Women, Men, and Priesthood

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

(I’ll try again, had to delete the wrong quote last time)

Respectfully, I think all sides can win this problem with simple adjustments.  

Okay.  I'm willing to listen.

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can see how my statement could come across as defending a woman’s need for glory and praise.  It’s truly not how I feel.  

Well, okay.

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The absence of acknowledgment indicates to me an imbalance.  

In the previous sentence you disclaim the idea that you are seeking to fulfill "a woman's need for glory and praise," and yet in this sentence you are complaining about "the absence of acknowledgement."

Potato, po-tah-to?

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I think that is easily corrected.  I don’t worship my bishop, and I’m not looking for RS pres to be worshiped either.  

Bishops don't want to be worshipped.  They didn't ask for the calling, and they don't fulfill the calling in order to get "glory and praise."

The additional 20+ hours of work that a bishop is asked to do is very challenging.  The same goes for the General Authorities.  And yet this thread is rife with grievance-mongering and envyings and spiteful remarks.

The doctrines of the Church call for the Church to to run and administered through delegated priesthood authority.  Critics and dissidents attribute this to bigotry and sexism, to hatred of women.  That just ain't so.  If and when the Presiding High Priest presents the Church with revelation that alters these circumstances, I'll be one of the first to provide a sustaining vote.  And if that never happens, I will still provide a sustaining vote. 

I am convinced that the Lord is leading this Church.  If He wants to change things, He'll make it known to His prophet.  Meanwhile, we operate within the framework we have been given.  

I reject the idea that this framework is built on bigotry and sexism, on hatred of women.

I reject the idea that members publicly slandering the Church and its leaders over this issue is not the way the Lord wants us to behave.  Again, Elder Oaks's article is on-point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Every human being, not just every member.

No, I meant every member.  There are some Gifts of the Spirit that are contingent upon making and keeping covenants with God.

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

However, all revelation for the entire church comes through a mortal and male filter. 

Yes.  Is this a "bug" or a "feature" in your eyes?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You just spent the last few pages telling women their views are utterly wrong in every respect

No, I haven't.

And I've been telling people what I think.  In an adversarial construct, I do not differentiate between men and women.  I do not privilege women because of their gender.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and that their perception of the situation is fundamentally flawed.

No, I haven't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Nice to see you, too, Bluebell!

So, all symmetry does is correct the assymmetry. It won't correct inequality or inequity, either, but it might help.

I think my questions when considering this stuff are, what, if anything, does the asymmetry harm?  If it harms nothing, then does it need to be corrected?  If it harms something, then I see the asymmetry as inequitable (unjust) and needing to be fixed.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Esteem affects the level of impact a person can have.  Someone can be in a high position of power, but with low esteem have little influence or ability to get their decisions implemented.  Someone with high esteem may be in a low power position, but still have major impact on decision making because they are listened to.

Some positions carry esteem with them due to the culture.  Imo Bishop is a calling with high inherent esteem.  A man has to work hard to lose respect of his ward when in that position,  With regards to RS President, I think it carries esteem in that people assume the President is a good person, but not necessarily seen as someone who has influence or should be part of the decision making process.  Much of that esteem comes from how the Bishop treats her as well as EQ President, do they actively seek out her input and advice or just let her know what they have decided.

The EQ and RS presidents are becoming more prominent as the instruction coming down is to offload from the bishop everything he does not have to do (youth, money, welfare, callings, discipline, and presiding are the primary ones off the top of my head). I have sometimes thought it would be wise to separate a bishop’s responsibilities and have a separate bishop and presiding High Priest and cut the calling in two to ease the load but I doubt it will happen.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I would say the best method to deal with dissatisfaction is prayer. The cries of the saints altered things in 1978. Why not again? I am not saying for sure that female Priesthood ordination will happen (though I suspect it will) and, as with all prayers, we have to be content with a “no”, but only God can lead the apostles to changes of that magnitude.

I do agree that prayer is ultimately the only solution. Unfortunately it would be bad form to promise something that we are uncertain of, but as you phrase it, 'tis not so bad. The other downside is the presumption that those with such concerns haven't already prayed for inspiration. In almost every case they will have*. Suggesting otherwise by recommending they pray about it would be condescending and counterproductive.

