Anybody else feel this way about Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching?

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Since we're being honest, your comment is short sighted and immature.  It was childish of you to lash out at this man, who is trying to serve his quorum well.  He is serving in a calling he did not seek and is being asked to uphold standards he did not set, but he is willing to honor his covenants and do his best.

You owe him an apology and should consider spending time pondering your own covenants you have made.

Since we're being honest and stuff...

I feel duly chastened. I'm pretty sure you've served in my Elder's Quorum Presidency before. Or maybe your twin. Perhaps you should call me in for a PPI.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JarMan said:

I feel duly chastened. I'm pretty sure you've served in my Elder's Quorum Presidency before. Or maybe your twin. Perhaps you should call me in for a PPI.

I don't see how answering a survey is in any way lashing out at the elder's quorum president. I wish I'd done something like that when I was elder's quorum president, as it might have helped me understand where quorum members were coming from. I'd rather have someone be brutally honest and tell me how they feel so I can actually try to improve things than have them stay silent because they don't want to hurt my feelings.

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

For the record, I never said anything about oppressing women. I simply said I don't agree with the notion that male roles in the family and church are a product of the sexual division of labor among hunter-gatherer societies. As others have said, that is an outdated concept, and I'm surprised it's still believed.

The fact that you took that post to mean that you said something about "oppressing women" should go far to explain to others why we don't get along.  I am posting this for the others and not for you

Now, for you:  Tell your daughter that when she gets to attend the temple she must talk to someone who knows about the blessings women receive that men can only dream about and she will know that regardless of what she doesn't understand about the priesthood she is given gratis, what men have to work a lifetime to get through faithfulness.  I suppose you will never know that though, but I hope you come back and discover it for yourself.  I wish you well John but you drive me crazy and I cannot talk to you.

[jkwilliams]

Never mind.

Edited May 20, 2016 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So, putting aside the baggage of the metaphysical elements of the term and focusing purely on the pragmatic, I think you raise some of the common myths, and I'm no sociologist, but the skeptic in me wants to push back on your assumptions.

First, I think the, God is watching us motivation, while effective in some ways, has its limits and also negative elements.  I would propose from my observations that this frequently inspires negative elements of fear based motivation, more often than it inspires altruistic type motivations within our contemporary culture.  

You seem to assert that men are by nature inferior psychologically and require this kind of motivation to be successful.  I find this assumption somewhat offensive and an outdated paradigm that unfairly positions men.  The idea that priesthood is needed to compensate for an inferior position is part of the folk lore often parroted in Mormon circles.

Look at how men perform throughout society outside of the Mormon church, whether in business, government, non-profits, social groups, etc.  Successful examples are numberless, without any need for keys to perform their jobs.  Regular group dynamics apply everywhere, I don't see anything uniquely superior about the Mormon structure that can be attributed to this construct around keys.   

We can discuss this, but to be honest, this the underlined sentence threw me off - I had no clue what it meant and the whole post kind of went downhill from there.  

I also said nothing about men being psychologically inferior.  Different, unquestionably.  

Keys are just evidence of authority, so you are saying that men don't have authority in society?  I am afraid I disagree.

I didn't answer because I had no clue what you were talking about

Edited May 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Sorry for getting sucked into this again.

Edited May 20, 2016 by jkwilliams

[ERMD]

21 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I feel duly chastened. I'm pretty sure you've served in my Elder's Quorum Presidency before. Or maybe your twin. Perhaps you should call me in for a PPI.

It wouldn't do any good.

You posted these opinions.  Face the fact that not everyone is going to line up and agree with you or sympathize with your perceived plight.  The "chastening" wasn't done with near the vitriol you unleashed on your brother.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

It wouldn't do any good.

You posted these opinions.  Face the fact that not everyone is going to line up and agree with you or sympathize with your perceived plight.  The "chastening" wasn't done with near the vitriol you unleashed on your brother.

In what way did he unleash vitriol on his brother? 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We can discuss this, but to be honest, this the underlined sentence threw me off - I had no clue what it meant and the whole post kind of went downhill from there.  

I also said nothing about men being psychologically inferior.  Different, unquestionably.  

Keys are just evidence of authority, so you are saying that men don't have authority in society?  I am afraid I disagree.

I didn't answer because I had no clue what you were talking about

I agree that priesthood keys are just evidence of authority, priesthood aurhority.  And I would add that priesthood authority is the same thing as priesthood power.  God's power. The authority/power to do what God wants done with the power/authority he gives us.

