I’m happy to say that I live in an enlightened ward. Though some wards are stuck with bishoprics who misunderstand something and thus only let men say the opening prayer, my ward happily asks women, men, and teenagers of either sex to give the opening prayer. And closing prayer.
I was uncertain about speaking order, though. It seemed women always spoke first, and men always spoke last.
I know some bishoprics (a very small minority, I hope) feel this is correct so that “the priesthood” can correct any errors a woman might introduce. Or perhaps they just feel this is the unwritten order of things. In any case, my ward seemed to follow that order, but I wasn’t sure if it was deliberate or just happened to go that way.
A few months ago I got another calling: putting together the sacrament meeting bulletin. It’s kind of fun, except when it’s the month for the first counselor to conduct because he never calls me to tell me the speakers, and he’s often very difficult to track down, and sometimes he doesn’t even know who’s speaking, even though he’s in charge. But aside from that, it’s fun. (What can I say? I love playing with fonts and formatting and clip art.) So, wielding this newfound power, I decided an experiment was in order.
Sometimes I’m given a specific order for speakers, but sometimes I’m just told, “The Smiths are speaking.” So one week I made “Brother Smith” the first speaker and “Sister Smith” the second speaker and waited to see if the bishopric would announce the speakers in that order or switch them around. The person conducting went with what I’d put in the program. And I’ve mixed it up since and no one has objected. So apparently they don’t really care about the order, and when the woman went first and the man went second, it really just happened to go that way without some deep reason.
I did feel kind of bad for “Brother and Sister Smith”, though. Apparently they’d prepared their talks so that “Sister Smith” would do more of the introductory part of the topic, and “Brother Smith” would do the conclusion part, so by switching what they expected I kind of flustered them. Thus, let this be a lesson: if the speaking order isn’t to your liking, ask the person conducting if perhaps you could speak in a different order. After all, the order might be the result of a curious troublemaker or, more likely, it’s just randomly in that order and no one would mind it different.
Interesting. As an adult convert, I’ve only lived in two wards (neither in the intermountain West). At my current ward, the scheduled youth speaker always goes first. The concluding speaker is sometimes a woman and sometimes a man; it varies from week to week. When a member of the stake high council or presidency speaks, of course, they bat cleanup. In my prior ward, there was no specific order (that I could discern, anyway).
Please do have some compassion for whoever’s recruiting speakers; it’s not that uncommon for a designated speaker to no-show, which adds greatly to the stress level of all involved.
Ah, youth speakers. I’d forgotten about them because my current ward rarely has them (maybe a couple times a year). Not sure why it’s so rare; we have a decent number of youth. However, when we have them, they always go first. I’d probably stick with that just for kindness – they’re often the most freaked out, so we may as well let them get it over with first 🙂
I just do not understand this. In my ward women seem to dominate things. We had about a two month stretch where all the speakers were women (other than the high council visit). If there is a speaker or a prayer said in our ward it seems that it is about a 60/40 chance that it is going to be a woman. This is not any real problem, I just have a hard time imagining a ward where those unwritten rules of first or last speaker are used.
Honestly, I think the woman-goes-first rule is more just a practical consideration.
Women generally seem less likely to ramble on at length on a talk and usually seem to give shorter talks (yes, I have seen notable exceptions to this rule). If you put the man first, especially if he’s a High Priest, he could talk the entire Sacrament Meeting before he realized that not only had he left no time for his wife to speak, but he’s also 10 minutes overtime and the babies in the congregation are screaming bloody murder.
Am I wrong?
Tanya, I like the way you think. Your fooling with the bulletin would definitely discombobulate my bishopric, who always follows standard order: new family moves into ward, kids speak first, then wife, then husband. I actually think the handbook encourages this, although I haven’t actually seen it in the handbook so I could be wrong. Mission president speaks, wife speaks first, husband second. Always the same in my ward.
I think part of this stems from the old practice (which I don’t see as much any more) of always inviting the whole family to speak. I was 9 years old when we got the assignment and basically my dad wrote my talk.
