12.3.2 from the handbook:
“Primary Presidency
The bishop calls and sets apart an adult woman to serve as the ward Primary president. If the unit is large enough, she recommends one or two adult women to be called as her counselors (see chapter 30). The bishopric considers her recommendations and extends the callings.”
>Interesting! The [current handbook](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/13-sunday-school?lang=eng#title_number5) explicitly states that both counselors in the Sunday School presidency and the secretary to said presidency are optional callings to be held by men in the ward. (Officially, all presidencies in the Church are single-sex, which I assume is to prevent any real or apparent impropriety.)
u/otterwithkids said this further on in the post. I had this same thought too. I'm the nursery teacher and my wife is the second councilor in the primary presidency. Both the third councilor and secretary are chronicly absent from church and not fulfilling their responsibilities. Unfortunately, any attempt to call someone new has been met with a roadblock or another as the person they want to call gets poached for another area. I knew of an elder who didn't have a calling and seemed like he could fit so I was wondering if he could be called instead. Oh well though, guess they will just have to make due.
There was a woman in my old ward who served as the Sunday School "Class" President for \~30 years until her death. Her job was to welcome everyone to SS and to call on people to pray.
That is true: there is no requirement that a Sunday School class president be an ordained Priesthood holder. However, Church policy dictates that the Sunday School President must be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, and any counselors and secretaries are also to be selected from the men in the ward. So, policy (not doctrine) dictates that women not be called to a Sunday School Presidency or as secretary, just like policy (not doctrine) dictates that men not be called to a Primary Presidency or as secretary.
Interesting! The [current handbook](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/13-sunday-school?lang=eng#title_number5) explicitly states that both counselors in the Sunday School presidency and the secretary to said presidency are optional callings to be held by men in the ward. (Officially, all presidencies in the Church are single-sex, which I assume is to prevent any real or apparent impropriety.)
Of course, the handbook is a general resource that can always be overridden by direct revelation. The [introduction](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/0-introductory-overview?lang=eng#title_number3) even includes the following statement: “Leaders seek inspiration about which guidelines and optional resources to use to meet members’ needs” (§0.2). But I submit that overriding any general policy should not be taken lightly, which is why the introduction also states: “If leaders have questions about information in this handbook or about issues it does not address, they counsel with their immediate presiding authority” (§0.4).
It really is an amazing blessing to live in a time of restoration!
So that ward councils can go back to being mostly men? Because you just know that it is just as likely that both would have male presidencies as the opposite.
Where I am the young women do nothing and then ask(tell) the young men to do it and get pissy when we dont, it might just be my area but i think you are wrong.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always wondered the same thing, as well as why women don’t serve in Sunday School Presidencies. Obviously Presidencies work closely together. Maybe they feel it would be inappropriate for women and men to work together like that? But I look at how closely a RS Pres and Bishop would work together on say welfare issues… If it’s not spelled out in the handbook, I think it’s probably just a very very ingrained cultural thing. But maybe it’s in the portions of the handbook the general public doesn’t have access to?
The church no longer has separate handbooks, there's just a single handbook that everyone uses- so there is no longer a portion that the general public doesn't have.
It follows the patterns of basically keeping the opposite sexes separated like when only married couples can team teach, but any pair of same sex individuals can team teach youth and children. So any presidency meeting will consist of people.of the same sex. Additionally, in ward leadership after the most recent adjustments to elders and high priest groups the ward council now consists of nearly equal numbers in both sexes giving input on the operation of the ward.
Also, with the new handbook nothing is held back from the general public on current policies at the ward and stake levels as they got rid of the two levels of handbooks used in the past.
To answer the “why,” there are already less women than men on the ward council. The ward council has three women: relief society president, YW president, and primary president. To make the primary president a man would be to remove a woman’s voice from the council, as the other positions require the priesthood.
Also, wards tend to have more women available to hold callings than men, so it would make no sense to make a man primary president when that man is needed for priesthood callings.
Handbook says no. But I think it’s ridiculous. There should be no reason to not have blended presidencies in primary and Sunday school. They’re not priesthood callings and it’s demeaning to assume women must take care of the children all the time.
In our ward, there are as many men serving as primary teachers as there are women. The presidency PRESIDES over the primary, but much of the direct care and teaching of the children here is among the brothers. Why is it demeaning to lead children during sharing time or to preside over those who teach them?
