Do L D S Sisters Really Have Their Own Organization?

[watermelongirl]

After reading through this thread so far, I wanted to add that I have felt for many years that women need to have a greater sense of ownership and responsibility within Relief Society. In generalized anecdotal terms, the wards I have been in fall well short of the potential capacity for doing good. Our lessons tend to be very shallow. When my favorite teacher tries to go further and deeper, she is chastised for not sticking to the manual. Our activities and service projects are very few and far between. We limit ourselves to preparing food for others.

 

I think this relates to some of the issues being discussed in the Reasons Wrongly Given Why Women Don't Have The Priesthood thread. The responsibilities of women and young women are not emphasized as they are for men. This is an area where I hope improvement becomes an even larger priority.

 

As to the "ownership" question...I served in an RS presidency very recently where the president was unnecessarily micromanaged by the bishop. He would make RS decisions without consulting her. She had little say in choosing her counselors and he ignored her pleas to meet with her and discuss issues of welfare or management.

 

This is obviously not how the system is supposed to work, and yet it is allowed to function that way if the bishop sees things in that light. When she tried to go "above his head," this RS president was simply released. I recently had a conversation with her replacement that led me to believe that these problems persist.

 

This highlights the problems with trying to view the RS as a women's organization. Yes it is an organization for women, but whether it is run by the women is completely at the benevolence of the men in charge. This is where I think many sisters become disillusioned by the system. Neylan McBaine tells of serving under a RS president who resigned from the church after being released because of these exact issues.

 

It is not sufficient to simply dismiss these things as "this particular bishop is exercising unrighteous authority." If it is run by the sisters, it should be run by the sisters. How do we resolve that enormous problem?

[Storm Rider]

In the Church when someone says I had little control over the counselors in the presidency I have to think, "What church do they go to?"; it has nothing in the common with the church I attend.  I have served in many capacities and I have seldom, if ever, been in a situation where counselor recommendations were not accepted.  The few exceptions were when there were alternative callings planned for the same individual.  

 

Micromanagement is the rare exception rather than the rule.  

[watermelongirl]

Micromanagement is the rare exception rather than the rule.

Dismissing someone's issues because you can't see it is less than helpful.

How do we know the scope of the problem? In the same article that I mentioned from Neylan McBain, she references a GA that acknowledges women are leaving the church. Can we really ignore all of this?

[Zakuska]

I do agree with Cal, that an RSP would need to consult with the Bishop to know who could be called (Who is temple endowed) and who isn't. Personally, I think endowed women should be considered first for callings to be filled, especially leadership. But there always could be exceptions made at the discretion of the RSP and Bishop counciling together. The Bishop also knows some intimate details about personal situatons that an RSP wouldn't neccessarily know. eg. who's lacking in faith, whos having marital strife, who's causing marital strife, who lied on their temple recommend and only follows the WOW on Sunday, who does and doesn't want a calling period, who doesn't want a calling due to situations at home, more generally, who can and can't hold certain calling due to past legal situations. (repented child molester)

Edited June 30, 2014 by Zakuska

[Tacenda]

Cal, your pm box is full. I shared a pm with tacenda and juliann. Tacenda said it might be better to share with you direcly. Thanks. Carry on.

Zakuska here is the youtube you linked me in the PM.  It is awesome, I found another one to add to it that is compelling about labels girls get foisted upon them. I guess commercials help change the world, haha.   

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjNcZvwjxI

[Yirgacheffe]

But there are no men as members of it so to suggest it is not a female organisation just seems silly to me.

We don't require a women's clinic to have no involvement with men.

But the men call the shots on leadership, that makes it an organization that women don't control.  The phrase "women's organization" implies that it belongs to women to run as they see fit and this is not the case.   What's wrong with calling it a church program for women?

[Calm]

Church program for women works for me. I don't see a problem with women's organisation either though as there are a number of women's stuff that doesn't include women having total control or input on them.

[frank_jessop]

Juliann brought up something that is an eye opening read; especially for those who think only the Kate Kelly types feel left out or unheard

There Is Always a Struggle: An Interview with Chieko N. Okazaki (former First Counselor of

General Relief Society)

Edited June 30, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Pahoran]

Dismissing someone's issues because you can't see it is less than helpful.

So, in your view, does no-one ever have "issues" that are overdrawn or exaggerated?

Or is it only women who never have "issues" that are overdrawn or exaggerated?

Is insisting on beating up a non-existent or negligible issue helpful?

How do we know the scope of the problem? In the same article that I mentioned from Neylan McBain, she references a GA that acknowledges women are leaving the church. Can we really ignore all of this?

Have you posted a link? I can't see one, so all we have is friend-of-a-friend information, i.e. a rumour. Until we know what he actually said, there's nothing for us to comment on.

There are some people who will threaten to leave unless the Church surrenders to their demands. If that's what they want to do, I don't see how we can stop them.

And I wonder whether we should even try.

