Involvement of RS and women in creating curriculum and manuals

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They should be shot!

No, they should learn and improve.  Which they did.  Subsequent manuals were a little more clear in what was going on, such as this explanation featured in the John Taylor Manual:

Quote

This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President John Taylor. However, in order to put his teachings in a historical framework, the following chronology is provided. This summary omits many important events of his life, including his marriages and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-john-taylor/historical-summary?lang=eng

 

From what I can tell, they also learned not to use quotes that needed to be changed.

Compare that with this comment from the introduction from the BY manual:

 

Quote

The prophet Brigham Young taught the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in a basic, practical way that gave inspiration and hope to the Saints struggling to build a home in the wilderness. Though more than a century has now passed, his words are still fresh and appropriate for us today as we continue the work of building the kingdom of God.
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/introduction?lang=eng

 

 

 

Uh ,"fresh and appropriate" with slight emendation to change the stuff that is stale and inappropriate for our day...

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by cinepro

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So according to the article at Rational Faiths, the lds.org post in the OP, basically, put the inclusion of women in the best possible light.  I'm grateful Sister Okazaki made her voice heard and as President Nelson has said,   "We need you to speak up and speak out in ward and stake councils."  I hope, as women, we speak up and encourage changes be made when women's voices or concerns are not being heard.

Yes, it looks like things were changed (hopefully as dramatic as it sounds) due to her stepping up and Elder Holland is likely referring to the drive of the former RS Presidency to get women involved.

It makes me think it made some fundamental changes in attitudes in some of those involved (such as Elder Holland perhaps).  They now would think of the possibility even if quite busy (a reference to a comment by Sister Okazaki from the link).  

-----

Stem and others, the topic is pretty much the title, though I am happy to expand to anything that shows a presence or lack of women currently in any councils, administrative or other offices or functions (such as PR) in the general (as opposed to local) levels of the Church.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, it is on topic.  This looks to be part of the story of how they came to be consulted.

It says not already completed, but almost completed in her quote if I am reading it correctly.  It is possible (and probable in my view) that her action caused an overhaul of the process and while they may not have started from scratch, they got significant feedback on the manual and other parts of the curriculum and altered it after that point.  Her RS presidency would have only been involved for part of the process as Elder Oaks indicates two were involved.  So she may not have had firsthand knowledge of changes to the level of involvement.

And the fact that Sister Okazaki had that impact and wasn't ignored, but significant changes were made is an important part of the story too.

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

Here's a link to the original interview.

Yes I guess for the first book they got three women to read it and write questions but then after that the women were part of the process, more. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

  Women were included, but.... not by the choice of the men. 

I think it is fantastic we see that a woman made things happen and it wasn't because of men feeling it was appropriate, but because she taught them it was.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I think it is fantastic we see that a woman made things happen and it wasn't because of men feeling it was appropriate, but because she taught them it was.

I agree fantastic in that sense and sad in the sense that they didn't realize already the mistake they made, in this case.  While it's not good to dwell on the negative always, it's good to point it out so we can learn from it.  Sadly, I fear we haven't completely got the Church learned on women's issues. 

Her first lines in the interview probably still apply in some sense:

Quote

In my meetings with the young women or with the Relief Society women, I’m often really surprised that they do not feel that they can function as women in the Church—not all of them, of course, but many of those who come to me and talk to me. I just keep wondering, “How did they get to that point of feeling like they were not worth anything in the Church?”

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree fantastic in that sense and sad in the sense that they didn't realize already the mistake they made, in this case.  While it's not good to dwell on the negative always, it's good to point it out so we can learn from it.  Sadly, I fear we haven't completely got the Church learned on women's issues.

 

I figure it is a given mistakes are made, including by church leaders all the way up to one stop before the top (top being Christ).  I think what is most important is figuring out how they can be rectified when we come across them because we are going to encounter them.

I am not saying we ignore problems, we can't resolve issues if we aren't realistic about them.  I have to admit I don't see a lot of use in discussing them if we are not focused on finding ways to change in the discussion.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

Here's a link to the original interview.

Yes I guess for the first book they got three women to read it and write questions but then after that the women were part of the process, more. 

Five men and three women is an excellent mix (see the studies Juliann has posted iirc how it is more effective for women to be in a minority in groups).  I am not sure from what she said if that was the only input they had, but rather what was finally added to the first manual by the women on the committee.  After all, the proposal that Sister Okazaki first went to the curriculum person with was about including modern day problems from a woman's point of view.  I don't see how they could have worked that into the manual (which purpose as described by Pres. Hinckley she apparently approved of) save though the questions meant to provoke discussions.  You have the quotes and then the suggestions for study.  If they were part of the latter writers, then they were contributing the only original material in the same way the men on the committee were.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Does the RS get their own budget to manage and/or do they have to get approval first for any monies allocated to the organization? Sorry that this is slightly off topic.  I do think it is great that Sister Okazaki opened some doors.  Time walk through.

