Women'S Opinions For New Stake Presidents

[cinepro]

Yes I know but I was responding to this:

That makes more sense. I've known of several situations where men were "held back" from callings because of their wives. On my mission, for example, there was one particularly upstanding man in a bishopric with a non-member wife, and it seemed to be common knowledge that this man couldn't be considered for higher callings because of his wife.

[katherine the great]

I personally think that the women's opinion should be considered. Women in Stake leadership callings have to interact regularly with the Stake President, and I personally have known of instances when the men in leadership positions have had very positive experiences with a Stake President, but the women have found him difficult to work with. I'm not sure it would have made any difference in the selection process, but if opinions are really important, I think women should have a say as well as the men.

[BlueDreams]

Ditto to Katherine

It is a priesthood calling. But the priesthood calling is one that holds stewardship over those within the stake which over half will be women plus all the auxillaries that women are in. So if opinions are being thrown out there, women in my mind should have a say since it'll effect them and how they work.

with luv,

BD

[Duncan]

Ditto to Katherine

It is a priesthood calling. But the priesthood calling is one that holds stewardship over those within the stake which over half will be women plus all the auxillaries that women are in. So if opinions are being thrown out there, women in my mind should have a say since it'll effect them and how they work.

with luv,

BD

my thoughts too! Plus, at least here, we have High Councilors and some Bishops that have only lived here for like 2-3 years, so their opinion worth more then a lady who has lived in the area since the 1960's? I don't know.

[Duncan]

I personally think that the women's opinion should be considered. Women in Stake leadership callings have to interact regularly with the Stake President, and I personally have known of instances when the men in leadership positions have had very positive experiences with a Stake President, but the women have found him difficult to work with. I'm not sure it would have made any difference in the selection process, but if opinions are really important, I think women should have a say as well as the men.

i totally agree! Some men are great in public but...and I know a stake president that people are just waiting out to get on with another one

[CV75]

When the Brethren go into a Stake to call a new Stake President do you think they should consult some of the sisters for their opinion as to who the new Stake President should be?

I think this would be a great question to ask a visiting general authority. The way ours explained it, the interviewing of eligible office-holders has everything to do with the revelatory process and not weighing the opinions of peers. So where women are not eligible, interviewing them would not be relevant. He also said that the call comes by revelation from the Lord, and not much can be done about that, but that the recipient has to be sure he’s settled with the ramifications of accepting it and what he would do if he had ever done anything that would embarrass him or the Church by virtue of his position should such activity ever come to light.

[Duncan]

I think this would be a great question to ask a visiting general authority. The way ours explained it, the interviewing of eligible office-holders has everything to do with the revelatory process and not weighing the opinions of peers. So where women are not eligible, interviewing them would not be relevant. He also said that the call comes by revelation from the Lord, and not much can be done about that, but that the recipient has to be sure he’s settled with the ramifications of accepting it and what he would do if he had ever done anything that would embarrass him or the Church by virtue of his position should such activity ever come to light.

isn't though what we are supposed to do to get revelation is get all the opinions of people and based on that come to a decision and then take that to the Lord and find out who he has already had in mind? I don't know why there has to be a gender difference in those opinions

[CV75]

isn't though what we are supposed to do to get revelation is get all the opinions of people and based on that come to a decision and then take that to the Lord and find out who he has already had in mind? I don't know why there has to be a gender difference in those opinions

I think where there is time, study is an important part of the revelatory process (and from my experience study does not require others' opinions). But according to the same visiting GA, these callings are most often made on a very tight time-frame with lots of other things on the responsible authority's plate. Perhaps considering the circumstances, the things he "studies" in these interviews with the eligible are far more reliable and easily processed than opinions.

[mfbukowski]

For better or worse, men have access to confidential information that non-priesthood holders including women do not have.

So for women to have the ability to effectively make recommendations, that would have to change. The guy who seems, to the general membership, to be the best stake president may very well have problems that only priesthood leaders may know about.

That's why we don't have general elections for priesthood offices.

[Duncan]

For better or worse, men have access to confidential information that non-priesthood holders including women do not have.

