bluebell Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 11 hours ago, bsjkki said: According to my link and Scott Loyds comment, they do not. That was my initial question. Pa Pa says women do have input. I don't know the truth. Are we assuming that if there are no women on the correlation committee then that has to mean no woman has any input in the VT message, or is there other information that suggests they have no say?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 11 hours ago, bsjkki said: According to my link and Scott Loyds comment, they do not. That was my initial question. Pa Pa says women do have input. I don't know the truth. I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that women don't have input in the visiting teaching messages. I, in fact, don't know whether they do or not. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to learn that they did. Apparently you think the Correlation Executive Committee writes the curricular materials. That's not their role. They vet the materials after they are written.
bsjkki Posted July 29, 2016 Author Posted July 29, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that women don't have input in the visiting teaching messages. I, in fact, don't know whether they do or not. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to learn that they did. Apparently you think the Correlation Executive Committee writes the curricular materials. That's not their role. They vet the materials after they are written. Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand your post. I read the original posted link and he claimed women had no input so I came here to see if it was true. I guess no one truly knows. I would hope they did have input. The main point of his article was about "Yes Men" and the dangers of not having people truly feel free to voice concerns in a top heavy structure. I am happy to report, our ward council, according to my husband, doesn't suffer from a Yes Men attitude and contains vigorous debate and the expression of varied opinions. I would hope the VT messages are vetted by the General Relief Society Presidency before publication.
Calm Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: huh..all I know is when my husband died, the bishop and my father-in-law told my son that as a Teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood, he was the head of our family. That kind of put me in my place. I told my son, that the burden did not belong to him..but as a family, we were responsible for each other. I have mentioned this before, so sorry to those who have heard it... It seems to me this is most likely a greater cultural practice that has simply been modified to the unique LDS attributes. This greater practice can be seen by all the cultural references to oldest boys being told they are the man of the house when their dad goes off to war or dies and they instructed to take care of/protect their mother and siblings. The same sort of thing happens to oldest girls when the mother is incapacitated or missing. For example here (warning language): https://medium.com/human-parts/man-of-the-house-111ab2308af9 2
Calm Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Are we assuming that if there are no women on the correlation committee then that has to mean no woman has any input in the VT message, or is there other information that suggests they have no say? There are female writers on staff from what I understand. The commitee if I understand correctly oversees the writing and editing, probably creates the overall framework and direction and ensures it is kept to, but this would in no way restrict women from having any input. It might limit their ability to influence the overall theme and direction, but if they were chosen as the primary writers for the message than they would still have a tremendous amount of input and influence. Not knowing one way or the other makes it impossible to judge. 2
Calm Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 And having one committee overseeing the coorelation does not prevent having others involved in vetting articles and manuals they have an interest in. It would be nice to know the process.
CMZ Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) On 7/28/2016 at 5:15 PM, JLHPROF said: Tell me, what would the response be if there was one manual for the men that included lessons on priesthood etc and on lesson for the RS that featured lessons on motherhood etc? There already is: https://www.lds.org/manual/the-latter-day-saint-woman-basic-manual-for-women-part-a?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a?lang=eng It's just that very few people realize it. And up until 1998 there were separate manuals that were used and then the Church began the Presidents of the Church series and figured it could be used in both Relief Society and Priesthood (for 2nd and 3rd Sundays anyways - another thing most people forget) up until the series was done. Now when the series is done (whenever that might be; perhaps at the Second Coming? maybe there'll be breaks from it from time to time until there's a new President's book to put out) who knows if Relief Society and Priesthood lessons will go back to being separate? They weren't separated a couple years back when the Gospel Principles manual was used as the manual for two years. But before the Presidents of the Church series there were indeed people complaining that Relief Society and Priesthood lessons were separate (as though getting the "man lessons" is clearly preferable) and then when the first Presidents of the Church manual came out (the Brigham Young one in 1998) there were some complaining that the women were being lumped in with the men and that they weren't seen as having separate identities and needs. So, yes, it is a lose/lose situation where no matter what is done someone will complain about it. Those who complain in either direction fail to see that only two of the Sundays each month use a shared manual while two (or three) Sundays a month use separate lessons, or at least lessons whose topics are more at the discretion of the various RS/quorum presidencies, so you're still getting some lessons that are shared with the Priesthood and some that aren't. Edited August 1, 2016 by CMZ
Danzo Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 On 7/28/2016 at 9:28 PM, bsjkki said: Writing a letter to the first presidency is against church policy. My wife wrote a letter to first presidency, about 18 years ago asking them to lower the age for women going on missions. They took some time thinking about it, but the change did happen. No one told her she did something wrong. 1
bsjkki Posted August 1, 2016 Author Posted August 1, 2016 11 minutes ago, Danzo said: My wife wrote a letter to first presidency, about 18 years ago asking them to lower the age for women going on missions. They took some time thinking about it, but the change did happen. No one told her she did something wrong. section 21.1.24 https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.24. I really don't know what is true about who writes the messages.
