No More PEC

[Calm]

And here I have been thinking for months it was a really interesting name choice, lol.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, ERMD said:

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.

If your ward council meetings were less condescending than statements like this, then yes, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Patriarchy and chauvinism permeates church culture.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

It just seems odd that a Catholic would have an issue with women not being allowed to do certain things in church. 

I disagree.

I struggle with the idea of anyone suggesting that a person doesn't have a right to an opinion. Not to mention she was raised Mormon. She may still have Mormon family and friends who are impacted by this. I don't know. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss an opinion because they're not part of the "in" group.

[BlueDreams]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree.

I struggle with the idea of anyone suggesting that a person doesn't have a right to an opinion. Not to mention she was raised Mormon. She may still have Mormon family and friends who are impacted by this. I don't know. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss an opinion because they're not part of the "in" group.

I don't think it's about being part of the in-group and more about the fact that catholics have a male-only priesthood and becoming a female priest also means automatic excommunication. One of those pot-kettle moments.

I don't know, in general, how fair it is to dismiss an opinion. I do think it's more than fair to place weight on in-group voices v. out-group in several circumstances and communities. Change is often more effective that way. Personally I would perfectly fine having a catholic dismiss my ideas about what should happen in the catholic faith even though I have a catholic g-ma.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 28, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Buckeye]

16 hours 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.

These are some excellent thoughts Juliann. I'm going to offer some critiques and, of course, my thoughts come from a male member of the church. But know up front how appreciative I am for sisters like you that are willing to take the initiative and demand equality from both leaders and members - and especially from other sisters. 

You say that most women would rather take care of themselves and go to a meeting on a Sunday morning rather than dealing with the kids. In my experience, that really isn't the case for most sisters I know. The sisters I work with generally find their work with the children to be more fulfilling than work in church meetings (frankly, I do too). And they generally do not trust men to perform as well in childcare duties. Some women are even hostile to attempts by men to help wash dishes at church functions. And several are suspicious of all men as potential rapists. You see that in discussions about whether boys should be allowed to be babysitters.

Many church policies (which I believe reflect culture, not doctrine) prioritize mother's time at home over fathers. A few examples: (1) for as long as I remember, every ward I've been in has canceled early morning meetings on mother's day; only recently has that practice been extended to father's day; (2) Missionaries can call home on Mother's Day, but not Father's Day; (3) A women with children at home cannot be called as a temple worker; a father can be called, even if he's the sole provider and the bishop. I've actually seen a stake president ask a bishop with 5 young kids at home to give up two Saturdays a month to serve as a temple worker; his wife couldn't be given the same request because of church policy.

With those critiques stated, here is how I see the path forward for both members who want full female ordination (like me) and those who just want more women's voices and authority, but not priesthood. In my opinion, the biggest roadblock is that women do not trust men. This mistrust comes to two significant themes (both of which have experience to support them): (1) Women don't trust that men will fulfill traditional female roles, especially with children, if they take on traditional male roles; (2) Women don't trust that men will follow female leaders who are placed over them. If we're going to move towards more equality, we need to trust men with more traditional female roles. Call them to primary and nursery. In big numbers. And we need to establish avenues whereby women preside over men and/or have power over aspects in the church that are not just women/children-oriented. The low-hanging fruit is to call sisters as SS presidents, WML, ward and financial clerks, and other roles that do not have a clear requirement for priesthood office, but because of policy current act that way. Over time, as men are trusted with more nurturing roles and women are allowed to lead men, attitudes will continue to grow until the point that the church ceases to become a respecter of persons.

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. 

Comparing the relative importance of auxiliaries is difficult. In my experience, if one just looks at headcount, Sunday School gets top billing, followed by RS, Primary, and EQ. If one looks at active member percentages, Primary gets the top bill, followed by YM and YW, Ward Mission, HPG, and then RS/EQ/SS. These trends largely follow because (i) activity rates decline with age (hence Primary is king), (ii) activity rates decline as new members slip away (hence Ward Mission tends to have higher activity rates that other auxiliaries) and (ii) HPG gets the benefit of higher rates because joining the group generally requires an extended period of activity (unlike RS and EQ).