So for women to have the ability to effectively make recommendations, that would have to change. The guy who seems, to the general membership, to be the best stake president may very well have problems that only priesthood leaders may know about.

That's why we don't have general elections for priesthood offices.

true, but women also could have info that men wouldn't know about, Like what if the guy was a skinflint or mysogynistic or abusive in some way. We had a stake pres. member whose wife wanted a new washing machine and he told her if she wanted one she had to buy it herself-I can only imagine what she told him!

[CV75]

true, but women also could have info that men wouldn't know about, Like what if the guy was a skinflint or mysogynistic or abusive in some way. We had a stake pres. member whose wife wanted a new washing machine and he told her if she wanted one she had to buy it herself-I can only imagine what she told him!

Bottom line to me is, these calls are made by revelation. The Lord is calling them, revealing His will to the calling authority. It is not quite the same as the general authority seeking his own personal revelation.

Our visiting GA explained that the call comes by revelation from the Lord, and not much can be done about that, but that the recipient has to be sure he’s settled with the ramifications of accepting it and what he would do if he had ever done anything that would embarrass him or the Church by virtue of his position should such activity ever come to light.

I would say that sometimes that embarrassing things come out during the sustaining process and sometimes afterwards. Sometimes the call is a test for the recipient and the only way he will address the wrongs and imperfections in his life. Sometimes it's the only way the rest of us can be tested as well, in forgiving and sustaining him until he is released.

While domestic disputes over washing machines are certainly embarrassing when shared with the entire stake, I don't think they rise to the level of worthiness unless one spouse puts he other in the machine and runs it on hot without even the benefit of fabric softener.

Edited December 26, 2011 by CV75

[Duncan]

Bottom line to me is, these calls are made by revelation. The Lord is calling them, revealing His will to the calling authority. It is not quite the same as the general authority seeking his own personal revelation.

Our visiting GA explained that the call comes by revelation from the Lord, and not much can be done about that, but that the recipient has to be sure he’s settled with the ramifications of accepting it and what he would do if he had ever done anything that would embarrass him or the Church by virtue of his position should such activity ever come to light.

I would say that sometimes that embarrassing things come out during the sustaining process and sometimes afterwards. Sometimes the call is a test for the recipient and the only way he will address the wrongs and imperfections in his life. Sometimes it's the only way the rest of us can be tested as well, in forgiving and sustaining him until he is released.

While domestic disputes over washing machines are certainly embarrassing when shared with the entire stake, I don't think they rise to the level of worthiness unless one spouse puts he other in the machine and runs it on hot without even the benefit of fabric softener.

true, true!

[mfbukowski]

true, but women also could have info that men wouldn't know about, Like what if the guy was a skinflint or mysogynistic or abusive in some way. We had a stake pres. member whose wife wanted a new washing machine and he told her if she wanted one she had to buy it herself-I can only imagine what she told him!

OK but...

Hard to see how this would help. Before a call is made, the wife is interviewed anyway. So she has the opportunity to give input about her husband if necessary.

But that same woman would not know about the personal habits of others in contention.

For that matter, some young man may have observed a leader doing something he shouldn't have. So should we interview each person in the stake for their opinion? Even though they don't know the confidential stuff about "Mr. Wonderful"?

I don't see a practical way to implement these suggestions without letting everyone in the stake know "who was in contention" or turning it into a general election.

So imperfect as it is, I think the present system is about the best, practically possible solution there is.

[Duncan]

OK but...

Hard to see how this would help. Before a call is made, the wife is interviewed anyway. So she has the opportunity to give input about her husband if necessary.

But that same woman would not know about the personal habits of others in contention.

For that matter, some young man may have observed a leader doing something he shouldn't have. So should we interview each person in the stake for their opinion? Even though they don't know the confidential stuff about "Mr. Wonderful"?

I don't see a practical way to implement these suggestions without letting everyone in the stake know "who was in contention" or turning it into a general election.

So imperfect as it is, I think the present system is about the best, practically possible solution there is.