My favorite analogy for all this came from one of my stake presidents when he had just appointed a new bishop to my ward, with his choice ratified all the way up through the channels of the church, and also through God, he said.  He compared having the keys for the ward to having some keys to drive a bus, with the bus representing my ward.  The bishop then being appointed to be the driver of the bus.  Or A driver,  I should say, because some other people had the keys to drive the bus too.  Like the stake president, himself, and the Church president too, and I'm not sure if I remember correctly but I think he also said the Church president's counselors in the First Presidency.

Not that the bishop was the best man in the ward or for the job, necessarily,  but that he had been appointed to drive the bus and to be given a set of keys so that he could drive the bus.

And so as we say, through the ordinances of God the power of God is manifested, with it then being fairly obvious to everybody in attendance that the man who was then appointed to be the new bishop was the one who had been appointed as the driver of the bus, or our ward.  And from that moment on, he drove it and pretty much everybody there knew that he was the new bus driver.

I think it's important for men to know who is supposed to be driving.

[JarMan]

26 minutes ago, ERMD said:

It wouldn't do any good.

You posted these opinions.  Face the fact that not everyone is going to line up and agree with you or sympathize with your perceived plight.  The "chastening" wasn't done with near the vitriol you unleashed on your brother.

You've apparently not read the whole thread. I suggest you do that before coming after your pound of flesh.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We can discuss this, but to be honest, this the underlined sentence threw me off - I had no clue what it meant and the whole post kind of went downhill from there.  

I also said nothing about men being psychologically inferior.  Different, unquestionably.  

I didn't answer because I had no clue what you were talking about

Sorry for the confusion. 

You said “Believing you have a God-given responsibility makes one feel that one really should take the responsibility seriously”

One manifestation of this God-given responsibility concept is in the form of fear based motivation.  Many men from my observations inside Mormon culture are motivated to carry out their duties, i.e. home teaching or other calling related duties, largely because of a fear of future judgement.  I believe this thinking has more negative costs than positive benefits for our culture. 

You said “Quite honestly I think that is why men have the priesthood, to give them a psychological structure of leadership… I think evolutionary forces have programmed men to think that way about leadership and is largely what gets up off the couch to go to work and earn a living or even do our home teaching. “ 

After reading your other quotes about anthropological research and the division of labor theories, I can better see where you get this idea.  I’m sensitive to the gender role stereotypes in the church.  It think they are generally old fashioned and demeaning of women especially, as well as men. 

Assuming the research you quoted was an accurate representation of sexual dynamics for our ancestors, I still don’t see this as justification for priesthood to be exclusively for males, or for the idea that males need the priesthood to perform their duties, or the idea that males are somehow deficient, which even if you didn’t intend, I have heard that sentiment many times in church. 

Quote

Keys are just evidence of authority, so you are saying that men don't have authority in society?  I am afraid I disagree.

I'm saying the opposite, so maybe we do agree. :-)  I'm saying men in society don't have priesthood, or keys, and they are successful without this auspice of authority from God.  I admit that within our society men and women aren't on equal footing, which is unfortunate, but there isn't any implied God given attribute that lends extra clout to a man's position in the secular world.  

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

You've apparently not read the whole thread. I suggest you do that before coming after your pound of flesh.

I have no interest in reading the whole thread.

You asked for opinions; you're getting them.  Wait...your EQP asked for opinions too, didn't he?

[JarMan]

47 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I have no interest in reading the whole thread.

You asked for opinions; you're getting them.  Wait...your EQP asked for opinions too, didn't he?

I'm sure you're a good dude standing up for what you believe in. But if you don't read the whole thread you're missing out on some important context and information.  And without that you're not really contributing anything meaningful to the conversation. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by JarMan

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I'm sure you're a good dude standing up for what you believe in. But if you don't read the whole thread you're missing out on some important context and information.  And without that you're not really contributing anything meaningful to the conversation. 

You're wrong in thinking that he isn't and I challenge you to a wrestling match tomorrow morning at dawn.

Please bring enough muffins and doughnuts for everybody.

[Rivers]

I personally think Elder's Quorum and home teaching have great potential.  The problem in my experience is that people are just too busy really make things work the way they are supposed to. I don't even know who my home teachers are and I have been in the ward I'm in for over a year.

