No More PEC

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1- We could just as easily extend that reasoning to the bishop.  That is, that he is "an advocate for all women and organizations" in the ward.

2- But that would not be convenient, I think, to the narrative necessary to import and foment gender wars into the Church of Jesus Christ.

3- How is that superior to the RS president representing the RS, the Primary President representing the Primary, and the YW president representing the YW?

4- Are we seriously suggesting that it would be better to have fewer women in participating in leadership roles in the Church?

5- I don't see this as being a better solution.  I think the YW and Primary presidents want to have stewardship over their organizations, without an added layer of bureaucracy (e.g., YW President --> RS President --> Bishop).  I think this could very likely create more frustration, not less.

Thanks,

-Smac

1- Yes. Bishops try to do this but they aren't women so sometimes it's hard to understand a woman's perspective. Women will naturally have a different perspective on reverence with kids, perhaps womens/YW budgets, and a sundry list of unusual ward policies that are implemented without a woman's consideration. One I heard recently was a bishop decided to release every woman from her calling in the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy. He was likely trying to be a nice guy and be helpful, but he didn't recognize that some women might find that bothersome. I find it funny and a little sad I'm needing to make an argument for the value of female perspective.

2- Snarky and dismissive as usual

3- Read the comments

4- I don't think you were paying attention to the conversation. I didn't come anywhere close to suggesting that. I was suggesting use of RS Pres in Bishopric meetings. How does that  have fewer women in leadership roles? The others still exist but the RS Pres at least adds one female voice to the bishopric discussions.

5- FYI- they already have an added layer of bureaucracy. Each bishopric counselor has stewardship over certain organizations like YM or Primary etc. So instead of a 2nd Counselor having a stewardship the RS could have that stewardship. It's a shift of responsibility, not another layer of bureaucracy

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is the greatest solution. It's just ideas. But I think it's at least worth thinking about.

[juliann]

If an excuse as to why women won't/can't attend meetings isn't used equally about the men, it needs to stop. The reason important meetings would be burdensome (beyond the   why would anybody want to spend precious time there) is because no one factors in relieving women of the responsibilities they have in order to substitute others. I'm trying to think of a woman who wouldn't rather dress herself, grab a bite to eat, and get in a car than have the hubby do it while she struggles with getting the kids ready. But if you are expecting her to do both of course it isn't right to pile on more. So I'd rather see men explaining on how they are going to pick up the slack at home rather than explaining why women can't carry the responsibilities they take for granted. And until it becomes acceptable for men to say they just won't attend more meetings when they are in critical callings, it isn't acceptable for women to be given a pass either.

The RS Prez does have stewardship over the women who are usually more than half the ward. That includes the women in YW and P. It isn't comparable to other auxillaries. We go over and implement the family or compassionate service needs brought up in WC in our Presidency meetings. When I was in the YW Prez, the focus was much more narrow. 

Like it or not, women do provide perspective that wouldn't be there otherwise. Like knowing the mature single sisters who tend to be isolated in a family focused ward that gives decision making to husbands who can network and keep wives included by proxy. These are the members who usually don't receive the few status callings available to women and who have no way of becoming part of the "inner workings." These are the women that I wish would be included in councils so they could feel like a contributing and informed cog in the machine instead of a satellite orbiting around the activity. I have proposed that a RS lesson remain open each month so the women who do not have opportunities to be seen and heard be shown they are important by being asked to share their thoughts and knowledge in a very visible setting. This is a significant subset of church membership so please no "but what about the...."

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

If an excuse as to why women won't/can't attend meetings isn't used equally about the men, it needs to stop. The reason important meetings would be burdensome (beyond the   why would anybody want to spend precious time there) is because no one factors in relieving women of the responsibilities they have in order to substitute others. I'm trying to think of a woman who wouldn't rather dress herself, grab a bite to eat, and get in a car than have the hubby do it while she struggles with getting the kids ready. But if you are expecting her to do both of course it isn't right to pile on more. So I'd rather see men explaining on how they are going to pick up the slack at home rather than explaining why women can't carry the responsibilities they take for granted. And until it becomes acceptable for men to say they just won't attend more meetings when they are in critical callings, it isn't acceptable for women to be given a pass either.