I get that and the practicality but they could interview a few women, say the presidents of the women's auxiallries, I dunno! women's opinions to me seem like an untapped resource, and I am not saying it isn't to you or others but it would be nice!

[katherine the great]

I get that and the practicality but they could interview a few women, say the presidents of the women's auxiallries, I dunno! women's opinions to me seem like an untapped resource, and I am not saying it isn't to you or others but it would be nice!

I think it would be useful only if the opinions really hold any sway. The way it is done doesn't really make sense to me unless the brethren really are looking for input. If it really is 100 % revelation, why ask anyone anything because God certainly would not recommend anyone unworthy.

[CV75]

I think it would be useful only if the opinions really hold any sway. The way it is done doesn't really make sense to me unless the brethren really are looking for input. If it really is 100 % revelation, why ask anyone anything because God certainly would not recommend anyone unworthy.

Our stake president once told a group of leadership, “I know some of you are struggling with (component of worthiness), and I ask you to please do whatever it takes to repent of it, now.” After the meeting I asked him why he would keep someone in a calling knowing he was struggling with worthiness. He said he didn’t understand why the Lord calls some people who are not worthy, but that the calls are indeed made by revelation and for their benefit. He said everyone is a sinner in some way, and sometimes holding a position is the only way a person could develop the motivation or sensitivity to heed a call to repentance. So, as strange as it may seem, the Lord does (at least on occasion) call unworthy people to their positions if that is their best opportunity to begin to become worthy, even if they are subsequently either not set apart or released.

Because this has particularly sensitive consequences on a stake or general level, those who are called to these positions may be counseled to consider their past and decide what to in accepting the call or being called to task for any discovered past transgression, resolved or not. The call is for their benefit and spiritual progress, and the Lord may put them in this position as their opportunity to proceed according to the true desires, thoughts and intents of their heart.

I think the kind of input the brethren are looking for may not be as obvious as it appears. From what our visiting authority said, I gather that sometimes they have no other idea than to show up where they need to be and proceed to meet the men available and any conversation about opinions (which doesn’t always occur) is incidental.

[katherine the great]

Our stake president once told a group of leadership, “I know some of you are struggling with (component of worthiness), and I ask you to please do whatever it takes to repent of it, now.” After the meeting I asked him why he would keep someone in a calling knowing he was struggling with worthiness. He said he didn’t understand why the Lord calls some people who are not worthy, but that the calls are indeed made by revelation and for their benefit. He said everyone is a sinner in some way, and sometimes holding a position is the only way a person could develop the motivation or sensitivity to heed a call to repentance. So, as strange as it may seem, the Lord does (at least on occasion) call unworthy people to their positions if that is their best opportunity to begin to become worthy, even if they are subsequently either not set apart or released.

Because this has particularly sensitive consequences on a stake or general level, those who are called to these positions may be counseled to consider their past and decide what to in accepting the call or being called to task for any discovered past transgression, resolved or not. The call is for their benefit and spiritual progress, and the Lord may put them in this position as their opportunity to proceed according to the true desires, thoughts and intents of their heart.

I think the kind of input the brethren are looking for may not be as obvious as it appears. From what our visiting authority said, I gather that sometimes they have no other idea than to show up where they need to be and proceed to meet the men available and any conversation about opinions (which doesn’t always occur) is incidental.

I'm still not seeing the purpose of the "priesthood" recommendations. It sounds like the train of thought is to let the Lord make the call and encourage everyone to support it in spite of any potential worthiness issues. 'That sounds pretty good to me. I personally don't really care that much about the method, but I'm having a hard time understanding the explanations. In the stakes that I've been in, any number of men could be called to be president and would do an equally excellent job, but then again, I'm kind of a practical person. IF input is needed and actually considered, I don't see why the female leaders input should not be a part of the process. That's all I'm saying.

[mfbukowski]

I think it would be useful only if the opinions really hold any sway. The way it is done doesn't really make sense to me unless the brethren really are looking for input. If it really is 100 % revelation, why ask anyone anything because God certainly would not recommend anyone unworthy.