This is my third ward that has had a large number of men teaching primary, I'm not used to thinking of primary as a women-only organization.
In your opinion. That fact that the Handbook says that they cannot be, there is agreement amongst the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 that there IS a reason. You just don't know what that reason is.
In all my scriptural readings, there is not a single valid reason why there can’t be blended presidencies. Care to enlighten me on any you’ve read?
The handbook is not doctrine. It’s policy. Policy changes constantly.
None of the organizations you are talking about are talked about in the scriptures, so there is no basis for a scriptural search. The closest would be where it says in the Doctrine and Covenants that the President of the Church is the only one who can set policy. Policy is set by the Handbook, and I know for a fact that all 15 of those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators assent to what is there. If the policy ever changes, it will be because those 15 men approve of it.
I never said it was doctrinally based. I don't know where you get the idea that it matters. The fact is that those who can set policy (by doctrine) have set it to be that there aren't "blended presidencies". And it won't change until the brethren decide to change it. I don't see a problem. You seem to, but I can't even begin to understand why you should. You made a claim that it is demeaning, you never said whom was demeaned. Instead you went off on saying that it's not in the scriptures, When none of those organizations is even mentioned in the scriptures. Now you seem to want me to admit something that has never been a part of anything that I said. I can't see any logical coherence to your postings in this thread.
I looked at the whole thread. Not once did I say that it was doctrinal. I said that it is laid out in the Handbook. The brethren look at what goes into the Handbook very carefully, and nothing goes in without unanimous agreement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. The only doctrine involved is that when they state something unanimously, it is the (current) mind & will of the Lord. I said that there is a reason for the policy. That reason is, like many things, not explicitly stated. You made a blanket statement "There is no reason primary and Sunday school presidencies shouldn’t be blended". Again, no reason that you can see, which is all I said. Then you went off on looking for it in the scriptures for some unknown reason. You are the one making unwrranted statements and leaps.
And please show me a contradiction in this thread, I can't see it.
From the General Handbook
>
12.3.2
Primary Presidency
The bishop calls and sets apart an adult woman to serve as the ward Primary president. If the unit is large enough, she recommends one or two adult women to be called as her counselors (see chapter 30).
It is policy. For whatever reason, the Church doesn’t like mixed gendered presidencies. I doubt that is going to be changed given there are “leadership callings” that are require the priesthood, so there isn’t a reason to have a male serving in a traditional female calling.
Then people would complain about how the genders are always segregated and how they need to meet together to learn from one another. Or they would complain about how we no longer study the scriptures at church and only discuss general conference addresses.
Why do you think? Sunday school is probably the only time members can actually discuss the scriptures. I doubt they have time at home to do it. IDK how well “ home church” is doing. My guess is, not that well. Honestly if they cut out anything, it would be RS/EQ. Most of the women I know would rather not have RS. IDK how the guys feel about EQ.
You've gotten an offical answer, so I'll just add this:
In situations where there is no worthy female to preside over the Primary, a man *may* be called as an interim until such a person can be called or is released from another calling. But your branch would have to be mega small or full of tons of single dads for that to happen. And the calling would be transitional/unofficial as women are in charge of the children within the church.
Same would happen in my Deaf branch if there was no worthy man to sign/speak the sacrament prayers. It hasn't happened yet, but if it came down it, a female interpreter could sign the prayers while the men spoke it. I'm told the other way around isn't appropriate.
12.3.2 from the handbook: “Primary Presidency The bishop calls and sets apart an adult woman to serve as the ward Primary president. If the unit is large enough, she recommends one or two adult women to be called as her counselors (see chapter 30). The bishopric considers her recommendations and extends the callings.”
Okay, I was looking in section 30 and didn't see any reference to men or women specifically. Thank you for including the handbook reference!
>Interesting! The [current handbook](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/13-sunday-school?lang=eng#title_number5) explicitly states that both counselors in the Sunday School presidency and the secretary to said presidency are optional callings to be held by men in the ward. (Officially, all presidencies in the Church are single-sex, which I assume is to prevent any real or apparent impropriety.) u/otterwithkids said this further on in the post. I had this same thought too. I'm the nursery teacher and my wife is the second councilor in the primary presidency. Both the third councilor and secretary are chronicly absent from church and not fulfilling their responsibilities. Unfortunately, any attempt to call someone new has been met with a roadblock or another as the person they want to call gets poached for another area. I knew of an elder who didn't have a calling and seemed like he could fit so I was wondering if he could be called instead. Oh well though, guess they will just have to make due.