 

* Though, in some cases I suspect they have not done it in the right "Not my will, but thine be done" spirit of things. Still, suggesting that is judgemental and usually not productive unless the Spirit paves the way and opens the door for that topic.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have a good friend who is one of the finest people I know.  But he's divorced, and so will likely never be called as a bishop.

I have another friend who is single, and hence cannot be called as a bishop.  

I have untold numbers of women of my acquaintance who cannot be called as a bishop.

That says exactly nothing about them, about their worth and standing before God.  Nothing.

My stake president was recently called to serve as a mission president (Mesa).  I am reasonably confident that I will never be called as a mission president, or as a general authority.  If so, that will have said exactly nothing about me, about my worth and standing before God.  Nothing.

In the end, everyone has an opportunity to obtain the Celestial Kingdom.  Many (most?) of us will do it without having served in "leadership and authority roles."  Because 1 Corinthians 12.  Because 2 Nephi 26:33.  Because Moroni 8:17.  Because Ephesians 4.

People who aspire to (and/or publicly demand or agitate for) "leadership and authority roles" for the sake of "esteem" or "reverence" or praise from others (or any other reason, for that matter) are getting it wrong.  Very wrong.

Yes.

I can't really improve on what Paul said.  But I did emphasize what I take to be the most salient bits.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is not at all about people aspiring to or wanting callings. It is about women being excluded from the leadership, which then excludes females perspectives from those leadership decisions. Even with the most well-intended man listening to his mother, daughter, sister, or wife, he can only receive revelation through his own brain, his experience as a man. Thus, as a whole church, all revelation passed to us through the First Presidency for us necessarily passes through a mortal male filter. Thus all of us, male and female, are left without the benefit of such through a female perspective.

We may be remiss when, seeing the exclusion of women, we assume that diverse gifts repair that deficit. Furthermore, if diversity of gifts helps to some degree, how much more might they enrich the Saints when female perspectives are also fully included by female representation in the core leadership?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Esteem affects the level of impact a person can have.  

So "esteem" and power?  

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone can be in a high position of power, but with low esteem have little influence or ability to get their decisions implemented.  Someone with high esteem may be in a low power position, but still have major impact on decision making because they are listened to.

So this is all about power dynamics?

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some positions carry esteem with them due to the culture.  Imo Bishop is a calling with high inherent esteem.  

But most bishops aren't in it for the "esteem."  And their "power" is actually fairly limited.  Bishops are there to provide counseling and help to those in need.  This may include authority/power to authorize distribution of sacred funds, but otherwise that's not about "power" (or "esteem").

Bishops are also there to ensure that the Church's programs are up and running.  Again, that's not really about "power."  It's just administrative oversight.

Bishops are also "judges in Israel."  The predominant focus is not about judgment, but about helping the individual.  So while there is clearly the exercise of priesthood authority/power in that function, it's not one that bishops relish.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

A man has to work hard to lose respect of his ward when in that position,  

Okay

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

With regards to RS President, I think it carries esteem in that people assume the President is a good person, but not necessarily seen as someone who has influence or should be part of the decision making process.  

Wow.  That is not my experience at all.  Our ward's RS presidency is as involved or more so than the bishop in humanitarian/welfare/service matters.  Again, the bishop is often the administrator, but the RS Presidency (and the EQ Presidency) are also out there, talking to people and getting things done.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Much of that esteem comes from how the Bishop treats her as well as EQ President, do they actively seek out her input and advice or just let her know what they have decided.

Our ward's bishop meets with the RS president at least once a month, and had many, many other communications with her otherwise (in the hallway, by phone/email/text, etc.).

Meanwhile, the kids barely know the bishop, and instead look up to the Primary President.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the previous sentence you disclaim the idea that you are seeking to fulfill "a woman's need for glory and praise," and yet in this sentence you are complaining about "the absence of acknowledgement."

Fair enough.  You’re helping me communicate better, thank you.  I don’t think any woman should be acknowledged for acknowledgement sake.  I think women ‘as a whole’ need acknowledgement, and sitting a woman on the stand is a low cost way of moving closer to that. 

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

yet this thread is rife with grievance-mongering and envyings and spiteful remarks.

Perhaps ? I don’t know about that, but since you’re addressing me here, and I you, do I sound envious or spiteful? If so, I would like to correct myself. 

