Brian 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) I'm trying to think of other organizations where certain members of the organization do not have representation in the governing body of the organization. The Church is obviously made up of men and women, who are proclaimed as equal, but due to the offices of the priesthood only being available to men, the main governing body of the Church is comprised only of men. I'm not asking WHY that's the case. That's a different topic. I'm curious if this is true of other organizations that people don't really take issue with? Not trying to fight here, this is a serious question I've been thinking about. ETA: I understand there are other religions that do this... more interested in other non-religious organizations. Edited June 24, 2014 by Brian 2.0
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I work for an academic journal that resides inside a research school in a university. As a Latter-day Saint, I have no representation whatsoever amongst the editors of the journal, the governing board of the research school, or the university council.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Most religions and many civic organization have only men in their main governing body's. Women in the Church have always had a pivotal but different role.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 I work for an academic journal that resides inside a research school in a university. As a Latter-day Saint, I have no representation whatsoever amongst the editors of the journal, the governing board of the research school, or the university council. But Latter-day Saints are not specifically EXCLUDED from being an editor, on the board, or the council, correct? There just happen to be none right now, right? There may not be a person in the US Senate right now that eats rhubarb pie, but that doesn't mean rhubarb pie eaters can't be in the Senate.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 Most religions and many civic organization have only men in their main governing body's. Women in the Church have always had a pivotal but different role. I agree that there are other religions that do this. I'm curious on some of the larger civic organizations that may do this.
mfbukowski Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I'm trying to think of other organizations where certain members of the organization do not have representation in the governing body of the organization. The Church is obviously made up of men and women, who are proclaimed as equal, but due to the offices of the priesthood only being available to men, the main governing body of the Church is comprised only of men. I'm not asking WHY that's the case. That's a different topic. I'm curious if this is true of other organizations that people don't really take issue with? Not trying to fight here, this is a serious question I've been thinking about.Catholicism.
mfbukowski Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Do gay organizations have straight people in governing positions? Edited June 24, 2014 by mfbukowski
Brian 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Do gay organizations have straight people in governing positions? Probably not if they are gay organizations for gay members only. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-gay rights organizations with straight members in the governing body. Organizations which are for a specific group often have governing member which are of that specific group. But the Church isn't the Latter-Day Male Saints. Edited June 24, 2014 by Brian 2.0
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I agree that there are other religions that do this. I'm curious on some of the larger civic organizations that may do this. Mason's for one.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Probably not if they are gay organizations for gay members only. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-gay rights organizations with straight members in the governing body. Organizations which are for a specific group often have governing member which are of that specific group. But the Church isn't the Latter-Day Male Saints. There maybe a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints but we're not it. We're "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" notice the small d. It's a fine distinction I know but there is a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. AKA Strangites. Notice no apostrophe.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 There maybe a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints but we're not it. We're "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" notice the small d. It's a fine distinction I know but there is a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. AKA Strangites. Notice no apostrophe. Wait... is this not the Strangites discussion board? I've wasted a lot of time here.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Wait... is this not the Strangites discussion board? I've wasted a lot of time here. Strangites are welcome here. IIRC we used to have one that posted here occasionally. I keep on telling myself I need to get a life outside of MDD.
The Nehor Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I'm curious if this is true of other organizations that people don't really take issue with? Our (in the United States) government leadership is largely restricted to citizens and in some cases only natural-born citizens and in some offices it is also restricted by age. Many organizations restrict leadership to those living in a certain area. Industry organizations are largely restricted to upper officers within the industry.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 Our (in the United States) government leadership is largely restricted to citizens and in some cases only natural-born citizens and in some offices it is also restricted by age.Funny you mention the natural born citizen thing. That's the one restriction that came to mind after I posted the thread. Could you imagine a church equivalent of converts only being allowed in certain lower level positions? Many organizations restrict leadership to those living in a certain area. But do their decisions affect those outside that certain area? For example the California legislators cannot have representatives from any city below Bakersfield yet California law covers below Bakersfield. Industry organizations are largely restricted to upper officers within the industry.I see that as more rising in the ranks, with no one restricted specifically from rising.
