Freedom Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 No one will be condemned for accepting a calling from their church leader.A certain parable comes to mind about one son who said he would but did not and another who said he wouldn't but did. We will not be condemned if we take it; we may be condemned however, if we make no effort to fulfill the responsibility. The challenge is, of course, that I do not know what your capabilities might be so I have no right to condemn you if you do not fulfill a calling to a standard to my standards. If we call a man to a calling reserved for a women because we believe that there is no woman as capable as the man, then we have totally missed the point of serving in the church,.
Freedom Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 I know that! I just wonder at what expense, what if someone is driving members to quit their callings or just plain burn out? I have seen this happen here more then a few times with some in a leadership callingBurn out occurs when a person remains in a calling because a bishop falsely assumes that the most competent person should hold the position. If a person's struggle to fulfill a calling causes other people to offended then we know why God has put that person in that position. It is to root out the wicked who would condemn a man or women for little or no cause. If someone is struggling, lend a hand; don't condemn them. Church is the school. It is the practicum of the eternities. When you are in school learning chemistry, most are struggling. Those who catch on are asked to assist the others. You decide what you get out of church, not the teacher, bishop or relief society president. We are to ask how can we help, not why is that idiot in that calling.
Duncan Posted November 5, 2012 Author Posted November 5, 2012 Burn out occurs when a person remains in a calling because a bishop falsely assumes that the most competent person should hold the position. If a person's struggle to fulfill a calling causes other people to offended then we know why God has put that person in that position. It is to root out the wicked who would condemn a man or women for little or no cause. If someone is struggling, lend a hand; don't condemn them. Church is the school. It is the practicum of the eternities. When you are in school learning chemistry, most are struggling. Those who catch on are asked to assist the others. You decide what you get out of church, not the teacher, bishop or relief society president. We are to ask how can we help, not why is that idiot in that calling.but that shouldn't give carte blanche license to leaders to do whatever and everyone else has the problem and is wicked
Freedom Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 but that shouldn't give carte blanche license to leaders to do whatever and everyone else has the problem and is wickedThis has nothing to do with the topic which calling women to men's callings and men to women's callings,. Leaders are called to lead. Wickedness is not a gender specific issue. We do the best we can to call worthy and willing members to positions in the church. If a person then goes on to exercise unrighteous dominion then they do so to their own condemnation. However, if we cannot handle such human foibles in a volunteer organization such as the church, then may the heavens help us in our place of employment when the very same, if not worse treatment takes place at work.
Duncan Posted November 5, 2012 Author Posted November 5, 2012 This has nothing to do with the topic which calling women to men's callings and men to women's callings,. Leaders are called to lead. Wickedness is not a gender specific issue. We do the best we can to call worthy and willing members to positions in the church. If a person then goes on to exercise unrighteous dominion then they do so to their own condemnation. However, if we cannot handle such human foibles in a volunteer organization such as the church, then may the heavens help us in our place of employment when the very same, if not worse treatment takes place at work.well put!
DavidB Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Well, name the mission president, the name of the sister, and the year it occurred.First one I do not know, second is nunya, the third is 1998-1999
Cobalt-70 Posted November 6, 2012 Posted November 6, 2012 This was an unwise move on many levels. In addition to what has been discussed here, the opportunity for at least the appearance of impropriety is quite high. A bishop and his executive secretary communicate privately with regularity. This opens the door for obvious potential problems.Why is it that we think LDS men and women cannot be trusted to communicate privately with each other without having an affair. Most LDS men and women have business relationships with people of the opposite sex, with no problem. I find this justification for sex discrimination in the church rather paternalistic. If an LDS adult has grown up without learning how to interact with people of the opposite sex on a professional level, then perhaps the church should give them practice so they can develop that ability.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 6, 2012 Posted November 6, 2012 Can somebody point to the place in the CHI where it says a ward mission leader can't be a woman? I can't seem to find it. 1
Bikeemikey Posted November 6, 2012 Posted November 6, 2012 Why is it that we think LDS men and women cannot be trusted to communicate privately with each other without having an affair. Most LDS men and women have business relationships with people of the opposite sex, with no problem. I find this justification for sex discrimination in the church rather paternalistic. If an LDS adult has grown up without learning how to interact with people of the opposite sex on a professional level, then perhaps the church should give them practice so they can develop that ability. Well said.
