Female Ward Mission Leaders

[Bikeemikey]

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 )

I don't disagree with you.

It is not smart, however, to compromise productive working relationships or marginalize, through procedure, large portions of our highly competent membership over a dramatically over inflated phobia of closed doors.

As with many complex life decisions it is a question of risk/reward economic consideration... how much productivity do we give up to prevent the long odds risk?

As for the Bishop and Relief Society President, I am sure the only reason they had an affair was alone time... it had nothing to do with hundreds of other complicated life considerations and pressures. If they got through that process and only addressed the complicated life question of how to never be alone they probably missed the boat.

[rongo]

(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 )

When I was called as a bishop, the stake president told me and my wife that if I ever, *ever*, EVER committed any type of sexual sin while in office, I would be excommunicated so fast my head would swim. It would be a foregone conclusion, with no clemency.

I can't imagine the harm to others from something like that. Was he (and she, too) excommunicated?

Edited November 9, 2012 by rongo

[ed2276]

The Mormon church and members suffer from some strange sex-phobia.

Not really. It's just that the non-Mormon world cheapens sex so is more likely to be careless about it.

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.

That is your opinion, not fact. Maybe they wouldn't, but as you note below, maybe they would. Why create the situation, as Bluebell asks where temptation may arise and lead to "stupid things".

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.

If the goal of the institution is to promote chastity and sexual fidelity within marriage relationships then why would taking measures to avoid unchaste and unfaithful activities be silly?

It would only be silly if people were not going to have affairs but you admit above that people will have affairs; even bishops and RS presidents.

People do stupid things, doors open or closed.

Which is why it is wise to avoid placing people in situations where they will be tempted to do stupid things.

The idea that a little bit of extra alone time made this happen is just silly.

Again, just your opinion. Bluebell gave a real life example of such a thing happening.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

You are right, commandments and guidelines help. Punitive enforcement of guidelines does.

Is it a good idea to remind your young teenage daughter not to look at boys, you know they might get the wrong idea. Possibly.

Is it a good idea to kill her by covering her in acid and leaving her in agony for hours because a few attempts to correct her behavior fail? Possibly not. (This actually happened a couple of weeks ago)

The guidelines are not the issue. It is whether we use the guidelines to enhance our capacity as individuals and organizations, or to diminish and hold back our capacity, that matters.

As a church we leave far to much of our female members talents on the sideline by not having enough callings and opportunities for women to administrate. A recurring rational for why we limit the role of women over the last couple of hundred years is about how such working relationships could lead to SEX!!!

Extreme comparisons can lead to thread ban

[Bikeemikey]

If the goal of the institution is to promote chastity and sexual fidelity within marriage relationships then why would taking measures to avoid unchaste and unfaithful activities be silly?

It wouldn't be silly... I don't think it is silly.

You avoid unwanted activity by fostering and creating high performing and highly engaging organizations and institutions. On a whole we do reasonably at that as a church. We are however leaving a lot of talent on the side line.

This is about the economics of risk reward and decisions that reduce present day value and output due to the potential of long odds negative risk (which is what an affair would be in this scenario - there are millions more Bishop - Relief Society President relationships that do not end this way and still require the private meetings).

I think the current inflation of the risk allows people to make sense of why women are not more involved in certain church processes.

[Calm]

People do stupid things, doors open or closed.

The idea that a little bit of extra alone time made this happen is just silly.

No, a lot of extra alone time contributes to such....and a lot starts with a little.

Not everyone knows when temptation becomes too much before they cross the line. What is wrong with avoiding opportunities for temptation as much as possible therefore?

[Bikeemikey]

No, a lot of extra alone time contributes to such....and a lot starts with a little.

Not everyone knows when temptation becomes too much before they cross the line. What is wrong with avoiding opportunities for temptation as much as possible therefore?

Nothing at all... but if people are working hard for a common purpose then the chances of things running a foul are very slim.

I am also happy with the guidelines. Just don't let them get in the way of utilizing all of the talent that is in the church.

Just as a little alone time can be a slippery slope to a lot of alone time, if you get my drift

So to can a guideline setup to encourage good outcomes turn into a harness that holds us back.

[Calm]

While development of talent is an important aspect of our lives and one that the Church should contribute to as able, I don't see it as a top priority though I suppose some could interpret "perfect the Saints" in such a way.

Not everyone gifted musically is allowed to utilised their talent in Church, for an example. Should we alter how music is presented to ensure that all the drummers, brass players and players of other instruments not currently allowed in Sacrament Meeting get as much playing time as the singers, piano and organ players and even flute and violin artists? Is the Church being harmed because of the limitation of such talents to ward activities and not worship services?

