Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

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".   

I’m open to discussing any reasonable analysis.  One as blatantly, arrogantly, and recklessly incorrect as this one is not reasonable. She believes what she believes because she wants to believe it.  And no amount of discussing facts will change her mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

CFR that the male primary teachers are not allowed to follow the Primary president.

My bad.  You have found the one loop hold where a woman could be considered in a leadership over a man in the church.  Everything else, no so much

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

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....)

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's not the case in my ward/stake.  Never has been (in the 14 years I've lived here).

Men are categorically barred from being in the Relief Society.  How is this okay?

Injecting the Gender Wars into the Church.  It's a tiresome thing to see, particularly where the answer to the question is so very obvious.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seriously?  Nice strawman. You are calling gender wars.  There is no war going on.  Women (just like blacks for most of the 20th century) are not in consideration for any real leadership positions.  Relief Society is a women's organization that reports to men. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

My bad.  You have found the one loop hold where a woman could be considered in a leadership over a man in the church.  Everything else, no so much

I don't think that's the only loophole for your statement.  For example, where does it say that a man is not allowed to follow the RS president?  Our RS president was in charge of the Christmas party last year (this year it's the EQ) and none of the men she gave assignments to believed that they weren't allowed to follow her instructions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, that wouldn't be necessary with the way things are already set up in the church (unless it was a Relief Society calling....ha!).  

(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....)

Is getting a man's perspective ever a reason for giving a man a calling?  

Giving a woman a calling so she can share her womanly views seems too much like tokenism to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nofear said:

While the Church may not be the author of this outrageously sexist policy common throughout Western society, it, as the divine institution it is must know better (and if not, it is not divine).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/nyregion/office-temperature-sexist-nixon-cuomo.html

My point of view is you can always put more clothing on, you can only take so much off.  So the person who needs it colder wins in my book...which is usually me as I can't function over 70 most days.  I so miss Canada in the summertime.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is getting a man's perspective ever a reason for giving a man a calling?  

Giving a woman a calling so she can share her womanly views seems too much like tokenism to me.

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.... 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JAHS said:

They just need to start doing it.

As long as it is an option there will be many that don't.  From what I have heard reported this is pretty typical of any type of meeting, expanding attendance as optional leads to some attending with some of those getting into the spirit and others feeling they don't really belong so they don't engage.  But for many groups, they just keep things the same old way until the rulebook changes and even then it may not happen wholeheartedly.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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 just to hear manly or womanly views.  

I get that, but that still seems like tokenism to me (with a fun dash of affirmative action mixed in).  Because it seems like it would become an issue of having to have a certain percentage of women leaders in every ward.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

where it was not immediately identified that the couple acted in unison in almost all things because they respected one another.

If one of them is not present or not aware of what is going on, how can they act in unison?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour 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."  

Unless the woman's job was to go out and talk to all the women in the ward about their needs, not seeing her as having the full range of useful info that would make including her more efficient.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because it seems like it would become an issue of having to have a certain percentage of women leaders in every ward.  

Unless there were specific aspects of the gospel mission that were appointed to be done by the women of the Church and therefore this counselor oversaw those things....like Primary and YW.  Is RS directly under the Bishop or overseen by a counselor?

As far as anything else, women are often involved in Welfare.  The head of LDS Philanthropies is a woman.  Welfare leadership callings could become a women's assignment, but .I suspect that would be too complicated with the Presiding Bishopric for the Church and the Bishop being over temporal needs.  I don't know the structure well enough to know.  Music would be easily placed with a female counselor, I am guessing.

What other divisions of labor occur these days among counselors?

Educational and employment needs are nonpriesthood related needs, so could be included.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

One of my sisters couldn’t renew her recommend because her husband was sure the best cure for being on the brink of financial ruin due to his complete incompetence was to have another baby (she had epic nausea and fatigue with each pregnancy).  She said no and he tattled to the bishop who berated her for not obeying his priesthood authority but she wouldn’t submit so she sat outside the temple for my wedding. She was devastated and can’t handle confrontation and had no reason to believe the Stake President (the Bishop’s decades long friend and neighbor) would help her so why risk going to him?

Wouldn’t it be great if there was a way to safely contest a bishop’s decision that wasn’t just Stake President roulette? Maybe involving an actual woman or a group of women (and men)?

I think some men truly listen to women in spite of everything they internalize because they are genuinely empathetic men and would do so if they never were Mormon. Giving credit to church or priesthood is mistaken attribution of causation.

Edited by birdgirl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Seriously? 

Quite.

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Nice strawman.

Nope.

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You are calling gender wars. 

The attempt to import them into the Church, yes.

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

There is no war going on. 

Uh huh.

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Women (just like blacks for most of the 20th century) are not in consideration for any real leadership positions. 

The priesthood is not a zero sum power struggle.

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Relief Society is a women's organization that reports to men. 

The EQP is a men's organization that reports to men.

I have a hard time believing you are so unfamiliar with the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

My bad.  You have found the one loop hold where a woman could be considered in a leadership over a man in the church.  Everything else, no so much

Keep on fightin' the good fight!  In the Gender Wars!  Sally forth, White Knight!

😁

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Aaaannnd... we've come full circle... right back to the point of Reiss' article.

I'm still interested in @bluebell's response to my reply to her post (if she feels the desire to respond).  Otherwise, I'm out.  Good evening all!

Aand, what would that point be?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours 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)

They are duties inherent in the office of a bishop.....President of the Priests Quorum, steward of the resources of the Church, common judge in Israel. They are what a bishop has authority to do as authorized by his ordination.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Aand, what would that point be?

Reiss’ article is in the OP.  You can read it there if you want to know what her point is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, I would be deeply concerned about the lack of women's voices in many leadership councils except for the fact that I have repeatedly watched good men with strong opinions shut up and listen to God instead. Like everything else in the Church, this isn't inevitable, but it's happened more than it hasn't in my experience, and I think it's the only thing that spares us. Women, girls and boys who preside would be wise to learn this skill too.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, JAHS said:

Actually I think part of her reason for writing this is simply a matter of click bait. She posts the same article in the SL Tribune. 

I can see that. I think most everyone on the board can see her and her writing for what they are, but I was on social media and unfortunately there were so many who threw everything they had behind Jana and believe this to be the true and current state of the Church. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

I have seen it happen several times. Usually the Relief Society President and EQP are invited if we do this and the meeting usually focuses on welfare.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

If one of them is not present or not aware of what is going on, how can they act in unison?

An example, "Hey, you want to come over to the house on Friday night?" "I will have to talk to my spouse." That is the essence of acting in unison - action is not taken until communication is achieved. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Danzo said:

I call BS on this story.

 

Have you ever witnessed or experienced ecclesiastical abuse and would you like to share your perspective?

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Danzo said:

There are always other witnesses, especially in theses situations.  You could ask the other witnesses, you could ask the bishop, you could ask the stake president, the ward executive secretary, the missionaries, etc. 

How are there *always* other witnesses? 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • 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...