HappyJackWagon Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 "We" can't. Short of revelation we cannot make women bishops or give them the priesthood or anything else.I am also generally not a fan in the gospel at working at second-best things. It is like debating the relative merits of two other faiths when you should be striving to live the gospel. While some adaptations are needed due to being in a fallen world they are minor in the scheme of things. I have not admitted that it never happens in real life. I have seen leaders rise above their limitations and serve as a mouthpiece of God.There is much that could be done short of calling women as bishops and ordaining them to a priesthood office. See my original comment that outlines some changes. To quote myself... The main argument I hear is that women want a place at the table to discuss and decide important issues within the church. It's hard to argue against that. You may be in primary, getting direction from the Primary Presidency but the Primary Pres. is getting direction from the Bishopric so on the ward level the Primary Presidency is the middle manager. I think that is part of their problem. Women at best are in the middle management position. Regarding Ward Council, the women are outnumbered 10-3 which can have impact on how comfortable they are to raise their voices. Like many things, much depends upon local leadership and how they interact and utilize women in their roles. Still, there are simple changes that wouldn't require any change to doctrine that would allow women to participate more. For example, is there a specific priesthood duty in serving as Sunday School President? Or could a woman serve there just as well and equalize the numbers in Ward Council. Or what about Ward Mission Leader, especially in a ward that has sister missionaries serving. In many ways it would make much more sense to have a woman serving as mission leader, again equalizing the ratio in Ward Council. What about having women serve as financial clerk? There is much that could change as a matter of policy that would give women a greater voice and role within the church leadership. Much could be done with simple policy changes. No revelation needed.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I admit I never really understood PEC. It seemed like everything in it could just be moved to Ward Council. Seemed like an excuse to have another meeting.I predict PEC will disappear before too long. Like you say, everything that needs to be accomplished there can be accomplished in ward council. So why have the Priesthood Executive Council at all? It is a meeting that purposely excludes women because they don't fit that PRIESTHOOD definition. I understand that many wards have RSP attend now but that is just another reason to get rid of the name since it doesn't fit any more, unless the church wants to give RSP a priesthood office.
The Nehor Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 There is much that could be done short of calling women as bishops and ordaining them to a priesthood office. See my original comment that outlines some changes. To quote myself...Much could be done with simple policy changes. No revelation needed.Policy changes in the church are not done on the principle of "wouldn't it be neat if?" and they still need revelation. Thinking it is a good idea is not sufficient reason to change policy though it may encourage someone to ask for revelation. The suggestions you make would all need to come at the general level and I doubt apostles would make such a change without getting confirming revelation.I expect changes to come in the church but they will be top-down.
ERayR Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I predict PEC will disappear before too long. Like you say, everything that needs to be accomplished there can be accomplished in ward council. So why have the Priesthood Executive Council at all? It is a meeting that purposely excludes women because they don't fit that PRIESTHOOD definition. I understand that many wards have RSP attend now but that is just another reason to get rid of the name since it doesn't fit any more, unless the church wants to give RSP a priesthood office. I don't think so as it is a place where certain confidentual things can be discussed that would not be appropriate in ward council.
The Nehor Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I don't think so as it is a place where certain confidentual things can be discussed that would not be appropriate in ward council.In general when we had confidential matters we would discuss them in bishopric meeting and sometimes invite the leader involved to join us or the Bishop would get the information and share it with the bishopric.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I don't think so as it is a place where certain confidentual things can be discussed that would not be appropriate in ward council.So who exactly gets cut out of the "confidential" things said. Is it inappropriate for women to hear confidential things because they do not hold the priesthood? You're kind of making my point for me. Thanks. PEC is a good example for how women are systemically cut out of leadership and decisionmaking. 1
ERayR Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 So who exactly gets cut out of the "confidential" things said. Is it inappropriate for women to hear confidential things because they do not hold the priesthood? You're kind of making my point for me. Thanks. PEC is a good example for how women are systemically cut out of leadership and decisionmaking. Women are not cut out. I think most RS presidents are involve in much confidential situations. Hardly cutting the women out. PEC (in my experience) has included Quorum Presidents and RS presidents thus covering both male and female representatives of virtually every ward member.