[flameburns623]

On 5/19/2016 at 0:38 AM, JarMan said:

So we've got a new EQP. He's a young guy with a young family, just graduated from BYU and teaches seminary for a living. He's a genuinely good guy and he decided to hand out a short survey on Sunday asking about what we liked and disliked in EQ.  I wrote down that I hate everything about EQ. I hate the manual. I hate home teaching. I hate being home taught. Elder's Quorum is the worst hour of my week unless my HT's were over that week, then it's the second worst hour. 

Anyway, I feel a twinge of regret about survey-ambushing him like that, but I answered honestly like he asked us to. So now that I've lain down on the virtual couch, can anyone tell me: am I normal or is it common to feel this dissatisfied with everything EQ related? 

I always liked both Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching.

Elder's Quorum, because we are called as priests, servant-leaders of our God to others. The manuals lessons, and class interactions are helps in knowing when, where, how, if, and why to serve and/or assert leadership. Common sense and wisdom are aspects as well. But common sense and wisdom are gleaned and shaped at least partly by learning.

Moreover: what I learned in Priesthood Quorum had secular applications for me when I was promoted to the role of a supervisor and later manager at work. Home Teaching helped me to be a better trainer and teacher; and, a better friend. The lessons have had ongoing value for me as a husband and as a father. I am, IMHO, a better man for what has been imparted me through Elder's Quorum.

I had at least one home teaching assignee who was deeply troubled as well as addicted to alcohol. I worked with him for well over a year to become his friend. I had him in my own home for meals. I took him groceries from the Bishop's Storehouse. 

And, long years ago, when I was even poorer than I am today, the rustbucket car I was driving dropped a transmission on Highway 64/40 at Grand Boulevard in St. Louis. On the bridge overlooking a minor landmark, a one-time fast-food restaurant shaped like a flying saucer. 

It was 11:30 at night. Buses, in St. Louis, stopped running at midnight  in those days; and there were no more going my direction, even if I'd had bus fare.

What I had, in fact, were a couple of quarters. And, just by happenstance, my home teacher's phone number. 

I walked down to the UFO restaurant, called him up, and explained the situation. As luck would have it, his own car was in the shop, but he said he would call around. I spent my other quarter calling another friend, whose answering machine took the quarter. I left a message, and just as I hung up, my HT called back and said someone was on their way. (As I say, you can't live in St. Louis and not know about that flying-saucer shaped restaurant). 

"Someone" turned out to be the Ward Bishop--btw, bishops look funny not wearing a sport jacket and tie, lol. He was going to call AAA and tow my car for me but as he pulled in, we saw the City tow service pulling off with my vehicle (it was on the bridge, so somewhat a road hazard).

So the bishop just got me to my apartment. I never retrieved the car, incidentally: I'd bought it for $250.00, and the transmission folks said the repairs would be $350.00.

Some of the reasons I believe in Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching 

 

Edited May 21, 2016 by flameburns623
Typos

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I always liked both Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching.

Elder's Quorum, because we are called as priests, servant-leaders of our God to others. The manuals lessons, and class interactions are helps in knowing when, where, how, if, and why to serve and/or assert leadership. Common sense and wisdom are aspects as well. But common sense and wisdom are gleaned and shaped at least partly by learning.

Moreover: what I learned in Priesthood Quorum had secular applications for me when I was promoted to the role of a supervisor and later manager at work. Home Teaching helped me to be a better trainer and teacher; and, a better friend. The lessons have had ongoing value for me as a husband and as a father. I am, IMHO, a better man for what has been imparted me through Elder's Quorum.

I had at least one home teaching assignee who was deeply troubled as well as addicted to alcohol. I worked with him for well over a year to become his friend. I had him in my own home for meals. I took him groceries from the Bishop's Storehouse. 

And, long years ago, when I was even poorer than I am today, the rustbucket car I was driving dropped a transmission on Highway 64/40 at Grand Boulevard in St. Louis. On the bridge overlooking a minor landmark, a one-time fast-food restaurant shaped like a flying saucer. 

It was 11:30 at night. Buses, in St. Louis, stopped running at midnight and there were no more going my direction, even if I'd had bus fare.

What I had, in fact, were a couple of quarters. And, just by happenstance, my home teacher's phone number. I walked down to the UFO restaurant, called him up, and explained the situation. As luck would have it, his own car was in the shop, but he said he would call around. I spent my other quarter calling another friend, whose answering machine took the quarter. I left a message, and just as I hung up, my HT called back and said someone was on their way. (As I say, you can't live in St. Louis and not know about that flying-saucer shaped restaurant). 

