Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nofear

Women, Men, and Priesthood

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Oh really? Interesting.  In all my travels I’ve never seen a wife be final speaker after her husband. 

It is unusual, but it happens in my wards (especially when I am bulletin person reminding the ES that it is not a rule :) ).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If it was a substantial calling for the husband, we included the wife in the interview. I do not recall if this was a local instruction or a general church practice. 

I was never called to a position which required a large time commitment, without my wife being there for the same reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’d make a couple of anecdotes. First, the number of different women that speak in our stake conferences grossly outnumbers men (of course, the stake presidency are repeat speakers).  Second, where the Young Women Presidency is asked for counselor recommendations, the Young Men Presidency is not. That is decided entirely by the Bishopric. Third, the women in our ward councils own the meeting. They are not mere flowers. Fourth, the RS is budgeted close to 10 times the amount as the EQ. 

Does that change the fact that men “run” the church?  No. But it mitigates the false perception that being in charge means some gross and broad inequity. 

In fact, to Wendy Ulrich’s point, Priesthood power is available to all and conditioned on the same Christlike attributes - men and women alike.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

In our ward, you don’t find husband and wife talking together. I think that sends the wrong message anyway (that you need to be married to contribute).  And you regularly find women as the last speaker or give the benediction in our meetings. I think this is common - for example, what of when sisters giving their mission reports?  I guarantee they are almost always last (except for last week when our high councilman asked the missionary to go first so she could take all the time she wanted - which she did, leaving him about 3 minutes after skipping the intermediate hymn).  In fact, last week it was also one of the young women that gave the closing prayer. 

On one occasion, we had an older service couple speak. I asked the sister if she wanted to go first or last.  She said, “We’ll let the priesthood conclude.” I almost informed her that her husband is not “the priesthood” and that he has no authority in our ward anyway.  I exercised better judgment and refrained. 

Edited by PacMan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was never called to a position which required a large time commitment, without my wife being there for the same reason.

Imo best practice would to have married couples both in attendance when any call is issued and confirmed for husband or wife. 

I don’t have any doubt that most practices have been defensible as not intending any insult or degradation towards a woman.  However, as the world changes, we would be smart to remain flexible.  Not all change is bad, and for goodness sake it wasn’t long ago that women werent allowed to run in the Boston Marathon.  For example.  I’m sure at the time it was considered un lady like to be a marathon runner.  The world has changed, and it’s not ALWAYS bad. 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2019 at 8:08 AM, MustardSeed said:

Imo best practice would to have married couples both in attendance when any call is issued and confirmed for husband or wife. 

I don’t have any doubt that most practices have been defensible as not intending any insult or degradation towards a woman.  However, as the world changes, we would be smart to remain flexible.  Not all change is bad, and for goodness sake it wasn’t long ago that women werent allowed to run in the Boston Marathon.  For example.  I’m sure at the time it was considered un lady like to be a marathon runner.  The world has changed, and it’s not ALWAYS bad. 

Depends on your point of view.

Scene 1

At a staff meeting.

The Boss: You must learn that change is good (pointing to white board message “Change Is 🙂”). Any questions?

Wally: Who wants this one?

Dilbert: I got it. Question: Why don’t you triple our pay? That would be a change.

TB: That would not be in the best interest of our shareholders.

Dil: OK. Why don’t you work for free? That’s a change that’s in the interest of shareholders.

TB: [Seething]

Dil: Or would it be better to admit change can be very bad?

TB: [Seething more]

Later at the coffee machine.

W: My favorite part was when he yelled “Stop ruining my slogans with your logic!”

Dil: Snort! Hee-hee!!!

 

Scene 2

At a staff meeting

The Boss: All change is good.

Dilbert: What if we change your salary for mine?

TB: Not all change is good.

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Imo best practice would to have married couples both in attendance when any call is issued and confirmed for husband or wife. 

I don’t have any doubt that most practices have been defensible as not intending any insult or degradation towards a woman.  However, as the world changes, we would be smart to remain flexible.  Not all change is bad, and for goodness sake it wasn’t long ago that women werent allowed to run in the Boston Marathon.  For example.  I’m sure at the time it was considered un lady like to be a marathon runner.  The world has changed, and it’s not ALWAYS bad. 

Image result for photo of a woman runner being pushed over in the early years

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was never called to a position which required a large time commitment, without my wife being there for the same reason.

Same here.  My wife was recently called to be the YW President in our ward.  I was asked to accompany her.

I have had a few "large time commitment" callings, and my wife has been asked to accompany me when they have been extended to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  My wife was recently called to be the YW President in our ward.  I was asked to accompany her.

I have had a few "large time commitment" callings, and my wife has been asked to accompany me when they have been extended to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is how it should be for both parties for all callings imo.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Image result for photo of a woman runner being pushed over in the early years

What is the context of the picture?  Can’t tell from the angle what is going on or why. 

