Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,066 Excellent


About ALarson

  • Rank
    Creates Beasts Of The Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,553 profile views
  1. A counselor in the Bishopric? You bet that would be a leadership role. She wouldn't be there just to show up for meetings....at least that's not how I envision this calling if this ever took place in the future. I believe she would be given specific responsibilities and have stewardship. But I've said I'm moving on since this is all just speculative at this point....so I am now.... ETA: I want to respond to your post above and appear to ignore it... Then that's different than how I envision it and not how I've described it. I think I've stated from the beginning it would be nice to have another view and also someone to share the load with regarding running a ward. I'd very much see them as having responsibilities just as other counselors do (albeit those would be different).
  2. But still they are not witnesses of the actual abuse. That's the point I was making.
  3. Well, now you're moving the goalposts. You're original statement was "There are always other witnesses". Of course the abuser and the abused are witnesses. But there are definitely not always "other witnesses" when abuse occurs.
  4. That's not what I saw suggested (or what I thought we were discussing). Either way....this is all speculative....I'm moving on since I'd just be repeating myself if I posted more
  5. These are not always involved though. You stated that there are always witnesses. There aren't.
  6. No...that's not what I'm suggesting at all. But time to move on....I've expressed myself several times regarding how a calling like this may work. This is all just hypothetical anyway
  7. Who is saying that as a counselor, she'd have "no authority and no real responsibilities"? I can't imagine her being there only to attend Bishopric meetings. Calm had some excellent insight regarding how a calling like that would be effective within ward leadership I know we're speaking hypothetically, but if this change was ever announced, I have to believe a sister would be called with strong leadership skills just as any other counselor (Bishopric, YW, Primary, RS, Elder's Quorum, etc.). Why would you think the calling of a counselor would have "no real responsibilities", just because it would be a woman? Only if you think of it or describe it as you have, IMO. But....let's move on. I disagree that it would be a token calling or demeaning to a woman. I think it would very much be a step in the direction of involving women more in ward leadership. However, I am very supportive of how things currently are too. I know in our ward, we consult with the sisters who are serving in leadership positions on a regular basis and that works well (so far.... )
  8. That's definitely not true if we are talking about abuse (physical or emotional). There may be those who are told about the abuse, but would you consider them to be an actual witness?
  9. I honestly do not see it that way, bluebell. I'd welcome a sister into our meetings and wouldn't consider her "a token woman", but someone who would add a balance to many discussions regarding all ward members (male and female). I understand what you're saying and I respect your right to feel that way, but personally, I would never think of it that way. If some want more females in leadership roles within the ward, this would be a step in that direction and I'm not sure how to get there if we don't at least start somewhere (if it ever happens). This has just been one suggestion.
  10. Ok...but, IMO, that would not be the ONLY reason she served in that calling. It's the one we are discussing here (because of the topic). If the leaders decided they wanted both men and women to serve as leaders over the entire ward, I believe it would be for a balance and to hear from both genders and not only because they want hear manly or womanly views. But let me add (like I've already expressed), I'm supportive of how things currently are. We have great communication and input from the sisters in our ward. That's not to say that we wouldn't welcome one into our Bishopric meetings though....
  11. Well, that wouldn't be necessary with the way things are already set up in the church (unless it was a Relief Society calling and they are still under the stewardship of men....). (And, I'd have to believe that would not be the ONLY reason a sister would be called to serve in that position....just like getting a man's perspective is not the ONLY reason men serve there now....)
  12. I think most have suggested it would be an actual calling. Either way....I'm not opposed to having a sister in our Bishopric meetings to give their insight and input from a female's perspective. I'm also supportive of how things currently are run too though. I'd imagine if this was announced in conference as one of the changes though, all who are giving reasons why it's not a good idea would suddenly be all supportive and express how inspired it was 😄
  13. Interesting questions. I do think that sometimes tradition (as you asked earlier) dictates what continues to be done instead of what really needs to be performed by someone holding the Priesthood. I would imagine that a sister could collect offerings and of course, they can conduct meetings. I feel a sister could even sit on a counsel or court to judge guilt or innocence. Sisters of course cannot give blessings, baptize, set apart or perform other ordinances. I know the question has been asked here before regarding why a Sunday School President needs to be male. Do they need to hold the Priesthood?
  14. And the Relief Society president would have a voice regarding that as well, IMO. I think having her attend every single Bishopric meeting may be an extra burden on top of all other responsibilities and meetings she attends. Hopefully he would discuss it with her, if he wanted her to be there each week and get her opinion on that as well.
  • Create New...