The current system drastically limits the amount of input most women give. It took me 40 years to realize that while my husband’s opinions were often sought as he’d served on ward or stake councils most of his life, mine was almost never sought. An organization that takes very little input from women and often leaves them in Primary with almost no socialization for years or decades at a time will not be a strong, vibrant organization.
That’s a valid point. I’m still iffy on mixed-sex presidencies, but your point is well taken and I’m in favor of some sort of intentionality to make sure women’s voices are more included such as reducing the total number of people in ward council (meetings are onerous so you’re not exactly doing people favors personally by including them), but including more female officers to get closer to parity.
I’m the Sunday school president in my ward. When I was called the bishop asked if I would mind not attending ward council so that the male/female ratio would be reduced. I was happy to comply.
I’m in favor of better balance in ward councils, but mixed presidencies doesn’t do that.
Right now the regular attendees are the bishop and his counsellors, the ward clerk and executive secretary, and the presidents of the Relief Society, Elder’s Quorum, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School–seven men and three women. Barring major revelation or dropping gender-segregated youth programs, the bishopric and the RS, EQ, and YW presidents are not changing genders. So in practice, mixed presidencies means Primary and Sunday School. Making them gender neutral might make sense, but it’s as likely to decrease the number of women on the ward council as increase it. To actually increase it you could make the Sunday School President a woman for the express purpose of increasing the number of women on the ward council, which I’d be okay with.
That leaves the executive secretary and ward clerk, which leads to the whole “working closely together” thing, especially given the rule that you must have two people in the tiny clerk’s office whenever money is being handled. There’s a lot less of that in the age of online donations and maybe there could be a rule that the door must stay open, but it’s a concern.
Or you could tweak who attends. If the bishop brings one counsellor, the Relief Society president brings one, the YW and Primary take turns bringing one, and the Sunday School president does not attend, then it’s five men and five women. Make the Sunday School president a woman and have them attend and then the bishop can have both counsellors and it’s still six and six.
Just throwing out ideas.
Just to add a few points to RLD’s:
Another option would be to allow the bishop to call either a woman or man to be the Sunday School president, and they call same-sex counselors.
I’d also be fine with the SS presidency being a position carved out for the sisters; you could even make a traditional/conservative/gendered argument for such an arrangement since women have traditionally been associated with schooling and education (in the US at least).
Finally, the working closely together problem obviously doesn’t apply to singles wards, where the whole point is to maybe spark something, so in principle I’m okay with more mixing there at the sub-bishop level (since he’s still married), but that might be a little too on-the-nose.
I mostly agree with this post. I think that Sunday School Presidencies should be mixed gender. Given that the calling is little more than default Substitute Teacher, there’s no way those Presidencies spend lots of time together in close quarters.
Haha, yes, what’s appropriate can be quite different for YSAs. We joked that our mission president and his wife kept the transfer board when they finished their mission; they just switched to pairing up elders and sisters.
1. In my limited experience, lack of proximity in labor has not been a significant factor in people having an affair. It usually has more to do with someone not finding what they want with their partner. FWIW.
2. The way the ward is structured is definitely policy, not doctrine. Bishoprics are in the D&C, sure, but the nature of most callings mentioned there have changed drastically over time and there is no reason to assume they can’t change again. To a great degree, the current structure of Ward Councils stems from paternalistic notions of how care should be provided. Remember the PEC? It has never really gone away.
3. Honestly, if you made a man the Relief Society or Young Women’s president, what would change? Auxiliary presidencies have to get approval for everything they do from the bishopric anyways.
Rather than mixed-gender Sunday School presidencies, how about simply abolishing them. They serve no useful purpose whatsoever, as far as I have been able to discern. The men who serve may be good men, but they don’t preside over anything, don’t make any decisions, don’t run anything, don’t approve anything, don’t recommend anything.
The Primary presidency, by contrast, actually have a purpose — running Sharing Time every Sunday and the annual Primary sacrament meeting presentation.
JI, shhhh, you’re giving away the secret of my favorite calling.
Well actually, a Sunday School president is useful in a few ways. There needs to be someone who will look around the chapel during sacrament meeting, notice that the Gospel Doctrine teacher isn’t there, and start preparing a few thoughts just in case. And when I walk past a classroom full of youth who are waiting for an adult to show up, it’s useful to have someone I can mention this to. Also, the keys to ringing the bell at the end of the hour are held by the Sunday School president and cannot be delegated. It is his sacred duty and privilege, and his alone.
I’m currently a Primary President. I think the same-sex presidencies are a good tradition. We do have wonderful experiences with the children and within our presidency, some of them very spiritual. It’s easy to grow very close to people when you share such things, and it is easy to drift into close friendships, which is good in most cases. Could be problematic in mixed-sex situations.
It’s true you can do nothing as a Sunday School President and very few people will notice as long as the teachers show up. Or you can take the calling seriously and do a fair bit of good, especially for teachers without a lot of experience. If you don’t know what the actual responsibilities of the calling are (they’re not very visible even when they’re being done well) skim chapter 13 in the handbook. I enjoyed my time as Sunday School President, but then I’m a teaching geek as well as a data geek.
You’re also seriously underestimating the amount of work the Primary presidency does.
I worked in the primary for quite a long time–mostly as the primary pianist (which is the best calling in the church mind you). And I can say without a doubt that every presidency I worked with were rock stars. They had the spirit with them–they were compassionate and blessed with an abundance of that sweet boldness that is necessary to lead groups of children properly.
Having said that, I suppose that men–theoretically–might perform that calling well enough. Even so, the fact that the primary organization is led by women is not merely an artifact of sexism. There is wisdom in placing primary children within the stewardship of a presidency comprised of women. Women simply have a greater capacity than men to nurture little children. And as I’ve said before–because the needs of children outweigh the wants of adults it is imperative that women lead the primary organization.
I’m not in favor of having mixed gender presidencies, for the reason that Merina mentioned. I’ve been a primary president once, a secretary to a primary presidency, and served as a counselor in Relief Society, and in those presidencies we became very close to one another. To me, those bonds are some of the best parts of serving in a presidency, but I would not feel comfortable being that emotionally close to a man who was not my husband. It’s not about women being “temptresses”, it’s about the deep emotional and spiritual connections that are formed when you serve together so closely in such time-consuming and challenging callings.
I’m also not in favor of having male primary presidencies, in part because Primary is currently the only organization where women have the opportunity to direct men. I think it would be going backward to change that.
EQ and RS presidents should join the bishop on the stand, with counselors standing down. We may be going in this direction with more and more traditional bishopric prerogatives devolving onto RS and EQ. Oh, hope this isn’t a tangent.