Sunday school presidencies may now me men or women

[Nofear]

 From a letter.

Quote

The ward Sunday School presidency oversees efforts to improve gospel learning and teaching at home and at church (see General Handbook, 13.2.2.2). The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have determined that, effective immediately, the bishop may call a man or a woman to serve as ward Sunday School president.

13.2.2.2 has been updated and affirms that if there are counselors the counselors should be the same gender as the president.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Nofear said:

 From a letter.

13.2.2.2 has been updated and affirms that if there are counselors the counselors should be the same gender as the president.

Wow.  That's quit the change, but continues to match the church's policy about men and women working closely together.  I wonder if we'll see it happen very often where they call a woman president?  Our wards are already skewed towards women presidencies with primary and the removal of the YM's presidency a few years ago.  

Edited March 18 by bluebell

[Ginger Snaps]

I'm very excited about this change.  President Oaks said something when he was called about the Church not using the gifts of women enough.  

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

 From a letter.

13.2.2.2 has been updated and affirms that if there are counselors the counselors should be the same gender as the president.

Makes complete sense. This is yet another example of a policy change where the previous policy was rooted more in administrative tradition than actual doctrine. 

 

Edited March 18 by Amulek

[JAHS]

No reason why women can't be Sunday School presidents since it is not a priesthood organization. Similar to Primary and YW presidencies. 

[Tacenda]

Awesome! I remember when I was a Sunday School Secretary back in the day. Great way to learn the whole ward's names to faces, since each Sunday I was in charge of taking a role and would stand in the classroom's back door and see the people and check them there.  I think it wonderful for a woman to be president now!

Edited March 18 by Tacenda

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Wow.  That's quit the change, but continues to match the church's policy about men and women working closely together.  I wonder if we'll see it happen very often where they call a woman president?  Our wards are already skewed towards women presidencies with primary and the removal of the YM's presidency a few years ago.  

I think it will be helpful in areas where there are significantly more women members than men, but would not be surprised if in areas they are pretty balanced if they stay mostly men, at least once the novelty wears off and it’s no longer seen as evidence of the Church giving a greater voice to women. 

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Wow.  That's quit the change, but continues to match the church's policy about men and women working closely together.  I wonder if we'll see it happen very often where they call a woman president?  Our wards are already skewed towards women presidencies with primary and the removal of the YM's presidency a few years ago.  

In our bishopric WhatsApp group our bishop today commented that he wished this had come out a couple of months back when we were considering whom to call as SS president. That's because our candidate pool was rather constrained, being that our ward is one of the smaller ones.

I'm not surprised. I also don't see it as shocking as some might paint it. In my opinion, there was never any real reason for women not to serve in Sunday School presidencies. A more radical change would be women preparing and passing the Sacrament. There's no scriptural or doctrinal reason why women cannot do either of these. In fact, many many years ago, as I understand it anyway, women regularly prepared the Sacrament. And even now, females and unordained males pass the sacrament in the pews. I think that particular change might get a bit more pushback, however.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In fact, many many years ago, as I understand it anyway, women regularly prepared the Sacrament.

At least during WWII when there was a lack of young men. 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In our bishopric WhatsApp group our bishop today commented that he wished this had come out a couple of months back when we were considering whom to call as SS president. That's because our candidate pool was rather constrained, being that our ward is one of the smaller ones.

I'm not surprised. I also don't see it as shocking as some might paint it. In my opinion, there was never any real reason for women not to serve in Sunday School presidencies. A more radical change would be women preparing and passing the Sacrament. There's no scriptural or doctrinal reason why women cannot do either of these. In fact, many many years ago, as I understand it anyway, women regularly prepared the Sacrament. And even now, females and unordained males pass the sacrament in the pews. I think that particular change might get a bit more pushback, however.

Women did prepare and pass the sacrament during the war because of the lack of priesthood holders. They even collected fast offerings.

[manol]

10 hours ago, Ginger Snaps said:

 President Oaks said something when he was called about the Church not using the gifts of women enough.  

