Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[truth a la carte]

6 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Those who clamor about the issue make one or both of the complaints:

1) the keys are only available to males (even if only some males) -- that is unfair
2) ignoring Priesthood keys, the organization of the Church is still very gender imbalanced

It is important that one understand which complaint one is addressing (even in giving of the complaint or in responding to the complaint).

Such a good point.

[truth a la carte]

2 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

Those who clamor about the issue make one or both of the complaints:

1) the keys are only available to males (even if only some males) -- that is unfair
2) ignoring Priesthood keys, the organization of the Church is still very gender imbalanced

It is important that one understand which complaint one is addressing (even in giving of the complaint or in responding to the complaint).

For anyone wondering, my concerns stem with #2.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The fact that this is even an item of discussion does point to some issues about the "egalitarian nature" of the Church. The keys of the Priesthood do operate in a patriarchal fashion. No sister can hold keys of the Priesthood. But does that mean, outside of that context, the administration of the Church at a local level has some degree of gender equity? Those who clamor about the issue make one or both of the complaints:

1) the keys are only available to males (even if only some males) -- that is unfair
2) ignoring Priesthood keys, the organization of the Church is still very gender imbalanced

It is important that one understand which complaint one is addressing (even in giving of the complaint or in responding to the complaint). Jana Riess did not do a great job in separating the two issues.

Saying it's not fair that only men receive ordinations to an office in the priesthood because women can not is like saying it is not fair that only women get pregnant and give birth to all babies because men can not do that.

And I'll bet there is somebody right now trying to figure out some way for a man to get pregnant and give birth to a baby.

It's not any man's fault that there are more women in the Church than there are men in the Church, though.  Oh, wait a minute.  Maybe more men should join the Church until we get a equal balance of both men and women.

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Ahab

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Reply to questions:

Baptisms are much more personal that the sacrament, you feel almost naked in the act

I don't think this is the case for most people/girls, especially with the extra clothes the girls are sometimes asked/required to wear in some temples.

1 hour ago, rpn said:

and it involves touching --- things that would be okay with a brother or other relative, but intimacy that shouldn't be by assignment, and shouldn't be encouraged for teens who are still learning to manage all their mortal reactions.  And the kids often know when the others are going but also behave awfully in other circumstances, so it raises questions of why he's trusted in this way.  It would be excruciating to be demeaned one day and then have the same person baptizing you at the temple.  

This holds for men as well as teens though. And so unfortunately, many girls would rather have a teen boy or a stranger temple worker baptize them than their male relatives for good reason.

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I do not want any girl ever to think they are not fully equal in dating situations or in the world with any boy.  But when one party exercises authority for them, it cannot help but risk at least one girl thinking that if this is what that boy who was worthy to baptize her wants, then who is she to think differently.   Or one girl feeling more exposed than they should have to feel in pursuit of good.  

And the solution would be to have adults or family members baptize the girls. 

Thinking back to my youth I would have MUCH rather have had the boys do it than the adults, especially if one of those adults was the bishop I had in my teens.

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I suppose talking directly about it could help.    "You do know that just because the boys do all the ordinances, that doesn't mean you should think that what they say and want is what you need to say and want, I hope?"   "I hope you know that if you want an adult or not this specific boy to baptize you, you can speak up and decline.   It is okay not to do what everyone else is doing, if that is what you feel."   "If someone feels uncomfortable about being baptized by someone, it is okay for them to ask that someone else perform the ordinance, and we should all accept that choice as a worthy valid option, without comment.   Consent matters in every context, not just in dating."

Yes, but if we should do this concerning the teen baptizers we should also do it for the adult baptizers.

1 hour ago, rpn said:

This isn't about power in the ordinance.   It is about every person being able to choose the level of their intimacy with another for themselves, without pressure or expectation from another.  

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Saying it's not fair that only men receive ordinations to an office in the priesthood because women can not is like saying it is not fair that only women get pregnant and give birth to all babies because men can not do that.

This characterization of "fairness" is also not apt to the extent it contravenes 1 Cor. 12:

Quote

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
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.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

(1 Cor. 12:4-27)

Diversity of gifts and responsibilities/administrations is a feature of the Restored Gospel, but some folks are treating it like a bug.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2019 by smac97

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I've never understood the sentiment that disparages the cooking and serving of food to loved ones, or as a service to other people (in the Church, total strangers, whatever).  I really enjoy making meals for my wife and children, and they are happy to be on the receiving end of such efforts.  I have never felt demeaned or lessened for it.  To the contrary, I think my children will, when grown and gone, have fond memories not only of my wife's cooking, but mine as well.  It is, for me, a way of expressing love and affection.  And it's quite enjoyable to do!  For example, a few months ago I invented a new type of sandwich, which has become hugely popular with the kids, their friends, and my extended family.  It's called the Sunday Afternoon.  The fixings include: ciabatta rolls (Costco's are the best), coleslaw, Italian dressing, bell peppers, onions, cream cheese, sliced cheese (usually sharp cheddar, but pretty much any type will do), sliced meat (black forest ham or roast beef are best), tomato, and balsamic glaze.  