If the comparison is made based on eternal spiritual growth, in my experience, Primary is king, followed by Ward Mission, YM/YW, then RS, HPG, EQ, and Sunday School last. Again, these results are primarily driven by the different demographics of the groups;  children, youth, and new members tend to be more open to learning new things. I've said many times that if one judges callings based on the eternal growth they bring, the most important calling in any ward is the Primary Chorister because children learn more than adults and most of that learning is through song.

If the comparison is made based on temporary needs, in my experience, RS is king, followed by HPG/EQ, YM/YW, Primary, Ward Mission, and then Sunday School. 

With all of that said, I'm not sure how much value there is in comparing the different auxiliaries' gravitas. For purposes of this thread - and the issue of which women's leader should attend bishopric meeting if one and only one is allowed to attend - then I certainly agree that the RSP is the clear best option.

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...."

Excellent. On a related thought, this past father's day I called my father and grandfather. Our calls were great and very worthwhile. But I have a nagging feeling that the greatest upliftment I gave that day was taking 2 minutes before sacrament meeting to sit by a good single brother who has taught my kids in Primary and Scouts, wish him a happy father's day, and tell him how important he's been to my kids. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Patriarchy and chauvinism permeates church culture.

Yep.  How people deny it is beyond me, honestly.  But we do that--we just tend to shut our eyes and close our ears to certain things pretending all is well in zion. 

And Buckeye brought up some other issues related to gender in the Church and larger culture we function in.  This isn't easy stuff and we'll probably never get the best handle on it.  We can try, I suppose.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

You say that most women would rather take care of themselves and go to a meeting on a Sunday morning rather than dealing with the kids. In my experience, that really isn't the case for most sisters I know. The sisters I work with generally find their work with the children to be more fulfilling than work in church meetings (frankly, I do too). 

This may be a correlation verses a cause kind of idea. Many do feel this way, but it may not be because they feel the children are more important, but because they don't feel their thoughts and opinions are heard or because the meetings are run ineffectively. As leaders learn to be more effective leaders then the meetings will be run better and women will be more happy about going to them. I've found that just one spiritual,  effective meeting saves a lot of time in the long run. 

And no one please state how "my ward isn't like that." We all know there are leaders who do this well and leaders who don't, but it is a big enough concern that Elder Ballard has given at least 3 conference talks and written and updated a book on it as well as numerous training etc. sent out to leaders. It is something they are concerned about even if it isn't happening in your ward. 

And they generally do not trust men to perform as well in childcare duties. Some women are even hostile to attempts by men to help wash dishes at church functions. And several are suspicious of all men as potential rapists. You see that in discussions about whether boys should be allowed to be babysitters.

That is true with some women. Though on the other end I have talked with tearful women who can't join a girl's night out because their husbands won't "babysit" (his word) and I had a stake president who wouldn't put a diaper station or table in the men's restroom because "we have them in the women's restroom." Fortunately, things are getting better in that regard. I suspect there is a connection with what you bring up and what I did and that it runs both ways.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Rain

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree.

I struggle with the idea of anyone suggesting that a person doesn't have a right to an opinion. Not to mention she was raised Mormon. She may still have Mormon family and friends who are impacted by this. I don't know. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss an opinion because they're not part of the "in" group.

I didn't say she didn't have a right to an opinion.  Neither did i suggest it. 

I said i found it odd that someone would have a real problem with a religion that restricted certain things based on gender and then join another religion that did the exact same thing.  Don't you find it odd that someone would be raking another person over the coals because he believes that God has chosen to limit certain callings to men only while they themselves belong to a religion that teaches that God has chosen to limit certain callings to men only?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

You say that most women would rather take care of themselves and go to a meeting on a Sunday morning rather than dealing with the kids. In my experience, that really isn't the case for most sisters I know. The sisters I work with generally find their work with the children to be more fulfilling than work in church meetings (frankly, I do too). And they generally do not trust men to perform as well in childcare duties. Some women are even hostile to attempts by men to help wash dishes at church functions. And several are suspicious of all men as potential rapists. You see that in discussions about whether boys should be allowed to be babysitters.

