Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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!!! 

I said leadership. Are there leaders in the church or not?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours 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.

What is the church? It is believers gathered together taking upon them the name of Christ. Human beings, then, acting in God's name is what? It's *all* about applying the Divine perspective to our own mortal perspectives. Those combined are the church!

So, yes, a gathering of believers is very much about our perspectives, and we influence each other with them, as we are hopefully influenced by the Divine. 

So it would follow that women's direct perspectives as leaders themselves would be beneficial to the whole church body.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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. 

I agree.  There are more effective ways of communication and less effective ways.  Maximizing communication among church members and especially leaders would be a high priority in a community seeking to be a Zion society in my view.

One of the ways to maximize communication is to avoid as much second and third hand reports as possible, though of course these are a necessity in any large organization.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree.  There are more effective ways of communication and less effective ways.  Maximizing communication among church members and especially leaders would be a high priority in a community seeking to be a Zion society in my view.

One of the ways to maximize communication is to avoid as much second and third hand reports as possible, though of course these are a necessity in any large organization.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This is certainly true, but it is unfair to ascribe this to the Church alone (even if true) because it is a feature of our culture and probably all human cultures.  Disregard of the witness of women has plagued all societies at one time or another, and still continues.  Consider Islamic society, where in numerous countries (esp. under Sharia Law) a woman's witness is worth half of a man's.

Riess doesn't assign exclusive blame to the church for harmful sexist treatment. She is specifically describing how the church structure itself perpetuates harmful sexist treatment. I would think that this would be an important observation for a church that seeks oneness with God and seeks continuing revelation for that goal.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  

That perhaps we should not engage in such behaviors.

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

Then-Elder Oaks addressed this at some length here.

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

Regarding Oaks' talk, to summarize the points I found pertinent (please feel free to discuss your own): Oaks counsels against petty, nitpicky criticism of church leaders or anyone as a matter of course. He also speaks of legitimate criticism that is an important element of civil society. Yet he reserves legitimate criticism of church leaders as requiring special treatment. We have five options: 1. Overlook it.  2.  Reserve judgment and postpone action. 3. Speak to them privately. 4. Go to the church officer over them. 5. Pray to the Lord for help.

So, as a matter of course as regular members, from within the church, it is not structured so that we know about ecclesiastical abuse unless we experience it or directly witness it.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means.

When I say "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 am saying that bias impacts our actions and the kind of mistakes we make. 

So if a church leader is less aware of a female's perspective and the church leader makes a mistake regarding female experience, it is very likely that that mistake will be deprived of the female's perspective. There's a chance that the mistake will be worsened by that lack of perspective, and naturally, females will tend to be harmed by the lack of their perspective in those who make decisions.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I'll go along with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds good.

Edited by Meadowchik

Share this post


Link to post

Back in 2015 some of the women leaders were assigned to permanently serve on the top Church leadership councils:

Several women general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been appointed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to priesthood leadership councils within the Church.  

Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson talked about her new assignment on the Missionary Executive Council in a Facebook post. 

I still vividly remember President Thomas S. Monson announcing the lowered missionary age for young women. Today I...

Posted by Bonnie L. Oscarson on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles added his support to the new assignments for the female leaders on his Facebook page.

I was very pleased to read Sister Bonnie Oscarson’s Facebook post about the new assignments of our women officers to the...

Posted by Dallin H Oaks on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Sister Linda K. Burton, general president of the Relief Society; Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, Young Women general president; and Sister Rosemary M. Wixom, general president of the Primary, have been appointed to councils that establish policy for the Church.   

It is with a thankful heart that I have been appointed to serve on the Priesthood and Family Executive Council. Good men...

Posted by Linda K. Burton on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Sister Burton will serve on the Priesthood and Family Executive Council, Sister Oscarson will work with the Missionary Executive Council and Sister Wixom will participate in the Temple and Family History Executive Council. The name of the Priesthood Executive Council has been changed to the Priesthood and Family Executive Council. 

Primary children sing “I Love To See The Temple.” Some children even research family names and index. They love to...

Posted by Rosemary M. Wixom on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
“We are confident that the wisdom and judgment of these general auxiliary presidents will provide a valuable dimension to the important work accomplished by these councils,” said a letter to general authorities and general auxiliary presidencies from Church President Thomas S. Monson; President Henry B. Eyring, first counselor in the First Presidency; and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency.  

The new assignments are effective immediately. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Back in 2015 some of the women leaders were assigned to permanently serve on the top Church leadership councils:

Several women general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been appointed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to priesthood leadership councils within the Church.  

Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson talked about her new assignment on the Missionary Executive Council in a Facebook post. 

I still vividly remember President Thomas S. Monson announcing the lowered missionary age for young women. Today I...

Posted by Bonnie L. Oscarson on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles added his support to the new assignments for the female leaders on his Facebook page.

I was very pleased to read Sister Bonnie Oscarson’s Facebook post about the new assignments of our women officers to the...