The RS Prez does have stewardship over the women who are usually more than half the ward. That includes the women in YW and P. It isn't comparable to other auxillaries. We go over and implement the family or compassionate service needs brought up in WC in our Presidency meetings. When I was in the YW Prez, the focus was much more narrow. 

Like it or not, women do provide perspective that wouldn't be there otherwise. Like knowing the mature single sisters who tend to be isolated in a family focused ward that gives decision making to husbands who can network and keep wives included by proxy. These are the members who usually don't receive the few status callings available to women and who have no way of becoming part of the "inner workings." These are the women that I wish would be included in councils so they could feel like a contributing and informed cog in the machine instead of a satellite orbiting around the activity. I have proposed that a RS lesson remain open each month so the women who do not have opportunities to be seen and heard be shown they are important by being asked to share their thoughts and knowledge in a very visible setting. This is a significant subset of church membership so please no "but what about the...."

I'm sorry I could only give this 1 Rep Point.

[juliann]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

  It's a shift of responsibility, not another layer of bureaucracy

 

 

THIS realization is where it all has to begin. Including women in the inner workings isn't another job, it is just a shift of responsibility.  I suspect some men would prefer home management be left to women, however. I'm always kind of shocked to see men talking so casually about attending meetings....it is just assumed....and then see them adamantly reject the idea that women could do the same. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by juliann

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Yes. Bishops try to do this but they aren't women so sometimes it's hard to understand a woman's perspective.

Bishops can and do confer with the RS president or with individual sisters in order "to understand a woman's perspective."  

Quote

Women will naturally have a different perspective on reverence with kids, perhaps womens/YW budgets, and a sundry list of unusual ward policies that are implemented without a woman's consideration.

What "sundry list" do you have in mind?  What "unusual ward policies?"

In our ward, the budgetary allocations for each group are discussed in ward council.  "Reverence with kids" gets all sorts of input from the Primary President, and from mothers in the ward through the RS president.  Again, such things can be and are discussed in ward council.  It seems like these sorts of things are not unique to our ward.

Bishoprics are supposed to administer the programs in the Church by using the Handbooks.  To the extent a ward is given discretion in administering the programs and addressing the needs of the ward members, the exercise of that discretion is usually discussed (or should be) in ward council.  Women are present in the council and participate in decision-making processes.

Quote

One I heard recently was a bishop decided to release every woman from her calling in the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy. He was likely trying to be a nice guy and be helpful, but he didn't recognize that some women might find that bothersome.

Assuming this really happened, there is a remedy already in place.  The women in the ward can have their viewpoints aired by speaking with the RS president or with the bishop directly.  They can also appeal to the stake president.

Quote

4- I don't think you were paying attention to the conversation. I didn't come anywhere close to suggesting that. I was suggesting use of RS Pres in Bishopric meetings. How does that  have fewer women in leadership roles? The others still exist but the RS Pres at least adds one female voice to the bishopric discussions.

I don't understand.  You seemed to be suggesting that the RS President would represent the YW and Primary organizations, either to the exclusion of the authority already given to YW and Primary presidents, or else by subordinating those groups to the RS President.  In other words, one woman would have a voice in the leadership of the ward instead of three.  That doesn't make sense.

As far as adding the RS President to the bishopric, I'm curious as to why?  Why her?  Why not also the EQP?  And the YW/YM Presidents?  And the Primary president?  The bishop is always a High Priest, so he will - by your apparent reckoning - lack the "perspective" of younger adult men (Elders), and of the yought (YM/YW), and of the children (Primary).  So why privilege the RS President only?

And what would adding the RS President to the bishopric do that having her on the Ward Council not do?

Quote

5- FYI- they already have an added layer of bureaucracy. Each bishopric counselor has stewardship over certain organizations like YM or Primary etc. So instead of a 2nd Counselor having a stewardship the RS could have that stewardship. It's a shift of responsibility, not another layer of bureaucracy

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is the greatest solution. It's just ideas. But I think it's at least worth thinking about.