Yum! I agree with you about cooking and food. I like to point out that the word "companion" means "with bread." And then, of course, there is communion.

Thanks for your thoughts, as always.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, rpn said:

 

Of course my kids go to dances.   And they dance with groups (when adults allow group dancing and with others who want to dance with them (though adults often intervene (stupidly given teen current culture IMHO) when the group that forms is all boys or all girls).    Totally different thing.

So they aren't allowed to slow dance? (that's what I meant, sorry I was confusing.)  

I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly, I'm just trying to figure out how it works with your teens when you believe that they should not be touching people of the opposite sex on the wrist or the back because that's not appropriate.  It sounds like your idea of appropriate touching might be different than most other members and that could be why most don't seem to have the same concerns about priests baptizing as you do.  

And I really do appreciate you taking the time to explain your feelings.   

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As far as "member-leadership situations where there might be out-of-bounds leadership," most discussion about such things would amount to gossip.  Backbiting.  Faultfinding.

Thanks,

-Smac

You really think "most" discussion would? And what is your point of making the claim?

Are you saying that discussion should then be avoided altogether?

What should one do if they witness and/or are subjected to ecclesiastical abuse? 

My point of introducing the example earlier is essentially to consider these possibilities.

I think you do agree, please correct me if I am wrong, that leaders, just like everyone else, make mistakes. Thus, leadership mistakes, and even abuse, happen in the church. Since women and men are subject to church leadership, it would then follow that men and women experience ecclesiastical abuse. And since abuse arises out of flaws and weakness of human beings, it would follow that the personal perspective of the leader tends to influence them when they make mistakes. And since all judge-in-Israel leadership decisions are made by men, it would follow that those decisions are being made with less understanding of women than of men. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

As far as "member-leadership situations where there might be out-of-bounds leadership," most discussion about such things would amount to gossip.  Backbiting.  Faultfinding.

Thanks,

-Smac

You really think "most" discussion would?

Yes.  

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And what is your point of making the claim?

That perhaps we should not engage in such behaviors.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Are you saying that discussion should then be avoided altogether?

Discussion that amounts to gossip.  Backbiting.  Faultfinding.  Yes.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What should one do if they witness and/or are subjected to ecclesiastical abuse? 

Then-Elder Oaks addressed this at some length here.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My point of introducing the example earlier is essentially to consider these possibilities.

And my point is that such discussions often (very often) devolve into gossipping/backbiting/faultfinding (or else start out as such).

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think you do agree, please correct me if I am wrong, that leaders, just like everyone else, make mistakes.

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thus, leadership mistakes, and even abuse, happen in the church.

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Since women and men are subject to church leadership, it would then follow that men and women experience ecclesiastical abuse.

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And since abuse arises out of flaws and weakness of human beings, it would follow that the personal perspective of the leader tends to influence them when they make mistakes.

I don't know what this means.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And since all judge-in-Israel leadership decisions are made by men, it would follow that those decisions are being made with less understanding of women than of men. 

Okay.  I'll go along with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

IMO, there are men inside and outside of the LDS Church who are condescending to women. I don't know how possible it would be to quantify the difference between the proportions to determine if there is a significant difference either way, but judging from the headlines, I'm going to speculate that the proportion of LDS men who are condescending to women is not more than the proportion of the same for the overall population.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Baptisms are much more personal that the sacrament, you feel almost naked in the act and it involves touching --- things that would be okay with a brother or other relative, but intimacy that shouldn't be by assignment..."

-Smac

I also had a good chuckle at that hilarious attempt at backpedaling.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

How about considering an analogy of a lifeguard when thinking about a man baptizing a woman.  A lifeguard touches a woman to try to save her life when pulling her out of the water when he sees she is in peril.

At least a woman getting baptized has more clothes on and there is no mouth to mouth stuff going on.

Just gonna back away slowly now.

