Amen, Sherri Dew!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That isn't the point, for two reasons.

 

1-The church is not just about 'rules'.  It's a cultural experience as much as it is anything else.  And culturally, this is an issue.

 

2-Whether or not there are rules against it, I don't belong in a priesthood lesson.  Unless I'm specifically invited for a purpose, it is just plain bad manners for anyone to assume they have the right to attend a class they are not a member of.  

 

Also, it's not up to OW, or any other person, to tell other members of the church what they are 'definitely allowed' to do in church.  That is a usurpation of authority that they don't posses.

 

I authorize BB to speak for me now. This is how I feel about the whole issue.

[Calm]

There is no rule against women wearing pants to church and yet it was seen by some enough of a barrier to be the first major PR event for the Mormon women's equality movement, I believe.

[BlueDreams]

Really?  I can't remember the last time the bishop or one of his counselors did attend RS...  I can't imagine why they attend in your ward... I think that is totally not the norm...

 

GG

Yep, really. What Cal said makes sense, especially considering that YSA wards near colleges also have a high turnover rate. But then again I also see them in SS as well. It was when I was reading these comments that I remembered that this doesn't usually happen in normal wards.

 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

Yep, really. What Cal said makes sense, especially considering that YSA wards near colleges also have a high turnover rate. But then again I also see them in SS as well. It was when I was reading these comments that I remembered that this doesn't usually happen in normal wards.

 

With luv,

BD

But it does happen in "normal wards" as I and others have recounted.  And I think once it starts, it accelerates.  That this could happen anywhere is indicative of the attitude BB noted...there is obviously an underlying sense of entitlement to do this coming from local leadership.  As always, your local experience may vary.  But the point is, if a male leader decides they have a reason to come in they come in (I don't think it would occur to the "average" brother to even try).   Now that I think about it...I think our SP also sat in at ward conference so I suspect he is the one who is driving this.   Apparently, the men don't need to be watched. I don't think missionaries would sit in without permission,  but I'm wondering if that permission came from Mission Presidents....not that they wouldn't ask the RS Prez.  But it comes back to why they would even think it was appropriate to begin with.  This is, of course, consistent with the refusal to let women in a General Conf. Priesthood meeting when men were casually let into the RS meeting the week before.   In fact, it occurs to me that it would be far more effective to quietly have men enter the RS meeting to point out the double standard rather than recycling the same one sided priesthood session protest that does look like they are trying to interfere with the father/son bonding.   It is the double standards that need to be fixed first.  That is another thing that concerns me about OW...they aren't doing the preliminary work that will point out why this matters to all members.  They aren't even trying to bring them along.

[T-Shirt]

When I served as a bishop, I attended a Relief Society meeting a couple of times, but only after being invited or asking permission. I never stayed for the whole meeting, I was only there to deliver a message or set apart a new Relief Society Presidency. Regardless of whatever rights I may have had as a bishop, I never would have considered going to a Relief Society meeting without it being prearranged. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is just plain disrespectful. I can see that a Sunday School president might want to attend a Relief Society meeting given that he is, generally, responsible for the Teacher Improvement program in the ward, but he should never do so without arranging the visit ahead of time and gaining the Relief Society president's approval. I think that this is the way the Church intends it to be, anyone who does otherwise, regardless of his position, is out of line. I view Priesthood meeting the same way. I have no problem with a woman attending a quorum meeting, if she has a valid reason and if it is prearranged. As a High Priest group leader, I once invited the Relief Society president to give a lesson for us. In my opinion, if some of the things reported here are true, I don't think it is a "Church" problem, I think it is, rather, a problem with disrespectful individuals.

[rongo]

But it does happen in "normal wards" as I and others have recounted.  And I think once it starts, it accelerates. 

I find all of these anecdotes strange and fascinating. I believe them ----- I'm just taken aback that they apparently happen more than just as an outlier. The only time I was in Relief Society as a bishop was when I was asked to by the Relief Society president, which happened a couple of times (it was always to teach a lesson, by invitation. No, it was never on Mother's Day . . .   ).