I'm not sure it's a solution at all.  Adding more layers of bureaucracy . . . reducing the authority given to female leaders in the ward (YW and Primary) . . . privileging the RS President over the other quorums and auxiliaries . . .  and pretty much ignoring the fact that women can and do materially contribute to the leadership of the ward by attending and participating in ward council.  I think this creates more problems, and doesn't really solve any.

I think the Church's recent strenuous emphasis on ward councils is great.  I think councils work very well when implemented properly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2016 by smac97

[cynth]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Including bishopric meetings?  Disciplinary councils?  Bishop interviews?  SSP meetings?  EQP meetings?  HPGL meetings?  YM meetings?  High council meetings?  Stake presidency meetings?  Bishop interviews with the stake president?  

It seems like there are all sorts of meetings at the ward and stake levels that take place "without women present" (there are also meetings that take place without men present).  Do you oppose those as well?  Should a man be present at all RS meetings?  YM meetings?  Primary presidency meetings?  

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to be missing the point, which is that an arbitrary removal of an entire gender from a class of positions is just that, arbitrary.  To make the point further, consider this, could a man serve as a member of the primary presidency?  Of course he could.    

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, cynth said:

You seem to be missing the point, which is that an arbitrary removal of an entire gender from a class of positions is just that, arbitrary. 

Well, that wasn't the point.  Juliann asserted that "{t}here should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present."  That is a rather remarkable, even radical, proposal.  My post sought clarification about it.

Further, I don't think there is anything "arbitrary" about how the Church is formed (I assume that by "arbitrary" you mean "capricious; unreasonable; unsupported").  Having women at the head of the Relief Society is not "arbitrary."  It's a woman's organization, after all.  So having women run it is not "capricious" or "unreasonable" or "unsupported."  The same goes for women running the YW, and for men running the YM, EQP and HPGL.

So that leaves the Sunday School, Primary, WML and Scout Committee Chair.  As I understand it, the Sunday School Prez and WML both must be Melchizedek Priesthood holders, the Primary Prez must be a sister, and the Scout Committee Chair can be either male or female (I'm not sure on this last one).  I can't speak as to the particulars as to why the general authorities have structured these organizations this way, but I do not think my ignorance of such matters is sufficient grounds for me to declare that the Brethren have been acting "arbitrarily."

Quote

To make the point further, consider this, could a man serve as a member of the primary presidency?  Of course he could.    

Well no, he couldn't.  Section 11.2.1 of Handbook 2 provides that "{t}he bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president."  Section 11.8.1 provides that "{m}en may serve as teachers, music leaders, pianists, activity days leaders, and Scout leaders."  Apparently being a counselor in the Primary Presidency or the secretary is not authorized (I've never seen or heard of such a thing).

Likewise, a man cannot serve as the YW President, or as the Relief Society President, or as a counselor or secretary in any of those organizations.

So you'll need to remake your point using other examples, as I'm not seeing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2016 by smac97

[cynth]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, the Sunday School Prez and WML both must be Melchizedek Priesthood holders, the Primary Prez must be a sister,

You are making my point, it is arbitrary.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, that wasn't the point.  Juliann asserted that "{t}here should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present."

Again, you make my point, leaving one gender out is arbitrary.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well no, he couldn't.  Section 11.2.1 of Handbook 2 provides that "{t}he bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president."

Once again, an arbitrary distinction.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you'll need to remake your point using other examples, as I'm not seeing it.

Not necessary, you made my point quite well, whether you saw it or not. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, cynth said:

You are making my point, it is arbitrary.

I guess we have differing understandings of the word "arbitrary."  I'm relying on the dictionary.  I'm not sure what you are using.

Quote

Quote

Well, that wasn't the point.  Juliann asserted that "{t}here should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present."

Again, you make my point, leaving one gender out is arbitrary.

No, I'm not.  You haven't "made" a point.  You are merely making an assertion.  It is not self-evident, for example, that appointing women to preside in the Relief Society is "arbitrary."  You are insisting that it is arbitrary, but you aren't explaining your reasoning.

Quote

Quote

Well no, he couldn't.  Section 11.2.1 of Handbook 2 provides that "{t}he bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president."

