When Pres. Nelson asked the RS Presidency to edit is GC talk

[Tony uk]

From my own experience in life. Whatever role a woman plays, there always exists a calming knowledgeable and supportive presence. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Tony uk said:

From my own experience in life. Whatever role a woman plays, there always exists a calming knowledgeable and supportive presence. 

You may have just "stepped in it" my friend.

🫣

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

they grew up in a time before women were really part of the workforce

Or were part of it, but not recognized as part of the workforce.  Women were cheaper labour and so used in a lot of places in factories and companies since the early 1800’s (long before that in agriculture and as servants).  And the jobs were often hard, often pretty mindless, and almost always low paying.

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Less removed from the old misogynistic church if that makes sense.

I don’t see the older Church as misogynistic, more attempting beneficent paternalism towards women in general.  In a lot of ways though the older Church gave a lot of freedom and leadership to women (healing blessings, independently running the RS raising their own funding, etc).  However, much of these freedoms and leadership opportunities were diminished over time and then substantially reduced under correlation (for example, the RS had raised funds to build their own headquarters in SLC, but the lot promised them was given to the Bishop’s Building instead and the RS got the second floor, they had to wait another 30 years before they got permission to try again).

https://www.ldsliving.com/14-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-relief-society-building-on-temple-square/s/91190

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Tony uk said:

From my own experience in life. Whatever role a woman plays, there always exists a calming knowledgeable and supportive presence. 

Give me a crisis and that’s me.  It’s needed.  Around kids too because they need security.

In recent years I have decided to be my more natural self because I don’t have the energy to play a different person for the benefit of even adults like I used to.  I don’t need to be everyone else’s safety net/mother.  That is not in the “it’s needed” category most days and shouldn’t be.  So there might be raised eyebrows on the “calming” descriptor around my home because I get intense pretty quickly (as in interest and mental energy, not anger), though I put a loooootttt of effort into making the house a calming refuge for all, but primarily for massively selfish reasons.  Calm people around me is much less stressful as is a calm environment.

My husband is very mellow, so probably has a calming effect on others.  But he is at times inconsistent in followthrough, so that lowers the sense of security some for me.  Between the two of us, the intensity level stays at a reasonable level most of the time.

I hope I am seen as the last two, I do work at those still.  Being supportive of others was never a pretense like trying to be the stable one was.  And seeking knowledge is probably my prime directive and why not share that when appropriate?

Edited October 10, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see the older Church as misogynistic, more attempting beneficent paternalism towards women in general.  In a lot of ways though the older Church gave a lot of freedom and leadership to women (healing blessings, independently running the RS raising their own funding, etc).  However, much of these freedoms and leadership opportunities were diminished over time and then substantially reduced under correlation (for example, the RS had raised funds to build their own headquarters in SLC, but the lot promised them was given to the Bishop’s Building instead and the RS got the second floor, they had to wait another 30 years before they got permission to try again).

https://www.ldsliving.com/14-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-relief-society-building-on-temple-square/s/91190

The church was kind of progressive in its views of women for a while, but then we really retreated in the mid-1900s. I think JVW was talking about women that are currently alive, and most of them would’ve been children at best when some of these perks were still available.  I think a lot of the women alive right now who were adults and aware enough to recognize the discrepancies, did experience a more sexist church. But not all of course.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church was kind of progressive in its views of women for a while, but then we really retreated in the mid-1900s. I think JVW was talking about women that are currently alive, and most of them would’ve been children at best when some of these perks were still available.  I think a lot of the women alive right now who were adults and aware enough to recognize the discrepancies, did experience a more sexist church. But not all of course.

I still don’t view the Church in that time period as misogynistic.  I don’t equate sexism with misogyny for one thing.  Misogyny may be broadening its definition, but I believe it still has the connotation of contempt or disdain, if not outright hatred.  I may be out of date.  Language can change fast.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I still don’t view the Church in that time period as misogynistic.  I don’t equate sexism with misogyny for one thing.  Misogyny may be broadening its definition, but I believe it still has the connotation of contempt or disdain, if not outright hatred.  I may be out of date.  Language can change fast.

I don't equate sexism with misogyny either. 

@JVW, did you mean to suggest that the church was once disdainful and deeply prejudice against women when you used that term, or did you mean something different?  It's not unusual for me to use a word and not mean the exact definition (usually because I was being lazy or just didn't care enough to look up the exact definition to make sure I was using it right).  I'm wondering if that's what has happened here with the use of misogyny?

[JVW]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't equate sexism with misogyny either. 