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

am convinced that the Lord is leading this Church.  If He wants to change things, He'll make it known to His prophet.  Meanwhile, we operate within the framework we have been given.  

Agreed.  As for the human stuff, I think we can easily correct those things. 

 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

reject the idea that this framework is built on bigotry and sexism, on hatred of women.

I would too.  I think the Lord does His part perfectly regarding having given us all the priesthood, the basic structure and the plan, and leaves us to make mistakes in many details and comings and goings, just as he does in life in general.  this is My Opinion

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject the idea that members publicly slandering the Church and its leaders over this issue is not the way the Lord wants us to behave. 

 Slander of the Lords prophets and leaders is truly sinful. Agreed. 

 

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I meant every member.  There are some Gifts of the Spirit that are contingent upon making and keeping covenants with God.

Yes.  Is this a "bug" or a "feature" in your eyes?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it is a feature but your aggressiveness in this thread, in my opinion, is sending the message anyone who highlights this ‘feature’ should just sit down and be quiet because public debate should never happen (per Oaks talk.) 

Since this is a feature, private debate is futile. I’m not sure how a one on one with my Bishop would help anything since it is an inherent unequal situation which he, himself can’t change. I could only petition he listens to the women in the ward, if he so chooses to. 

So, as women, we need to be grateful we are called upon to exercise the Priesthood in our callings and in our sphere of influence and be even more grateful when the men at church choose to let us. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

This is so true.  I honestly believe it is the number one issue many have difficulty with when they learn the truth (regarding how it was practiced by Joseph Smith and others).  As a bishopric, we agree that it is almost always the first issue a member comes to us with questions when they start delving into the essays or church history.  

(It is awesome to see you posting here again!  Hope you are well and that you stick around  )

When I think of polygamy from the "very beginning" I think of Old Testament polygamy and assumed that's what Meadowchik was talking about as well.  But maybe she was just talking about polygamy from JS forward.  

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Yes.  Is this a "bug" or a "feature" in your eyes?

Thanks,

-Smac

It is indicative of an imbalance and I would be reluctant to conclude it's a feature. I would be concerned about the potential neglect that has resulted from it.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think my questions when considering this stuff are, what, if anything, does the asymmetry harm?  If it harms nothing, then does it need to be corrected?  If it harms something, then I see the asymmetry as inequitable (unjust) and needing to be fixed.

I think it does indeed harm, because of the way human systems work and also from observation. Also, the cautionary, careful mindset would necessarily assume that the artificial asymmetry exposes people to harm.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I haven't.

And I've been telling people what I think.  In an adversarial construct, I do not differentiate between men and women.  I do not privilege women because of their gender.

No, I haven't.

Thanks,

-Smac

And I told you what I thought. Does that make it inherently innocent?

Of course you privilege people based on all kinds of things. Race, gender, economic status, how they dress, whether they are attractive to you, their relative power to you in society or a work environment, and lots more. We all do. It may not be a conscious thing. You may not think “Ugh, a woman or a black person or a poor person or an ugly person or a non-member. I am going to be dismissive and condescending now”. It is unconscious behavior patterns we picked up along the way. It is how we interact with the world as humans. Snap judgements. Sometimes this ability is helpful but if left unexamined it is the root of most prejudice.

The key is to realize that we do this and try to identify and fix those automatic responses in an effort to be fair to all. Remember what I said when I was still being general about lack of introspection and self-reflection? That is what I was referring to. Being self-aware let’s you catch and mitigate those responses. Blanket denial of one’s unconscious reactions is prideful laziness.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When I think of polygamy from the "very beginning" I think of Old Testament polygamy and assumed that's what Meadowchik was talking about as well.  But maybe she was just talking about polygamy from JS forward.  

No, it was not. I was talking about Joseph Smith's introduction of plural marriage into the church in its founding years.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

This is not at all about people aspiring to or wanting callings.

It's not?  I thought it is about nothing but "people aspiring to or wanting callings."

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

It is about women being excluded from the leadership,

And the proposed remedy is about "people (that is, women) aspiring to or wanting (leadership) callings."

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

which then excludes females perspectives from those leadership decisions.

No, it doesn't.  Apart from disciplinary matters (which are the exclusive province of the bishopric), women are asked to provide their "perspectives" in their callings, in ward councils, etc.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Even with the most well-intended man listening to his mother, daughter, sister, or wife, he can only receive revelation through his own brain, his experience as a man. Thus, as a whole church, all revelation passed to us through the First Presidency for us necessarily passes through a mortal male filter.