Pictures can ‘lie’ or at least be misunderstood because it is an isolated moment. There is a picture that is used as a symbol of racism and hate that shows an officer with a dog, both attacking a young black man, but I read an article a bit ago where the black man explains he startled the dog (bumped into him iirc) and the dog went for him while the officer was actually  saving him from being maimed or even killed by pulling him away from the dog with one hand while trying to control the dog with the other....the opposite of what the picture appears to portray.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

What is the context of the picture?  Can’t tell from the angle what is going on or why. 

Pictures can ‘lie’ or at least be misunderstood because it is an isolated moment. There is a picture that is used as a symbol of racism and hate that shows an officer with a dog, both attacking a young black man, but I read an article a bit ago where the black man explains he startled the dog (bumped into him iirc) and the dog went for him while the officer was actually  saving him from being maimed or even killed by pulling him away from the dog with one hand while trying to control the dog with the other....the opposite of what the picture appears to portray.  

Or if you want to skip the youtube: https://deadspin.com/behind-the-photo-that-changed-the-boston-marathon-forev-1698054488

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

They let Igor run in the Boston Marathon?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Calm said:

In our Western culture there are certain behaviours that are judged as spiritual that just may be more social for an individual such as attending church that women do more of, but that likely are no more indicators of greater gender spirituality than the fact most priests, imans, and rabbis are men means men are more spiritual.  Cultural roles need to be carefully analyzed separately from spirituality. 

And in fact spirituality likely can’t be measured by anyone but God since we can’t quantify either the spirit or feeling. 

Yes - "protect and provide" are gender roles defined by society that are not as associated with spirituality as much as say, something like nurturing and teaching is... nice to see, that in some places, gender roles are being done away with as nurturing is something both fathers and mothers should be doing, and protecting and providing is also something both men and women should be sharing responsibilities in.  (Equally yoked and all that...)

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post

One of my favorite photos.  ^^ makes a really excellent point for change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm nowhere near America or Canada, though I've lived in the former, which I didn't find to have a monoculture when it came to men and spirituality either.

Wasn't my whole argument against monoculture (i.e. there's a range of culture in both men and women) but more about incentives (which don't require monoculture)?

16 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Oh really? Interesting.  In all my travels I’ve never seen a wife be final speaker after her husband. 

We have it regularly in our ward. 

 

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They let Igor run in the Boston Marathon?

He wasn’t running, was an official. Definitely not a good look for him.

Hard to believe it was 67 when that happened. Would have put it in late 50s at the latest if guessing. Women’s Track in high school was a big thing at my school 5 years later.  Though now I think of it they were still reporting women’s participation as unusual by the time I started paying attention to such things, so late 60s fits  

The first photo made it look like five men were trying to stop her.  A quick read only has him trying to pull her out of the race, the rest of the men were trying to stop him...which makes more sense from their stance as they are pushing forward or to the side, not pulling back but she is being pulled back.  But the target of the pushing couldn’t be seen before.  Hope it wasn’t assumed those that could be seen were the attackers.  Looks like almost everyone else was positive about her running, except this one guy who flipped out and then maybe the press (who seemed neutral prior to the altercation from her description or even positive; perhaps they were friends with the official and him getting bodychecked upset them or they thought it was planned).

I get the one jerk jumping into the race doing it given the times; just seemed strange a bunch of dedicated athletes would see getting her out of the race as more important than getting as good of times as they could given many had devoted months to preparing, so the first picture on its own didn't make sense to me.

OTOH, if they were running specifically to support her or saw a runner being attacked, I can see many stepping in to help the female runner....which is what I was guessing might be happening, but I couldn't see the attack so wondered what was going on.

Thanks for the context, Tacenda

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Thanks for the context, Tacenda

You're welcome Calm!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When I served as bishop and in other bishopric callings, we were instructed to talk with the father of the family before giving a calling to a family member. It was done out of respect for his stewardship as head of the family whether he was a member or not. It was not done to insult, disrespect, demean, nor diminish the wife or child, but rather to ascertain the family situation and how the calling might affect the family. I do not recall if this was a local instruction or a general church practice [edit....after giving it some thought I believe it was general policy]. If it was a substantial calling for the husband, we included the wife in the interview. 

It is so easy to pass judgement on the intentions of people living at another time and under different circumstances and to criticize good people who were doing their best to do their best with what they had. A pity, but it’s what we have become.

Current Church policy....

 

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. 

Edited by sunstoned
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, 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. 

In my experience neither parent knows all the details of the family that might interfere with a calling, especially a time consuming one or one  that needed guarantees of being at a certain place at a certain time (teaching for example).  So consulting just the father because he has the stewardship in the view of the Church will not yield a fully accurate view of the family situation.

