Sunday school presidencies may now me men or women

[JAHS]

2 hours 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.

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

I think most policy is determined by revelation, but it is true revelation relevant to the time it is given. We believe in ongoing revelation and because people and circumstances change over time a policy that was true and needed at the time can change or be discontinued by new revelation. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Yes, mostly, but this fixes it:

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

How do you tell the difference between a leader who believes a given policy is doctrinally based (and follows it) as opposed to one to believes a certain policy is based primarily on tradition (yet also follows it)?

 

[JustAnAustralian]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 

There is so much more they could be doing though.

Have a look at the handbook to see what their responsibilities are. If all they are doing is organising substitute teachers, then they aren't magnifying their calling as much as they could.

 

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

There is so much more they could be doing though.

Have a look at the handbook to see what their responsibilities are. If all they are doing is organising substitute teachers, then they aren't magnifying their calling as much as they could.

 

I have seen the handbook list of duties and making sure there is a teacher for every class on each Sunday is not even on the list, although I guess it is implied as one of the things they have to do. I have been the Gospel Teacher for three years now and at other times in my life and that is all I have seen them do. But yes, there is a list of other things they could be doing as well.

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

How do you tell the difference between a leader who believes a given policy is doctrinally based (and follows it) as opposed to one to believes a certain policy is based primarily on tradition (yet also follows it)?

 

I guess by whether or not they actual consider changing a policy and how long it takes them to consider it. For example, it seems pretty clear that the racist priesthood and temple ban/policy/doctrine would have been lifted much earlier if a majority of leaders didn't assume it was rooted in revelation.

Edited March 20 by the narrator

[Tacenda]

On 3/19/2026 at 10:05 AM, JAHS said:

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. 

I was curious about this, do the presidents help with the SS lessons, as far as theme etc?

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was curious about this, do the presidents help with the SS lessons, as far as theme etc?

Generally know. That is dictated by the schedule in the lesson manual for that year. There might be a Sunday here or there though where they have some discretion.

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

I have seen the handbook list of duties and making sure there is a teacher for every class on each Sunday is not even on the list, although I guess it is implied as one of the things they have to do. I have been the Gospel Teacher for three years now and at other times in my life and that is all I have seen them do. But yes, there is a list of other things they could be doing as well.

I was once called to be a counselor in a Sunday school presidency (this was over 25 years ago), and was really pumped to be able to serve therein, but then found that the only reason I was in there was to be a roving substitute teacher, as needed. I had thought that we were supposed to monitor how teachers were doing, make suggestions, organize teacher training, and when necessary advise the bishopric about Sunday school matters. I suppose the president did some of that, but I never heard about it, nor did we ever have a presidency meeting. I was very disappointed. But me being me, I was definitely on board being a substitute teacher. 

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was curious about this, do the presidents help with the SS lessons, as far as theme etc?

In our Sunday school the discussion is the Come Follow Me theme for the week. That seems to be the usual practice everywhere, or am I assuming too much?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I was once called to be a counselor in a Sunday school presidency (this was over 25 years ago), and was really pumped to be able to serve therein, but then found that the only reason I was in there was to be a roving substitute teacher, as needed. I had thought that we were supposed to monitor how teachers were doing, make suggestions, organize teacher training, and when necessary advise the bishopric about Sunday school matters. I suppose the president did some of that, but I never heard about it, nor did we ever have a presidency meeting. I was very disappointed. But me being me, I was definitely on board being a substitute teacher. 

I remember them doing training when I was young, but don’t know if that was before the 3 hr block or not (which apparently happened in 1980 (according to Chat), which is the year I got married.  I thought it was maybe 72 or 74, when I was in high school.