Yes, you've said this a number of times.  The questions I have are A) do you attribute this framework to God, or to (bigoted/sexist) men (it sure seems like you lean toward the latter); and B) what do you propose to do about it? 

Revelation and priesthood authority are the foundational governing principles for the Church, yet I see very little serious discussion of how these play a part in your proposed remedies.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Thus all of us, male and female, are left without the benefit of such through a female perspective.

Again, I disagree.  Quite strongly, in fact.  Our ward's council meetings are shot through with "female perspective{s}."

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

We may be remiss when, seeing the exclusion of women, we assume that diverse gifts repair that deficit.

Who, in your view, is doing this "exclusion?"

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore, if diversity of gifts helps to some degree, how much more might they enrich the Saints when female perspectives are also fully included by female representation in the core leadership?

I still don't understand where you are going with all of this.  You are not calling for priesthood ordination, yet you think women should "co-preside" with a man who does have the priesthood?

And again, where does revelation fit into all of this?  Does it play any part at all?  It seems . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  The same, then, can be said for the Relief Society and the Elders Quorum.

No, I haven't forgotten.  The First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Quorums of Seventy, the Presiding Bishopric, the Sunday School General Presidency, all stake presidencies, all High Councils, all bishoprics are exclusively male.  

But you are calling for "symmetry" without ordination to the priesthood.  It seems that the only reason the "asymmetry" you describe exists is because of ordination to the priesthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is there a priesthood reason that the sunday school presidency must be all male?

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I said the Proclamation provides for equality

You said it will be revised. Why? To make things unequal?

 

You said, in reply to Sunstoned,

 

  On 8/14/2019 at 4:43 AM, sunstoned said:

I do understand that this practice is done with the best intentions.  But it does bother many people.  I believe it is an old school holdover from years ago when society imposed many more restrictions on women.  Things have changed.  Now, most families have two bread winners, the husband and wife.  I believe that governance of the home should be equally shared as a partnership. 

"Who disagrees with that?

Certainly not the Proclamation."

 

When responding, I thought you were being a bit sarcastic, that you were implying that Sunstone's notions of equal partnership are refuted by the Proclamation.  (They are, because they do lay out gendered roles in the family. A departure from those roles are treated as exceptional.

So, apparently, you are saying that the Proclamation affirms Sunstone's belief in equally-shared governance?

I don't see the Proclamation providing for equality when situations like both parents working *because they want to* are not supported by it. 

 

 

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think it is a feature but your aggressiveness in this thread, in my opinion, is sending the message anyone who highlights this ‘feature’ should just sit down and be quiet because public debate should never happen (per Oaks talk.) 

I think we need to listen to prophetic counsel, yes.

A few months back I came across some FB posts by a very good friend of mine.  He had been separated from his wife, and he was saying some pretty nasty things about her publicly.  I privately emailed him and encouraged him to stop, as his comments were not helpful, and were also demonstrably disrespectful and contemptuous toward a woman with whom he had made sacred covenants.  He responded that what he was saying was true.  I responded that truthfulness is only part of the equation, and that he needed to consider the "time, place and manner" of his communications with and about his wife.

I have similar sentiments about members of the Church going online and publicly badmouthing and disparaging the Church, its doctrines, its leaders, its members, etc.

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Since this is a feature, private debate is futile.

I think private debate is fine, and can be helpful at times.  Public debate that involves publicly disparaging the Church and its doctrines and leaders, on the other hand...

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I’m not sure how a one on one with my Bishop would help anything since it is an inherent unequal situation which he, himself can’t change.

Elder Oaks's Ensign article addresses this.

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I could only petition he listens to the women in the ward, if he so chooses too. 

So, as women, we need to be grateful we are called upon to exercise the Priesthood in our callings and in our sphere of influence and be even more grateful when the men at church choose to let us. 

I think the message of 1 Corinthians 12 is important.  It doesn't/shouldn't matter if we are the eye, or the hand, or the foot, or the elbow.  What matters is that we are part of the body.

I've sometimes wondered what Paul meant in these verses:

Quote

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is there a priesthood reason that the sunday school presidency must be all male?

