Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How about just having a woman as one of the counselors in the Bishopric?  How would you feel if that change took place?

It would give a woman’s perspective and input.  I don’t know if that will ever happen though.

What do counselors do that a woman couldn’t do?  They wouldn’t be able to set apart.  What else?

I think I might cringe having a woman in a presidency solely for the reason of adding a woman's perspective, because no woman can speak for all women or provide perspectives for all women, and the idea that one woman could be asked to represent all the women in the ward and be the female voice for the ward sounds a little odd to me.  Like a huge problem waiting to happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And do you guys then ask the sisters how they feel or what they would say? 

Oh, of course!  We definitely confer with them regarding issues that come up.

But, it would be awfully convenient and much more efficient to have a sister in the meeting representing their voice.  I get the wisdom in asking about that possibility in the future and at least considering it.  I don't know if this change will ever take place, but I have to say I'm not opposed to it.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Guys, I think we've gotten sidetracked from the most important point that Jana makes---

That men have more chances to build relationships of trust with male leadership in the church than women have (due to the nature of leadership callings), and that that relationship (or lack thereof) has some very real consequences for gender issues in the church.   Without ordaining women, how can we change it?

Before asking how we can change it maybe you understand why it should not be changed.  Differences in gender do not equate to one gender being inferior or more superior than the other gender.  There are simply some differences, and I thank God that there are!

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

I've attended about 8 years worth of bishopric meetings -- never had an RS president invited.

That's too bad. She could have been invited. I think the most import ward business that she would be concerned with happens in the Welfare meeting. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Mormons are conditioned to prioritize men's leadership over women's, and to listen to men more than women. Riess makes a valid argument that, as you have just done, can still be beneficial even if you need to filter some of her language.

Again, no, no, and no. Callings to a position does not make one a leader; it makes them fulfill a calling. Ask any husband in a successful marriage if he listens to his wife - or even ask his wife - and you will know for a fact he listens. In fact, he can answer almost any question about the family's ability to do anything after he talks to his wife. 

This is drivel!!! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think I might cringe having a woman in a presidency solely for the reason of adding a woman's perspective, because no woman can speak for all women or provide perspectives for all women, and the idea that one woman could be asked to represent all the women in the ward and be the female voice for the ward sounds a little odd to me.  Like a huge problem waiting to happen.

 

But some are saying it's a good idea to maybe have the Relief Society president attend bishopric meetings.  Would that be any different (other than she may be more aware of certain issues, etc.)?  At least there were be female input on different topics and concerns (at the very least).

We allow 3 men to meet and speak for all men (and women), don't we (when the Bishopric meets)?

I do believe there may be changes along these lines if things continue to progress in the church (and outside the church as well).  I'm just saying that I would not be opposed to it.  My post was a bit tongue in cheek, but I actually think it may work with guidelines and adjustments in place.  

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Guys, I think we've gotten sidetracked from the most important point that Jana makes---

That men have more chances to build relationships of trust with male leadership in the church than women have (due to the nature of leadership callings), and that that relationship (or lack thereof) has some very real consequences for gender issues in the church.   Without ordaining women, how can we change it?

My thoughts:

We find more ways to put women in leadership callings.  I know that the common response is that they can't serve in most leadership callings because they don't have the priesthood but I feel like there is some room for adjustment without ordaining women.

Having the RS President be part of the Bishopric is one opportunity.

I feel like the Stake High Council is a great spot to have women serve.  And yes, I get that there would be things they couldn't do.  But I believe benefits outweigh to downsides.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Having the RS President be part of the Bishopric is one opportunity.

But it's interesting to see the reaction here when this is actually suggested ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But some are saying it's a good idea to maybe have the Relief Society president attend bishopric meetings.  Would that be any different (other than she may be more aware of certain issues, etc.)?  At least there were be female input on different topics and concerns (at the very least).

We allow 3 men to meet and speak for all men (and women), don't we (when the Bishopric meets)?

I do believe there may be changes along these lines if things continue to progress in the church (and outside the church as well).  I'm just saying that I would not be opposed to it.  My post was a bit tongue in cheek, but I actually think it may work with guidelines and adjustments in place.  

Like I said earlier the Handbook says the RS president can be invited to attend the Bishopric meetings. They just need to start doing it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Are you talking about, for example, relief society callings being made without a recommendation from the relief society president? 

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  I think general practice is to consult with auxiliary presidents regarding any callings within their organizations.  But I think the RS/YW/Primary presidents insight and inspiration could also be important for all callings within the ward.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In our ward, callings in the Primary, YW, and RS involve substantial and highly-deferred-to "input of the women" who lead those organizations.

Now, the RS president isn't consulted about callings in, say the YM organization.  I'm not sure how that's a problem.

Indeed.  And why not the YW president?  And the YM president?  And the Sunday School president?  And the Primary President?  And the Elders Quorum president?

What privileges the RS president over all of these?  And if no such privilege exists, then there really isn't a problem.

But she doesn't have stewardship over, say, the teenage boys.  So it wouldn't seem appropriate to seek her counsel/input/consent for callings in the YM organization.

The bishop should confer with the YW President for callings within that stewardship.  The YW President doesn't really have stewardship over any other ward group.

The same goes for all ward leaders and groups.  The bishop should give substantial and due consideration, and deference where appropriate, to the input from, say, the RS President to matters within her stewardship, and to the Primary President to matters within her stewardship, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Does anyone know where it talks about this (the presidents giving recommendations abut their counselors to the bishop) in the handbook?  I was looking for info about it this last week in the handbook and hadn't found it yet.  