Bernard Gui Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Well the stake president didn't object to the final formulation, which was call a priesthood holder and have the wife do the work.Are we really a church that would rather have an incompetent man rather than a competent women in the position.No es posible, cuate. To do the work, she would have to attend bishopric meetings, priesthood executive committee, ward councils, disciplinary councils, stake priesthoodleadership meetings, have access to membership records and administrative access to MLS......she might have made calls to set up appointments, but that's about it.
Bikeemikey Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 No es posible, cuate. To do the work, she would have to attend bishopric meetings, priesthood executive committee, ward councils, disciplinary councils, stake priesthoodleadership meetings, have access to membership records and administrative access to MLS......she might have made calls to set up appointments, but that's about it.Nope, one of the reasons a women was of interest was to provide a different perspective in those meetings.This was also pre-Mls.I do like to see that women would be capable of taking notes, though.
rongo Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Well, name the mission president, the name of the sister, and the year it occurred.I am aware of a Sister Nicole (sp) Finke from northern Germany serving as a district leader in the Florida Orlando Mission around 1994-1995. It was temporary, but it was due to several elders being disciplined and sent home. She was a Temple Square missionary who served the remainder of her time in Orlando. She returned from her mission while I was in her branch as a missionary.It happens, but is not common. I am sure she (and others similarly situated) didn't perform priesthood functions, like giving baptismal interviews. They simply guided and directed the districts temporarily, due to extenuating circumstances.
SpudMan Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Considering how much better the sisters tend to magnify their callings, I believe they would generally perform very well in this calling. Although you would have to rename the Priesthood Executive Committee to the Priesthood and Sisters Executive Committee.
Duncan Posted November 7, 2012 Author Posted November 7, 2012 Considering how much better the sisters tend to magnify their callings, I believe they would generally perform very well in this calling. Although you would have to rename the Priesthood Executive Committee to the Priesthood and Sisters Executive Committee.in our PEC the RS Pres. is there, no one seems to mind! especially when she brings treats!
SpudMan Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 That used to be the Welfare Committee, until is was cancelled by the church. Then the option to invite the RS president was added to the PEC guidelines. And yes, I think it certainly adds much more to the meeting to have her there, treats or not! 1
rongo Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) In our ward, we stopped having PEC and Welfare (and only held ward council) several months before the training recommending that these meetings be reduced. Bishop's prerogative . . . We found that we never discussed items that were for "the brethren" only. I also met on other occasions with the EQP and HPGL only, or just the WML, or with the YWP/YMP, etc. I don't like to meet for the sake of meeting, and only have those whom it pertains to have to come. Edited November 7, 2012 by rongo 1
webbles Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Why is it that we think LDS men and women cannot be trusted to communicate privately with each other without having an affair. Most LDS men and women have business relationships with people of the opposite sex, with no problem. I find this justification for sex discrimination in the church rather paternalistic. If an LDS adult has grown up without learning how to interact with people of the opposite sex on a professional level, then perhaps the church should give them practice so they can develop that ability.Same reason why you should always have two adults when teaching the children. Gossip gets around, false accusations can be made, etc. If you are never in a situation where a false accusation can be made, then you never have to defend yourself from it. As a married man, even in work, I don't want to be alone with another woman. Not because I'll do anything (I won't) but because I don't want the chance of a false accusation to be thrown at me and only have he/she said statements.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Same reason why you should always have two adults when teaching the children. Gossip gets around, false accusations can be made, etc. If you are never in a situation where a false accusation can be made, then you never have to defend yourself from it. As a married man, even in work, I don't want to be alone with another woman. Not because I'll do anything (I won't) but because I don't want the chance of a false accusation to be thrown at me and only have he/she said statements.Jesus didn't seem to care about that. Jesus had no problems being alone with a slutty Samaritan woman in John 4, with the adulterer in John 7, or with Mary Magdalene in the garden. If busybody people are going to gossip, they will gossip. I don't see how the theoretical possibility of a little gossip should justify a policy that restricts the way that women can serve in the church. And it's not the same thing as prohibiting men from being alone with children in church meetings, which has to do with liability for child abuse. Women are not children, and do not need to be protected like children. 1
Bikeemikey Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Jesus didn't seem to care about that. Jesus had no problems being alone with a slutty Samaritan woman in John 4, with the adulterer in John 7, or with Mary Magdalene in the garden. If busybody people are going to gossip, they will gossip. I don't see how the theoretical possibility of a little gossip should justify a policy that restricts the way that women can serve in the church. And it's not the same thing as prohibiting men from being alone with children in church meetings, which has to do with liability for child abuse. Women are not children, and do not need to be protected like children.Great comments.