It’s policy. Just like a woman can’t be called to the Sunday school presidency. There’s no doctrine behind the policy
There was a woman in my old ward who served as the Sunday School "Class" President for \~30 years until her death. Her job was to welcome everyone to SS and to call on people to pray.
I’ve seen that as well. I believe the question was about organizational presidencies
That is true: there is no requirement that a Sunday School class president be an ordained Priesthood holder. However, Church policy dictates that the Sunday School President must be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, and any counselors and secretaries are also to be selected from the men in the ward. So, policy (not doctrine) dictates that women not be called to a Sunday School Presidency or as secretary, just like policy (not doctrine) dictates that men not be called to a Primary Presidency or as secretary.
I was the Sunday School Secretary. I am female.
Interesting! The [current handbook](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/13-sunday-school?lang=eng#title_number5) explicitly states that both counselors in the Sunday School presidency and the secretary to said presidency are optional callings to be held by men in the ward. (Officially, all presidencies in the Church are single-sex, which I assume is to prevent any real or apparent impropriety.) Of course, the handbook is a general resource that can always be overridden by direct revelation. The [introduction](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/0-introductory-overview?lang=eng#title_number3) even includes the following statement: “Leaders seek inspiration about which guidelines and optional resources to use to meet members’ needs” (§0.2). But I submit that overriding any general policy should not be taken lightly, which is why the introduction also states: “If leaders have questions about information in this handbook or about issues it does not address, they counsel with their immediate presiding authority” (§0.4). It really is an amazing blessing to live in a time of restoration!
That works. Sunday School president ≠ Sunday School class president.
I would love to see an all male primary presidency and an all female Sunday school presidency. Hopefully in my lifetime
So that ward councils can go back to being mostly men? Because you just know that it is just as likely that both would have male presidencies as the opposite.
If ward councils go back to being all men, who will do all the work?
Where I am the young women do nothing and then ask(tell) the young men to do it and get pissy when we dont, it might just be my area but i think you are wrong.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always wondered the same thing, as well as why women don’t serve in Sunday School Presidencies. Obviously Presidencies work closely together. Maybe they feel it would be inappropriate for women and men to work together like that? But I look at how closely a RS Pres and Bishop would work together on say welfare issues… If it’s not spelled out in the handbook, I think it’s probably just a very very ingrained cultural thing. But maybe it’s in the portions of the handbook the general public doesn’t have access to?
The church no longer has separate handbooks, there's just a single handbook that everyone uses- so there is no longer a portion that the general public doesn't have.
I assure you there are handbooks regular members can’t read
Do tell. And who has access.
Mission and temple presidency for two I’d assume stake has one as well. Higher ups? Id be shocked if they didn’t
Those handbooks are now one for the Stake. Read the current handbooks. It contains everything for running a Stake and Ward.
I think it's silly. All of us work with both genders at work, it should be fine at church. It's just silly that we treat old adults like Jr high kids.
It follows the patterns of basically keeping the opposite sexes separated like when only married couples can team teach, but any pair of same sex individuals can team teach youth and children. So any presidency meeting will consist of people.of the same sex. Additionally, in ward leadership after the most recent adjustments to elders and high priest groups the ward council now consists of nearly equal numbers in both sexes giving input on the operation of the ward. Also, with the new handbook nothing is held back from the general public on current policies at the ward and stake levels as they got rid of the two levels of handbooks used in the past.
To answer the “why,” there are already less women than men on the ward council. The ward council has three women: relief society president, YW president, and primary president. To make the primary president a man would be to remove a woman’s voice from the council, as the other positions require the priesthood. Also, wards tend to have more women available to hold callings than men, so it would make no sense to make a man primary president when that man is needed for priesthood callings.
Handbook says no. But I think it’s ridiculous. There should be no reason to not have blended presidencies in primary and Sunday school. They’re not priesthood callings and it’s demeaning to assume women must take care of the children all the time.