Once again, an arbitrary distinction.

I do not understand.  You incorrectly asserted that men can serve in the Primary Presidency, and that this this is evidence of the Church being "arbitrary."  I corrected your error and noted that men cannot serve in the Primary Presidency, and here you are saying that this is "arbitrary."

Your position does not make sense to me.

Quote

Quote

So you'll need to remake your point using other examples, as I'm not seeing it.

Not necessary, you made my point quite well, whether you saw it or not. 

I don't see it.  You have not made a coherent point here.  Simply asserting that X is arbitrary does not make it so.  I would like to see some reasoning in support of this assertion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

And here we go....

The only thing on the table when I said all formal meetings should have women present were WC and PEC. That has now been modified to add gendered subgroups. Nothing like red herrings and strawmen to exclude women at every opportunity....

And for heaven's sake, pulling out the CHI doesn't make a whit of difference as to whether a practice in it is arbitrary. Let's just call this one question begging. 

[cynth]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I corrected your error and noted that men cannot serve in the Primary Presidency, and here you are saying that this is "arbitrary."

!!!  yes, I get that you don't get it.  Men cannot serve in the Primary Presidency?? They cannot?  That, my friend, is arbitrary.  Why can men NOT serve in the Primary Presidency?  What is it that is done in the Primary Presidency that a male, any males, all males, cannot do?  The distinction made by the church is arbitrary, by any dictionary.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Simply asserting that X is arbitrary does not make it so

 Amen to that!  So how is you reading it from the handbook any different from someone simply asserting it?  It's not!  That's my point.

Quote

I would like to see some reasoning in support of this assertion.

You're the one asserting only one gender can do a particular job, the burden of providing some reasoning îs upon YOU.

[ERMD]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present.

Scout leaders? Elders quorum? High priests group? Bishopric? High Council? Stake presidency?  Quorum of the 12? First presidency?

Should the Primary, YW, or RS presidencies only meet when men are present?

[ERMD]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

And here we go....

The only thing on the table when I said all formal meetings should have women present were WC and PEC. That has now been modified to add gendered subgroups. Nothing like red herrings and strawmen to exclude women at every opportunity....

And for heaven's sake, pulling out the CHI doesn't make a whit of difference as to whether a practice in it is arbitrary. Let's just call this one question begging. 

What you said was any formal meeting at any level.

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by ERMD

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, juliann said:

And here we go....

The only thing on the table when I said all formal meetings should have women present were WC and PEC. That has now been modified to add gendered subgroups. Nothing like red herrings and strawmen to exclude women at every opportunity....

I did not know that "WC and PEC" were the "only thing{s} on the table."  Hence my inquiry.  (EDIT TO ADD: By the way, Ward Council and Priesthood Executive Committee meetings are held exclusively a the ward level.  So perhaps you'll understand why I thought you were referring to more than "WC and PEC" when you said  "{t}here should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present").

And I deeply resent being accused of attempting to "exclude women at every opportunity."  I have a profound respect and appreciation for the contributions women make to the Church.  I have no desire whatsoever to "exclude" them.

Quote

And for heaven's sake, pulling out the CHI doesn't make a whit of difference as to whether a practice in it is arbitrary. 

Yes, it does.  I reject as unfounded the notion that the general authorities of the Church have been "arbitrary" in preparing the guidelines, practices and policies in the Handbook.  Your apparent assertion to the contrary, that the Brethren have been "arbitrary," is not self-evident.  That you happen to dislike a particularly guideline or practice also does not make it "arbitrary."

Let me give an illustration as to where I am coming from: I work as an attorney, and I have also spent years teaching law courses at the local university.  I have had hundreds of opportunities to explain legal principles to people who are not trained in the law (clients, opposing parties, students, etc.).  I can't count the number of times I have heard such persons assert that some aspect or other of the law is "arbitrary" or "unreasonable" or "insane" or "stupid."  However, such assertions are almost always a matter of the person not being fully informed, rather than the principle of law being actually "arbitrary" or "unreasonable" or "insane" or "stupid."  This is because attorneys and judges in the U.S. have spent centuries developing and refining complex legal principles, and sometimes a person has to have more than a passing understanding of of the law and the legal environment in order to understand these principles, how they interact with other aspects of the law, and so on.