"Someone" turned out to be the Ward Bishop--btw, bishops look funny not wearing a sport jacket and tie, lol. He was going to call AAA and tow my car for me but as he pulled in, we saw the City row service pulling off with my vehicle (it was on the bridge, so sonewhat a road hazard).

So the bishop just got me to my apartment. I never retrieved the car, incidentally: I'd bought it for $250 00, and the transmission folks said the repairs would be $350 00.

Some of the reasons I believe in Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching 

 

What a wonderful experience.  I am glad that you shared this. 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

You're wrong in thinking that he isn't and I challenge you to a wrestling match tomorrow morning at dawn.

Please bring enough muffins and doughnuts for everybody.

I am getting up to make doughnuts at 2:30 in the morning..where do you want me to send them?  What kind??  Who ever wins this gets bavarian cream!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

She's already been through the temple, thanks, and I actually talked to her about all that way back when she was a young girl. Either way, I was not attempting to distort your position, and I was not the only person who read your post the way I did. But it doesn't much matter, does it? I drive you crazy, and that's all I need to know. I can't promise I won't respond to your posts in the future, but I understand if you feel you can't interact with me. It's a shame, but there it is.

 

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I guess you wanted me to have the last word. Fair enough. Be well, brother. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

You said “Believing you have a God-given responsibility makes one feel that one really should take the responsibility seriously”

One manifestation of this God-given responsibility concept is in the form of fear based motivation.  Many men from my observations inside Mormon culture are motivated to carry out their duties, i.e. home teaching or other calling related duties, largely because of a fear of future judgement.  I believe this thinking has more negative costs than positive benefits for our culture.

You are probably right, but that has nothing to do with what I said.  Fear makes one take responsibilities seriously.  I agree that it is a negative emotion and should be overcome.

On the other hand it can also be a positive motivator- (not fear, but responsibility).  I never in my life was more aware of my sex-role and responsibility than when I held my first child in my arms for the first time.  The sense of responsibility was palpable, and I felt unconditional love for that little being in my arms, and her helplessness and the knowledge that she was totally dependent on us.   That can definitely make one want to go out, grab your spear, metaphorically or otherwise and slay the beast metaphorically or otherwise.

You will learn that I say what I mean- spinning what I said with your interpretations is usually.... just that.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You said “Quite honestly I think that is why men have the priesthood, to give them a psychological structure of leadership… I think evolutionary forces have programmed men to think that way about leadership and is largely what gets up off the couch to go to work and earn a living or even do our home teaching. “ 

After reading your other quotes about anthropological research and the division of labor theories, I can better see where you get this idea.  I’m sensitive to the gender role stereotypes in the church.  It think they are generally old fashioned and demeaning of women especially, as well as men. 

Assuming the research you quoted was an accurate representation of sexual dynamics for our ancestors, I still don’t see this as justification for priesthood to be exclusively for males, or for the idea that males need the priesthood to perform their duties, or the idea that males are somehow deficient, which even if you didn’t intend, I have heard that sentiment many times in church.

I don't care if they are considered "old fashioned"- that does not make them inaccurate and you have given no evidence they are inaccurate, though that itself is kind of irrelevant. The sentence is about what I think and I still think it.  I think it is clear that sex roles evolved- if they did not, what is your explanation for their existence?  I have seen no other explanation from anyone.  To do so would be to deny social evolution and I don't think I will find anthropologists who will agree with that.

And then we have the philosophical angle on all of this which I find more convincing than anthropology  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/

Perhaps Katherine the Great will respond- she is a poster here, who is very informed on these issues.  I would just like to see a theory saying that these roles did not evolve.  Sex roles in themselves are not demeaning of women at all.  My whole point is that we have "gender roles" for a reason.  Of course some of the ROLES are oppressive- and that has to end, but roles in themselves are NOT oppressive.  Oppression is in the eye of the beholder.  If you had read the other posts you would see that I felt that the temple blessings were clearing FAVORING women.  I am sorry we cannot discuss those, but I don't think you would disagree with sex roles which favored women.   I have no problem with that- I think women deserve to be favored because of all the ...... stuff they have had to put up with from men, forever.

Quote

Assuming the research you quoted was an accurate representation of sexual dynamics for our ancestors, I still don’t see this as justification for priesthood to be exclusively for males, or for the idea that males need the priesthood to perform their duties, or the idea that males are somehow deficient, which even if you didn’t intend, I have heard that sentiment many times in church.