Tsuzuki Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I'm trying to think of other organizations where certain members of the organization do not have representation in the governing body of the organization.I know that the pre-1978 LDS Church didn't let black people have the priesthood, if that's of any relevance.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Funny you mention the natural born citizen thing. That's the one restriction that came to mind after I posted the thread.Could you imagine a church equivalent of converts only being allowed in certain lower level positions?But do their decisions affect those outside that certain area? For example the California legislators cannot have representatives from any city below Bakersfield yet California law covers below Bakersfield.I see that as more rising in the ranks, with no one restricted specifically from rising. As a convert I knew that it would take at least one year before I could go to the Temple. So while a TR isn't a prerequisite for most leadership positions. It is hard to find many leaders who don't. I live in southern California believe me we send numbskulls to Sacramento quite regularly.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I know that the pre-1978 LDS Church didn't let black people have the priesthood, if that's of any relevance. Not true. It was only blacks of African origin. Moreover JS ordained blacks to the Priesthood, and Polynesian blacks we're not consider blacks at all. It really was a convoluted mess and few if any objected when changed in 1978.
mfbukowski Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Probably not if they are gay organizations for gay members only. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-gay rights organizations with straight members in the governing body. Organizations which are for a specific group often have governing member which are of that specific group. But the Church isn't the Latter-Day Male Saints. No, but arguably the Priesthood is, and the Relief Society is the Latter-Day Female Saints. That was my point. In the temple, it is as if there are two separate temples, the sister's temple and the brother's temple. Of course the President does preside, but in my observation, the Matron handles everything on the sister's side. You know, kind of like marriage as we see it. No surprise there.
mfbukowski Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Could you imagine a church equivalent of converts only being allowed in certain lower level positions?How many prophets have been "converts" who were not among the first generation of the restoration, when everyone obviously was? How about apostles? I honestly don't know. President Uchtdorf obviously is,- how about others? It seems pretty rare even today?
Duncan Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I'm trying to think of other organizations where certain members of the organization do not have representation in the governing body of the organization. The Church is obviously made up of men and women, who are proclaimed as equal, but due to the offices of the priesthood only being available to men, the main governing body of the Church is comprised only of men. I'm not asking WHY that's the case. That's a different topic. I'm curious if this is true of other organizations that people don't really take issue with? Not trying to fight here, this is a serious question I've been thinking about. ETA: I understand there are other religions that do this... more interested in other non-religious organizations. if I understand your post here then family run businesses where you aren't part of the family. I am sure huge corporations that were family businesses like Marriotts and Ringlings and stuff are varied but smaller ones it's a tough go for sure
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 Not true. It was only blacks of African origin. Moreover JS ordained blacks to the Priesthood, and Polynesian blacks we're not consider blacks at all. It really was a convoluted mess and few if any objected when changed in 1978. I know of a few that objected. A friend's mission companion, a good old southern boy, went home after that Conference and laid on his bed banging his head against the wall saying, "I can't believe they gave the n*****d the Priesthood" over and over again. Hopefully he has since repented.
3DOP Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 (MADD) Mothers Against Drunk Driving seems to be limited in the sense to which you are referring.
Sleeper Cell Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) I'm trying to think of other organizations where certain members of the organization do not have representation in the governing body of the organization. ... more interested in other non-religious organizations. The army? Edited June 25, 2014 by Sleeper Cell 1
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 (MADD) Mothers Against Drunk Driving seems to be limited in the sense to which you are referring. Oh, I could tell you stories about the people in charge of that organization.
Storm Rider Posted June 25, 2014 Posted June 25, 2014 But Latter-day Saints are not specifically EXCLUDED from being an editor, on the board, or the council, correct? There just happen to be none right now, right? There may not be a person in the US Senate right now that eats rhubarb pie, but that doesn't mean rhubarb pie eaters can't be in the Senate. At the university there never has been a LDS as editor, on the board, or the council. What does that mean? What should change? Why?
Recommended Posts