Share this post


Link to post

I have met a lot of leaders in my lifetime. It never depended upon what position they held, what walk of life, what education level - when they spoke, people listened. I have also met a number of individuals who were in positions of leadership who were not leaders. 

I tire of those who whine, sitting back in life demanding that others treat them as if they were something else. A position does not make anyone a leader. Authority does not make you a leader. Gender does not make you a leader. 

This thread is such a waste - "I" want is the real issue. Let me have power - really, let women have power is the feminist whine. 

I have yet to meet a single, successful marriage where it was not immediately identified that the couple acted in unison in almost all things because they respected one another. The rest of this is just claptrap. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

 

 

Does anyone know where it talks about this (the presidents giving recommendations abut their counselors to the bishop) in the handbook?  I was looking for info about it this last week in the handbook and hadn't found it yet.  

"In some cases, priesthood and auxiliary leaders are asked to make recommendations to their stake presidency or bishopric. They should approach this responsibility prayerfully, knowing that they can receive guidance from the Lord about whom to recommend. However, they should remember that final responsibility to receive inspiration on whom to call rests with the stake presidency or the bishopric." (Handbook 1  19.1.2)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sacrament, disciplinary councils, blessings, oversee baptisms and ordinations, temple recommends, tithing and fast offerings, anything an unordained man could not do. . 

You have to hold the priesthood to collect tithing and fast offerings?  Issue temple recommends? Conduct meetings?  Sit on disciplinary counsels?  

Why?

(Those are honest, sincere questions)

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Like I said earlier the Handbook says the RS president can be invited to attend the Bishopric meetings. They just need to start doing it.

Every week?

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Like I said earlier the Handbook says the RS president can be invited to attend the Bishopric meetings. They just need to start doing it.

I told my husband what you found.  He doesn't think he will ever be a bishop, but appreciated knowing this as he didn't think he would even think to invite the RSP and now he would love to give her an agenda, invite her to the meetings and let her decide to come or not depending on where she feels she best be.    

Thanks also for the other handbook reference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Every week?

That would be up to the Bishop. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That would be up to the Bishop. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You have to hold the priesthood to collect tithing and fast offerings?  Issue temple recommends? Conduct meetings?  Sit on disciplinary counsels?  

Why?

(Those are honest, sincere questions)

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? 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

This is why my husband was thinking it would be wise to give her an open invitation with an agenda so she could look over it and decide.  

Edited by Rain
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Uhh, few times I went to a ward the women kept it all together.  Seriously, what guy in the right mind would be this dumb?  Takes someone who can multitask all the stuff that makes this work, from food, childcare to logistics.  Anyone can wear a suit and look pious, my impression was as a people Mormons appreciated the hard, dirty and thankless work the women did, that's what I thought anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

But some are saying it's a good idea to maybe have the Relief Society president attend bishopric meetings.  Would that be any different (other than she may be more aware of certain issues, etc.)?  At least there were be female input on different topics and concerns (at the very least).

We allow 3 men to meet and speak for all men (and women), don't we (when the Bishopric meets)?

I do believe there may be changes along these lines if things continue to progress in the church (and outside the church as well).  I'm just saying that I would not be opposed to it.  My post was a bit tongue in cheek, but I actually think it may work with guidelines and adjustments in place.  

In terms of having the RS present, that seems different to me because she would be there as the RS president and not as "the designated woman in the ward who gets to go and offer her perspective on women."  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I have met a lot of leaders in my lifetime. It never depended upon what position they held, what walk of life, what education level - when they spoke, people listened. I have also met a number of individuals who were in positions of leadership who were not leaders. 

I tire of those who whine, sitting back in life demanding that others treat them as if they were something else. A position does not make anyone a leader. Authority does not make you a leader. Gender does not make you a leader. 

This thread is such a waste - "I" want is the real issue. Let me have power - really, let women have power is the feminist whine. 

I have yet to meet a single, successful marriage where it was not immediately identified that the couple acted in unison in almost all things because they respected one another. The rest of this is just claptrap. 

If that is what you think the thread is about then you've missed the point and it would probably be helpful to you to consider that you have misunderstood.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In terms of having the RS present, that seems different to me because she would be there as the RS president and not as "the designated woman in the ward who gets to go and offer her perspective on women."  

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 😄

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

 

 

Does anyone know where it talks about this (the presidents giving recommendations abut their counselors to the bishop) in the handbook?  I was looking for info about it this last week in the handbook and hadn't found it yet.  

This is what it says in the Handbook, section 10, for Young Womens--

Ward Young Women President

The Young Women president has the following responsibilities:

She serves as a member of the ward council. As a member of this council, she participates in efforts to build faith and strengthen individuals and families (see chapter 4). She is also a member of the bishopric youth committee (see 18.2.9).

She submits recommendations to the bishopric for sisters to be called to serve in the Young Women organization. In making these recommendations, she follows the guidelines in 19.1.1 and 19.1.2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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 ;)

I'd still struggle with it, but I'd be open to the Spirit instructing me on it's importance.  

Imagine a man being given a calling though, just so he could provide his perspective as a man.  It would be odd.   Image it in regards to race.  Can you image someone giving a black person a calling, where their primary responsibility was to provide a black person's perspective during meetings?     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...