Posted by Dallin H Oaks on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Sister Linda K. Burton, general president of the Relief Society; Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, Young Women general president; and Sister Rosemary M. Wixom, general president of the Primary, have been appointed to councils that establish policy for the Church.   

It is with a thankful heart that I have been appointed to serve on the Priesthood and Family Executive Council. Good men...

Posted by Linda K. Burton on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Sister Burton will serve on the Priesthood and Family Executive Council, Sister Oscarson will work with the Missionary Executive Council and Sister Wixom will participate in the Temple and Family History Executive Council. The name of the Priesthood Executive Council has been changed to the Priesthood and Family Executive Council. 

Primary children sing “I Love To See The Temple.” Some children even research family names and index. They love to...

Posted by Rosemary M. Wixom on Tuesday, August 18, 2015
“We are confident that the wisdom and judgment of these general auxiliary presidents will provide a valuable dimension to the important work accomplished by these councils,” said a letter to general authorities and general auxiliary presidencies from Church President Thomas S. Monson; President Henry B. Eyring, first counselor in the First Presidency; and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency.  

The new assignments are effective immediately. 

 

I have thought this are good steps towards better including women's perspectives in church leadership. I hope the progress will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the church? It is believers gathered together taking upon them the name of Christ. Human beings, then, acting in God's name is what? It's *all* about applying the Divine perspective to our own mortal perspectives. Those combined are the church!

So, yes, a gathering of believers is very much about our perspectives, and we influence each other with them, as we are hopefully influenced by the Divine. 

So it would follow that women's direct perspectives as leaders themselves would be beneficial to the whole church body.

I believe the church is much more than that, but I get your point.  I agree that women's perspectives are important--essential--but I disagree that having a token woman on a council, who otherwise has no reason to be there, is the proper way to gain it.  I think that there are too many negative aspects to tokenism for that to work effectively.

Having a RS president or a primary president invited to a relevant council, to help them better serve the ward in their callings and help the ward leaders utilize them in their calling better, makes sense.  Inviting Sister Roberts to a council so that she can give the bishop a woman's opinion, doesn't make sense to me.  Men aren't given callings so that they can provide male opinions.  As far as I can tell that has never been a reason a man has gotten a calling in this church.  It seems weird to me to treat women in that way.    

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/10/2019 at 5:18 PM, bluebell said:

We definitely all do that.  I think where it comes into play in the church is that males have a lot of chances and experience getting to know and serve with other males, but very little chances to have equal experiences with females in our religion.  

That means that it's easier (if what we said is true and that it's easier to trust people we know) for men in the church to trust other men and to discount (not on purpose but subconsciously) accusations from women, who they generally have no had a chance to know nearly as well.

But won't there be the potential for that 'friendship effect' (or whatever we want to call it) to work in the other direction as well? So, for example if the bishop were to have a broad group of female friends in the ward - women he had worked closely with for years in various other callings (e.g., EQ President) - wouldn't that friendship then translate into those women being more skeptical of an abuse accusation leveled against the bishop? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, ALarson said:

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? 

I would think that a woman could be Sunday School president.  They can serve as a Primary President where teaching is involved.  Maybe that will happen!

I agree that much of what we do is traditional or just how we’ve always done it  while other things (ordinances, blessings and so on), do need to be performed by someone holding the priesthood.

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe the church is much more than that, but I get your point.  I agree that women's perspectives are important--essential--but I disagree that having a token woman on a council, who otherwise has no reason to be there, is the proper way to gain it.  I think that there are too many negative aspects to tokenism for that to work effectively.

Having a RS president or a primary president invited to a relevant council, to help them better serve the ward in their callings and help the ward leaders utilize them in their calling better, makes sense.  Inviting Sister Roberts to a council so that she can give the bishop a woman's opinion, doesn't make sense to me.  Men aren't given callings so that they can provide male opinions.  As far as I can tell that has never been a reason a man has gotten a calling in this church.  It seems weird to me to treat women in that way.    

 

 

This is why it is important to not exclude women from leadership positions. Don't exclude them, and then having them work alongside men as decision-makers will enlarge understandings in judgments and other councils. 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe the church is much more than that, but I get your point.  I agree that women's perspectives are important--essential--but I disagree that having a token woman on a council, who otherwise has no reason to be there, is the proper way to gain it.  I think that there are too many negative aspects to tokenism for that to work effectively.

Having a RS president or a primary president invited to a relevant council, to help them better serve the ward in their callings and help the ward leaders utilize them in their calling better, makes sense.  Inviting Sister Roberts to a council so that she can give the bishop a woman's opinion, doesn't make sense to me.  Men aren't given callings so that they can provide male opinions.  As far as I can tell that has never been a reason a man has gotten a calling in this church.  It seems weird to me to treat women in that way.    

I wouldn’t view it like that.  I think it would be a positive.  Why do men receive callings vs. women?  (I know some need to be filled by someone holding the priesthood, but why others?)  It’s not only to get a man’s perspective.  So why take the negative spin of it only being a token female if she gets the same calling?