The Nehor Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) So who exactly gets cut out of the "confidential" things said. Is it inappropriate for women to hear confidential things because they do not hold the priesthood? You're kind of making my point for me. Thanks. PEC is a good example for how women are systemically cut out of leadership and decisionmaking.For confidential things it is important to cut people out who do not need to know. I would avoid discussing such matters in PEC or Ward Council unless everyone there needed to know. When someone privately confesses their sins should we make sure that it is passed on to an equal number of men and women to make sure it is balanced. Pretty sure if I was the person confessing I would not appreciate that blow for equality.Sometimes women (and men) need to know and sometimes not. Hearing confidential information is not initiation into some kind of "No girls allowed" secret club. Edited July 29, 2015 by The Nehor 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 For confidential things it is important to cut people out who do not need to know. I would avoid discussing such matters in PEC or Ward Council unless everyone there needed to know. When someone privately confesses their sins should we make sure that it is passed on to an equal number of men and women to make sure it is balanced. Pretty sure if I was the person confessing I would not appreciate that blow for equality.Sometimes women (and men) need to know and sometimes not. Hearing confidential information is not initiation into some kind of "No girls allowed" secret club.But the comment I was responding to only cut out the women. It systemically cuts out the women because they don't need to know but the men (priesthood holders) it is needful for them to know. Do you not see a double standard here? Frankly, no bishop should be discussing any confession with anybody without the confessors approval. Regarding women participating in PEC: That's great, but it's not really PEC then is it since participants are not part of the Priesthood Executive Council
Gray Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Policy changes in the church are not done on the principle of "wouldn't it be neat if?" and they still need revelation. Thinking it is a good idea is not sufficient reason to change policy though it may encourage someone to ask for revelation. The suggestions you make would all need to come at the general level and I doubt apostles would make such a change without getting confirming revelation.I expect changes to come in the church but they will be top-down. Where are these revelations recorded? I think they seek inspiration in even mundane decisions, but in an LDS context revelation is probably the wrong word.
Ahab Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I just listened to an excellent podcast that Bill Reel put out. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/07/153-female-ordination/It was one of the better conversations about female ordination I've heard. They panel members discuss the possibilties of what female ordination would look like and it got me thinking. These ordain women advocates often bring up the fact that the men get most or all of the decision making power. Then I realized that I don't have much of any decision making authority. I am ordained to the office of Elder in the priesthood but I am now a primary worker. I have to answer to women. These women who are over me sit in ward council and are part of the decision making process. I believe that men and women are equal and that they should work hand-in-hand in the work of the church. I like to think of the relief society as a companion to the priesthood. I have never been a big advocate for the ordain women movement but I do however feel that there is a lot the church can do to allow the relief society to live up to its full potential.Sure there is a lot more that women can and should do, and a lot more that men can and should too, too. The brethren are pretty much agreed on that point.The order(s) of the priesthood are and should remain only for men, though, at least as far being ordained to the priesthood is concerned. Unless maybe our Lord wants us to start up a whole other order of the priesthood for women. The order(s) we have now are the order(s) of the SON(s) of God, If women are to be ordained to an order of the priesthood it would only be to an order of the DAUGHTER(s) of God.Women are not and shouldn't be in an order of sons, and men aren't and shouldn't be in an order for daughters. 1
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Where are these revelations recorded? I think they seek inspiration in even mundane decisions, but in an LDS context revelation is probably the wrong word. They are not recorded. The vast majority of revelation ever received is not recorded.
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 But the comment I was responding to only cut out the women. It systemically cuts out the women because they don't need to know but the men (priesthood holders) it is needful for them to know. Do you not see a double standard here? No, I don't. The Bishop needs to know and often his counselors need to know. Sometimes other Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders need to know. You can argue that some of the Bishopric should be women (take it up with God) but we are not going to tell the Relief Society President and the Young Women's President and the Primary President just so women can feel included in knowing about Brother Fornicator's problems with heroin, porn, and a non-member sexually active girlfriend in El Paso. Frankly, no bishop should be discussing any confession with anybody without the confessors approval. I disagree. Another bishop may need to know. Counselors may need to know. In some situations others including other Priesthood and Auxiliary leaders