That is interesting because it's the case with all the sisters i know (and we talk about it quite a bit at playgroup).  And if a mom is worried that her husband is a rapist or is going to ruin the kids or is hostile when her husband tries to wash the dishes, then she has WAY worse problems than gender issues at church.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say she didn't have a right to an opinion.  Neither did i suggest it. 

I said i found it odd that someone would have a real problem with a religion that restricted certain things based on gender and then join another religion that did the exact same thing.  Don't you find it odd that someone would be raking another person over the coals because he believes that God has chosen to limit certain callings to men only while they themselves belong to a religion that teaches that God has chosen to limit certain callings to men only?

Not really. I think it's reasonable for a person to recognize a problem of patriarchy and also recognize it in the catholic church as well. Just because the problem exists in both churches doesn't mean she accepts the problematic issue.

[Buckeye]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That is interesting because it's the case with all the sisters i know (and we talk about it quite a bit at playgroup).  And if a mom is worried that her husband is a rapist or is going to ruin the kids or is hostile when her husband tries to wash the dishes, then she has WAY worse problems than gender issues at church.

The rapist issue can easily overwhelm this thread, so I'll just mention that the concern typically is not from wives with their own husbands, but women (and some men) with unrelated men serving in primary and nursery. I certainly don't want to belittle the concern either. Many women have been abused and that understandably colors their views. And the handbook requirement that men in primary be given added supervision (either by open doors or double-callings) suggests that the brethren have some concerns as well. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not really. I think it's reasonable for a person to recognize a problem of patriarchy and also recognize it in the catholic church as well. Just because the problem exists in both churches doesn't mean she accepts the problematic issue.

From my perspective, it comes across more as a (to use BlueDreams words) 'pot-kettle moment.'  It seems weird to me that you would go after someone else's religion when your own religion has the same problem.

Maybe (to use Jesus' words) is more a 'mote-beam' problem.  Or a 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' kind of thing.  

For whatever reason, i do find it odd.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, it comes across more as a (to use BlueDreams words) 'pot-kettle moment.'  It seems weird to me that you would go after someone else's religion when your own religion has the same problem.

Maybe (to use Jesus' words) is more a 'mote-beam' problem.  Or a 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' kind of thing.  

For whatever reason, i do find it odd.

I see your point. I just see it more of a "going after the problem" issue wherever it is found, and not necessarily going after the church.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The rapist issue can easily overwhelm this thread, so I'll just mention that the concern typically is not from wives with their own husbands, but women (and some men) with unrelated men serving in primary and nursery. I certainly don't want to belittle the concern either. Many women have been abused and that understandably colors their views. And the handbook requirement that men in primary be given added supervision (either by open doors or double-callings) suggests that the brethren have some concerns as well. 

I do get that, it just didn't seem to have anything to do with the part of Juliann's post that you addressed it too.  She was talking about mothers in the home and their husbands.  When men have to go to church meetings, random women don't watch their kids. Their wives or other family members do that.  It should work the same way if women had to go to church meetings.

So, women worrying about rapists shouldn't even work into that equation.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I see your point. I just see it more of a "going after the problem" issue wherever it is found, and not necessarily going after the church.

Would you think it made sense for you as a Mormon to vocally go after the Catholic church in a conversation with a believing Catholic for not letting women hold the priesthood in the Catholic church?  

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

And several are suspicious of all men as potential rapists. You see that in discussions about whether boys should be allowed to be babysitters.

That is interesting because it's the case with all the sisters i know (and we talk about it quite a bit at playgroup).  And if a mom is worried that her husband is a rapist or is going to ruin the kids or is hostile when her husband tries to wash the dishes, then she has WAY worse problems than gender issues at church.

My wife is not concerned about me being a rapist or child molester, but I get a rather strong vibe from Society At Large, and also from some people of my personal acquaintance, that men are presumptively not trustworthy with children (i.e., other people's children).  