Generally they would go from youngest to oldest, and since a polite lady never reveals her age she usually spoke before the father. For large This was interesting to watch for the larger families, and worked quite well when one child/parent didn’t want to speak as much. They had to combine for single folk or empty nesters/newlyweds or other childless couples.
Now with the new Duty to God and Young Women requirements the two youth speakers are generally a quorum/class assignment on a two month rotation, and just the mother and father speak, but even that is only true half the time.
The only thing specific I’ve heard about speaking order is that the presiding (or conducting) priesthood leader has the privilege of having the last word, if he wants it. (This is why visiting general authorities always speak last at stake conferences, President Hinckley is always the last speaker at general conference, a member of the bishopric gets up to say something at the end of a testimony meeting, etc.) Other than that, it doesn’t matter.
My wife and I have only been asked one time to speak in the same meeting; she spoke first and I followed. But she left all the introductions to me, because we both liked it better that way. She usually has some irritated comment to whisper at me when we hear new couples introduce themselves in our ward these days, telling us how they met or how long they’ve been married–irrelevant to the talk, it is. (Speaking of talks, I get irritated when people start their talks by saying, “My talk is about X;” it’s rather ungraceful, and I’d rather they let us figure out the topic ourselves.)
I wonder if this used to be some kind of rule that has since been changed? Either that or I just had a hardcore bishop in my first ward after getting married. My wife and I were assigned to speak. On the Saturday before, I found out I had to go into work Sunday afternoon to take care of a small problem. I called the bishop and asked if I could speak first, just in case I to bolt out of the chapel to get to work. He refused and told me they would find other speakers to talk because as the patriarch of the family, and as a priesthood holder, I was supposed to speak last.
I was flabbergasted. And then I felt sorry for the couple that was getting called Saturday night to speak the next day.
I’m in a bishopric and, according to the training I’ve received from my stake, any meeting that contains a priesthood ordinance (e.g. sacrament meeting) needs to be opened (opening prayer) by a prayer from a priesthood holder. I don’t think that’s in the CHOI, but that wouldn’t be abnormal. Just FYI.
M –
Just understand that the training you received from your stake is not based on any actual church policy and is a local stake policy only. The practice of having invocations exclusively given by men is now one of those oral traditions (based in past formal tradition) that certain stakes and general authorities continue to practice. See the frequent discussions at BCC and FMH. It it matters, ask the stake to produce a copy of the written instructions from SLC outlining the policy (they won’t have one).
(I’m not being snarky. At least in my stake, we have been encouraged by our stake leaders to ask them for documentation if we feel they are passing along erroneous counsel from SLC. Keep in mind that it may be a STAKE policy, and then there’s not much you can do about it. But if the stake is saying it’s a general CHURCH policy, they would be mistaken.)
Please do have some compassion for whoever’s recruiting speakers; it’s not that uncommon for a designated speaker to no-show, which adds greatly to the stress level of all involved.
Really? Except for my mission in South America, I can probably count on two hand the times in the last 20 years the number of no-shows and one hand where the bishopric didn’t appear to have had a backup plan at least a day or two in advance. In since my mission, I’ve lived in Utah, Ohio, and Texas.
witteafval – In many fast-growing areas, couples are now encouraged (by local authorities) to offer an informal introduction as part of their family tasks. In my ward, about 50% of the active membership has lived in the ward less than a year.
This has nothing to do with sacrament meeting, but everything to do with man-woman order in the Church.
My wife and I both graduated from BYU; although my wife had a couple of summer classes left, she was granted permission to walk in the Spring graduation. It’s fairly commonplace for spouses to walk together at the college-level commencement if they choose, even if one of the spouses is in a different college. I was graduating with a double major and chose my primary department, which was a scientific discipline. My wife elected to walk with me, even though she had graduated in a fine arts-related discipline.