Danzo Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, bsjkki said: section 21.1.24 https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.24. I really don't know what is true about who writes the messages. discouraged doesn't mean prohibited. There certainly isn't any discipline for someone who does so, and often letters are read in general conference. This just means that if you write, you might have to wait a bit for a response (for understandable reasons.) If you have a suggestion, it couldn't hurt to write a letter (just don't hold your breath for a response) Edited August 1, 2016 by Danzo
bsjkki Posted August 1, 2016 Author Posted August 1, 2016 On July 29, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Calm said: And having one committee overseeing the coorelation does not prevent having others involved in vetting articles and manuals they have an interest in. It would be nice to know the process. I really just want to know the process! I think the lessons for women should have input and vetting from women. I agree with the original article that the story included in the August lesson is problematic but as someone pointed out, I can just ignore it. I asked the author for more info. but he did not respond to my question. I really liked this article in the Ensign this month. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/08/being-a-woman-an-eternal-perspective?lang=eng. and this quote Bonnie L. Oscarson, Young Women general president, spoke of remaining anchored in the gospel as we seek answers: “We can choose whether or not we are going to stick with what we have already felt. There are not answers to everything, but we choose whether we will be true to what we have felt from the Holy Ghost. Let’s keep working to make things better, but keep our faith in the meantime.”7
Popular Post cinepro Posted August 1, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 1, 2016 On 7/28/2016 at 3:49 PM, bsjkki said: As I teach Relief Society from the President's of the church manual, I often wish there were more quotes and stories from a women's perspective. I leave out stories based on the fact they have no bearing on women in the church. There are some situations, because of gender, we will never be in. While there does seem to be some inequity at the moment, it has always been my assumption that after we finish the current 20-year curriculum based on the teachings of the prophets, we'll be starting a complementary 16-year cycle of "Teachings of the Relief Society General Presidents", where each year the priesthood and RS will study the teachings of Emma Smith, Barbara Winder, Belle Spafford, or another of the notable women who have led. So it should all even out in the end. 5
Jeanne Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 57 minutes ago, cinepro said: While there does seem to be some inequity at the moment, it has always been my assumption that after we finish the current 20-year curriculum based on the teachings of the prophets, we'll be starting a complementary 16-year cycle of "Teachings of the Relief Society General Presidents", where each year the priesthood and RS will study the teachings of Emma Smith, Barbara Winder, Belle Spafford, or another of the notable women who have led. So it should all even out in the end. Shoot...I may not be alive by then.
Tacenda Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 15 hours ago, cinepro said: While there does seem to be some inequity at the moment, it has always been my assumption that after we finish the current 20-year curriculum based on the teachings of the prophets, we'll be starting a complementary 16-year cycle of "Teachings of the Relief Society General Presidents", where each year the priesthood and RS will study the teachings of Emma Smith, Barbara Winder, Belle Spafford, or another of the notable women who have led. So it should all even out in the end. I think we all need to write in about this, haha!!
theplains Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 On 28/07/2016 at 6:49 PM, bsjkki said: I don't need the Priesthood, but I do feel women's voices need to be heard and listened to and the subtle sexism must end A good role model example from the Bible is the team work of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:26). Jim 1
Atheist Mormon Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 On 7/28/2016 at 5:49 PM, bsjkki said: To be honest, I have not enjoyed this years Visiting Teaching messages. I preferred 2015 messages about the Savior much more and I had more robust lessons and discussions about the topics last year. I really had not analyzed why this could be. I read this article; http://www.wheatandtares.org/21707/what-happens-without-a-loyal-opposition/ and totally agree with the premise. Here is the lesson from the Ensign. https://www.lds.org/liahona/2016/08/nurturing-families-together?lang=eng As I teach Relief Society from the President's of the church manual, I often wish there were more quotes and stories from a women's perspective. I leave out stories based on the fact they have no bearing on women in the church. There are some situations, because of gender, we will never be in. I don't need the Priesthood, but I do feel women's voices need to be heard and listened to and the subtle sexism must end. My husband was surprised to learn this week that girls camp is only Wednesday through Saturday when the boys always get to go a whole week. I already discussed Activity Days on different threads but the disparity between activity days and cubs can not be remedied without intervention from Salt Lake. My husband and I both get annoyed with the premise of the Fathers and Sons campout too. Can women not commemorate the Priesthood? Do the daughters not deserve to camp out with their dad too? (It's not like the boys don't get many other camp out opportunities with their dads in scouting.) On another thread I asked why don't the Come Follow Me lessons for the Young Women contain the "Let the Young Men lead" section the Young Men get? Does anybody know if it is true that the Relief Society messages are all written by men with no input from women? Are there any women on the curriculum committee? When it is going to dawn on you (if it didn't already) that things are not going to change drastically on important matters like this. I'm not saying things are bad or unbearably suffocating for women. As you all can notice things are getting better and better. However, no one is going to deliver the Priesthood (even minuscule part) to women, Kate Kelly's "Ordain the Women" affair showed this clearly. Listening Kate was like listening my ex_wife, some of the horror stories she went through......... But looking at today's picture the Church is making huge strides towards gender equity. However blogs you linked could make life in the church very hard.
CMZ Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Probably not news but I don't see it mentioned in this particular thread so I will mention that there's an article in this month's Ensign that touches on gender equality.
bsjkki Posted August 5, 2016 Author Posted August 5, 2016 23 minutes ago, CMZ said: Probably not news but I don't see it mentioned in this particular thread so I will mention that there's an article in this month's Ensign that touches on gender equality. If it is this one, https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/08/being-a-woman-an-eternal-perspective?lang=eng I already linked to it. It's a good article.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 56 minutes ago, bsjkki said: If it is this one, https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/08/being-a-woman-an-eternal-perspective?lang=eng I already linked to it. It's a good article. Quite a feather in FairMormon's cap to have something originating at one of their events show up as a piece in one of the official Church magazines. Has that happened before? Calm? Juliann? Wikiwonka? Mash?
Calm Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Think this is the first time. Michael Otterson talk was also posted on lds.org, but I don't think it made it into the Ensign.
Recommended Posts