So if the purpose is to ascertain the family situation, they need to ask both parents.  It has always been a partnership from what I have seen in the lives of older friends and families, though there have likely been exceptions with husbands who are micromanager.  No father I knew wanted to make the effort to learn all the needs of the mother's role in order to govern her, but just trusted she did her part and it was pretty clear pretty quickly if she did or didn't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, 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. 

I suppose our disagreement would be how we interpret the bolded sentences and what it means to preside. IMO, this has nothing to do with equally shared partnership or two bread winners, but simply respects the father's God-given stewardship, as in.....

Quote

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

In my experience neither parent knows all the details of the family that might interfere with a calling, especially a time consuming one or one  that needed guarantees of being at a certain place at a certain time (teaching for example).  So consulting just the father because he has the stewardship in the view of the Church will not yield a fully accurate view of the family situation.

So if the purpose is to ascertain the family situation, they need to ask both parents.  It has always been a partnership from what I have seen in the lives of older friends and families, though there have likely been exceptions with husbands who are micromanager.  No father I knew wanted to make the effort to learn all the needs of the mother's role in order to govern her, but just trusted she did her part and it was pretty clear pretty quickly if she did or didn't.

One would hope there is a modicum of communication that makes it equitable and productive. Still, I think there needs to be consideration of the father's stewardship. We can disagree about what that consists of.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, this has nothing to do with equally shared partnership, but simply respects the father's God-given stewardship, as in.....

 

The church, though still obviously fulling supporting the teachings in the proclamation, no longer agrees with you on this interpretation of the proclamation and what it means for husbands to preside.

The handbook is clear that spouses should be consulted for callings, especially time sensitive ones or ones that can affect the family.   The handbook, as far as I have been able to find, does not support the idea that husbands should be treated differently than wives when it comes to callings given to someone in the family.  

Quote

 

Determining Whom to Call

19.1.1

General Guidelines

A person must be called of God to serve in the Church (see Articles of Faith 1:5). Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call. They consider the worthiness that may be required for the calling. They also consider the member’s personal or family circumstances. Each calling should benefit the people who are served, the member, and the member’s family.

Although service in Church callings requires sacrifice, it should not compromise a member’s ability to fulfill family and employment responsibilities (see 17.2.1). Before calling a married person to an assignment that requires a significant time commitment, Church leaders consider the effect of the calling on the marriage and family.

Extending a Calling

The Chart of Callings outlines who may extend each calling. After receiving the necessary approvals, an authorized leader conducts a personal interview to determine the member’s faithfulness and willingness to serve. If the member is willing, the leader extends the calling. The leader may invite the spouse of a married person to be present and give support when the calling is extended.

 

Like Sunstone said, the idea that men should be consulted because they preside over the family, but a wife need not be, is an antiquated tradition that the church does not formally follow anymore (though I'm sure there are still some old-school bishops who do it).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church, though still obviously fulling supporting the teachings in the proclamation, no longer agrees with you on this interpretation of the proclamation and what it means for husbands to preside.

The handbook is clear that spouses should be consulted for callings, especially time sensitive ones or ones that can affect the family.   The handbook, as far as I have been able to find, does not support the idea that husbands should be treated differently than wives when it comes to callings given to someone in the family.  

Like Sunstone said, the idea that men should be consulted because they preside over the family, but a wife need not be, is an antiquated tradition that the church does not formally follow anymore (though I'm sure there are still some old-school bishops who do it).

Yep. I'll cop to the out-dated idea of the father presiding (in righteousness). I'm not sure the "Church" no longer agrees with me, but us old fashioned antiquated folks need to die off so progress can be made. It is always thus. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yep. I'll cop to the out-dated idea of the father presiding (in righteousness). I'm not sure the "Church" no longer agrees with me, but us old fashioned antiquated folks need to die off so progress can be made. It is always thus. 

I copied the church's handbook guidelines on how callings are to be extended.  They do no agree with you that, in regards to callings, "there needs to be consideration of the father's stewardship."  And there is no reason that anyone needs to die off so that progress can be made.  Change to be more inline with our Heavenly Father's will is possible, and even expected and required, for all of us, no matter our age. :) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

A few good quotes from Ulrich,

" So an elder is kind of a foundational thing that everybody needs to be, including the women of the church in some ways."

"Zina and Eliza give every one of those young women a blessing by the laying on of hands. Eliza does it in tongues and then Zina interprets by the laying on of hands to bless them."

"So, those are some of the things that elders do. It’s interesting for us to think, as women, of how we might participate in that work."

"Joseph Smith spoke of establishing among the Relief Society sisters, a ‘kingdom of priests’. This ‘kingdom of priests’ would be comprised of men and women who made temple covenants."

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

×
×
  • Create New...