I have a friend who, like me, is an attorney (he has extensive experience in family law and criminal law, I don't).  We have occasionally discussed this issue.  Based on his experience in working on divorce matters, he is of the opinion that a soon-to-be-ex-wife falsely accusing her soon-to-be-ex-husband of child molestation and/or domestic abuse is a very common tactic.  It's common, I think, because A) there is generally no legal downside to making such accusations (false accusations, false police reports, perjury, etc. along these lines are virtually never prosecuted), B) there is a huge legal upside (DCFS swoops in, the legal deck is immediately stacked against Dad, Dad is immediately put on the defensive, etc.), C) it feeds on larger social prejudices against men (that they are presumptively not trustworthy with children, that they are presumptively violent, etc.), and D) these larger social prejudices are freely expressed, and even encouraged, in ways that other prejudices are not (prejudices based on things like race and sexual orientation are roundly - and appropriately - condemned, but plenty of people feel free with publicly making horrendous assumptions about men as a category).

So how does this play out?  Well, both my friend and I take strong measures:

• I insist on my wife being at home when children other than our own are visiting.  Not because I distrust myself, but because Society treats men as presumptively not trustworthy with children.  
• If a child needs a ride home from our house, I am happy to do it, but I insist that my wife or one of my older children go along for the ride.  My older kids used to be confused, and perhaps even irritated, at my insistence (usually when it entailed dropping off a friend some distance away).  But I have explained my reasoning (that Society treats men as presumptively not trustworthy with children, and also that propriety and decorum are better served by them coming along), and they are now fine with it.
• Other than my own children, I never touch any child in any way other than a high five or fist bump.  No hugs.  No sitting on my lap.  Nothing.  Not because I distrust myself, but because Society treats men as presumptively not trustworthy with children.
• When in a social environment where I am near children not my own, I limit my attention to and interaction with any one particular child.  I try to be friendly, but distant.  Kind, but distant.  Not because I distrust myself, but because Society treats men as presumptively not trustworthy with children.
• There have been a few times over the years (three that I recall) when I have been out and about and have noticed an unattended child who looked lost and upset.  Each time I have kept an eye on, but not approached, the child until I find either a police officer or a random woman and ask that person to attend to the child.   Not because I distrust myself, but because Society treats men as presumptively not trustworthy with children.

Some of these may sound overwrought, but my attorney friend does these things too.  He has seen too many instances of false accusations against men - and the nigh-unto-irreversible damage done to their reputation, relationships, etc. - to be anything other than highly vigilant in limiting interaction with children not his own.  Not because he distrusts himself, but because Society treats men as presumptively not trustworthy with children.

This has had an impact.  I have nearly 50 nieces and nephews, about half of which live within visiting distance of my home.  We have lived in our neighborhood for 10+ years, so we know most of the kids in our neighborhood.  We have large numbers of friends, most of whom have larger-than-average numbers of children (this is Utah County, after all).  We do a lot of socializing with these folks, particularly in the summer.  My wife is a beautiful and gentle soul, and a wonderful mother and aunt and neighbor lady.  The kids with whom we socialize love her to bits.  They like me, but because I keep my distance, they don't know me as well.  I really like and enjoy children, but in the current climate I do not feel comfortable interacting with them much.  

To be frank, even without the above-referenced negative presumption about men, I think I would still be fairly cautious when interacting with children not my own, largely due to my sentiments about the importance of propriety, appearance, decorum, etc.  But as it stands, I am motivated by a desire to reduce the risk of false accusations.  By concerns stemming from the social presumption that I am an adult male, and hence presumptively not trustworthy with children.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97

[Buckeye]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do get that, it just didn't seem to have anything to do with the part of Juliann's post that you addressed it too.  She was talking about mothers in the home and their husbands.  When men have to go to church meetings, random women don't watch their kids. Their wives or other family members do that.  It should work the same way if women had to go to church meetings.

So, women worrying about rapists shouldn't even work into that equation.