 

Several months ago, we had a counselor in the RS presidency teach the Snow lesson on Relief Society in the high priests group, and another counselor taught in elders quorum. It was a good discussion, and nobody batted an eye. But, for men to attend RS as a regular thing or vice versa would be just weird.

[juliann]

The problem with the permission thing is that the RS Prez probably doesn't feel like she can say no.  That would go under the "sustain leaders" thing, which in practical terms in a patriarchal system means do what men tell you to do.  That these men are always announced promotes their "specialness". I can think of at least 5 times this year men were in RS.  Some of that was the bishop but like I said, I give this one a free pass although in principle he shouldn't be doing that.  Once he was just there holding the baby as his wife was teaching and it was apparent the RS Prez was confused as how to explain it.  The one that really riles me is the Stake SS Prez.   To me that signals that our current SP does not have appropriate boundaries since he also sat in (neither of these men are in our ward).   Where this gets insidious is that the men who are now in leadership positions where they can arbitrarily do this are being "trained" that this is acceptable as they then are recycled into other positions while retaining that perception.

 

Anyway, minor gripe...but it does have broader implications as groups like OW expand our awareness.   And Rongo, that is so, so cool that you would have women teaching in EQ.  What a great way to send the message that they truly are equal.  I told our Bishop that I hoped the RS Prez would be teaching the men on Father's Day but it hasn't happened...which may be because that is the last thing she would want to do.

Edited November 19, 2013 by juliann

[rongo]

  I told our Bishop that I hoped the RS Prez would be teaching the men on Father's Day but it hasn't happened...which may be because that is the last thing she would want to do.

I really don't like the obligatory "ode to mothers" and "ode to fathers" on Mother's and Father's Day . . . 

 

The talks are brutal.

[ERayR]

ERay, how do you think most men would go about attending RS if for some reason they wanted to?  Would they just assume it would be okay to walk in and sit down (not saying that they have a right to be there, but rather just don't think of it as needing permission to be there) or would they ask the women in charge permission to do so first?

 

I don't think most men would feel comfortable attending RS meeting without a valid reason. (Being ask to teach a topic by the RS President or without first getting an OK)  Nobody I know would think it OK to just walk in and sit down.  Even the bishop, who is responsible for goes on in the ward, would attend by invitation only.  It just seems bizarre that someone would consider it OK to do something like that.  I guess there may be people who would but in my 70 + years I just haven't run across any. 

[T-Shirt]

The problem with the permission thing is that the RS Prez probably doesn't feel like she can say no.

You are putting a bishop in a no win situation. If the bishop has a valid reason to be there, how should he approach it? Don't get me wrong,I don't think a priesthood leader should be spending a lot of time in Relief Society, but he shouldn't feel like he is unwelcome either. Every RS president I worked with had no problem telling me no. I would much prefer that a woman speak her mind.

 

That would go under the "sustain leaders" thing, which in practical terms in a patriarchal system means do what men tell you to do.

Well, maybe the sisters need to be taught that sustaining your leaders doesn't mean that you don't ever have a say in the matter. 

 

That these men are always announced promotes their "specialness".

When I introduced the RS president as the teacher in our High Priest meeting, the men were very pleased to have her there and saw her as someone very special.

 

I can think of at least 5 times this year men were in RS.  Some of that was the bishop but like I said, I give this one a free pass although in principle he shouldn't be doing that.  Once he was just there holding the baby as his wife was teaching and it was apparent the RS Prez was confused as how to explain it.  The one that really riles me is the Stake SS Prez.   To me that signals that our current SP does not have appropriate boundaries since he also sat in (neither of these men are in our ward).

Like I said, I don't think this is what the Church teaches, but rather a problem with individuals who are lacking respect. 

 

Where this gets insidious is that the men who are now in leadership positions where they can arbitrarily do this are being "trained" that this is acceptable as they then are recycled into other positions while retaining that perception.

My anecdotal experiences, I suppose, are no more indicative of a church wide practice than yours are, but I have been in the Church a long time and have served in many leadership positions and I have never seen an attitude like this in priesthood leaders.