As we sat up on the risers and watched the other departments, we saw other couples in the same situation: A husband graduating in, say, chemistry and his wife graduating in, say, elementary education. The process was organized. At the side of the stage, an official would position your information card (with name, degree, major, and spouse if you were a visitor) under a little camera which was broadcast to the podium, and the announcer would read the relevant details.
However, we noticed that the wife always went second. You’d hear: “Brigham Fielding Kimball, Bachelor of Science, Physics. (Pause for 10 seconds while the audience, having been warned, tried to refrain from clapping, and the candidate triumphantly walks across the stage.) Molly Bennett Kimball, wife of Brigham Fielding Kimball, Bachelor of Arts in Motherhood.”
Obviously, the wife was related to the husband — and Motherhood wasn’t even a major in that college — but the announcer felt it necessary to include the spouse anyway. My wife felt it a bit demeaning. Of *course* she was visiting our college because she was an Art major and we were married. And why not mention *my* spouse too?
Anyway, as we got up to the official who took the card, we decided, at pretty much the same time, that she would go first. If she was going to have her graduation moment tied to me, she might as well go first.
You could hear the confusion in the announcer’s voice as he read “Elizabeth Hoover Smith, wife of Reginald Bartholomew Smith, Bachelor of Arts in Sculpture” without having first presented the aforementioned Reginald (me), and then he relaxed when he read the next card, “Reginald Bartholomew Smith, Bachelor of Science, with a double major in Near-Algorithmic Studies and South American Feminism”.
It was a small act of rebellion, to turn the “man shall be first” commencement practice on its head. But my wife’s family was pleased she went first.
(In a second act of rebellion, friends we knew — who we didn’t know were in attendance and who didn’t know we were graduating, but were there to celebrate their own daughter — violated the no clapping/cheering ban when my wife walked across the stage.)
(In #11 – names and majors have been changed. Sort of.)
Too bad the majors were changed. Near-Algorithmic Studies sounds fun 🙂
I find the variety in rules and traditions in regards to order of speaking or prayer, demonstrated in these relatively few comments, interesting.
“I’m in a bishopric and, according to the training I’ve received from my stake, any meeting that contains a priesthood ordinance (e.g. sacrament meeting) needs to be opened (opening prayer) by a prayer from a priesthood holder. I don’t think that’s in the CHOI, but that wouldn’t be abnormal. Just FYI.”
It’s not FYI. It’s not OK. It’s like adding golden candlesticks to the sacrament table.
You know how we just finished studying the New Testament, and Paul was always having to write to the saints here and there because they were doing weird things that were more or less than the true gospel?
This is going on in your locality. Do you happen to live in Galatia?
It is your responsibility to stand up for the truth and question this practice, as nicely as possible.
You owe this to all the women in your life, and the church leaders, who cared enough about “Prayers in Church Meetings” that there is an entry in the handbook. It is clear that MEN AND WOMEN may offer prayers in Church meetings.
Keep in mind that it would look much better for a member of the bishopric to question this and resolve it than for a sister to raise it. For a stake RS Enrichment meeting last year, we had a visiting general authority who did 90 minutes of Q & A. How do you think he might react to hearing a question about this local tradition?
I spend all my time in Primary or thinking about Primary, and our opening prayers are never, ever given by a priesthood holder. I think our last opening prayer in Sacrament was giving by a woman, but don’t quote me on it — it’s a really good day when I’m sure that the people blessing the bread and water are in fact priests from our ward and not missionaries, drafted five minutes before the opening prayer is said. Our youth speakers always speak first, though: now that I’ve been in Primary for so long, I usually even know who they are.
One thing I have noticed about our ward is that if you’re married, you’re a LOT more likely to get called to speak than someone who’s divorced or never married (widows/widowers seem to be fully represented.) If I say more than that, I’m likely to regret it (in the form of a last-minute request to speak.)