I of course never said any of these things.  I think that eventually we will understand that Heavenly Mother has her own form of priesthood and we will grow to understand the Divine Pair.  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

I suspect that the Holy Ghost is a feminine spirit but I am not sure about that.

It is a simple fact that the temple blessings favor women.  I do not think that means that men are "deficient" but just that we are different from women, and I think that is obvious for anyone who has been married a long time.

Edited May 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Sky]

On May 20, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Stargazer said:

Sounds like you would do well to try to get to know some of the people in your quorum.  Are they a particularly prickly lot, who look down their noses at everyone else?  You don't really need to forge meaningful connections, and anyway, people generally start with acquaintanceship before moving on to friendship.  I would suggest that you make it a point to learn one new name per week, and maybe find out what they do for a living.  You might be surprised to find that once you show some interest in other people, that they may magically return the favor by showing interest in you.

I recommend "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.  

Edited to add:

Your signature line says: "As I have loved you, Love one another.  This new commandment:  Love one another.  By this shall men know Ye are my disciples, If ye have love, One to another."  If you consider this to be something meaningful, rather than being just some nice window-dressing to put in your posts, then let me gently suggest that loving one another starts by not being standoffish, but actually exerting yourself to get to know those other people in your quorum.  You might be pleasantly surprised by the result.  Or, perhaps, you will find that they are all a bunch of self-involved, close-minded, and stuck-up clods.  Either way, you learn something.

Fair enough!   I will try it!  

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 9:28 AM, stemelbow said:

I enjoy going home teaching but really don't care to be home taught--which is good because in the 10 years I've been in the ward we've been home taught maybe twice.  We've also been doing, what we call, a "pilot program" for years.  We assign everyone home teachers but scale frequency of visits on need.  My house, being a house of a full family of actives, is given a frequency of being visited twice a year.  So it goes from twice a year (active members, fully participating) to once a month (not really active and typically viewed as needing help).  You have to keep track of who you need to visit each month, as opposed to just visiting everyone, but it's ok.  Better than the regular.  The problem is, of course, once home teachers start showing up monthly to someone's house, that household knows immediately they are seen as some sort of project. 

 

We got an update over the weekend.  Added to our home teaching program is the option for us as individual home teachers and the heads of the families we're assigned decide if we need to home teach a family or not.  The caveat is the family we're assigned has to be active.  But if they are active and they don't want any home teachers, we can essentially cross them off our list and report them as visited anywho.  I mean it doesn't mean much in practice, we're really only supposed to be actually visiting active families twice a year as it is.  But it's an interesting addition to our program.  Home teaching is pretty easy when you are assigned 2-3 families and one is active--which is about our current rate (we have in the range of 40% activity rate).  I admit I kind of miss the days when I had 15 or so homes to visit each month.  That was tiring but I always enjoyed actual visits in people's homes.  Ah well, goes to show I'm never satisfied. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We got an update over the weekend.  Added to our home teaching program is the option for us as individual home teachers and the heads of the families we're assigned decide if we need to home teach a family or not.  The caveat is the family we're assigned has to be active.  But if they are active and they don't want any home teachers, we can essentially cross them off our list and report them as visited anywho.  I mean it doesn't mean much in practice, we're really only supposed to be actually visiting active families twice a year as it is.  But it's an interesting addition to our program.  Home teaching is pretty easy when you are assigned 2-3 families and one is active--which is about our current rate (we have in the range of 40% activity rate).  I admit I kind of miss the days when I had 15 or so homes to visit each month.  That was tiring but I always enjoyed actual visits in people's homes.  Ah well, goes to show I'm never satisfied. 

That's interesting. We've been in our ward for 3 years, and only once have home teachers come by. I don't know why, but they seem to be ignoring us. It's kind of a shame because my wife is very active in the church and would appreciate home teachers. 

[hope_for_things]

On 5/21/2016 at 9:15 PM, mfbukowski said:

It is a simple fact that the temple blessings favor women.  

Great clarifications, thanks for explaining your perspectives on this, I think you made good points and I understand much better.  

That men have evolved to think differently in some ways seems plausible, but how much of traditional gender roles is derived from evolution and is hard wired vs. societal influence?  There are a lot of knee jerk gender stereotypes that get used as justifications for discriminatory practice that I am concerned about in Mormon culture and in religion in general.  This is why I was concerned, and I appreciate your added clarifications.  

My only question would be why you believe temple blessings favor women, but that might not be a question you can answer on a message board in a sensitive way, so we can leave that one.