Chat says I might be remembering being a part of a pilot program or it may be that my BYU experience is coloring my home ward as their meetings were closer together even if still split. It even had a schedule for one branch from someone’s online autobiography that sounded familiar:

 

8:00–9:00 a.m. — Priesthood

9:30–11:00 a.m. — Sunday School

1:00–2:15 p.m. — Sacrament meeting

2:30–4:00 p.m. — Choir practice

Evening — Fireside (optional)

 

 I do remember being frustrated because the cafeteria only served two meals on Sunday and if a late afternoon meeting ran late, you might miss the meal.   The vending machines were always empty by Sunday evening except for the gross stuff.

I had nightmares for decades afterwards of getting to the cafeteria only to find out it was closed, out of food, or I didn’t have my meal card.

Edited March 21 by Calm

[manol]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I remember them doing training when I was young, but don’t know if that was before the 3 hr block or not (which apparently happened in 1980 (according to Chat), which is the year I got married.  I thought it was maybe 72 or 74, when I was in high school.

 

My recollection is that one of the intentions of switching to the 3 hour block (at least in the United States) was to reduce the economic burden caused by the greatly increased price of gasoline due to the Arab oil embargo which followed the Yom Kippur war.  The Yom Kippur war was in October of 1973.  

Edited March 21 by manol

[Nofear]

On 3/19/2026 at 5:23 PM, the narrator said:

Yes, mostly, but this fixes it:

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

Naw. Policy and practice can be upheld and sustained not just because we think it is revelation. We can support the Church and its leadership knowing that many activities (local and general) are efforts of humans to do God's will. To the extent that God can uphold His servants, imperfections notwithstanding, so can I. That said, that doesn't mean there isn't also real revelation experienced in the councils of the Church at all levels, even for small things. There is.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Naw. Policy and practice can be upheld and sustained not just because we think it is revelation. We can support the Church and its leadership knowing that many activities (local and general) are efforts of humans to do God's will. To the extent that God can uphold His servants, imperfections notwithstanding, so can I. That said, that doesn't mean there isn't also real revelation experienced in the councils of the Church at all levels, even for small things. There is.

Right. Smaller wards and branches have to adapt and make their own changes according to their resources and needs. That takes revelation at the local levels.

[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 how this fits in with regards to the Bible teaching about women not being in authority over men.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this scripture simply not apply to us as it did back then?

[MustardSeed]

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder how this fits in with regards to the Bible teaching about women not being in authority over men.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this scripture simply not apply to us as it did back then?

What do you think? 

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

55 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder how this fits in with regards to the Bible teaching about women not being in authority over men.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this scripture simply not apply to us as it did back then?

What do you think? 

From what I understand it needs to be read in the context of the conditions when it was said. Problems with false things being taught by women in Ephesus.
We can also chalk it up to latter-ay revelation over-riding the ancient policy. 
There are however many Christian faiths that still believe it should be followed.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

I wonder how this fits in with regards to the Bible teaching about women not being in authority over men.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this scripture simply not apply to us as it did back then?

I think the scripture can be treated as the writer’s opinion as there is “I want”, “I do not permit” in the chapter rather than “the Lord has instructed me to….”  I think those he was in authority should take his opinion into account, but if he was the only authority at the time teaching this and it is not confirmed by revelation, ancient or modern, why would we be tied to a personal policy?

Though I should mention that apparently scholars view the language of “I do not permit” as the writer emphasizing authority rather than how we would view it today, so I am okay with being told I am mistaken here.  That still leaves the question if Paul ever has the authority to dictate policy for the whole church and if this even is Paul and not someone trying to use Paul as a cover for his own teachings because this anonymous writer wants to impress and influence people.

Paul was not the president of the Church meant to create policy for the entire Church of his day according to LDS interpretation of the New Testament.

Add to that scholarship that suggests that Timothy wasn’t even written by Paul, but by a later follower of his who may not have even been called to lead anything in the Church, but wanted his opinion out there as gospel…it takes away substantially imo from the need to view this as true revelation and doctrine, imo.  If this was not actual scripture in the sense of from those authorized to dictate doctrine for the faith, it wouldn’t have applied to the Saints in the past either…and there is evidence that it didn’t according to Paul himself imo (referring to women who are mentioned as contributing to the community in ways that suggests they taught, such as Junia described by Paul—who is believed to have actually written Romans iirc, unlike Timothy by biblical scholars—as an apostle).