 

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Women did prepare and pass the sacrament during the war because of the lack of priesthood holders. They even collected fast offerings.

 

Going back even further, women anointed and blessed the sick with the full approval of the Pesident of the Church, and it was not because of a lack of priesthood holders. 

I look forward to the day when there are zero constraints imposed by the Church on women, or anyone else, using their gifts. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, manol said:

 

 

Going back even further, women anointed and blessed the sick with the full approval of the Pesident of the Church, and it was not because of a lack of priesthood holders. 

I look forward to the day when there are zero constraints imposed by the Church on women, or anyone else, using their gifts. 

Probably don't want men being Relief Society Presidents or Young Women's presidents.

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

No reason why women can't be Sunday School presidents since it is not a priesthood organization. Similar to Primary and YW presidencies. 

In my ward we have a woman Stake Finance auditor, which use to be only men. 

[JustAnAustralian]

Although this is a good thing, I'm not sure I'd like to be in a bishopric if I was in need of a new Sunday School President in the next few months.
They would be feel a stack of pressure (whether real or not) to extend the call to a sister. Likewise any sister chosen might feel a stack of pressure (whether real or not) to "prove" they can do it just as good as the guys can.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Likewise any sister chosen might feel a stack of pressure (whether real or not) to "prove" they ca

Not sure how this might be a challenge, like at all.  Finding subs is what we do constantly in primary callings and we’ve been doing that forever. 
 

I think many men (Bishops etc) are capable of handling this very (imo) non issue change.  It’s only a big deal because it’s been one way forever. But in practice, it’s so (imo) nothingburger. 

[Tony uk]

Once again, I am on the outside looking in on this, but felt the need to contribute. There are women that hold teaching, and leadership roles in the wider world. As well as the important role of mother. So, from my own experience, I have always found a women's influence to be calming, and with a natural to lead and teach. I think that a female influence within a Church is most welcome, even at only local level. 

 And from my own knowledgeable, and limited experience. The LDS have missionaries that are female, just as they have males. 

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Although this is a good thing, I'm not sure I'd like to be in a bishopric if I was in need of a new Sunday School President in the next few months.
They would be feel a stack of pressure (whether real or not) to extend the call to a sister. Likewise any sister chosen might feel a stack of pressure (whether real or not) to "prove" they can do it just as good as the guys can.

Mostly the main thing a Sunday school pres does is to make sure a class has a teacher if the original one doesn't show up. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tony uk said:

Once again, I am on the outside looking in on this, but felt the need to contribute. There are women that hold teaching, and leadership roles in the wider world. As well as the important role of mother. So, from my own experience, I have always found a women's influence to be calming, and with a natural to lead and teach. I think that a female influence within a Church is most welcome, even at only local level. 

 And from my own knowledgeable, and limited experience. The LDS have missionaries that are female, just as they have males. 

And we have female teachers and leaders just in case this is confusing.  There are, however, gendered leadership roles that do not require Priesthood, such as only women are the presidencies/advisors for Relief Society (the adult women’s auxiliary), Young Women’s (female 12-17), and Primary (children under 12) and men as formerly presidencies of Sunday School (now can be either all male or all female).  There are quite a few male only callings that require someone who holds the Priesthood, such as in the Bishopric (the presidency of the congregation) and Elders Quorum (the male only auxiliary).

The significant difference in leadership callings is not so much the numbers, but the level of responsibility.  The bishop ultimately is the decision maker for the ward (congregation) as even if leaders tell the bishop who they want the teachers to be for their group, it is the bishop who chooses them (I can see the logic of this requirement because members may have reasons they can’t serve they don’t want to be made public or a member may be needed to serve in another calling).  The bishop decides on the amount of budget for each group, who is considered eligible to participate fully in our ordinances, how much welfare is to be given to those in need, etc.  The Bishopric is also the most visible to all the ward as they sit up front on the stand each Sunday for Sacrament Meeting, directing the meeting and everyone attends this meeting while the other leaders only preside over their group’s meetings.  Many men may never have any interaction with the female leaders, especially if single or childless; many women won’t need to interact with the Elders Quorum leaders, though more likely to as men are assigned as ministers to single women as well as families though women are only assigned as ministers to other women (ministers are somewhat like assigned friends, they are supposed to keep an eye on the person or family to ensure needs are met as well as being supportive over all, they used to teach lessons and supposed to visit each month, but that has been set aside in favour of developing a more natural relationship). 