Isn't it better to have one sister in meetings (if not more), than none (only men)?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How are there *always* other witnesses? 

 

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So I am watching some of my FB friends get reactions as they share this. One friend is trying to explain the pain she felt when her Bishop refused to allow her son to get baptised because, in his words, she had not given him up for adoption 8 years previous after getting pregnant without being married.She's trying to explain this pain to her dad, who was in the room when the bishop said this and who did not stand up to the bishop for her. And many other painful situations involving her leaders. And this friend is one of many women with very painful experiences, not being listened to. 

In the absence of being able to record and tally such instances and create an informative dataset, we have the male-dominated leadership structure of the system to evaluate. Can you please try to consider how the structure impacts women in such situations?

In the story above.  There seem to be at least three primary witnesses

1.  The Bishop

2. The Child (who was obviously told to stop memorizing the second, third and fourth articles of faith)

3. Your friend, who  you are vouching for.  Have you asked her any more details of this highly unusual story? if not, you might only be getting part of the story. 

4. The grandfather of the child

 

You also have many secondary witnesses.

1.  The ward clerk who would have know about an unbaptized child of record.

2.  The primary presidency who would have been in charge of planning a baptism of a child of record and would have at least brought the subject up to the bishop or in ward council.

3.  The executive secretary, who would have arranged for the interview

4.  The missionaries, who,when this child turned nine would have him or her on the list of people to visit.

5.  The entire ward, who would have know this child was active and attended every week, but would not that no baptism was held.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

I am calling bovine feces on your story, not all stories.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

In the story above.  There seem to be at least three primary witnesses

1.  The Bishop

2. The Child (who was obviously told to stop memorizing the second, third and fourth articles of faith)

3. Your friend, who  you are vouching for.  Have you asked her any more details of this highly unusual story? if not, you might only be getting part of the story. 

4. The grandfather of the child

 

You also have many secondary witnesses.

1.  The ward clerk who would have know about an unbaptized child of record.

2.  The primary presidency who would have been in charge of planning a baptism of a child of record and would have at least brought the subject up to the bishop or in ward council.

3.  The executive secretary, who would have arranged for the interview

4.  The missionaries, who,when this child turned nine would have him or her on the list of people to visit.

5.  The entire ward, who would have know this child was active and attended every week, but would not that no baptism was held.

 

 

 

 

 

That wasn't my question. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

That wasn't my question. 

Dodging the issue, are we?

You told a tall tale.

 

Edited by Danzo

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am calling bovine feces on your story, not all stories.

 

That's your perogative. But hopefully you are not wholesale denying the existence of ecclesiastical abuse in the church.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That wasn't my question. 

Just to play along, though, there are always witnesses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Dodging the issue, are we?

You told a tall tail.

 

Not at all. You were responding to another point I made to SMAC, not to the example I gave to Ahab.

Edited by Meadowchik

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

That's your perogative. But hopefully you are not wholesale denying the existence of ecclesiastical abuse in the church.

It would appear that you are telling your stories not primary because they are true, but because they advance your message. The truth is secondary to your message.

I would rather talk about real incidents, than made up ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Just to play along, though, there are always witnesses.

 

No, aside from God and angels, there are not always secondary witnesses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But won't there be the potential for that 'friendship effect' (or whatever we want to call it) to work in the other direction as well? So, for example if the bishop were to have a broad group of female friends in the ward - women he had worked closely with for years in various other callings (e.g., EQ President) - wouldn't that friendship then translate into those women being more skeptical of an abuse accusation leveled against the bishop? 

 

Certainly so, but the difference is that those women have no power or voice when it comes to handling the discipline for that bishop should accusations come to light.  In a lot of circumstances, they wouldn't even ever find out about the accusations.  Women's relationships in the church do not impact disciplinary questions in the church to the same extent that men's relationships do. And that's the problem.

 It's a given that having a relationship of trust with someone makes it difficult to believe negative things about them.  That's true regardless of gender.  But in the church, men have more opportunities to form relationships of trust with other men, than they do with women.  And more worrisome, only men's relationships of trust (and the biases that go with them) can impact disciplinary decisions and outcomes.  Women can have the same biases but they are voiceless so their biases don't affect outcomes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, aside from God and angels, there are not always secondary witnesses.

The question wasn't about secondary witnesses, was it?

however it is very difficult to come up with a scenario without secondary witnesses to at least verify some of the facts in question. 

 

Edited by Danzo

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Danzo said:

It would appear that you are telling your stories not primary because they are true, but because they advance your message. The truth is secondary to your message.

I would rather talk about real incidents, than made up ones. 

No, I listen to women and their stories are important, especially the ones that remain unheard, or are not appropriately addressed. If you want to dismiss my report to this board of an example of what I am hearing as responses to the OP article, that's your perogative. 

 

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...