Photo: LDS.org
Let me start by saying – and I want to be clear – that I don’t understand everything. The Lord has reasons for things that are beyond the capabilities of my tiny mind. That said, we are also encouraged to ask questions and seek revelation through studying and weighing things. It works that way for us individually and it works that way all the way up to President Monson.
I also wish to be clear that I am not agitating for anything. This dispatch, which I am publishing as a noted and venerated Pulitzer-worthy journalist, is intended to bring about discussion and serves as an avenue for thoughts to leave my crowded brain. This isn’t some zero-sum argument: women at the expense of men, men at the expense of women, etc. If anything, we can come to understand Church administrative structure better.
Additionally, I recognize that I might might easily miss some important factoids as I write this, so if you are in a position with more knowledge, be a good sport and clarify it in the comments below!
Lastly, this article could be about a number of positions (Sunday school president comes to mind), but I’m focusing on ward mission leader to go after that highest-hanging, PEC-attending fruit.
So let’s get right to it.
We recently changed ward mission leaders in my ward, and it has me thinking about how we fill the position. (Dave, if you read this, it’s in no way an indictment of you or an expression of disappointment with your call. You are a rock star, Dave, and I’m thrilled to see you in ward council every Sunday.) I’ve known countless great men who have served as ward mission leaders. Heck, I’ve even served as a ward mission leader. But I still wonder, why can’t a woman fill this role?
I’m ready for a female ward mission leader. I see no reason why a woman can’t lead a ward mission. There might be a few logistical hurdles, but nothing we can’t overcome with sheer Latter-day awesomeness.
Now before anyone starts accusing me of not understanding gender roles within the Church or assuming I’m pushing for something like female priesthood ordination, I’m not. I don’t want unigender bathrooms. I don’t want us all to have the same callings. I think the Church has a wonderful organization for both genders, even if at times, many women feel jilted. But I do believe that opportunities for growth exist in certain areas, and I merely want to explore that.
So let’s start with the basics and take a look at the responsibilities of the ward mission leader and assess whether or not a woman can do them:
All looks pretty doable, right? Ward mission leaders do not have priesthood keys. Yes, missionary work is done under the direction of the priesthood, but so is the Young Women’s program. So is the Relief Society. So is Provident Living. As Elder Oaks said:
Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function.
We’re also reminded by Elder Oaks that only those who hold a priesthood office can officiate in priesthood ordinances. But again, the actual implementation of ward mission work involves no ordinances other than baptisms, confirmations, and temple trips that will hopefully come to pass. And the ward missionary rarely performs those, anyway. That stuff is supposed to be outsourced to ward members.
Now in saying this, it’s important to understand that the work of the ward mission is officially under the direction of the bishop, who retains “ultimate responsibility,” and the role of ward mission leader effectively exists as an extension of that. I can easily see the argument that because of this, the role must be filled by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, effectively acting as proxy for the bishop. I get it. And because of that, my entire treatise might be rendered moot, and that’s OK.
So let’s look at a slightly different, but ancillary relationship. Female full-time missionaries have increasing responsibility within the mission field, but as best as I can tell, are not district or zone leaders in any mission outside of Temple Square, which consists solely of sisters. Again, we go to Elder Oaks:
When a woman – young or old- is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.
So is that relationship of zone and district leaders somehow rooted in priesthood oversight? Maybe, but let’s move to the problem with that logic.
When I was a district leader and zone leader, I was never set apart. I was assigned. The transfer call came: “Hey Elder Openshaw. You’re staying in Tarragona and you’re now the district leader,” and that was it. There’s no priesthood office or accompanying blessing and setting apart associated with leadership roles within a mission aside from the mission presidency, and as best as I can tell, little reason why a woman cannot be a district leader over a bunch of men.
Photo: LDS.org
Which brings me back to the ward mission. What’s the issue here?
Is it the aforementioned priesthood direction issue so it just has to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder because priesthood?
Is it because female ward mission leaders would be at a logistical disadvantage trying to hold closed-door meetings with a largely male full-time missionary base? (I’ve read similar rationale for why we don’t mix genders among ward clerks.)
Is it because the high councilor assigned to missionary work would be in an awkward situation having one-on-one meetings with a woman? Bishops meet with Relief Society presidents all the time.
Is it Proclamation on the Family-related? Just that worrying about missionary work on a larger scale isn’t the concern of women?
Looking at the chart above, it’s hard to find any issues. A woman can navigate all of those tasks just as well as a man.
Having realized the issue is clearly not with perceived ability, but with priesthood organization, I reached out to a few current and former bishop and stake leader friends of mine to see if they had any insights. The general consensus was that the ward mission leader is, indeed, effectively a third counselor to a bishop as far as extension of authority and ability to act under a certain set of keys.