bluebell Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Jesus didn't seem to care about that. Jesus had no problems being alone with a slutty Samaritan woman in John 4, with the adulterer in John 7, or with Mary Magdalene in the garden. If busybody people are going to gossip, they will gossip. I don't see how the theoretical possibility of a little gossip should justify a policy that restricts the way that women can serve in the church. And it's not the same thing as prohibiting men from being alone with children in church meetings, which has to do with liability for child abuse. Women are not children, and do not need to be protected like children.If Jesus was alone, who wrote down what happened? And besides that obvious issue, the other very obvious problem with your comments is that none of us are Jesus.I really don't understand the angst against the idea of taking precautions in situations like this? We teach all the time in the church that we need to stay away from situations where temptations more easily beset us. It's just smart.Certain callings are emotional in nature. When people have close emotional experiences together, they bond and grow close emotionally. That's a problem for a man and a woman who aren't married to each other. Have you ever read about all the firefighters in New York who made it a priority to help out the families who lost husbands during 9-11, who left their wives and married the women they were trying to help? They had no interest in that in the beginning but they became emotionally invested, and that's all it took.I've been in a ward where the bishop and the RS president had an affair and they weren't even ever supposed to be alone together but thought nothing would come of it-yet it was through their callings, and through being alone while trying to fulfill them, that the trouble developed. Jesus does very much care when we put ourselves into situations that are inherently dangerous, spiritually speaking, especially if there is no reason to, other than being politically correct. Edited November 8, 2012 by bluebell 1
Cobalt-70 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 If Jesus was alone, who wrote down what happened? And besides that obvious issue, the other very obvious problem with your comments is that none of us are Jesus.I really don't understand the angst against the idea of taking precautions in situations like this? We teach all the time in the church that we need to stay away from situations where temptations more easily beset us. It's just smart.Certain callings are emotional in nature. When people have close emotional experiences together, they bond and grow close emotionally. That's a problem for a man and a woman who aren't married to each other. Have you ever read about all the firefighters in New York who made it a priority to help out the families who lost husbands during 9-11, who left their wives and married the women they were trying to help? They had no interest in that in the beginning but they became emotionally invested, and that's all it took.I've been in a ward where the bishop and the RS president had an affair and they weren't even ever supposed to be alone together but thought nothing would come of it-yet it was through their callings, and through being alone while trying to fulfill them, that the trouble developed. Jesus does very much care when we put ourselves into situations that are inherently dangerous, spiritually speaking, especially if there is no reason to, other than being politically correct.The problem is, this is the same kind of thinking that religious conservatives like the Taliban use to justify such rules as requiring women to stay at home unless accompanied by a male relative. There's a point where we have to let people make their own choices, learn how to control their impulses, and use their agency. Will some people fall? Certainly. But there was this big debate you might have heard about, in the pre-existence, where this same issue came up. And most of us concluded that it's better that we be placed in situations where we might sin, rather than be protected from such situations to guarantee our good behavoir, so that we can learn how to control ourselves and become more god-like.