As an aside, as a bishop, I had some members feel like it was unfair that the Priest's Quorum always got to have me in their meetings and that it would be better that I attend all of the other auxiliaries, from time to time. As a High Councilor over Relief Society, I was invited to attend the Stake Relief Society presidency meetings. I would never have thought to invite myself to attend. When I went, I felt very uncomfortable and was very happy to let the sisters run things as they chose.

Edited November 19, 2013 by T-Shirt

[ERayR]

 

For me, I realized that I can't remember the last time the bishop or one of his counselors wasn't in RS. I know this, cuz it kinda bothers me....I don't exactly get why they're there. They don't presume to preside (at least in the normal way that you'd usually see, like sitting in the front, or being turned to for decisions, or officially turning the time over to the RS Prez, etc), but they're there. So it gets this feeling that they're there to watch and thus watch over. My ward is a YSA so it's already a little different in how things go, i don't know if that plays a part. But frankly I forgot that the bishopric don't have to be there. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

That seems particularly odd to me.  I can't think of a reason for it unless the bishop is a micro-manager. 

[ERayR]

Elders taught in our RS one day...

 

By invitation I would suspect.

[ERayR]

Yep, really. What Cal said makes sense, especially considering that YSA wards near colleges also have a high turnover rate. But then again I also see them in SS as well. It was when I was reading these comments that I remembered that this doesn't usually happen in normal wards.

 

With luv,

BD

 

In my ward the bishop and his counselors normally attend Gospel Doctrine SS class.

[BlueDreams]

That seems particularly odd to me.  I can't think of a reason for it unless the bishop is a micro-manager. 

 

I think it's like any other thing about a person....there's positives and negatives about the same thing. The bishop is definitely hands on, but it's not necessarily entirely a bad things. Yes, it seems like overkill to almost always have someone on the bishopric in our meetings. But the bishopric really works to have an idea of what's going on in our lives as well and to work to really have callings that work for us. For example they specifically asked me what I wouldn't want as a calling.....I told them....and they've respected that. Plus he is a huge advocate of getting us into temple work. Because of that, our ward has more temple workers in it than the rest of the stake combined. The ward counsel was all inclusive and large. And he earnestly worked to help people learn about Christ and the Gospel more intrinsically (such as giving free copies of the infinite atonement with the caveat that they may be asked to give a talk about something they learned from it).  He has a SS class that he teaches for temple prep. It's a very thorough 6 week course about temples that's really good and thorough. People preparing, already endowed, and temple workers often attend and is a very popular class. 

 

Overall, I have few complaints about the way they do things. This is the one weird thing that sometimes bothers me.

 

With luv,

BD

[mtomm]

A lot of single men probably could do with visiting teachers, if only to help them with their household and dating skills for those not particularly skilled in either.

 

On a more serious note, if the priesthood is important enough to ensure it is present in every member's life, then it seems that quality of women that adds to everyone's lives, however defined is lacking in single men's life and it would probably be a nice thing for them to have a chance to have full access to it just as women do to priesthood power.

 

I think this is a profound thought and one I've never been able to articulate before.  If women have some sort of "power" from being mothers it certainly is greatly diminished once our children are grown and on their own.  But if a women has "power" strictly from her womanhood we certainly aren't in a position to use it to influence men hardly at all, if at all.

[Jazzdreamer]

That isn't the point, for two reasons.

1-The church is not just about 'rules'. It's a cultural experience as much as it is anything else. And culturally, this is an issue.

2-Whether or not there are rules against it, I don't belong in a priesthood lesson. Unless I'm specifically invited for a purpose, it is just plain bad manners for anyone to assume they have the right to attend a class they are not a member of.

Also, it's not up to OW, or any other person, to tell other members of the church what they are 'definitely allowed' to do in church. That is a usurpation of authority that they don't posses.

I'm just speaking from experience, a woman that very much opposes the OW (my elder's mother) told me that she can go in there whenever she wants. That there are no rules against it. That she does it from time to time and it's really no big deal.

[Jazzdreamer]

There is no rule against women wearing pants to church and yet it was seen by some enough of a barrier to be the first major PR event for the Mormon women's equality movement, I believe.

It's not a rule, tradition states otherwise and some women do actually get harassed for it. I don't.... But I know some women do.

[bluebell]

It's not a rule, tradition states otherwise and some women do actually get harassed for it. I don't.... But I know some women do.