[cherryTreez]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

Reply to questions:

Baptisms are much more personal that the sacrament, you feel almost naked in the act and it involves touching --- things that would be okay with a brother or other relative, but intimacy that shouldn't be by assignment, and shouldn't be encouraged for teens who are still learning to manage all their mortal reactions.  And the kids often know when the others are going but also behave awfully in other circumstances, so it raises questions of why he's trusted in this way.  It would be excruciating to be demeaned one day and then have the same person baptizing you at the temple.   I do not want any girl ever to think they are not fully equal in dating situations or in the world with any boy.  But when one party exercises authority for them, it cannot help but risk at least one girl thinking that if this is what that boy who was worthy to baptize her wants, then who is she to think differently.   Or one girl feeling more exposed than they should have to feel in pursuit of good.  

And the solution would be to have adults or family members baptize the girls.

I suppose talking directly about it could help.    "You do know that just because the boys do all the ordinances, that doesn't mean you should think that what they say and want is what you need to say and want, I hope?"   "I hope you know that if you want an adult or not this specific boy to baptize you, you can speak up and decline.   It is okay not to do what everyone else is doing, if that is what you feel."   "If someone feels uncomfortable about being baptized by someone, it is okay for them to ask that someone else perform the ordinance, and we should all accept that choice as a worthy valid option, without comment.   Consent matters in every context, not just in dating."

This isn't about power in the ordinance.   It is about every person being able to choose the level of their intimacy with another for themselves, without pressure or expectation from another.  

Any girl can refuse to be baptized by a boy. I don't get how a boy she knows baptizes her or some stranger is any different.  Maybe if its too much then the girl shouldn't be doing baptisms.  

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Just gonna back away slowly now.

Your picture's broken.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

his isn't about power in the ordinance.   It is about every person being able to choose the level of their intimacy with another for themselves, without pressure or expectation from another.  

I agree with this, but I see the same thing happening with adults baptizing youth with the difference in age making the intimacy even more intrusive/power imbalanced, though the chance of them knowing about immoral behaviour is lower. I would like to see your suggestions implemented for everyone actually.  I think it is very important to teach members, especially youth how to process seeing people they know are unworthy operating as if they were in the Church. From what I read, this can be a very big factor in faith crisis. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

OK that settles it. No more youth dances. 😉

The fact they are in wet clingy clothing can make a difference for some. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

the contrary, the member has all sorts of options available to him/her.  And those options reduce and/or eliminate most of what I think you mean by "blind spots

We do need to get these options publicized better though. When my bishop 20 years ago refused to stop a one leader overnight winter camping trip with a dozen young scouts (in an old beat up van pre cell phone no less) against both church and scouting rules, I was clueless about what to do and I was much better informed than most women at the time, I bet.  

Options are useless unless they are known. 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

Reply to questions:

Baptisms are much more personal that the sacrament, you feel almost naked in the act and it involves touching --- things that would be okay with a brother or other relative, but intimacy that shouldn't be by assignment, and shouldn't be encouraged for teens who are still learning to manage all their mortal reactions.  And the kids often know when the others are going but also behave awfully in other circumstances, so it raises questions of why he's trusted in this way.  It would be excruciating to be demeaned one day and then have the same person baptizing you at the temple.   I do not want any girl ever to think they are not fully equal in dating situations or in the world with any boy.  But when one party exercises authority for them, it cannot help but risk at least one girl thinking that if this is what that boy who was worthy to baptize her wants, then who is she to think differently.   Or one girl feeling more exposed than they should have to feel in pursuit of good.  

And the solution would be to have adults or family members baptize the girls.

I suppose talking directly about it could help.    "You do know that just because the boys do all the ordinances, that doesn't mean you should think that what they say and want is what you need to say and want, I hope?"   "I hope you know that if you want an adult or not this specific boy to baptize you, you can speak up and decline.   It is okay not to do what everyone else is doing, if that is what you feel."   "If someone feels uncomfortable about being baptized by someone, it is okay for them to ask that someone else perform the ordinance, and we should all accept that choice as a worthy valid option, without comment.   Consent matters in every context, not just in dating."

This isn't about power in the ordinance.   It is about every person being able to choose the level of their intimacy with another for themselves, without pressure or expectation from another.  

Responding now after reading your whole post rather than just a snippet from it. 

I think you made a good point and I hope every person already knows and understands that they can decline to be involved in any ordinance, even when they are acting as a proxy for another person.

For any reason, whatever. 

Nobody should feel forced or pressured to be involved in receiving any ordinance, period.

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

We do need to get these options publicized better though. When my bishop 20 years ago refused to stop a one leader overnight winter camping trip with a dozen young scouts (in an old beat up van pre cell phone no less) against both church and scouting rules, I was clueless about what to do and I was much better informed than most women at the time, I bet.  

Options are useless unless they are known. 