Bikeemikey Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 If Jesus was alone, who wrote down what happened? And besides that obvious issue, the other very obvious problem with your comments is that none of us are Jesus.I really don't understand the angst against the idea of taking precautions in situations like this? We teach all the time in the church that we need to stay away from situations where temptations more easily beset us. It's just smart.Certain callings are emotional in nature. When people have close emotional experiences together, they bond and grow close emotionally. That's a problem for a man and a woman who aren't married to each other. Have you ever read about all the firefighters in New York who made it a priority to help out the families who lost husbands during 9-11, who left their wives and married the women they were trying to help? They had no interest in that in the beginning but they became emotionally invested, and that's all it took.I've been in a ward where the bishop and the RS president had an affair and they weren't even ever supposed to be alone together but thought nothing would come of it-yet it was through their callings, and through being alone while trying to fulfill them, that the trouble developed. Jesus does very much care when we put ourselves into situations that are inherently dangerous, spiritually speaking, especially if there is no reason to, other than being politically correct.The Mormon church and members suffer from some strange sex-phobia. It is not that case that if you lock a man and a women in a room for a day that they will have sex.Running any institution like that is silly. Are people going to have affairs, yes. Will it be bishops and relief society presidents from time to time, sure. People do stupid things, doors open or closed. The idea that a little bit of extra alone time made this happen is just silly.
webbles Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Jesus didn't seem to care about that. Jesus had no problems being alone with a slutty Samaritan woman in John 4, with the adulterer in John 7, or with Mary Magdalene in the garden. If busybody people are going to gossip, they will gossip. I don't see how the theoretical possibility of a little gossip should justify a policy that restricts the way that women can serve in the church. And it's not the same thing as prohibiting men from being alone with children in church meetings, which has to do with liability for child abuse. Women are not children, and do not need to be protected like children.I don't see why it matters if Jesus cares about this or not. And I don't see why this is protecting women any more than it is protecting men. As I said, I wouldn't want to be alone with another woman because I don't want the gossip or have to deal with false accusations and not because I'm trying to protect her. And I'd think any other reasonable person wouldn't want those headaches. I believe that is the main reason why two adults have to be together with children. Not because they'll hurt the children but to prevent false accusations. And a false accusation can be as damaging as a true accusation.
bluebell Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 The Mormon church and members suffer from some strange sex-phobia.It is not that case that if you lock a man and a women in a room for a day that they will have sex.Running any institution like that is silly. Are people going to have affairs, yes. Will it be bishops and relief society presidents from time to time, sure.People do stupid things, doors open or closed.The idea that a little bit of extra alone time made this happen is just silly.It's smart to steer clear of situations which make temptations easier to give into. I'm not going to argue with you about it, it's so obvious there's really nothing more to say.(And for the record, it was the bishop and the RS president--who were repentant, though that didn't stop the harm they caused their ward and their families-who declared that it was the alone time and the emotional nature of that time together that led to the affair. If only they had known it was silly, maybe they could have steered clear )
bluebell Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 The problem is, this is the same kind of thinking that religious conservatives like the Taliban use to justify such rules as requiring women to stay at home unless accompanied by a male relative. There's a point where we have to let people make their own choices, learn how to control their impulses, and use their agency. Will some people fall? Certainly. But there was this big debate you might have heard about, in the pre-existence, where this same issue came up. And most of us concluded that it's better that we be placed in situations where we might sin, rather than be protected from such situations to guarantee our good behavoir, so that we can learn how to control ourselves and become more god-like.I am truly not trying to be disrespectful, but this is one of the least logical arguments i've heard of in a long time.Agency hasn't stopped our Father in Heaven from giving us commandments and guidelines in how we conduct ourselves. Having rules or commandments designed to make it easier to resist temptation and to circumnavigate it when possible does not destroy our agency or why we came here.
Recommended Posts