- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I grew up LDS and I remember my Mom having served as Ward Clerk. This would have been in the mid-late 1950s or early 1960s. Does anyone know why women no longer hold that position and when it changed? Because the policy changed. Shortly after your mom served.
I am in the camp of those who believe that despite obscure Ensign articles from the 1980s the church does hide (or at least in the past has hidden) its history. I can’t say I’m a Mormon historian, or even a rank amateur, but I do have an interest in church history and have done some reading (and to be perfectly clear my interest is more in early church history but I have read stuff about later history). I have seen things about women doing things like giving blessings that do not currently occur, but I have not ever seen anything about women serving in positions like ward clerk which appears to have always been a priesthood calling. It is not my intent to call you a liar, I’ve just not encountered it before*. I’d be interested to hear if anyone else recalls women serving as clerk. It may be something difficult to research. *I do note that Emma did some scribing for the Book of Mormon translation, and there were probably other instances of women taking meeting notes although the vast majority of what we have that are not specifically women’s meetings were recorded by men.
ETA, I was typing at the same time as OT (who may also remember that time, I joined the church later).
I responded in a bit of a hurry. My more complete answer would be: When the top leadership became much more conservative and believed it was not appropriate for men and women to serve in the same presidencies, especially in situations when a man and a woman likely would be alone in a particular responsibility. Pres. Kimball and Pres. Benson, in particular, were . . . extra sensitive . . . to that issue.
I am aware there was a conservative “resurgence” toward the end of the McKay presidency over concern about progressives in top leadership (not from McKay, he was incapacitated when this occurred). This continued with the calling of mostly conservative top leaders into the 80s. I always (correctly or incorrectly) attributed the shift to women holding less positions to the correlation era in the 1970’s for the following reasons: A) My reasoning was that the upper leadership realized for the first time that since they were “getting everyone on the same page” as it were for other topics, they might as well solidify their position on women’s role in the administrative aspect of the church.
This was when Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a huge political battle that actually was essentially splitting the R.S. population in half. While this sounds like it wouldn’t be something that the upper leadership would be worried about, they have wives and daughters and daughters in law. If this is an ongoing discussion in their households (and women did and would talk about it), it is going to be something that the brethren are thinking about.“Sister Saints” is a good, historical narrative of the history of the role of women in the church and other themes relating to women and church leadership.
AmyJ wrote:
I always (correctly or incorrectly) attributed the shift to women holding less positions to the correlation era in the 1970’s for the following reasons:A) My reasoning was that the upper leadership realized for the first time that since they were “getting everyone on the same page” as it were for other topics, they might as well solidify their position on women’s role in the administrative aspect of the church.
Correlation was a direct result of the conservative shift – it would prevent people of varying beliefs teaching what they believed individually (including some things which were not really considered progressive at the time, progression between kingdoms among them).Quote: This was when Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a huge political battle that actually was essentially splitting the R.S. population in half. While this sounds like it wouldn’t be something that the upper leadership would be worried about, they have wives and daughters and daughters in law. If this is an ongoing discussion in their households (and women did and would talk about it), it is going to be something that the brethren are thinking about.
The Brethren of the time were absolutely worried about the ERA, and they vehemently opposed it. And their opposition was about more than just abortion or birth control.Quote:“Sister Saints” is a good, historical narrative of the history of the role of women in the church and other themes relating to women and church leadership.
The book is on my list to read.Just for context, the conservative shift brought us people like Joseph Fielding Smith, his son-in-law Bruce McConkie, Spencer Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, and Boyd Packer among others. The last of them have only recently been sifted out. The BYU law school is named for a main instigator of the movement.
Just as a note that is important to me: Elder Packer was not a classic conservative in the most comprehensive definition. He was conservative when it came to issues of morality/sex/gender/etc. (which fit the mold described with the other leaders mentioned), but he was moderate and even somewhat liberal in other areas. To me, he was a fascinating example of the personal danger of me stereotyping too rigidly and ignoring the many things someone says that don’t fit the perceived stereotype. It was a good lesson for me when I read some of his earlier stuff and realized how progressive he was in some ways. That distinction practically disappeared in his later years, since he became hyper-focused on things he saw as moral/sexual issues. Near the end of his life, it felt like that was all he ever addressed.
Interesting coincidence that i came across this article in today’s Salt Lake Tribune (for what it’s worth) /https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/26/jana-riess-latter-day/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> /https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/26/jana-riess-latter-day/ DarkJedi wrote:
I have seen things about women doing things like giving blessings that do not currently occur
Allow me to take this opportunity to insert some points that I find fascinating regarding this general topic:
1) I believe that Lucy Mack held the office of “Mother in Zion.” She was sustained as such in GC by BY before the migration west.
2) I believe that Lucy saw this role as similar to Church Patriarch (the office that her husband had held). She performed “blessings” on visitors up until her death.
3) Sisters performed blessings of healing (particularly for women before childbirth) up until about the 1950’s
4) No priesthood authority is used in the act of “passing” the sacrament. The only thing that prevents women from serving in this capacity is handbook policy.
5) When I served in primary as a man about 10 years ago, I was required to have a fellow adult present or keep the door propped open. I was told that this was for my safety. I understand that this policy now applies to both men and women equally.
Almost anyone sitting next to someone else currently “passes the sacrament” to that person. Also, if a unit had only one person who was at least a Priest, that person could bless the sacrament, pass it to the person closest to him, and watch it be passed around to everyone else in the congregation.
Just saying.
My nephew was baptized on Saturday. We were able to watch it over zoom. (which is somewhat of a reversal for the church because 6 years ago when I asked for permission to do this for my child’s baptism it was not allowed) The point that I wish to make is that my adult niece was able to act as the witness for the baptism. DW was astounded as she had always been told that a priesthood holder must be the witness. She was shocked when I told her that this appears to have never been a “doctrine” but rather just a “policy” that changed with a new updating of the handbook. I also relayed that the young men passing the sacrament is similarly a current policy that could be changed at any time.
As an aside, I also relayed that a member of the SP had told me that if it was up to him, he would change the practice of having the Bishop take the sacrament first as that was also just policy and might even be contrary to something that Jesus taught. (“the first shall be last and the last shall be first”)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.