Edit: Oh, and Tanya, about changing the order – that’s cold. I know some folks who’d have a meltdown, finding out at the last minute that they have to go first. Though I also know a few moms who’d probably be secretly pleased at getting the “barely halfway through the meeting, still not completely bored” kids to watch, rather than the “endless misery, I can’t believe this meeting lasts 70 minutes” kids.
There have been occasions when my wife and I were asked to offer the two prayers at sac meeting by a well-meaning executive secretary. My wife has a “either I go first or not at all” policy. She’s not striking a blow for sisterly inclusion — it’s that she hates praying in public and gets tense (but oddly, she’ll go 40 min. for a talk if needed) and would rather just get it over with.
Tonya – I didn’t change the majors much, just poked fun at them. Anyone familiar with the specific BYU departments and/or course offerings would get the majors. And we both took classes that could be described with the names I gave the majors. I did change our names, though.
(Although, in 2+ years of active commenting, anyone who lives near me who really wants to sniff out my real identity would not have too much problem. I mean, there are references out there to where I live, what schools my children attend, what other Bloggernacle commenters live near me, callings I’ve had, where I grew up, and where I served my mission.)
Naismith is correct about what is in the CHI:
“Men and women may offer prayers in Church meetings. Prayers should be brief and simple and should be spoken as directed by the Spirit. Members should use the pronouns Thee, Thy, Thine, and Thou when addressing Heavenly Father. All members should say an audible amen at the end of the prayer.” (Church Handbook, 1998)
Queuno, your comment #11 reminds me of the observation by a movie critic that the reason there are so many comedies with weddings is that, in our relentlessly casual culture, there are no other formal occasions left that can have their dignity mocked with screwball mishaps.
Oh, if only BYU offered degrees in South African Feminism…
South American, I mean. Or South African. Or any kind.
Our Bishopric received instruction from the Stake Presidency that we were to have a Priesthood holder offer the opening prayer. No explanation was given and none was asked. I like the reasoning given above that meetings where Ordinances are performed should be opened by a Priesthood holder – at least it sound like something that could be understood rather than just ‘that’s the way things are’.
Nebraska, it actually doesn’t make much sense. If it were necessary, a priesthood holder would need to say the opening prayer at baptisms, which I know is not necessary (though I suppose, as in this case with sacrament meeting, rogue stake presidents could certainly enact it). Plenty of moms and grandmas give the opening prayer at baptisms. Of course, most ordinances at the temple don’t even start with prayer beyond personal prayer before attending, and in that case women would, of course, be praying. I’ve only been to a ward or stake chapel session a couple times before doing an endowment session, and I remember the opening prayer of only one. In that case I know it was a woman because it was a friend of mine and she was young and had only been to the temple a couple times and was afraid she’d do something wrong (so I remember it).
So it really doesn’t make sense.
I like the reasoning given above that meetings where Ordinances are performed should be opened by a Priesthood holder – at least it sound like something that could be understood rather than just ‘that’s the way things are.
Except that I’ve heard the exact same reasoning used for why men should given the closing prayer: “Any activity with a priesthood ordinance must have a priesthood holder give the closing prayer, so that the meeting is closed and thus confirmed by the priesthood” or something to that effect.
So, basically, I guess that if both are true, women shouldn’t be praying in sacrament meeting at all?
What it all sounds like is after the fact justification for an a priori decision to have the men always open/close.
And since my wife gives better talks than I do, and mine tend to be short, she usually goes after me (though not always – we compare our talks and decide which seems to build on or prepare for the other talk, or which one ends best, or whatever).
Over six months ago, my current bishop changed the sacrament meeting speaking order from the printed program in order to have the husband of a couple speak last, rather than his wife. When I asked him after the meeting why he had done this, he told me he understood it was part of the “unwritten order of things”. Since then, however, we have had a couple of sacrament meetings in which all the speakers were women and one in which a woman was the concluding speaker, following a man. (She also gave a far better talk.) I need to follow up with him to find out what (if anything) prompted the change in his understanding.
The Grasshopper returns! Nice to hear from you!