I assume so, but I honestly don't know.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I do agree that prayer is ultimately the only solution. Unfortunately it would be bad form to promise something that we are uncertain of, but as you phrase it, 'tis not so bad. The other downside is the presumption that those with such concerns haven't already prayed for inspiration. In almost every case they will have*. Suggesting otherwise by recommending they pray about it would be condescending and counterproductive.

 

* Though, in some cases I suspect they have not done it in the right "Not my will, but thine be done" spirit of things. Still, suggesting that is judgemental and usually not productive unless the Spirit paves the way and opens the door for that topic.

True, but even many who do pray about it think actions in the world will do more to change the situation then their communion with God. The inevitable result of fervent prayer is bringing your will to match God’s will and part of that process is seeking the knowledge you need to do that including the knowledge of why there is a difference in gender responsibilities in the church. Maybe it was given to us in our weakness and will be done away? Maybe there is some compensatory power we have not yet unlocked? Maybe there is a separate female priestesshood yet to be unveiled practiced in some previous dispensation that needs restoration and has powers and gifts we know nothing of? Maybe there are reasons we cannot conceive of or the stumbling block itself is necessary for some growth?

I just hope there was no hyperbole in the talk coming from the apostles about the foundation of the church being built and now it is time to build the structure and that we need to buckle up and hold on.

The promises to come are amazing:

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;
27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;
28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.
29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
30 And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—
31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—
32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.
33 How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.

Secrets of eternity never before revealed, things the prophets of old sought to know but was held back for our day, the nature of Eloiheim himself (themselves?), and the nature of existence and the eternal laws that govern it. The rolling waters continue to wipe out the superstitions Joseph Smith worked to tear down and the false traditions we have built up. Somewhere in that trove of knowledge is an answer that will explain “why” to the satisfaction of any honest soul. Best part is....sometimes we get sneak peeks if we really need and are worthy and trusted enough to hold that piece sacred and avoid spoilers for everyone else.  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

OK, this is getting fun to think about.  I've thought for quite awhile about symmetry where the church is concerned.  I wasn't quite sure about it though.  As I think more about balance it makes more sense then just symmetry.  

When you don't have balance in art, scrapbooking, home design etc things feel off.  It makes people uncomfortable.  It's hard to deal with.  

The easiest way to balance things is symmetry.  In this picture you can see it:

 

However you can have asymmetrical balance as well:

 

 

 

 

With asymmetrical design instead of balancing 2 identical objects in the same place you balance by color, shape, texture etc.  

You can find more about this on these sites: Design 101: Asymmetrical and Symmetrical Balance, Classic Design Theory, and Design Principles: Compositional, Symmetrical And Asymmetrical Balance. Oooo and this is a good one with lots of examples: Understanding the Importance of Balance in Graphic Design

I think there is a reason we are supposed to have male and female.  We need both.  The more I think about this the more I think that we really can't be symmetrical because we are not identical parts to the eternal picture, however we MUST have balance for this all to work.

So maybe we could think of ways that things are getting weighted to one side or the other to see where maybe we could balance things (with God's approval of course). 

 

That's a really great way to think about it.  I love the idea of balance.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And I told you what I thought. Does that make it inherently innocent?

You were slandering others.  So no.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Of course you privilege people based on all kinds of things.

Not really.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Race,

False.  I do not privilege people based on their race.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

gender,

False.  I do not privilege people based on their gender.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

economic status,

False.  I do not privilege people based on their economic status.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

how they dress,

False.  I do not privilege people based on their dress.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

whether they are attractive to you,

I don't even know what this means.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

their relative power to you in society or a work environment, and lots more. We all do.

I privilege my boss, yes.  He gets to tell me what to do.

I privilege the judge when I stand in front of him or her.  The judge is in charge, and I defer to that.

But in the main, no, I reject your characterizations here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is indicative of an imbalance and I would be reluctant to conclude it's a feature.

So . . . a "bug?"

What about Jesus calling twelve men as His apostles?  That was clearly an "imbalance."  Was that wrong of Him?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is there a priesthood reason that the sunday school presidency must be all male?

I have never heard a reason given other then the handbook stating it and we looked it up to make sure (we were short on men worthy to hold callings). Same question applies to the Primary Presidency where gender does not seem like it should be a factor. It is policy. It can change easily.