For example, a student of mine once expressed frustration at the concept of a "statute of limitations."  He felt that if he has a legal claim, he ought to be able to file suit on it whenever he wants, even years after the fact.  However, there are constitutional considerations in play, as well as evidentiary and procedural considerations, and long experience by those who regularly work with the law.  But my student was not convinced.  His narrow worldview, what he wanted, what he felt was "fair," all of these things trumped all other considerations.  For him anyway.  

So it is with the Handbook.  The Handbook reflects both the extensive cumulative experience by local and general authorities in the Church, and also the Church's attempt to properly interpret and apply scriptural provisions pertaining to church governance, and - I would submit - efforts to seek revelation on how the Church should be run.  To summarily dismiss the Handbook as just some sort of compilation of "arbitrary," because-I-say-so policies and guidelines is absurd.

Your position seems to be that the Brethren have just thrown the Handbook together willy-nilly.  Arbitrarily.  That perhaps they hired a team of monkeys to endlessly bang away on keyboards, and eventually the "Handbook" was produced.  That the Handbook does not reflect any reasoned or scriptural or experiential effort to establish coherent guidelines for administering the affairs of the Church.  That the CHI - the official guidelines for church administration and governance which has been prepared under the instruction of and approved by the Presiding High Priest and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - "doesn't make a whit of difference as to whether a practice in it is arbitrary."

I don't understand that.

-Smac

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, cynth said:

!!!  yes, I get that you don't get it.  Men cannot serve in the Primary Presidency?? They cannot?  That, my friend, is arbitrary.  Why can men NOT serve in the Primary Presidency?  What is it that is done in the Primary Presidency that a male, any males, all males, cannot do?  The distinction made by the church is arbitrary, by any dictionary.

 Amen to that!  So how is you reading it from the handbook any different from someone simply asserting it?  It's not!  That's my point.

You're the one asserting only one gender can do a particular job, the burden of providing some reasoning îs upon YOU.

I don't think we are communicating well, so I'll refrain from further effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

24 minutes ago, ERMD said:

What you said was any formal meeting at any level.

 

And you thought that meant men in the RS and women in EQ meetings. Let me clarify. It doesn't. I meant formal to mean ward level and above meetings that involve enough numbers to make it "formal". Our RS Pres meetings are anything but formal. But I have learned  from long experience that when it comes to including women, every utterance must be vetted to avoid drawn out challenges regardless of intent or clarification. My bad. 

[cynth]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your position seems to be that the Brethren have just thrown the Handbook together willy-nilly.  Arbitrarily.  That perhaps they hired a team of monkeys to endlessly bang away on keyboards, and eventually the "Handbook" was produced.

No, then you are not understanding what I am saying.  I am being much more specific than that.  I am stating that the CHI makes arbitrary distinctions on the basis of gender that are unfounded and unwarranted.  And as long as you blindly trust that the rules are properly made, you will not see the arbitrariness.    I agree we are not going to be able to communicate, because unlike you I don't trust a handbook completely and totally, especially in the face of such bias and inappropriate assumptions about gender. 

Although it is telling that you decide there is no point in communicating right when you are backed into a corner about your position that men cannot be in the Primary Presidency.  Because of how 'nonarbitrary' it is, right? 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, cynth said:

No, then you are not understanding what I am saying.  I am being much more specific than that.  I am stating that the CHI makes arbitrary distinctions on the basis of gender that are unfounded and unwarranted.  

I reject this assertion. It is not self-evident.  And it contravenes what I understand regarding the origins and development of the CHI.  You can keep re-asserting this claim all the day long, but until you actually take time to explain your reasoning for it, we're wasting our time.

Quote

And as long as you blindly trust that the rules are properly made, you will not see the arbitrariness.   

You don't know me, so kindly don't presume to accuse me of behaving "blindly."

I have thousands of posts on this board that demonstrate I really rather like reasoning and analysis.  Perhaps you and your three dozen posts could postpone passing absurd judgments on people you don't know and instead engage them in reasoned discussion.