Not getting in the van in the first place was one option everyone should have been aware of.  Just because a bishop is okay with a decision doesn't mean you or any other people need to be.  The bishop may know and understand more about it than you do but if you don't know that how would that help you?  I think most people, especially teens, are usually independent enough to make up their own minds without feeling like they need to have someone else make up their minds for them.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, truth a la carte said:

 If women's voices were heard…

You are making thoughtful, well composed comments in your posts. Thought I would mention I am appreciating them since I can’t give you rep points yet (you will get them at 25 posts if you weren’t aware yet).

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

We do need to get these options publicized better though. When my bishop 20 years ago refused to stop a one leader overnight winter camping trip with a dozen young scouts (in an old beat up van pre cell phone no less) against both church and scouting rules, I was clueless about what to do and I was much better informed than most women at the time, I bet.  

Options are useless unless they are known. 

Agreed.

Last year our ward's bishop was released, and a new one called.  The following week, both men attended a baptismal service.  The bishop conducted the service, which involved a nervous father baptizing his son.  The father did it wrong.  He held his left hand to the square and held his son's wrist with his right hand (it should be vice versa).  The former bishop noticed this, but neither of the witnesses nor the bishop said anything.  The former bishop got the bishop's attention just before the father started to recite the prayer, but the bishop waved him off, mouthing "It's okay, don't worry."  So the former bishop had to stand up (he and I were attending to support the family, not to preside), approach the bishop, and reiterate that the ordinance had been performed incorrectly and needed to be re-done.  The bishop again declined, saying that it was "okay" for the person performing the baptism to raise his left hand rather than his right.  The former bishop, though feeling badly about "upstaging" the new one, called to a counselor in the stake presidency (who had been standing to the side, and so hadn't observed the error) and explained the issue.  The counselor concurred with the former bishop, and instructed the former bishop to have the ordinance re-done.  All of this was playing out in whispers and gesticulations in front of fifty or so attendees.  The bishop was, I think, a bit discomfited at it all, but instructed the father to re-do the ordinance.

In the end, I think the former bishop was right to stick to his guns and point out the error, even if doing so was a bit disruptive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that "women's voices" haven't been heard/addressed on this point.

The problem still remains, so if they have been heard it’s been decided the inconvenience is acceptable.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

She made blatant factually and demonstrably incorrect statements.  She’s wrong. And that reflects in the credibility of her sweeping opinions and conclusions. She has none.

I agreed that I felt she was too extreme in her statements and also with using the word "grooming".  My point was that responding in the same extreme manner with an opposing view is wrong too, IMO.  This is not a black or white issue or topic.  

She made some good and correct points.....and yes, I believe she is also wrong with some of what she stated (although it may reflect how she feels or what she believes).

We can't get away from the fact that our church leadership is mainly male.  Look at the stand next month during General Conference.  Every single calling a woman has is under the stewardship of a man.  Every decision she makes can be over ruled by her ward or stake leaders who are men.  Every calling she submits a name for when she serves in leadership has to be ok'd by a man.  These are just facts. 

Now, do men value women's opinions and respect them as leaders?  I believe almost all men do that I've observed in the church.  They very much listen to the women in their ward and in their life.  But, this is topic that is not going to go away because our church is patriarchal in nature and men do get the final say.  I think we are only going to see this brought up more and more because of what is also happening in the world regarding this topic and our youth are noticing and speaking out more about it too.  We can say that our Moms didn't care or our sisters don't care of our wives are fine about it (mine is for example....and she's a strong woman....), but that doesn't change the fact that some do care about it. 

It does no good to pretend that we don't understand why some women feel the way they do and we should at least be open to discuss it rather than just saying "you're wrong".   

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I also had a good chuckle at that hilarious attempt at backpedaling.

Something can be sensual without being sexual. I find being immersed in water heightens my sense of physicality. It has been too long since I have done baptisms to know for sure, but I do believe standing and being touched in the same way in water as without would feel more intimate in water for me in the sense I would be more aware of the physical presence of the person next to me. Perhaps because I am highly aware of the change in water movement around me where air does not give the same effect. 

I suspect this is not something everyone experiences given I tend to express enjoyment of water in much stronger terms than most people I know. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Something can be sensual without being sexual. I find being immersed in water heightens my sense of physicality. It has been too long since I have done baptisms to know for sure, but I do believe standing and being touched in the same way in water as without would feel more intimate in water for me in the sense I would be more aware of the physical presence of the person next to me. Perhaps because I am highly aware of the change in water movement around me where air does not give the same effect. 

I suspect this is not something everyone experiences given I tend to express enjoyment of water in much stronger terms than most people I know. 

I might have that. I love the feel of water and yeah, it seems to accentuate my skin’s sensitivity. I never feel threatened by it though.