may need to know. Often the bishop is the only one who needs to know and that is as it should be. If disciplinary action is taken others obviously need to know. Regarding women participating in PEC: That's great, but it's not really PEC then is it since participants are not part of the Priesthood Executive Council Guests are often invited to meetings. It is still PEC. I have seen missionaries (Elders and Sisters) invited to PEC and they are not part of the Council. I have seen the Relief Society President invited. I have seen ward missionaries invited in certain instances. I was in one bishopric meeting which we invited the Relief Society President in for a large chunk of it. She was new in the ward and just called and did not know a lot of people so we walked her through what we knew of that was coming up in Relief Society in terms of programs and activities (the previous leadership had largely left the ward). We also recommended some names for counselors and teachers. Some she took and got confirmation on and some she chose on her own through that form of revelation.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 #1 No, I don't. The Bishop needs to know and often his counselors need to know. Sometimes other Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders need to know. You can argue that some of the Bishopric should be women (take it up with God) but we are not going to tell the Relief Society President and the Young Women's President and the Primary President just so women can feel included in knowing about Brother Fornicator's problems with heroin, porn, and a non-member sexually active girlfriend in El Paso. #2 I disagree. Another bishop may need to know. Counselors may need to know. In some situations others including other Priesthood and Auxiliary leaders may need to know. Often the bishop is the only one who needs to know and that is as it should be. If disciplinary action is taken others obviously need to know. #3 Guests are often invited to meetings. It is still PEC. I have seen missionaries (Elders and Sisters) invited to PEC and they are not part of the Council. I have seen the Relief Society President invited. I have seen ward missionaries invited in certain instances. I was in one bishopric meeting which we invited the Relief Society President in for a large chunk of it. She was new in the ward and just called and did not know a lot of people so we walked her through what we knew of that was coming up in Relief Society in terms of programs and activities (the previous leadership had largely left the ward). We also recommended some names for counselors and teachers. Some she took and got confirmation on and some she chose on her own through that form of revelation.#1There is an inherent division between priesthood holder and non-priesthood holder and the only reason a priesthood holder needs to know specific information is because he's a priesthood holder. It's circular. #2 You are absolutely wrong. No one who receives a confession is authorized to share it with anyone unless the individual gives that approval. Not another bishop, not a counselor, not a stake president. A bishop may tell the counselors that Bro. _________ is not available for a calling etc but cannot share any information about the confession. Even in the case of a disciplinary council the bishop can only share detail of confession with the person's permission. If the person does not give permission the bishop must provide other evidence or the DC cannot be held for the confessed issue. #3 A RSP visiting PEC as a guest is not an equal participant with the council members. She is a guest and the dynamics are not the same. *Bold and numbering are mine
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 #1There is an inherent division between priesthood holder and non-priesthood holder and the only reason a priesthood holder needs to know specific information is because he's a priesthood holder. It's circular. #2 You are absolutely wrong. No one who receives a confession is authorized to share it with anyone unless the individual gives that approval. Not another bishop, not a counselor, not a stake president. A bishop may tell the counselors that Bro. _________ is not available for a calling etc but cannot share any information about the confession. Even in the case of a disciplinary council the bishop can only share detail of confession with the person's permission. If the person does not give permission the bishop must provide other evidence or the DC cannot be held for the confessed issue. #3 A RSP visiting PEC as a guest is not an equal participant with the council members. She is a guest and the dynamics are not the same. *Bold and numbering are mine1) No, the reason they need to know is they are a Priesthood leader.2) I meant share only that someone is restricted from something or unable to do something not that every salacious detail must be shared.3) Who the hell cares? I cannot imagine going through life that desperate for being in the inner circle or being seen to have or be close to power. It must be exhausting.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 3) Who the hell cares? I cannot imagine going through life that desperate for being in the inner circle or being seen to have or be close to power. It must be exhausting.Spoken like a man of privilege, not recognizing why a woman would want the same consideration, input, respect etc.I don't mean that nearly as critically as it sounds because we are all blind to our own privilege in some ways, but saying "who cares" indicates that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that you have greater privilege than others and you're fine with that. 1
Gray Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 They are not recorded. The vast majority of revelation ever received is not recorded. Then it's not binding as revelation for the church, right?