[JAHS]

On 3/18/2026 at 8:19 AM, Nofear said:

 From a letter.

13.2.2.2 has been updated and affirms that if there are counselors the counselors should be the same gender as the president.

I wonder if this change might also apply to the the Sunday School General President of the Church?

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder if this change might also apply to the the Sunday School General President of the Church?

Not a bad question at all. Alas, the General Handbook does not typically spell out the policies surrounding the general authorities and officers of the Church.

[the narrator]

On 3/18/2026 at 10:56 AM, Amulek said:

This is yet another example of a policy change where the previous policy was rooted more in administrative tradition than actual doctrine.

In hindsight that always seems to be the interpretation, but before the change the policies are almost always determined to be rooted in revelation and doctrine.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

In hindsight that always seems to be the interpretation, but before the change the policies are almost always determined to be rooted in revelation and doctrine.

This one is an exception if so because iirc I heard the analysis there was no doctrinal reason for women to be excluded from SS leadership positions, just tradition and policy that could easily be changed even before it was first mentioned on this board eons ago.

Other exceptions (though now I am coming up with these I am wondering if it’s truly much of an exception  

I don’t remember the age of missionaries or temple workers being taught as revelation nor doctrine nor the other restrictions on missionary and temple work.

Also taught as policy and not revelation iirc, the beard and short hair thing, dress codes, etc….though I have heard many say the overall design of the garment was revelation, though Thomas Alexander in a book I have purged and now regret doing so spoke of the design for the last century as something studied out, not revealed. I am pretty sure several things on the original garments were also presented by him as done more for practical reasons than doctrinal ones. 

So I find the “almost always” as probably an overstatement, though many have been treated that way.

Edited March 19 by Calm

[the narrator]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

So I find the “almost always” as probably an overstatement, though many have been treated that way.

Maybe I'm just ignorant of when it hasn't, but in my experience virtually every current policy is viewed and treated as rooted in revelation--especially those that have gone through years or decades of members asking for change.

However, once the policy changes it suddenly retroactively becomes simply a tradition.

Edited March 19 by the narrator

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Maybe I'm just ignorant of when it hasn't, but in my experience virtually every current policy is viewed and treated as rooted in revelation--especially those that have gone through years or decades of members asking for change.

I think you’re putting your finger on a real pattern, but I’d frame it a bit differently.

It’s not necessarily that every policy is officially taught as doctrine or revelation. Rather, there’s a very human tendency among members to treat existing policies that way - especially when they’ve been in place for a long time or are tied to sensitive questions. Stability can be perceived as confirmation.

At the same time, the Church itself maintains a distinction (even if it isn’t always emphasized in day-to-day discourse): doctrine is generally anchored in canon and repeated prophetic teaching, while policies and practices can (and do) change as leaders respond to new circumstances, needs, or further light.

What complicates things is that local leaders don’t operate in a vacuum. A bishop, for example, seeks revelation, but he also works within a defined structure and is accountable to stake and general leadership. So in practice, revelation is often exercised within an established framework rather than independently of it. That can also make policies feel more fixed than they actually are.

So I don’t think it’s just hindsight revisionism when something changes. It’s more that we are watching the ongoing tension between continuity and adaptation play out in real time.

That being said, I do think there are people who only recognize what was “just policy” after it’s been adjusted, but that doesn’t mean it was actually doctrine to begin with.

 

[the narrator]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Rather, there’s a very human tendency among members to treat existing policies that way

Yes, mostly, but this fixes it:

Rather, there’s a very human tendency among members and leaders to treat existing policies that way...