That's fair and correct. I guess I was looking at things more broadly - not just early morning meetings but women in callings other than RS/Primary/YW. For that to happen, men are going to need to be in more direct contact with children and youth in their callings. My central point is that, for some sisters, the big hangup is not they will have to attend more meetings, but that strange men will be working with their kids. It's a big deal for a lot of women I know. And I don't know how to ease it other than to honor whatever trust is put in me.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Buckeye

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am happy to make donuts with you.

Good...I go to work at Wallyworld tomorrow at 4 am..I do doughnuts and will be looking for you!

[stemelbow]

I'd be a primary teacher and/or nursery worker in a second.  That type of calling would fit me nicely.  But, if I'm called I"d have to have a lady with me.  And I can't have a lady whose not my wife because then I'd be alone with an adult lady, or something--we may end up kissing in front of the kids, I guess.  My wife's tired of primary callings so I wont' suggest it at this point.  Plus she's with kids every day all day.     

Anywho, those child rapists have ruined it for all of us.  Then again, I'm all for extra precaution against those creeps.  You never know. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I'd be a primary teacher and/or nursery worker in a second.  That type of calling would fit me nicely.  But, if I'm called I"d have to have a lady with me.  And I can't have a lady whose not my wife because then I'd be alone with an adult lady, or something--we may end up kissing in front of the kids, I guess.  My wife's tired of primary callings so I wont' suggest it at this point.  Plus she's with kids every day all day.     

Anywho, those child rapists have ruined it for all of us.  Then again, I'm all for extra precaution against those creeps.  You never know. 

The last calling I had was nursery leader with my wife. I've turned down two callings (bell ringer--seriously?--and HP group instructor) since then. 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd be a primary teacher and/or nursery worker in a second.  That type of calling would fit me nicely.  But, if I'm called I"d have to have a lady with me.  And I can't have a lady whose not my wife because then I'd be alone with an adult lady, or something--we may end up kissing in front of the kids, I guess.  My wife's tired of primary callings so I wont' suggest it at this point.  Plus she's with kids every day all day.     

Anywho, those child rapists have ruined it for all of us.  Then again, I'm all for extra precaution against those creeps.  You never know. 

In my ward, they call men as team teachers all the time in primary. We even have a man in nursery without his wife (though there are two other men and women in there as well). 

Maybe they'll do that in your ward eventually.  

[stemelbow]

Just now, bluebell said:

In my ward, they call men as team teachers all the time in primary. We even have a man in nursery without his wife (though there are two other men and women in there as well). 

Maybe they'll do that in your ward eventually.  

My wife's offered the suggestion.  She and a few ladies are tired of being treated like the fallback for primary.  But it hasn't happened yet. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My wife's offered the suggestion.  She and a few ladies are tired of being treated like the fallback for primary.  But it hasn't happened yet. 

It really does get hard to take after a while.  I know that some women love teaching primary, but for me (and a lot of women like me) who have little children at home and are stay at home moms, church is sometimes the only two hours the entire week when we aren't with kids.  Being asked to be in primary or nursery under those circumstances can carry a big emotional and mental toll.

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In my ward, they call men as team teachers all the time in primary. We even have a man in nursery without his wife (though there are two other men and women in there as well). 

Maybe they'll do that in your ward eventually.  

A lot depends on how many active members the ward has to draw on. Unfortunately, in my neck of the woods there aren't that many me to call to primary because they're all in callings that require priesthood office.

True story: The bishop I mentioned in an earlier post was once asked by the Primary President if he could talk to the 8 year-old class for a few minutes about baptism. When he arrived, the teacher was late and there were no other adults in the room. The Primary President needed to run to help with other duties and started to say "it's fine, just start teaching on your own." But then they both remembered the CHI instruction requires that men not be alone and decided it best to wait until another adult could be with him. The teacher arrived a few minutes later. As the Primary President walked off, the bishop said to her "oh, remember that I have an interview next hour with [soon to be 8 year old girl] for her baptism."  The irony was not lost on either of them.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Would you think it made sense for you as a Mormon to vocally go after the Catholic church in a conversation with a believing Catholic for not letting women hold the priesthood in the Catholic church?  

If had grown up catholic, sure.