[Bikeemikey]

While development of talent is an important aspect of our lives and one that the Church should contribute to as able, I don't see it as a top priority though I suppose some could interpret "perfect the Saints" in such a way.

Not everyone gifted musically is allowed to utilised their talent in Church, for an example. Should we alter how music is presented to ensure that all the drummers, brass players and players of other instruments not currently allowed in Sacrament Meeting get as much playing time as the singers, piano and organ players and even flute and violin artists? Is the Church being harmed because of the limitation of such talents to ward activities and not worship services?

The church is broader than sacrament meeting, and yes, we should be doing a better job utilizing the drummers musical talent - recently there was a link posted to a youth event where about 100 youth were in stage at the slat lake conference center rapping about the gospel.

People are more likely to be active and engaged (avoiding sin) when they have challenging tasks in front of them. If your want to overcome sinful behavior don't just stop what you were doing - replace those sinfuk activities with something highly engaging and rewarding.

Likewise with the attitude regarding women's involvement vs. closed door time - the negative restriction emphasis is a demotivating influence.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Commandments from God about what is right and wrong are one thing. But Church policies designed to prohibit women from good, worthwhile, and wholesome service of their fellow humans, simply because they, and their male leaders, might not be able to conduct themselves in a professional manner, is something else.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

When I was called as a bishop, the stake president told me and my wife that if I ever, *ever*, EVER committed any type of sexual sin while in office, I would be excommunicated so fast my head would swim. It would be a foregone conclusion, with no clemency.

What kind of stake president would make a pre-emptive threat of excommunication for something that isn't even on the horizon? Obviously, if someone is qualified to be a bishop, he is not planning to go out and commit adultery the next day. And in front of your wife? What a power trip.

[rongo]

What kind of stake president would make a pre-emptive threat of excommunication for something that isn't even on the horizon? Obviously, if someone is qualified to be a bishop, he is not planning to go out and commit adultery the next day. And in front of your wife? What a power trip.

It wasn't that way at all. He was simply making it clear (crystal clear) that there would be significant consequences in the event of serious transgression. Given the occasional scandal that happens, even with bishops, stake presidents, temple presidents, etc., this is not beyond the pale to bring up.

It was in the context of a very searching worthiness interview (wife not present, of course), and the extension of the call with her present. Neither she nor I had your reaction to this at all. I'm curious why this evoked a reaction of "power trip" in you?

[Scott Lloyd]

What kind of stake president would make a pre-emptive threat of excommunication for something that isn't even on the horizon? Obviously, if someone is qualified to be a bishop, he is not planning to go out and commit adultery the next day. .

It happens occasionally, that people are qualified for positions such as bishop, that they don't plan to commit adultery, but they end up doing so. I've observed such instances in my own lifetime.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rongo's stake president had as well; hence the stern warning.

[Calm]

The church is broader than sacrament meeting, and yes, we should be doing a better job utilizing the drummers musical talent - recently there was a link posted to a youth event where about 100 youth were in stage at the slat lake conference center rapping about the gospel.

People are more likely to be active and engaged (avoiding sin) when they have challenging tasks in front of them. If your want to overcome sinful behavior don't just stop what you were doing - replace those sinfuk activities with something highly engaging and rewarding.

Likewise with the attitude regarding women's involvement vs. closed door time - the negative restriction emphasis is a demotivating influence.

And women's talents are used outside of the limitations of priesthood offices just as drums and guitars, etc are used outside of Sacrament Meeting. Limitations in one area or even several is not the same as limitation in all areas. Edited November 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

It happens occasionally, that people are qualified for positions such as bishop, that they don't plan to commit adultery, but they end up doing so. I've observed such instances in my own lifetime.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rongo's stake president had as well; hence the stern warning.

It just seems so bizarre. It's as if he thought the stern, paternalistic threat of excommunication were the only thing keeping him from jumping out of his seat and committing adultery with the next thing that walks by with breasts.

[Freedom]

It just seems so bizarre. It's as if he thought the stern, paternalistic threat of excommunication were the only thing keeping him from jumping out of his seat and committing adultery with the next thing that walks by with breasts.

As a matter of course, I advise people of the risks of their callings - for example, we make it very clear to a new scout leader of the risks to their family, their career and their membership in the church if they cause any harm to the children under their care. It is vital to impress upon people in such positions of authority their strict and serious duty of care.