@JVW, did you mean to suggest that the church was once disdainful and deeply prejudice against women when you used that term, or did you mean something different?  It's not unusual for me to use a word and not mean the exact definition (usually because I was being lazy or just didn't care enough to look up the exact definition to make sure I was using it right).  I'm wondering if that's what has happened here with the use of misogyny?

Oh you know me, I'm super casual with words. I just meant women were second class citizens or whatever. I think the church has always treated women exceptionally well, but I'm probably in the minority view on this forum, and I'm a man so my opinion carries less weight here.

[MustardSeed]

FWIW I’m a woman and in most ways I’ve been treated very kindly by church members. 

I don’t have even almost the influence or the impact or the power or the vote that any man has. I don’t think that’s debatable. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

FWIW I’m a woman and in most ways I’ve been treated very kindly by church members. 

I don’t have even almost the influence or the impact or the power or the vote that any man has. I don’t think that’s debatable. 

Yes, treating others with kindness is not the same as being equal. You can be on 2 vastly different power levels and have the lowest treated with kindness from the highest. 

[JVW]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

FWIW I’m a woman and in most ways I’ve been treated very kindly by church members. 

I don’t have even almost the influence or the impact or the power or the vote that any man has. I don’t think that’s debatable. 

I know it's not debatable but I'm wondering how you quantify the impact of mothers raising kids, or women raising kids in daycare, or women teaching and raising kids in public school? Also the impact of a woman on her husband and his growth and development? I know there is a general debate about the "blank slate" and nature vs nurture for people's personalities and decision making. Let me try to see if I can sound like I'm making sense.

I was raised by my mom until I was 14. A large part of who I am was fundamentally shaped by my mother. And because she was a very abusive person I view my personal capacity to accomplish things in life as quite low. I feel like I have a short ceiling that's keeping me cramped, and a lot of that I personally attribute to my messed up childhood and a lot of the choices my mother made. Now, she passed away last year, and I am definitely my own man, but there is still so much baggage there that limits me. I often will wonder what life would have been like if I was raised by a good mother, how different would my life be? the choices I make? the lens I see the world through? What kind of leader, father, or employee I would be? How much better? Moms and social mothers are really underrated I think.

Another example, my cousin is going through a divorce. 4 years before his divorce he left the church and a year or two before that he started drinking because "his wife drove him to drink". Now there's a lot of factors at play, but he told me that the fundamental issue was that he married someone who he is incompatible with. To make a long story short I can see, as his cousin, how his mom impacted and shaped him during his formative years and how that contributed to this failed marriage and his choice to leave the church. She was very rigid and structured and controlling and his life was lived for him up until the point at which he achieved the dream of owning a home with a wife and kids but his wife wasn't happy and he wasn't happy.

Don't get me wrong, I am my own man, and so is my cousin. I'm just trying to state a huge, often ignored or shrugged off, impact that women have on men. (Let's not even get started on the impact of porn on society.) So while the church may be ruled by men, the generations of the church are not shaped by men, they are shaped by women. I think there's something lost when we take out 98% of a person's life doing boring, home stuff around women and focus only on the visible 2% final product that appears in a public capacity.

On the one hand, speaking as a man, I may sound like an idiot, because I don't know what it's like to be a woman ruled over by a man. But on the other hand, speaking as a man, I know what it's like to be a boy, a teenager, and a man and how all of my female leaders, teachers, and peers shaped and impacted me. A ton of a man's motivation, for better or for worse, is related to women. And I believe that impacts decision making by male leaders.

Lastly, please understand that I view your opinion as valid. I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. Life is just really complicated.

[MustardSeed]

38 minutes ago, JVW said:

impact of mothers raising kids, or women raising kids in daycare, or women teaching and raising kids in public school? Also the impact of a woman on her husband and his growth and development?

My opinion: I see these things all as very significant in the well-being and development of children. Equal to the impact of a man on children and spouses.  
Anecdotally, in my Therapy office I see just as many people destroyed by abuse and neglect of fathers I do of mothers. Of husbands as I do of wives.  There is no gender that has the corner on the market with regards to potential for both feeding and starving. 
 

38 minutes ago, JVW said:

Moms and social mothers are really underrated I think.

Agreed. 

 

38 minutes ago, JVW said:

And because she was a very abusive person I view my personal capacity to accomplish things in life as quite low. I

Devastating. I’m sorry to learn that. 

 

38 minutes ago, JVW said:

But on the other hand, speaking as a man, I know what it's like to be a boy, a teenager, and a man and how all of my female leaders, teachers, and peers shaped and impacted me. A ton of a man's motivation, for better or for worse, is related to women. And I believe that impacts decision making by male leaders.