John –
If BYU was so darn concerned about formality at a commencement then they should simply prohibit spouses from walking with their spouses’ college, and not schedule competing colleges’ commencements at the same time. Then they won’t have to worry about protocol when spouses graduate together.
We weren’t deliberately attempting to mock any part of the graduation ceremony. It seemed superfluous to announce each married female visiting graduate as the wife of the male graduate, trailing behind their husband. All we did was change the order, so that my wife would walk first and be recognized in her own right, not as the trailing spouse.
I did appreciate a little more the celebratory nature of the university where I completed my MS (and hopefully soon PhD) – PhD graduates are given standing ovations, with much laud and honor. At BYU, they ask the family and friends to refrain from any show of praise.
And if BYU were so concerned about formality, they might encourage their deans to avoid making stereotypical jokes about green jello and red punch at commencement.
(And BYU would probably serve themselves well, particularly in the technical colleges, to employ announcers who are proficient with foreign names. Even more distracting than the inadvertent exuberant applause is a dean who stumbles through a lengthy Indian or Chinese name.)
jeans –
For my second major, I had to take a final 400- or 500-level literature course before graduation. The only class that fit my work/primary major/interview schedule was a night class that dealt with the collected works of a less prominent, but trailblazing, nun who paid the price for her scholarship and attack against the patriarchy. An incredibly insightful class.
(If you want details on the course I had, email me at queuno at gmail. Some of our readings were in English.)
And we studied this around the time that Farr/Knowlton were a hot item on campus.
For my final “conversation credit”, the faculty member and I had an hour discussion (not in English) about how BYU should improve opportunities for women and minorities.
We joked that the biggest disadvantage the English Department had was that they could’t obscure their discussions in a foreign language. The College of Humanities at BYU was the highlight of my time at BYU.
In response to comment #15 It’s not FYI. It’s not OK. It’s like adding golden candlesticks to the sacrament table.
You know how we just finished studying the New Testament, and Paul was always having to write to the saints here and there because they were doing weird things that were more or less than the true gospel?
This is going on in your locality. Do you happen to live in Galatia?
It is your responsibility to stand up for the truth and question this practice, as nicely as possible.
Stand up for what truth exactly? Question what practice exactly? Comparing this to adding candlesticks to the sacrament table is completely ubsurd!
I’m sorry, maybe I’m wrong, but does it really matter who says the opening prayer or what order the speakers come in? Why is everyone making such a big deal of it? So what if one stake says that it should be a certain way and another stake says it should be another way. (They are the ones entitled to personal inspiration in how to lead over their stake, not you.) Does it really matter to our eternal salvation if it is a man or woman that does it?? I personally have never been offended (nor have I felt like less of a person because I am a woman) and cannot for the life of me understand why so many do get offended in this church by something so simple and silly as this (or other simple and silly things). I mean really!?! Is the church really less true because only men can say the opening prayer or because only men can be the concluding speaker (I’m not saying this is church policy, I’m just giving an example). Shouldn’t we be less concerned about the “order of things” and more concerned that we are actually learning something from sacrament meeting (having a husband in the bishopric and sitting alone with my 4 young children every Sunday I understand it is sometimes difficult to get anything out of Sacramet Meeting besides a headache). Or shouldn’t we be more concerned with how we are living our lives and not question whether or not it is right for this “practice” to continue. If this is really truly bothering you than maybe you need to pray that Heavenly Father will help you to let it go. Because in the scheme of things, it really does not matter!
Now if I showed up to church tomorrow and there were golden candlesticks on the sacrament table, then I would be very concerned!
“I’m sorry, maybe I’m wrong, but does it really matter who says the opening prayer or what order the speakers come in?”
No, it doesn’t matter who says the prayer. But apparently it does matter that we pray. The entry in the GHI is quite clear that all adults should be encouraged to pray–someone who has a current one can check, but it used to say that they discouraged asking husband/wife to pray, because that practice makes it less likely that singles and widowed are invited to pray.