D&C 9: Emphasis added

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must ^astudy it out in your ^bmind; then you must ^cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your ^dbosom shall ^eburn within you; therefore, you shall ^ffeel that it is right.

Edited December 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[katherine the great]

D&C 9: Emphasis added

So you believe that the input is requested as the "studying it out in your mind" part of personal revelation. I don't have a problem with that, but I would again say that the female leader's insights would be equally useful to the priesthood holders.

[zerinus]

When the Brethren go into a Stake to call a new Stake President do you think they should consult some of the sisters for their opinion as to who the new Stake President should be?

For what it is worth, I am reliably informed that when a new Apostle is being called, a similar procedure is followed. The First Presidency asks the remaining Apostles to suggest names of those whom they consider to be eligible. The final decision, however, is made by revelation, and the person ultimately called may not be among the nominated list.

[zerinus]

So you believe that the input is requested as the "studying it out in your mind" part of personal revelation. I don't have a problem with that, but I would again say that the female leader's insights would be equally useful to the priesthood holders.

I don't have a problem with that myself either. Recommending names is not a "priesthood" responsibility as far as I can tell, and a sister could just as well be involved in that process as a worthy brother in the Church.

Edited December 26, 2011 by zerinus

[Duncan]

For what it is worth, I am reliably informed that when a new Apostle is being called, a similar procedure is followed. The First Presidency asks the remaining Apostles to suggest names of those whom they consider to be eligible. The final decision, however, is made by revelation, and the person ultimately called may not be among the nominated list.

I get that and have read of instances where that is the case and am satisfied that the right person is called. I just hope that if opinions are actaully considered as KTG suggests that the right person is called and the more input is better

[mfbukowski]

So you believe that the input is requested as the "studying it out in your mind" part of personal revelation. I don't have a problem with that, but I would again say that the female leader's insights would be equally useful to the priesthood holders.

I have no problem with that, and think it's a good idea but again, they would have no way of knowing if the brother they were recommending was worthy or not. It's not that they would not give good and insightful advice, and in fact I am sure that women are more attuned to what kind of "vibe" men put out toward women, it's just that the system as presently constituted leaves them out of the loop on disciplinary councils and general conversation behind closed doors between priesthood leaders, and I am at a loss to see how to practically get around that without disclosing such information in a way which would presently be inappropriate.

I suppose their opinions might be sought and then if they expressed positive opinions toward one who was not worthy, the opinion could be ignored, but I don't think that is what you had in mind. On the other hand, if a bishop from another ward thought that Brother X was a wonderful guy who should be recommended, and he wasn't aware that he had been disfellowshipped, his advice would be ignored anyway. So maybe something like that would work- some stake sisters might be polled and then their opinions evaluated in light of what information they did NOT have.

But then others may not see that as "real input".

On the other hand, if a preliminary selection was made and then "run past" the sisters for their final approval..... that might lead to more inappropriate breaches of confidentiality about the process than is presently necessary. Now the final decision is made by the GA making the call after all the confidential info has been discussed.

I have no problem with the idea, it is really just the practicality of how to include sisters that I am not fully seeing. It's a nice idea, but I don't see how it is possible to implement without undesirable results not having anything to do with the ability of a sister to make a valid judgement. Maybe that first option might work, I don't know.

[Duncan]

So you believe that the input is requested as the "studying it out in your mind" part of personal revelation. I don't have a problem with that, but I would again say that the female leader's insights would be equally useful to the priesthood holders.

I say that too, I don't see why a High Councilor's opinion is worth more then a sister who has lived longer in the stake then he has been alive. Case in Point. My mum joined the church here in the same year that one of our former stake pres. member was born-and he wasn't even born here! her input is IMO worth something and by golly she can tell you who is a phony!

[mfbukowski]

I say that too, I don't see why a High Councilor's opinion is worth more then a sister who has lived longer in the stake then he has been alive. Case in Point. My mum joined the church here in the same year that one of our former stake pres. member was born-and he wasn't even born here! her input is IMO worth something and by golly she can tell you who is a phony!

So we should seek out the woman who has been in the stake the longest and let her overrule the high council? Is that what you are advocating?