I think therefore Joseph Smith and modern prophets superseded those iffy instructions where they have given women authority to speak and teach in church and to lead others, including men, whether it’s based on policy or revelation. 

Edited March 22 by Calm

[Rain]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

I wonder how this fits in with regards to the Bible teaching about women not being in authority over men.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this scripture simply not apply to us as it did back then?

Usurp means to wrongfully cease. With that scripture, I don't see a problem with women being in authority over men as long as they didn't actually usurp it.  I don't think the writer would have liked men usurping authority either. 

That doesn't mean that the writer is ok with women having authority, I'm just talking about how people shouldn't worry about women having authorty over men given how this scripture talks about wrongful ceasure.

Edited March 22 by Rain

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

I wonder how this fits in with regards to the Bible teaching about women not being in authority over men.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this scripture simply not apply to us as it did back then?

I think that verse was a product of the culture that Paul was raised in, where women were almost always under the authority of a man, in church or not.  He saw a bunch of 'uppity' women in one area and wrote a letter reminding them of 'their place'.

Women in the latter-day church have had the ability to have authority over men for a long time.  In primary.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

I wonder how this fits in with regards to the Bible teaching about women not being in authority over men.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this scripture simply not apply to us as it did back then?

That epistle is almost certainly a forgery and not written by Paul. All the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were probably written by one person. He was more than a little authoritarian and more than a little misogynistic. Most likely the writer had an agenda for how he wanted the church run and used Paul’s name to push his views.

[revelstoked]

Our ward wasted no time.  The wife of the former first councilor who was released to teach seminary is now the president. That was _really_ fast.  Half our stake auditors are women, our stake president moved on that quick (but not as quickly) as the pool of appropriately trained and eligible men is somewhat smaller than needed (not enough faithful finance bros in the stake, plenty of part time CPAs among the sisters).

I'm looking forward to this.  Bell ringer and substitute finder seems to be the lowest level SS pres can function on.  I've been in maybe two teachers councils in the past decade. This is the key unlock for better teaching: sharing of methods and experiences.

[Amulek]

On 3/20/2026 at 10:09 AM, the narrator said:

I guess by whether or not they actual consider changing a policy and how long it takes them to consider it. For example, it seems pretty clear that the racist priesthood and temple ban/policy/doctrine would have been lifted much earlier if a majority of leaders didn't assume it was rooted in revelation.

Okay, but how would a Bishop or Stake President go about changing a policy they don't have authority to change? 

 

[the narrator]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Okay, but how would a Bishop or Stake President go about changing a policy they don't have authority to change? 

 

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to the top 15 leadership in the FP and Q12, but if I wasn't I hope that this reply makes that clear now.

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to the top 15 leadership in the FP and Q12, but if I wasn't I hope that this reply makes that clear now.

Thanks for clarifying. I was thinking more about the leaders the overwhelming majority of members actually interact with on a regular basis.

Even if we limit the discussion to the First Presidency and Apostles, I'd still be careful about drawing a straight line from 'it took a long time to change' to 'leaders must have mistaken policy for revelation.' That assumes we can see all the factors they were weighing, which we really can’t. Institutional change in a global church isn’t just about recognizing a problem - it’s also about timing, unity, consequences, and confirming direction (sometimes repeatedly). Even in the example you gave, there were leaders prior to 1978 who openly wrestled with the issue and sought change, so it wasn’t simply a matter of everyone uncritically assuming 'this is doctrine, full stop.' 

 

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

so it wasn’t simply a matter of everyone uncritically assuming 'this is doctrine, full stop.' 

That's why I said "majority of"