I am not a moron.  And I am not blind.  So rather than merely insist that arbitrariness exists, you could attempt to explain your reasoning.

Or not.  In which case we'll simply go our separate ways.

Quote

I agree we are not going to be able to communicate, because unlike you I don't trust a handbook completely and totally, especially in the face of such bias and inappropriate assumptions about gender. 

You are making false attributions here.  I have not said I "trust a handbook completely and totally."

And I have no idea what you have in mind when you reference "bias and inappropriate assumptions about gender."  I am not a mindreader.  And you haven't explained what you mean, you just made unsubstantiated and unexplained assertions.  So communication suffers.

Quote

Although it is telling that you decide there is no point in communicating right when you are backed into a corner about your position that men cannot be in the Primary Presidency.  Because of how 'nonarbitrary' it is, right? 

You don't know me.  At all.  And you haven't been here long, so you aren't really in a position to say what is "telling" about me and what isn't.

Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present.

When dealing with the whole ward, I agree (which I think is what you mean), but I don't see any need for a woman to be present at YM's planning meetings than men to be present at YW's.

Any meeting that involves in depth discussing or planning for women will benefit from having women present, imo.  Same goes for men.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

I hadn't read any responses before posting my own post btw....a nice compromise, if I do say so myself between assuming Juliann was using common sense and clarifying my own view just in case this was the one time she went bonkers and managing to do so in four lines. 

Gee guys, was it really that difficult not just to ask "when formal, you mean what?" before going on to significantly in depth discussion.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I hadn't read any responses before posting my own post btw....a nice compromise, if I do say so myself between assuming Juliann was using common sense and clarifying my own view just in case this was the one time she went bonkers and managing to do so in four lines. 

Gee guys, was it really that difficult not just to ask "when formal, you mean what?" before going on to significantly in depth discussion.

Yep!

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

And you thought that meant men in the RS and women in EQ meetings. Let me clarify. It doesn't. I meant formal to mean ward level and above meetings that involve enough numbers to make it "formal". Our RS Pres meetings are anything but formal. But I have learned  from long experience that when it comes to including women, every utterance must be vetted to avoid drawn out challenges regardless of intent or clarification. My bad. 

"Formal" (now in quotes) ward level and above-- therefore, women should be present in:

Bishopric meetings, High Council/Stake PEC meetings, Stake Presidency meetings, stake disciplinary councils, Mission Presidency meetings, Area Coordinating Council (area authorities, stake presidents, mission presidents), the weekly meetings of the Twelve and First Presidency

Right.

[juliann]

Just now, ERMD said:

"Formal" (now in quotes) ward level and above-- therefore, women should be present in:

Bishopric meetings, High Council/Stake PEC meetings, Stake Presidency meetings, stake disciplinary councils, Mission Presidency meetings, Area Coordinating Council (area authorities, stake presidents, mission presidents), the weekly meetings of the Twelve and First Presidency

Right.

That would be unthinkable, wouldn't it....women being considered as necessary as men in running the church. Too awful for words. I hope it isn't one of those visuals some men won't ever be able to get out of their heads....

(And being a woman and thus unfamiliar with the male inner workings, you might even be able to trip me up with a meeting that should be all male or female!)

[ERMD]

I think it would surprise you how ward council meetings ran when I served as a bishop, as well as would the feedback and comments I still get (many times, second-hand) from the RS, YW, and Primary presidents who served with me during those years.

Maybe when you're prophet(ess) you will receive the obviously long-time stifled revelation and make the wholesale top-down changes that will fix this archaic, repressive system.

Edited June 28, 2016 by ERMD

[ttribe]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

I hadn't read any responses before posting my own post btw....a nice compromise, if I do say so myself between assuming Juliann was using common sense and clarifying my own view just in case this was the one time she went bonkers and managing to do so in four lines. 

Gee guys, was it really that difficult not just to ask "when formal, you mean what?" before going on to significantly in depth discussion.

But, that would go against the standard board practice of "Attack first, ask for clarification later."  We can't have such a flouting of the rules.