Certainly, a policy that eliminates women from giving the opening prayer is going to make it less likely that women can pray. And for moms with young children, who aren’t sure if they are going to be in the meeting by the end, it really, really cuts their odds of praying.
“So what if one stake says that it should be a certain way and another stake says it should be another way. (They are the ones entitled to personal inspiration in how to lead over their stake, not you.)”
Stake leaders have a great deal of opportunity to receive inspiration over how to run their stake, within the guidelines set forth by the church. But they are not entitled to make changes that countermand church policy. They cannot add questions to the temple recommend interview, require potential missionaries sell their car, trim sacrament meeting by 10 minutes, ban chocolate from ward functions, or add gold candlesticks to the sacrament table.
“If this is really truly bothering you than maybe you need to pray that Heavenly Father will help you to let it go.”
If I “let it go,” then I am being complicit in an incorrect practice, and I have failed in my responsibility to sustain my leaders. It is my experience that when local units are doing this kind of thing, bringing it to the leaders’ attention will cause them to pray about it and consult the handbook, and then they will change it to conform with church policy.
If I had respectfully brought it to their attention, and they refused, then it would be time to pray. But first comes speaking up.
Nice post, Tanya.
I was just at a Stake Leadership Meeting where the SP said that the men need to listen to the women more. Great talk. I will have to do a post on it in my spare time. 🙂
I dare you to have the benediction before the invocation and see what happens. Make sure the Bishop and his counselors are paying attention.
A member of our Bishopric that they received instruction from the Stake Presidency based on the counsel of a visiting member of the Quorum of the Twelve. (Occurred around 2002)
1. priesthood opens the meeting, women can close the meeting but don’t ask husband and wife to do it in the same meeting.
2. don’t have husband and wife speak in the same meeting; this is an affront to single people
3. don’t call husband and wife to serve simultaneously on the ward council (rare exceptions acknowledged). This was not to preclude service as a counselor to a position that is on the ward council.
One may disagree but we should acknowledge that some people are acting obediently based on instructions.
Also there were no instructions on talk order and no requirement that one of the speakers be a man.
“One may disagree but we should acknowledge that some people are acting obediently based on instructions.”
I certainly agree with that, but I don’t see why we should ASSUME that they are acting obediently and not question, if it doesn’t seem right to us or appears to be in conflict with what has been taught elsewhere.
If there is confusion, then the leader can check the handbook or ask up the line. I don’t see a problem with requesting that they check, and every time I’ve done this, it was met with appreciation and thoughtfulness.
And yes, I *was* in a ward where chocolate had been banned from functions; they changed the policy after I wrote a letter explaining why I thought adding to the word of wisdom might be problematic. Another time I had called the temple about an ordinance, and the temple worker happened to give me the page number of the GHI that addressed the issue. When the bishop told me it couldn’t be done, I was able to give him the page number, and he graciously changed his opinion then and there.
If I had asked, and the leader explained that it was due to counsel, I would of course accept the explanation. And I totally appreciate the various priorities and agendas within a ward. But I see nothing wrong with respectfully asking the question, because as noted above (and on various other occasions) it might be just wrong.
Once the bishop admitted that they had known the practice in question was wrong, but it wasn’t a priority, it was easier to keep going on that way, and my bringing it up provided the impetus they needed to make the change.
Nothing remains static in this church. We have to change our practice with shifts in policy. If there is a different take on inviting folks to pray in the current GHI (and the version that I’ve seen was more recent than 2002), then that certainly trumps previous counsel from a visiting GA. Let’s not forget that there was a time (in the 1970s) when women were not allowed to CLOSE sacrament meeting. So these things do change, and we need to follow the church’s teachings at any given point in time.
It’s hard to accept such changes. Talk to the parents at the time of Christ’s ministry, who had circumcised their older sons, and then were told that the younger ones didn’t have to be circumcised. That they would be sitting side-by-side in worship services with non-Jews and publicans.