Admittedly, this doesn’t totally answer the question for me, as we’ve learned from Elder Oaks and others that all organizations throughout the Church function under a specific set of priesthood keys and authority. Within a ward, that places nearly every auxiliary except for deacons, teachers, and elders quorums under the keys of the bishop, which doesn’t make the ward mission particularly unique among the many organizations within a ward. (This is why an elders quorum president is able to call and set apart individuals for elders quorum callings with zero authorization from a bishop. Of course, that president works in close association with the bishop and doesn’t just run ramshackle across ward auxiliaries, devil-may-care – Unless you’re me, in which case, you opt to go rogue as often as possible, bwahaha.)
Another interesting way to look at this is that we once had stake mission leaders, not ward ones, which from a purely administrative standpoint makes sense, because missionary work is overseen by the Melchizedek Priesthood, and while a bishop is a high priest and capable of presiding over his ward, he does not hold the keys for that priesthood office, which lies with the aforementioned priesthood quorums and the stake president. Obviously, this means that the bishop has been given authority under the keys of the stake president to oversee the missionary work of a ward.
So in some ways, the logic of a ward mission leader being an extension of the bishopric is also unclear. The bishop cannot set apart his counselors. The stake must do that. But the bishop himself calls and sets apart a ward mission leader. It is not a task farmed out to the counselors. There’s clearly a deliberate relationship there and that might be at the crux of this entire thing.
As I said in the beginning, I don’t have all the answers. Much of what I’ve written is an exercise in putting to paper the thoughts in my mind. I support our leaders and believe in their divine call. If someday we get female ward mission leaders, female Sunday school presidents, and female clerks, then great. If we don’t, then I’m not going to stand on a platform and decry Salt Lake as misguided and misogynistic. The Lord knows better than we do, and revelation and Church administration are complex things that I won’t begin to pretend I know even a tittle about.
But again, answers come through asking. Maybe someday someone in a position to ask will ask about females serving in these callings. Maybe they already have (which wouldn’t shock me).
What are your insights on this matter? I do think that something like Sunday school president is probably more easily “attainable” for women, but the priesthood complexities of ward mission leader fascinate me.
No matter how hard I try, I can’t find any doctrinal reasons for women to serve in leadership callings like this. I do think that sometimes local leaders defer too much to general leadership and tradition. The local leadership has a lot a freedom to try out new things. Maybe all it would take is a Bishop or Stake president to try something new?
In this case, it would take more than “a Bishop or Stake President to try something new.” The last requirement from the excerpt from the handbook of instructions is “is a Melchizedek Priesthood holder”, and the handbook of instructions is approved by the First Presidency. To remove that requirement is not in the authority of a local leader.
As for why that’s a requirement, I can only guess that it has to do with Priesthood responsibilities, as laid out in Doc & Cov 20. I don’t really know the reason, though.
Yeah, I think this might be out of just a stake president’s purview, even though I’ve heard anecdotal stuff about female WML existing in some areas. The interesting thing is, that while WML has long been itemized as a male-only calling, Sunday School presidency stuff was only updated to be specific to males with the 2010 handbook.
It is my understanding that missionary work is a priesthood responsibility. This is why young men are urged to serve missions and why women are simply given the option if they would like to or if the opportunity presents itself. Ward Mission Leaders need to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood probably for that same reason, because it is a priesthood responsibility.
Why can’t a woman be a Sunday School president or counselor? Why can’t a woman be a clerk, a secretary to the bishop, or an auditor? Why can’t a woman just be a witness to a baptism or a temple sealing? Why can’t a woman just hold her newborn baby when it receives a name and blessing? Why do we teach young women that they have individual worth when they will spend their lives in the church fighting the encroaching feeling that they are not valued as individuals, but as wombs, that at times they become invisible, that they lack a voice. There are so many beautiful things about my membership in the church, but there are so many intensely painful things about it as well. The most painful thing is that I am looked at as unfaithful when I express this, so in real life I keep my mouth closed and smiling.
You do have the priesthood authority to receive personal revelation and give guidance to those over those you’ve been called to preside over, we talk about that all the time in relief society. As in you receive revelation what’s good for your family, pray for angles to help you, cast Satan out of your home,recieve revelation for your primary,young womens relief society etc. Do your best at your callings. I hate to say this but some brethren need a kick in the pants. One of the bishopric is my friends home teacher I found out but he never teaches her which puts the missionaries in a bind trying to help this single sister with priesthood leadership and blessings. I said I heard he was her home teacher and he should be visiting her so the missionaries could be teaching and helping others and should fellowship her. I think I made him uncomfortable I didn’t care he wasn’t doing what he should be doing.antedotals aside I don’t think you can’t hold your newborns I think that’s just a culture norm so they are in an easier position to bless the baby.. I could be wrong. Write he brotheren a letter about your concerns and hurts. Maybe they can light some better light as to why. If they don’t know he reasons yet pray about it and you’ll get answers
LIKE
“When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. …” – Elder Oaks
A woman is not ordained or set apart to be endowed because it doesn’t leave her. After her endowment she can return to the temple to work for the redemption of the dead. (What Priest from other religions can do that?)