No doubt, all true. We all have far more impact on each other than we realize both men and women.

 

38 minutes ago, JVW said:

I view your opinion as valid

I appreciate that. Those words don’t get expressed to one another nearly often enough, especially on social media. Thank you. I commit to the same.

Edited October 10, 2025 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

41 minutes ago, JVW said:

impact that women have on men. (Let's not even get started on the impact of porn on society.

I hear this as “women are causing this problem “.  I disagree.  Viewers need to take more accountability for their behavior. 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, JVW said:

So while the church may be ruled by men, the generations of the church are not shaped by men, they are shaped by women.

Women can have a huge impact on others as mothers, but so can men as fathers.  For example your father (sorry if this is too personal, you seem comfortable discussing your family, but if I have misread you, I want to remove anything that is problematic) had a massive impact on you by what he didn’t do…protect you from the abuse of your mother.

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Women can have a huge impact on others as mothers, but so can men as fathers.  For example your father (sorry if this is too personal, you seem comfortable discussing your family, but if I have misread you, I want to remove anything that is problematic) had a massive impact on you by what he didn’t do…protect you from the abuse of your mother.

lol funny story, going into their marriage he was a liar and adulterer, and after a decade of marriage to her and being abused by her he sank into doing terrible things. But yes, he did have an impact on me, much of it bad, and some of it very good.

I understand that fathers matter, but fathers generally aren't raising the kids, they are feeding and playing with them. And if the mother isn't raising the kids, then it's some stranger woman making 20 bucks an hour. So women tend to have the upper hand in the child rearing scenario.

I do recognize that the absence of a father in a home does have an impact on like jail rates, and girls having daddy issues and stuff. Like my sisters have all dated men like 10-20 years older than them their whole lives cause they didn't have a dad for most of their life (and were abused by him in their own ways).

I don't know where I heard it from, but I've reflected on this idea for several years now. How girls can naturally become mothers because they are raised by their mothers and can emulate them. But boys cannot naturally become fathers because they are raised by their mothers but can't become one themselves. That's why cultures around the world would have rites of passage for young men to become men, to prove themselves and their ability to raise a family. Modern civilization has largely done away with this and men now are just a bunch of grown up children much to the chagrin of their wives. I, myself, still harbor a lot of childish tendencies that I have to keep an eye out for so as not to unnecessarily burden my wife by not pulling my adult weight in the family.

I don't know how true the above sentiment is in reality, but it rings true to my gut, which is why I've reflected on it so much.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

lol funny story, going into their marriage he was a liar and adulterer, and after a decade of marriage to her and being abused by her he sank into doing terrible things. But yes, he did have an impact on me, much of it bad, and some of it very good.

I understand that fathers matter, but fathers generally aren't raising the kids, they are feeding and playing with them.

The number of women staying at home hovers around 25-30% from the websites I'm looking at. Of those parents who stay at home about 18% are dads. So yes, there are quite a few more women, but still not the majority.  Even in 1967 it was only about 50%.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

And if the mother isn't raising the kids, then it's some stranger woman making 20 bucks an hour.

Or grandma.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

So women tend to have the upper hand in the child rearing scenario.

This is true, though with millenials more dads got more involved.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I do recognize that the absence of a father in a home does have an impact on like jail rates, and girls having daddy issues and stuff. Like my sisters have all dated men like 10-20 years older than them their whole lives cause they didn't have a dad for most of their life (and were abused by him in their own ways).

I don't know where I heard it from, but I've reflected on this idea for several years now. How girls can naturally become mothers because they are raised by their mothers and can emulate them. But boys cannot naturally become fathers because they are raised by their mothers but can't become one themselves. That's why cultures around the world would have rites of passage for young men to become men, to prove themselves and their ability to raise a family. Modern civilization has largely done away with this and men now are just a bunch of grown up children much to the chagrin of their wives. I, myself, still harbor a lot of childish tendencies that I have to keep an eye out for so as not to unnecessarily burden my wife by not pulling my adult weight in the family.

I don't know how true the above sentiment is in reality, but it rings true to my gut, which is why I've reflected on it so much.

Here is the thing.  Parents get to make the choices here.  They get to decide if mom or dad will stay home.  They get to decide if they will be a child care giver (though fewer will trust male child care givers.) They get to decide how involved they will be with their children.  While I was a stay at home mom my husband had just as much or more involvement in raising them when he was home. So you can say that women had more power over the raising of children, but most of that is choice of the parents at this point. 

That's very different than in a church that never allows a woman to be  bishop, stake president or seventy. That's a different power level.