Handbook Change-Women SS Presidents

[I Have Questions]

MG I’m seriously confused by the following passage of random thought that you’ve expressed…

The leaders of the church have not always been those that are part of the strong and mighty class that I've referred to. Especially in areas that are important to the 'doubting class'. Theological training. Academic training in the sciences, etc. Here and there, yes. More often leaders tend to be from the business/law fields rather than psychology, anthropology, archeology, social sciences, physics, and the like.

That would be evidence, to some, that they are "weak" in the knowledge that might confound religious world view as being rational, etc.

So your current leaders are part of the “strong and mighty” group that are going to be “confounded”. That’s your point?

[I Have Questions]

Learning curve. Evolution. Maturity.

Regards,
MG

Or exactly what you’d expect from a man-made religion with leaders who have no supernatural prescient abilities.

Rather than anticipate the future, they lag decades behind the secular world.

The SLC LDS Church claims to be led by not only Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, but also by Christ himself. And yet they are always, and I do mean always, playing catch up with society. The hallmark of Christ’s church would be to lead, not to follow. Christ’s church would have been the first to adopt civil rights, women’s rights, LBGTQ+ rights, child safety etc. But the SLC LDS Church doesn’t lead. It lags behind, like an overindulged toddler who doesn’t want to go to see the dentist. Having to be dragged there. You can add honesty and transparency to that dynamic as well. The SLC LDS Church wasn’t honest about its finances with the SEC and the membership, it has had to be dragged into the light. The same with uncomfortable Church history.

Is the hallmark of a Prophet or a Church led by Christ, that they are constantly 50 years behind societal progression? That they are constantly being caught not doing the right thing when they think nobody is looking? Now that’s not a slur on the members. It’s a direct condemnation of the institution and institutional management. But the members facilitate this bad behaviour by refusing to call it out, refusing to withhold service and money. They are facilitating institutional bad behaviour. And making lame excuses for it.

This announcement that women, in areas where they don’t have enough men, can run a largely irrelevant auxiliary in their ward, so long as they don’t have a mixed sex leadership team, is not cause for celebration. The Church should be apologising for it. For it being so late in coming, and so limited in how it’s to be applied. People like MG should be embarrassed that it’s so little, so late.

[drumdude]

It’s kind of like having a parade for the man who finally stopped gaslighting his wife. Congrats, you’ve entered the 21st century with the rest of us!

[I Have Questions]

It’s kind of like having a parade for the man who finally stopped gaslighting his wife. Congrats, you’ve entered the 21st century with the rest of us!

Barely. You’ll note the caveats that men and women cannot under any circumstances serve together on a Sunday School Presidency. It’s a lame effort at pretending there’s some equality between the sexes. And thy expect to be lauded for it like they’ve just sorted world peace. Change in Mormonism only ever comes 50 years too late, and only when it’s been forced by activism and poor PR.

If every single female member of the church withdrew from serving in any church calling unless or until they were allowed to be ordained the priesthood, what do you think would happen?

[I Have Questions]

Just to put paid to the OP's notion - which is a man suggesting this is a meaningful move...we have this opinion from an active and faithful SLC LDS woman:

When President Dallin H. Oaks acknowledged that “we have work left to do” in how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints utilizes women, and that the church has “not always been wise in using the great qualification and powers of the daughters of God,” the statement stood out, particularly because such direct institutional acknowledgment has historically been rare.

But when a meaningful and exciting change is made, yet still leaves a deeper sense of not being seen, it begs a question: What do we avoid acknowledging when structural changes fail to feel like meaningful progress?

To be fair, there has been movement.

The recent decision to allow women to serve as Sunday School presidents in their wards, or congregations, is a meaningful change. Women currently serve on high-level councils and advisory bodies, speak more frequently in visible settings, and contribute in ways that have become more common in recent decades. These developments reflect a wider pattern of increased participation and influence.

But they also reveal a consistent boundary, one I have experienced firsthand as a woman serving in these organizations.

Women’s opportunities in the church are expanding in ways that increase participation and visibility but not in ways that meaningfully shift equality in decision-making. If progress is to feel meaningful, it must extend beyond presence into authority, into the ability to shape outcomes, not simply support them.

This distinction becomes clearer when we look at functionality. Women leading organizations cannot extend callings; they must rely on others to formalize decisions they have already identified and prepared for. For those of us who have served in these roles, the difference is not theoretical. In one case, within a Primary organization where I served, a needed calling went unfilled for nearly 10 months, requiring constant adjustments, substitute coverage and ongoing coordination — work that fell largely on the women responsible for the program.

Yep, female "leaders" still need a man's permission to make a material decision.

Women often have limited ability to push back on decisions that directly affect their work, decisions that may be made without the same level of context or follow-through for which they themselves are responsible. They propose needs, plan programs and advocate for priorities, contributing perspective and insight in ward councils, but they do not ultimately determine which priorities move forward or the direction that is set.

In missionary settings, female missionaries train, mentor and often shape how the work is carried out, yet are not placed in roles that formally coordinate and direct others. Organizational leadership itself does not inherently require priesthood authority, as seen throughout the female leadership roles in the church, yet these roles remain restricted for female missionaries in ways that reflect a long-standing cultural boundary: avoiding situations in which women would hold authority over men.

Women are also absent from stake, or regional, membership councils as decision-making participants, where decisions about formal discipline and belonging are made, leaving them without a voice in some of the most consequential outcomes within the community. At the stake level, membership councils are conducted by the all-male stake presidency and high council. Although individuals may invite a Relief Society president for support, women are not included in the decision-making body. This distinction raises a wider question about perspective. When decisions involving belonging and discipline are made without women as part of the decision-making process, there is a risk that certain perspectives, particularly those shaped by women’s lived experiences, are not fully represented.

For many, these kinds of patterns raise an uncomfortable but necessary question: What is the difference between expanded opportunity and actual equality?

Opportunity can mean more ways to serve, to be involved, to be seen. But equality requires something more. It requires shared authority, the ability not just to participate within a system but also to share in shaping outcomes and making final decisions.

Within the church’s theological framework, not only priesthood offices but also presiding authority are reserved for men. This structure is not incidental; it is foundational. So while opportunities for women may continue to expand, and likely will, the core distribution of authority remains unchanged.

That creates a ceiling that increased participation alone cannot break. The question is not whether progress is happening but whether it is moving toward actual equality.

At its core, the question is not what women are invited to do but whether they share in the authority that determines what is done. And until that changes, the work left to do will remain exactly where it has always been: at the level of authority itself.

Very well said.