Woman have more power and authority than we give them credit.
I am not sure why we are so concerned what gender fills what roles. Why aren’t men Primary presidents or councilors? One thing that does make sense to me just for logistics is that all of a presidency being the same gender. So if you were going to make the Sunday School pres. a women it would make sense that there councilors would also need to be women. The ward mission and missionary work in general is unique in that it is the only organization without clear gender lines where women and men work together in a joint effort on the same council for the same organization.
As I understood it, your first sentence is Geoff’s point. Why are we so concerned that a WML be a man? And yeah, why CAN’T a man be in the Primary presidency? That’s a really excellent question.
I don’t really see a need for all members of a presidency to be the same gender. Men and women do stuff together all the time that doesn’t lead to morally questionable behavior. Like, literally all the time.
I don’t know about mission leader or Sunday School president, but I believe clerks must have the priesthood because recording an ordinance, even though it’s mundane, is actually part of and validates the ordinance. (D.C. 128: 28-29, referring to baptism for the dead but again, as I understand it, the principle applies to all ordinances). However, if you’re having issues feeling undervalued, you definitely do not want to be a clerk. They are the lowest form of life in the Mormon eco-system. The training explicitly states that you should take care of tedious stuff so the bishop can concentrate on spiritual matters. Everyone can ask you for stuff, and the only satisfaction is helping them. Anyone who thinks the priesthood is about “being in charge” or giving orders doesn’t understand the calling of clerks.
I think this is a good point, regarding the recording of an ordinance being essential to the completion and validation of the ordinance. But that would not preclude women from being financial clerks or serving in some other assistant clerk position, would it? I suppose it would be simpler to just not call someone who could only perform some of the duties of a clerk, and who would have to ask another clerk to enter ordinance information after she spent an hour importing and exporting membership records.
Like all challenges against church doctrine, you have to pray for understand and be willing to accept God’s answer–much like why God keeps asking me to be the Ward Mission Leader everywhere I go.
It helps to be one to understand in full, as well.
Priesthood covenants, starting with the Teachers in the Aaronic Priesthood, place the man under covenant to be responsible for ensuring that correct doctrine is being taught.
While people think of the Handbook as mold-able as the US Constitution, it’s canon of execution. When the leaders no longer feel that the policies are effective (usually because the size of the church mandates revision or because local laws prohibit something) then God –emphasis, GOD– provides another means. The means in this case are priesthood men. After 21 years of serving in the priesthood, I can tell you that there are enough men sitting around without a reason to exercise their priesthood. God has plenty to work with.
Furthermore, no woman, especially if she has children, should be asked to be a WML. I have too many impromptus that a mother could reasonably field without getting frustrated with God. Plus, people can be pretty harsh with their regard for a WML. Women already serve in thankless capacities–don’t add more. The only thanks I’ve ever offered a WML was when they took the calling before God had to ask me to do it again. The only thanks I ever get is from the Bishop (it’s sincere, but its relative solitude on the plane of gratitude is a stark shadow of what kind of [infinitely greater] service the Lord himself rendered).
As a side note, most wards have male, full-time missionaries, or they get some periodically. I am constantly alone with young men. Women should not be.
If nothing else, you could consider my cynical response that as a man, I have needed to be a WML to learn how to communicate with women and let them take charge of their own programs.
“Like all challenges against church doctrine”? Geoff stated very explicitly in his long preamble that he is not attempting to challenge anything with this post. Also, there is nothing doctrinal about the gender of the ward mission leader, which is in itself not a canonical calling, but rather an administrative one. Hence the questions that Geoff poses.
Also, all callings are, in general, thankless. We don’t get called to positions to receive thanks, nor should anybody accept a calling because they expect any thanks.
Also, I think it’s a bit broad to say that policies are usually changed “because the size of the church mandates revision or because local laws prohibit something.” They are often changed because the leadership wants to try something because it may work better. Or something may simply be outdated. Or longstanding doctrine has been made clearer and the leadership decides to apply it in a better way. Or… etc.
And finally, there is an easy way to keep a female ward mission leader from being alone with two young men: invite another person to the meeting.
I’m not trying to be contentious. I just don’t think these are very satisfactory answers to what Geoff is asking. Especially considering that you start from the assumption that Geoff is in some way “challenging” “doctrine.”
My thought is-women might not be able to help male elders with the problems that are uniquely male in origin that other males need to talk to other males about. Just like there are things women can only talk to other women about. Maybe it has nothing to do with the priesthood.
In the early 70s our branch had a female Sunday school president as the general handbook of instructions did not state that the position had to be filled by a priesthood holder. Don´s know why or when this changed but she served a number of years so it was not “illegal” or neither was it through a lack of priesthood holders.
We had a sister district leader in my mission 40 some years ago. It was an all sister district but, from my perspective as the ZL, she was the best DL in the zone. She certainly stood out at a mission leadership conference!