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Spoken like a man of privilege, not recognizing why a woman would want the same consideration, input, respect etc.I don't mean that nearly as critically as it sounds because we are all blind to our own privilege in some ways, but saying "who cares" indicates that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that you have greater privilege than others and you're fine with that.Spoken like a true internet (in other words ineffectual) social justice warrior. Should I check my privilege for you?I am privileged in just about every conceivable way. I am white, male, born to wealthy and loving parents, have a family where I love my siblings and their spouses and children, am blessed with intelligence and health, was trained from youth in how to handle this world, and make a far above average salary in a job I enjoy most of the time. Add to that that I was raised in the gospel, recognize the Holy Ghost, and love God and my life is pretty good. Except for the fact that many tell I am damned from exaltation for being single life is good. I am grateful for this. Most people do not have such advantages. I do not know why I have them. Maybe I was awesome in premortality. Maybe I was such a screwup that anything short of this situation would mean I would fail.I said "who cares" because I meant nobody should care not the craziness you said it meant. I did not enjoy spending an extra three hours at church when I could have been at home reading a good book or napping or doing just about anything else but sitting in a room wearing my least comfortable clothing talking about Ward business. I would have gladly abdicated my "privilege" to anyone who wanted it but I couldn't. You are right I do not consider that privilege because I am not convinced it is a privilege. It is a duty. A duty I accept. I also have just enough faith in a loving God to believe that he sees it as necessary. There is probably a reason I got the job instead of someone who wanted it.I find it disturbing that you equate respect and consideration with being able to attend church meetings. You condemn most of the church to insignificance by this characterization. You equate respect with positions of prominence. I think a review of the Savior's counsel on those who seek the best seats may be in order. 3
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Then it's not binding as revelation for the church, right?The results of the revelation may be. So far as I know no one writes down the inspiration and revelation that leads to calling an apostle or changing a church policy in the General Handbook but the office and the policy are still binding. 1
ERayR Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Spoken like a true internet (in other words ineffectual) social justice warrior. Should I check my privilege for you?I am privileged in just about every conceivable way. I am white, male, born to wealthy and loving parents, have a family where I love my siblings and their spouses and children, am blessed with intelligence and health, was trained from youth in how to handle this world, and make a far above average salary in a job I enjoy most of the time. Add to that that I was raised in the gospel, recognize the Holy Ghost, and love God and my life is pretty good. Except for the fact that many tell I am damned from exaltation for being single life is good. I am grateful for this. Most people do not have such advantages. I do not know why I have them. Maybe I was awesome in premortality. Maybe I was such a screwup that anything short of this situation would mean I would fail.I said "who cares" because I meant nobody should care not the craziness you said it meant. I did not enjoy spending an extra three hours at church when I could have been at home reading a good book or napping or doing just about anything else but sitting in a room wearing my least comfortable clothing talking about Ward business. I would have gladly abdicated my "privilege" to anyone who wanted it but I couldn't. You are right I do not consider that privilege because I am not convinced it is a privilege. It is a duty. A duty I accept. I also have just enough faith in a loving God to believe that he sees it as necessary. There is probably a reason I got the job instead of someone who wanted it.I find it disturbing that you equate respect and consideration with being able to attend church meetings. You condemn most of the church to insignificance by this characterization. You equate respect with positions of prominence. I think a review of the Savior's counsel on those who seek the best seats may be in order. For some reason I can't give rep points today but if I could give you one I would. I equate respect to having my fellow ward members come up to me and shake my hand or when they ask my opinion not by which meetings I am required to attend. 2
Stone holm Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This issue has been pretty much beat to death. The First Presidency is not interested in our opinions on the matter, they only talk to God. Our place is to bow and obey, or leave the Church.
ERayR Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This issue has been pretty much beat to death. The First Presidency is not interested in our opinions on the matter, they only talk to God. Our place is to bow and obey, or leave the Church. Oh I believe there are several other alternatives other than the ones you mention.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This issue has been pretty much beat to death. The First Presidency is not interested in our opinions on the matter, they only talk to God. Our place is to bow and obey, or leave the Church. Yikes. I hope you're saying this tongue in cheek. There are so many problems with this very short post. 1- Does the First Presidency really not care about the opinions of members?2- They only talk to God? When is the last time they had a conversation with deity where he told them what he wanted them to do?3- We do not bow to the first presidency or any leader4- We obey God, not leaders5- You're suggesting we should leave the church if we don't bow to leaders and obey their every word. Scary. Again, was your post in jest? I hope so.
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Yikes. I hope you're saying this tongue in cheek. There are so many problems with this very short post. 1- Does the First Presidency really not care about the opinions of members?2- They only talk to God? When is the last time they had a conversation with deity where he told them what he wanted them to do?3- We do not bow to the first presidency or any leader4- We obey God, not leaders5- You're suggesting we should leave the church if we don't bow to leaders and obey their every word. Scary. Again, was your post in jest? I hope so.1) They care because they care about people. They just do not lead or make decisions based on those opinions.2) My guess would be today. I know I did today.3) No, we bow to the God who put them there and respect the office they have been given and the calling they got from God.4) I strive to obey both.5) If you do not believe that the Apostles are called by God and directed by him then the Church is a fraud and I would leave if I believed that. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 1) They care because they care about people. They just do not lead or make decisions based on those opinions.2) My guess would be today. I know I did today.3) No, we bow to the God who put them there and respect the office they have been given and the calling they got from God.4) I strive to obey both.5) If you do not believe that the Apostles are called by God and directed by him then the Church is a fraud and I would leave if I believed that.Did he speak back? What words did he say?
Recommended Posts