[daz2]

I know of a ward in Salt Lake City which has had a woman serve as secretary to the bishopric for decades. President Monson was a member of that stake (but in another ward) during those years.

Our stake president tells the story of when he was in a bishopric in the east, and they decided to call a man to the primary presidency. The problem was that the Sunday they sustained the man, a member of the Church's general primary board was visiting the Sacrament meeting. Within a day or two word came from SLC that they needed to release the man and call a woman. Our stake president, with a twinkle in his eyes, says that the lesson they learned was never to call a man to the primary presidency the week that someone from the Church's general primary board is visiting.

[daz2]

BTW, I think sisters serve in the function of district and zone leaders (or the equivalent) in the Temple Square mission (inasmuch as the only male called to that mission is that mission president).

[bluebell]

I don't disagree with you.

It is not smart, however, to compromise productive working relationships or marginalize, through procedure, large portions of our highly competent membership over a dramatically over inflated phobia of closed doors.

This idea seems to imply that there aren't usually a few or more people in a ward at any given time that could fulfill such callings to equal degrees of success. Being a woman, i have very high regards for myself and those of my gender, but i don't believe that simply not having a woman in a specific calling would 'compromise' it.

As with many complex life decisions it is a question of risk/reward economic consideration... how much productivity do we give up to prevent the long odds risk?

I would guess very little. And given the nature of callings and more specifically the reasons that most members believe callings are extended, i would also guess that what productivity is lost due to someone not doing the best job possible in a calling is much less important to our Father in Heaven than it might be to us.

As for the Bishop and Relief Society President, I am sure the only reason they had an affair was alone time... it had nothing to do with hundreds of other complicated life considerations and pressures. If they got through that process and only addressed the complicated life question of how to never be alone they probably missed the boat.

I f you really think you know more about it then they do, more power to you. Maybe some day you'll get to meet and you can set them straight.

[bluebell]

When I was called as a bishop, the stake president told me and my wife that if I ever, *ever*, EVER committed any type of sexual sin while in office, I would be excommunicated so fast my head would swim. It would be a foregone conclusion, with no clemency.

I can't imagine the harm to others from something like that. Was he (and she, too) excommunicated?

Yes, if i'm remembering correctly they both were. The damage was practically incalcuable though. The ward split, divided by different loyalties. Dozens left the church altogether because of the contention. The bishop and RS president eventually married each other and came back into full fellowship i heard later, but i can't verify that.

[rongo]

If they married, it would be very, very difficult for them to be sealed. CHI policy states that this would need First Presidency authorization, and my experience is that this would almost certainly be denied, or at least require *a lot* of time to transpire before it would be considered.

How sad. While people's testimony shouldn't be tied to whether their bishop or Relief Society president doesn't make a huge mistake, it does throw people who wonder why or how God would place them in that situation if He knew from the outset that it would happen. Etc.

[Bikeemikey]

This idea seems to imply that there aren't usually a few or more people in a ward at any given time that could fulfill such callings to equal degrees of success. Being a woman, i have very high regards for myself and those of my gender, but i don't believe that simply not having a woman in a specific calling would 'compromise' it.

Every ward I have lived in has had less than 120 active members.

In positions on bishoprics and in the elders quorum we were always dramatically disadvantaged when it came to filling callings.

Between priesthood holders being called to stake callings etc it was difficult.

What has your ward size experience been?

[Deardorff]

Since eventually "All Things" will be restored, why not?

Prophetess will eventually be restored as they were in the Scriptures so why not take advantage of the leadership skills so many women have?

[bluebell]

Every ward I have lived in has had less than 120 active members.

In positions on bishoprics and in the elders quorum we were always dramatically disadvantaged when it came to filling callings.

Between priesthood holders being called to stake callings etc it was difficult.

What has your ward size experience been?

In the last 12 years, i've been in 10 wards, of which a couple have been really big and a couple fairly small. Most have seemed to be fairly average though-around 150-200 present on any given sunday at church.

In all the wards i've been in, same shortage of people applied for women as it applied for men, if there was a shortage at all. There are a lot of callings in a ward that are women only callings and between those and the stake taking women away, in my last ward it was often a real struggle to find women who could/should serve. There were times when callings should have been filled weeks sooner, but there simply was not a woman available yet. It always worked out though, and typically for the best and in a way where the extra time turned out to be an unknown advantage in different ways.

[azisbest]

I don't see any doctrinal reason why women could not be ward mission leaders. And if, as seems possible, women become the majority of the missionaries, it may even make practical sense.

What do you do with 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35?