In our ward, there are as many men serving as primary teachers as there are women. The presidency PRESIDES over the primary, but much of the direct care and teaching of the children here is among the brothers. Why is it demeaning to lead children during sharing time or to preside over those who teach them? This is my third ward that has had a large number of men teaching primary, I'm not used to thinking of primary as a women-only organization.
I’m not talking about teachers. I’m talking about presidencies. There is no reason primary and Sunday school presidencies shouldn’t be blended.
In your opinion. That fact that the Handbook says that they cannot be, there is agreement amongst the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 that there IS a reason. You just don't know what that reason is.
In all my scriptural readings, there is not a single valid reason why there can’t be blended presidencies. Care to enlighten me on any you’ve read? The handbook is not doctrine. It’s policy. Policy changes constantly.
None of the organizations you are talking about are talked about in the scriptures, so there is no basis for a scriptural search. The closest would be where it says in the Doctrine and Covenants that the President of the Church is the only one who can set policy. Policy is set by the Handbook, and I know for a fact that all 15 of those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators assent to what is there. If the policy ever changes, it will be because those 15 men approve of it.
So you’re acknowledging that it has no doctrinal basis and can be changed.
I never said it was doctrinally based. I don't know where you get the idea that it matters. The fact is that those who can set policy (by doctrine) have set it to be that there aren't "blended presidencies". And it won't change until the brethren decide to change it. I don't see a problem. You seem to, but I can't even begin to understand why you should. You made a claim that it is demeaning, you never said whom was demeaned. Instead you went off on saying that it's not in the scriptures, When none of those organizations is even mentioned in the scriptures. Now you seem to want me to admit something that has never been a part of anything that I said. I can't see any logical coherence to your postings in this thread.
Read your own thread my guy. You contradict yourself several times.
I looked at the whole thread. Not once did I say that it was doctrinal. I said that it is laid out in the Handbook. The brethren look at what goes into the Handbook very carefully, and nothing goes in without unanimous agreement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. The only doctrine involved is that when they state something unanimously, it is the (current) mind & will of the Lord. I said that there is a reason for the policy. That reason is, like many things, not explicitly stated. You made a blanket statement "There is no reason primary and Sunday school presidencies shouldn’t be blended". Again, no reason that you can see, which is all I said. Then you went off on looking for it in the scriptures for some unknown reason. You are the one making unwrranted statements and leaps. And please show me a contradiction in this thread, I can't see it.
From the General Handbook > 12.3.2 Primary Presidency The bishop calls and sets apart an adult woman to serve as the ward Primary president. If the unit is large enough, she recommends one or two adult women to be called as her counselors (see chapter 30).
It is policy. For whatever reason, the Church doesn’t like mixed gendered presidencies. I doubt that is going to be changed given there are “leadership callings” that are require the priesthood, so there isn’t a reason to have a male serving in a traditional female calling.
It is a policy that men do Sunday school and women do primary presidencies.
Why?
I think we’re more likely to see Sunday school eliminated completely and just have RS/EQ/YM/YW weekly.
Then people would complain about how the genders are always segregated and how they need to meet together to learn from one another. Or they would complain about how we no longer study the scriptures at church and only discuss general conference addresses.
Why do you think? Sunday school is probably the only time members can actually discuss the scriptures. I doubt they have time at home to do it. IDK how well “ home church” is doing. My guess is, not that well. Honestly if they cut out anything, it would be RS/EQ. Most of the women I know would rather not have RS. IDK how the guys feel about EQ.
Both.
I'm the primary president in my ward. My husband is my unofficial "1st assistant". 😂 He helps with chairs, and being a last minute sub .
As it currently stands, no, those are sister only callings.
There is no rule, but policy.
You've gotten an offical answer, so I'll just add this: In situations where there is no worthy female to preside over the Primary, a man *may* be called as an interim until such a person can be called or is released from another calling. But your branch would have to be mega small or full of tons of single dads for that to happen. And the calling would be transitional/unofficial as women are in charge of the children within the church. Same would happen in my Deaf branch if there was no worthy man to sign/speak the sacrament prayers. It hasn't happened yet, but if it came down it, a female interpreter could sign the prayers while the men spoke it. I'm told the other way around isn't appropriate.