Regards,

Pahoran

[watermelongirl]

So, in your view, does no-one ever have "issues" that are overdrawn or exaggerated?Or is it only women who never have "issues" that are overdrawn or exaggerated?Is insisting on beating up a non-existent or negligible issue helpful?Have you posted a link? I can't see one, so all we have is friend-of-a-friend information, i.e. a rumour. Until we know what he actually said, there's nothing for us to comment on.There are some people who will threaten to leave unless the Church surrenders to their demands. If that's what they want to do, I don't see how we can stop them.And I wonder whether we should even try.Regards,Pahoran

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-to-do-the-business-of-the-church-a-cooperative-paradigm

[Pahoran]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-to-do-the-business-of-the-church-a-cooperative-paradigm

Okay, so Elder Jensen said "people are leaving" and you translate that as "women are leaving." Granted that women are probably among those who are leaving, are only women visible to you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[watermelongirl]

Okay, so Elder Jensen said "people are leaving" and you translate that as "women are leaving." Granted that women are probably among those who are leaving, are only women visible to you?Regards,Pahoran

McBain talked about why she interpreted it that way. I have no quibble with her interpretation.

Edited July 1, 2014 by watermelongirl

[USU78]

After reading through this thread so far, I wanted to add that I have felt for many years that women need to have a greater sense of ownership and responsibility within Relief Society.

 

Huh  . . .  I've never felt a particular sense of ownership in any quorum I've ever been a part of . . . 

[Pahoran]

McBain talked about why she interpreted it that way. I have no quibble with her interpretation.

So for you, when the blogger speaks, the thinking has been done; is that it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

After reading through this thread so far, I wanted to add that I have felt for many years that women need to have a greater sense of ownership and responsibility within Relief Society. In generalized anecdotal terms, the wards I have been in fall well short of the potential capacity for doing good. Our lessons tend to be very shallow. When my favorite teacher tries to go further and deeper, she is chastised for not sticking to the manual. Our activities and service projects are very few and far between. We limit ourselves to preparing food for others.

 

I think this relates to some of the issues being discussed in the Reasons Wrongly Given Why Women Don't Have The Priesthood thread. The responsibilities of women and young women are not emphasized as they are for men. This is an area where I hope improvement becomes an even larger priority.

 

As to the "ownership" question...I served in an RS presidency very recently where the president was unnecessarily micromanaged by the bishop. He would make RS decisions without consulting her. She had little say in choosing her counselors and he ignored her pleas to meet with her and discuss issues of welfare or management.

 

This is obviously not how the system is supposed to work, and yet it is allowed to function that way if the bishop sees things in that light. When she tried to go "above his head," this RS president was simply released. I recently had a conversation with her replacement that led me to believe that these problems persist.

 

This highlights the problems with trying to view the RS as a women's organization. Yes it is an organization for women, but whether it is run by the women is completely at the benevolence of the men in charge. This is where I think many sisters become disillusioned by the system. Neylan McBaine tells of serving under a RS president who resigned from the church after being released because of these exact issues.

 

It is not sufficient to simply dismiss these things as "this particular bishop is exercising unrighteous authority." If it is run by the sisters, it should be run by the sisters. How do we resolve that enormous problem?

 

 

Our Bishop is like that too. If he micromanages the RS Pres. then he is all over everyone else as well. I know the YM Pres. doesn't even answer the phone when he calls! hahhahaha! so, he gets ambushed at Church but hey, it's his thing. Something that I have seen work to some extent, at least with our Bishop, is we show others how we want to be treated. So, when he would email, phone and write down on the sheet what he did for building cleaning I told him, you don't need to do any of that, just write it out on the sheet and we get the message, you don't need to let us know over and over again. I won't even begin to tell you about when ward conf. comes around and how many of the same emails, calls and in person unecessary details he gives everyone!!!!!!

 

Thing to remember is Bishops eventually get released, move or the poison starts to work

Edited July 1, 2014 by Duncan

[Storm Rider]

Dismissing someone's issues because you can't see it is less than helpful.

How do we know the scope of the problem? In the same article that I mentioned from Neylan McBain, she references a GA that acknowledges women are leaving the church. Can we really ignore all of this?

 

What is helpful is allowing an exception to be taken as the rule.  Having traveled around the world and been in many wards, I have never seen an example of what you indicated.  So how big is this problem?  Should we run for hills shouting the sky is falling or just simply admit that it is the exception rather than the rule?  

 

Further, who is dismissing the a problem with individuals wanting more power and authority?  Regardless of gender this is an old problem that exists with some people.  I know men who have dreamed about being in positions of what they perceive as those with power i.e. bishop, stake president, etc.  If you think that gender is the defining characteristic I think you are mistaken.  I am not prepared to admit that gender is THE defining characteristic that we need to be concerned about.  

What is a fact is some people care deeply about possessing and holding power over others.  These are not individuals, regardless of gender, that I think of as being ideal leaders or someone I appreciate.  

 

I acknowledge the fact that there are other individuals that only see the world in shades of gender.  It is the defining characteristic to all things.  It is not a leader; it is a female leader; it is not a cook, it is a female cook; it is not a director, it is a female director; etc.  

 

That helpful comment you had; you might want to listen to yourself.   

[Nofear]

So for you, when the blogger speaks, the thinking has been done; is that it?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Disappointing ad hominem. You're better than that.