–From Laura C.
This week’s “Equality is not a Feeling” post is an illustration of the people needed–according to the Church Handbook of Instructions (Volume 1, Section 9)–in order to establish official church units (e.g., branches, wards, stakes).
So, I know this might not really be true, and it’s probably unlikely ever to happen, but these policies sure make it look like if there were no women, the church could continue right along without us . . .
Not quite sure what to make of that.
;
[For more Equality is not a Feeling posts, see the archive here.]
While bishops and stake presidents are generally married men, the only requirements for counting men in creating new units are that they are “active, full-tithe paying Melchizedek* Priesthood holders” and that they are “capable of serving effectively in stake and ward priesthood, administrative, and auxiliary positions.” They are likely to have been endowed if there are temples close enough, but endowment is not specifically required.
*In Groups (the smallest units possible), there must be one ordained Priest (Aaronic Priesthood) who can bless/pass the Sacrament). AP holders would not have responsibilities to collect tithing or conduct worthiness interviews. Adult male converts are usually ordained priests within a week or two of baptism. Young men are generally ordained to be priests at age 16.
Heather, it’s interesting that you choose to interpret it that way. Rather negative, don’t you think? There’s no conspiracy against women, unless you’ve been listening to different conference talks and BYU Women’s Conference talks than I have.
Since INequality is not a feeling, merely the facts are being looked at!
As soon as we involve feelings the inequality magically disappears for 90% of our sisters.
Since when have feelings been reliable to determine the truth of things in mormonism?
Maybe the wrong facts are being looked at? Is this a fallacy of emphasis?
Organized “conspiracy” against women? Nah. I’m not a conspiracy theorist.
But an organized system that keeps women in marginalized, powerless positions in an institution? Yeah.
And I’m guessing we have been listening to the same conference talks.
Marginalized, powerless positions in an institution? What’s not powerful about being a RS president, a YM president, or a Primary president? What’s not powerful about being a good VT?
We may have been listening to the same talks, but it’s interesting that we get such different things out of them. I’m not sure where the difference in understanding comes from.
Something comes to mind: if women are marginalized and powerless, then so are men, generally. The only individuals with any power (well, authority) are a few — 15 at current count, or three, or one. Does it make any difference that all these leaders are married, and not only married, but work towards a certain kind of unity, as mentioned in Pres. Eyring’s Sun A.M. talk about his folks? (I knew Dr. Eyring, and his son’s description of his father are consistent with my experiences with his dad — a very humble man.)
It was interesting to hear, both in Sis. Burton’s talk at the 2013 Women’s Conference (BYU) and Elder Cook’s talk about what they viewed as more important, the priesthood, or the priesthood blessings? The blessings are far more important. Baptism is far more important than the one who baptizes, the gift of the Holy Ghost far more important than who performs the ordinance. The same in the temple: the ordinances (and blessings that can be had from them) are far more important than who performs them. Performing an ordinance requires one to “get out of the way” and just be the paint on the wall. Not all priesthood holders understand that, and their “authority” (as they suppose) will live or die by their understanding of that. Even as a bishop, I was just a placeholder for someone more important, just as the RS president is a placeholder for someone more important. The service is and was always more important that the one who serves. I think you’ve experienced that in your church callings, right?
Note that, technically, men can fill the positions of RS president, YW president, and Primary president. A woman can never fill roles held by men, such as EQ president, Bishop, Executive Secretary, etc.
“the ordinances (and blessings that can be had from them) are far more important than who performs them.”
Exactly. And if there are 10 women or 100 women or 1,000 women and 0 men, there are no ordinances available.
So what do we want these women to do?
Wait patiently, the way the potential members in central Africa waited for missionaries. It’s been said (over and over) that any time that willing members or followers are unable to attend to something for reasons beyond their control, the Lord is very aware of it, and their eternal blessings will not be taken away.
This is exactly how the CHI explains the requirements for forming these units. There are suggestions given for how large a ward could be at a maximum, but even according to that less “negative” interpretation it’s theoretically possible for a group of 300 faithful women to be unable to form a ward unless there are 15 priesthood holders. There could be literally up to 20x more women than men in that scenario, but if the number of men wasn’t high enough, no go. That’s not negative interpretation, that’s a statement of fact.
I had a conversation with an acquaintance the other day and I had her perform a thought experiment. I asked her to picture a sacrament meeting and to list some of events that were likely to take place in one. The sacrament, blessing babies, confirming new members, etc. Then I asked her to imagine all the the men removed and asked her what would get done in that scenario – none of the things she’d listed. Then I asked her to do the same with women – all of them. The look of shock on her face was pretty stark.