 

This is one of those situations where the church has expressly stated that women may wear pants to church.  If there are women that are currently getting harassed for it, it would be super simple for them to put that person in their place.

 

That would produce results far more quickly than setting another 'wear pants to church' date.

 

Jazzdreamer, is it true that the leader of the pants movement declared that the reason she is going to wear pants is because she is male on the inside and men wear pants to church?

[bluebell]

I'm just speaking from experience, a woman that very much opposes the OW (my elder's mother) told me that she can go in there whenever she wants. That there are no rules against it. That she does it from time to time and it's really no big deal.

 

Be that as it may, she has no authority to declare such.

 

It's likely that she is being so outspoken about it because she is trying to make the point that there is no reason for OW to lobby for the priesthood.

[Calm]

This is one of those situations where the church has expressly stated that women may wear pants to church. If there are women that are currently getting harassed for it, it would be super simple for them to put that person in their place.

That would produce results far more quickly than setting another 'wear pants to church' date.

Jazzdreamer, is it true that the leader of the pants movement declared that the reason she is going to wear pants is because she is male on the inside and men wear pants to church?

That one is my fault..I didn't realize that was how it came across...the leader of the movement posted a number of stories of why different people were participating, some I saw as contradicting...there were many different reasons given rather than one centralised purpose IMO, iow, those involved were not on the same page and thus would IMO lack the momentum and sense of cohesiveness needed for a movement to be successful.

It is more or less each individual wearing pants to protest their own cause under some overall banner of inclusiveness...It makes sense in a general way, but when united creates something that may be rejected as a whole for a part...you want to promote inclusiveness, you don't do it by using a symbol of protest and you use ideas everyone can relate to...at least in the beginning.

Edited November 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

That one is my fault..I didn't realize that was how it came across...the leader of the movement posted a number of stories of why different people were participating, some I saw as contradicting...there were many different reasons given rather than one centralised purpose IMO, iow, those involved were not on the same page and thus would IMO lack the momentum and sense of cohesiveness needed for a movement to be successful.

It is more or less each individual wearing pants to protest their own cause under some overall banner of inclusiveness...It makes sense in a general way, but when united creates something that may be rejected as a whole for a part...you want to promote inclusiveness, you don't do it by using a symbol of protest and you use ideas everyone can relate to...at least in the beginning.

 

Ah, thanks Cal for the clarification. 

[Garden Girl]

But it does happen in "normal wards" as I and others have recounted.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like it never happened in our ward... it is very infrequent and just isn't something that is done without prearrangement and/or invitation.  And it usually has to do with some particular announcement or setting apart by the bishop... who then leaves as soon as the task is done.

 

GG

Edited November 20, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Jazzdreamer]

This is one of those situations where the church has expressly stated that women may wear pants to church. If there are women that are currently getting harassed for it, it would be super simple for them to put that person in their place.

That would produce results far more quickly than setting another 'wear pants to church' date.

Jazzdreamer, is it true that the leader of the pants movement declared that the reason she is going to wear pants is because she is male on the inside and men wear pants to church?

I'm not sure who you consider the leader to be...? /:

[Jazzdreamer]

Also here is the letter OW wrote asking for tickets in the priesthood session.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Ticket-Letters.pdf

[bluebell]

I'm not sure who you consider the leader to be...? /:

 

Sorry about that.  My question stemmed from something I had read other places, which Cal already cleared up. 

 

She had mentioned something about the reason a member of OW was supporting the pants day, but the way that she had said it made me think that member was the leader of the movement and not just a participant.  I had misunderstood her.

 

The participant stated that the reason she was going to wear pants was because she was gender dysphoric and felt like a man on the inside, and men where pants to church so that's why she was going to do so as well.

 

The quote seems to show how un-unified OW is becoming--not in their efforts for change, but in the reasons that each member wanted the change to occur.  That might be neither a good or a bad thing, but it is interesting, which is why I asked about it.

 

I specifically asked about it as I though it pertained to the leader of the movement, because the implications of one of the leadership claiming that she was wearing pants to church because she felt like a man and men wear pants, would have been especially weird.