Actually the 39 (1×15+24) should be 99 since the stake has a minimum of 5 wards (5X15 +24).
yeah, and as my 5 year old can tell you anything times 0 = 0
And yeah–there’s nothing here about how I–or the author of the post–feel. That’s not what we’re doing here. We’re just depicting measures of inequality.
This is such an excellent series, Heather! For exactly this reason. There’s always interpretation around data, and people will always argue some point or other, but I love that you (and LRC!) are putting these data out there to be examined.
While these numbers are not surprising, do we know why these figures were established?
Cause all stories I have heard of ward division and creation is worry about a lack of men. What if these numbers have been established not because the church can function without women, but that there has always been enough women in the creation of ward but the wait or delay has been the numbers of men, getting a sufficient amount of men?
Yes because you need 0 women, I guess there will always be at least 0 :)
:P
Well if you want to look at it that way, then yes. But has a ward or branch ever been established with no women in it, or a huge majority of men and small minority of women?
For example, to form a ward at least 15 men are needed. Has a ward ever been established with less than 15 women in it?
If only 15 men are needed to form a ward of 300, then that implies that the rest of the ward are either minors younger than 18 and women.
Gregory, the other 285 could also include non-tithe-paying or inactive MP holders (in addition to women and children).
Theoretically, you could have a branch with several hundred people in it, including 100 active, temple-endowed, tithe-paying women, but it could become a ward without the active tithe-paying men. Or your theoretical unit could include a bunch of not-so-active 18- to 40-year-old women who’ve recognized that their skills are not needed, and who find other places and ways to serve because there are no outlets for them to lead within the confines of LDS policy.
Where it’s more likely to be a bigger problem is in developing countries where there are small groups (led by 1 Aaronic Priesthood holder) which could become branches if they only had some MP holders. This is why in many places that missionaries are advised to seek out families with potential MP leadership qualifications. If the Church is going to quantify its growth by unit numbers, it needs to focus on creating and developing priesthood leaders (even though statistically women tend to be more religious and more actively involved in religions across nearly every major denomination).
Consider, for a moment, what it could be like to be a female RM, perhaps experienced as a Relief Society or Primary President as well, and to have a number of likewise strong-in-the-gospel matriarchs surrounding you. Your unit, however, struggles because the people asked to lead it are a combination of relatively new converts, full-time missionaries who stay for a few months, a distant stake/district president and your husband. Your strengths and abilities could make a huge difference in relieving the leadership burdens in your unit, but church policies deny you the opportunity to help. So instead, you see your husband wear himself out trying to support your family, father your children and meet the leadership needs of the church members in your area with little help.
Is this really the best way to make use of all of the talents, resources and abilities of ALL of God’s children? What are we missing out on because we are required to follow these restrictive policies? Is there a better way?
LRC,
As you said, “(even though statistically women tend to be more religious and more actively involved in religions across nearly every major denomination).”
Why is it that the Church focuses on numbers of men for unit growth? As you say in the other response to me, it is to focus on strengthening the ward or branch. You lament that in your example women cannot take the responsibilities that Melchizedek Priesthood holding men have to help lead the ward. You lament that the stake that you were part of could not exist because of not enough priesthood holding men.
I have a question, would it be right for a ward to exist with only priesthood holding men and little or no women? Is the Church built and based on the individual or is it based on families?
Now yes, looking at these numbers of what is required of men some can take it to show that women are not needed in the Church, and that it is unfortunate that they cannot take up responsibilities for where there is a dearth of men to keep a ward and stake as they are.
But should a ward and stake be created because of a disproportionate amount of members, or should a ward be created when there is sufficient numbers of both genders to be in the ward.
We have all heard stories of units needing more priesthood holding men to become wards and stakes. But never has a story been told of a ward with no women in it.
Is it possible that there is not a minimum number of women needed to create a branch/ward/stake because there has never been a need to set down a number? As you said, statistically women are more religious. Assuming that 99 out 100 instances women outnumber men in the creation of a unit, then isn’t it grand that the Church desires both genders represented in the creation of a ward or stake?
As you say, there are the priesthood duties that are necessary to the function of a ward, which are of course critical. But why should a ward be created where there is only one priesthood holding man in it? Just as you would see a problem with a ward having one active woman in it, the same should hold true reverse wise.
The church is focused on the family, and thus to seek families and men that are accustomed to responsibility is the natural course of action.
Yes, there could be a larger pool of volunteers. And if women had priesthood responsibilities then they could a have a ward without having to worry about or focus on getting men baptized and trained. Think of how quickly the church would grow if we didn’t need to focus on male priesthood member attendance!
“Is it possible that there is not a minimum number of women needed to create a branch/ward/stake because there has never been a need to set down a number?”
Yes, that is the exact situation. There is no minimum number of women needed to create a branch/ward/stake precisely because women are not required to lead the branch/ward/stake. Note that worthy, active, tithe-paying men are not even required to be married to LDS women when the tallies are created.
Is it likely that there are units that consist only of 1 Aaronic Priesthood holder? No. But could such a unit exist? Yes.
Is it likely that there are units that consist only of ordained men? Probably not outside of the MTCs around the world. But could those units exist? Yes. Should they exist? I guess it depends on the needs of the members (and the logistics of leadership) in that area.
Is it likely that there are units that consist only of 1 temple-endowed woman? No. One could never exist.
Is it likely that there are units that consist only of temple-endowed women? No. They can never exist. By definition, there must be at least one Priest.
Why should a unit be created with just one Aaronic Priest? Or with just a handful of Melchizedek Priesthood holders? Because those 10 or 50 or 100 women who attend faithfully every week need the blessings of the Sacrament every week, and they can’t do it without a man to say the prayers, break the bread and pour the water. Should the dozens of women miss out on the saving ordinances of the priesthood and the community of the Saints just because there’s only 1-5 men?
Probably not a big issue in North America where transportation is easy and populations are concentrated. But what about those parts of the world where it takes 1/3 to 1/2 of a day to gather? Where the nearest branch meets 20 miles away and transport is sandal-power? Should women spread out across the wilderness be required to figure out how to get themselves and their children across the country each week, or is it better to say to one of the teenage Priests, “go and bless the Sacrament for your mothers and sisters.”
No lamentations here, just factual observations. A church must be run by those ordained to do so. No ordained ministers = no church. LDS churches have ordained ministers. No ordained LDS ministers are female. All ordained LDS ministers are male. Therefore, LDS churches must include males.
Gregory, here are the reasons for these numbers, as stated in the CHI:
“The following guidelines are intended to help ensure that Church units are divided only when they are sufficiently strong. Dividing a unit prematurely can weaken it before it becomes a center of strength. Premature divisions can also overburden members.”
Obviously, there are a certain number of Melchizedek Priesthood holders needed to staff all of the leadership positions in a ward. The bishopric, the Executive Secretary, the Ward Clerk(s), the YM president, the EQ presidency, the Sunday School president and the Ward Mission Leader. Because all of these positions must be filled by MP holders, women (while they may be available and experienced) are not part of the eligible candidate pool, simply because they do not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Asking a handful of men to volunteer time outside of their own family and work responsibilities to run church units is a big sacrifice for them and those they care for, particularly if you release a bishopric and immediately need to move them into time-intensive callings in other presidencies or clerkships.
Of course, if there were a LARGER pool of eligible volunteers, fewer people would be burning out so quickly and it would be easier to staff these leadership positions.
I’ve had experience living in a stake where wards were realigned (and the stake was eventually dissolved) precisely because there were not enough men to fill leadership positions. As I was serving in a stake calling at the time, I sat in stake council meetings where the problems and solutions were discussed. So, even though there were hundreds of stalwart, active women in the various wards in the stake, because there were not enough active, tithe-paying men to fill leadership positions, the stake could not exist.
Wow. Just wow. I mentioned to someone that in reality, women are completely replaceable in the church, an accessory. But I’ve never seen other in numbers. Crazy.
My husband served an LDS mission in Brazil in the early 90s. They were instructed as missionaries that they could only teach in homes where men were actively investigating. In other words, they were not allowed to teach households headed by women, or where there were men but they were uninterested in the missionary message. This was because they had HUGE ‘branches’ but not enough men to form wards. Imagine a branch of several hundred active sisters with only a handful of priesthood holders and how unavailable that made blessings of the priesthood to these women. On the other hand, consider how many women might have accepted the gospel but missed the chance because the men around them weren’t interested. Sad all around.
When my Stake was reorganized, we all met together in a large Stake meeting. They distributed handouts that listed various stats and the new ward boundaries. The stats listed were all related to men: how many Mel. Priesthood holders lived in each ward before and after the realignment, how many men were serving as home teachers etc, etc. Women were not listed on the sheet at all. When explaining the stats, the Stake President at least mentioned the women (here are the number of home teachers, and of course visiting teachers are important too), but it was obvious that the service of men was the main consideration when making the new ward boundaries. The number of women in each unit and the service they were preforming or could preform was considered little if at all.
Similarly, when I served as a temple worker I observed that many more men were needed to fill various roles than women. Luckily, some of the roles of temple workers can only be filled by women, but it is sad that there are likely many women who would like to serve in the temple, but there is simply less of a need for them than the men.
Another thing you might want to look into for a post is the responsibilities and duties of the young men’s classes (reasons, teachers priests etc) verses those in the young women’s classes. It will look very similar to the post above of course, because I’m unaware of any responsibilities the young women have, while the young men…
Keep it coming. These posts are revelatory.
Okay maybe I’m a little slow here, but can someone explain to me what it means by “to form a group of two or more members”?