Ward RSs have their own budget.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sorry if that was poorly worded, Scott.  Not sure what your post is meant to convey though.  I should have said, "Women were also excluded from contributing to the document: The Family: A Proclamation to the World". 

I get that to some it is revelation and women should then not participate or not need to.  But excluding women was, I believe, Sister Okazaki's concern. 

She said regarding the proclamation, from the same link

 

No, I got your meaning clearly enough.

I was just wondering: If Sister Okazaki felt that presenting the proclamation at the General Women's Meeting was sufficient to give her entitlement to make prior alterations to what, after all, is a revelatory document, would not the same entitlement accrue to other auxiliary presidencies if the document had been presented at a meeting they were holding?

Edited to add:

Here's an essay about the proclamation. The essay was written by Virginia H. Pearce. She is President Hinckley's daughter. She is also a former first counselor in the Young Women general presidency and as such was present at the meeting where the proclamation was presented.

She was not only a general auxiliary leader but the prophet's own daughter. She does not seem particularly miffed that she was not consulted beforehand and given a chance to make changes and sign off on the document before it was presented to the public.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I got your meaning clearly enough.

I was just wondering: If Sister Okazaki felt that presenting the proclamation at the General Women's Meeting was sufficient to give her entitlement to make prior alterations to what, after all, is a revelatory document, would not the same entitlement accrue to other auxiliary presidencies if the document had been presented at a meeting they were holding?

 

I don't think sister Okazaki's feelings had anything to do with entitlement. 

[Calm]

It is possible that Sister Okazaki learned of men outside the 12 and 1st Presidency who were consulted and that was the primary reason she believed it would have been appropriate to seek women's input as well since authorship/contribution was not limited to the 15.

It is also possible that she saw it as a proclamation from the Church as opposed to simply the 15 apostles who were involved and thus again why she would see it appropriate to seek input from those who were called as leaders with a particular stewardship over half the adult membership.

And it is possible that there were women consulted, wives and daughters informally, perhaps others more formally if there was outside council sought on wording as many suggest and she just didn't know about it.

And it is possible her objection was inappropriate because this was a duty God called the 15 to and no others.

Since we are given little detail at this time, I don't think conclusions about whether her reservations were valid or whether the Proc would have been closer to what God desired/instructed or not or various other ideas on the subject are very useful.  And the Family Proc happened before the change with the manuals and with that and the current push to include women in councils, it would seem that particular choice is unlikely to be made again for something like that.

Otoh, I think having faith that it will accomplish what God desires is quite useful and reasonable.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think sister Okazaki's feelings had anything to do with entitlement. 

Amen.  She was commanded in her calling to care for the women of the Church and in many ways for the world as a whole.  It comes across to me it was all about doing her best for the Lord and her stewardship that led to her desire to contribute.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Amen.  She was commanded in her calling to care for the women of the Church and in many ways for the world as a whole.  It comes across to me it was all about doing her best for the Lord and her stewardship that led to her desire to contribute.

If that is indeed her calling, does it conceivably bring her (or any other auxiliary leader) into adversarial confrontation with the prophets and apostles? I'm uncomfortable with the concept, if it does. We've been taught more than once (including fairly recently) that the concept of a "loyal opposition" does not have place in the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm also reminded of this general conference address by Elder Lynn G. Robbins. I'll paste a portion of it here with the comment that what is appropriate counsel for a General Authority Seventy is conceivably appropriate counsel for a general auxiliary leader.

 

Quote

 

“Which way do you face?” President Boyd K. Packer surprised me with this puzzling question while we were traveling together on my very first assignment as a new Seventy. Without an explanation to put the question in context, I was baffled. “A Seventy,” he continued, “does not represent the people to the prophet but the prophet to the people. Never forget which way you face!” It was a powerful lesson.

Trying to please others before pleasing God is inverting the first and second great commandments (see Matthew 22:37–39). It is forgetting which way we face. And yet, we have all made that mistake because of the fear of men. In Isaiah the Lord warns us, “Fear ye not the reproach of men” (Isaiah 51:7; see also 2 Nephi 8:7). In Lehi’s dream, this fear was triggered by the finger of scorn pointed from the great and spacious building, causing many to forget which way they faced and to leave the tree “ashamed” (see 1 Nephi 8:25–28).

This peer pressure tries to change a person’s attitudes, if not behavior, by making one feel guilty for giving offense. We seek respectful coexistence with those who point fingers, but when this fear of men tempts us to condone sin, it becomes a “snare” according to the book of Proverbs (see Proverbs 29:25). The snare may be cleverly baited to appeal to our compassionate side to tolerate or even approve of something that has been condemned by God. For the weak of faith, it can be a major stumbling block. For example, some young missionaries carry this fear of men into the mission field and fail to report the flagrant disobedience of a companion to their mission president because they don’t want to offend their wayward companion. Decisions of character are made by remembering the right order of the first and second great commandments (see Matthew 22:37–39). When these confused missionaries realize they are accountable to God and not to their companion, it should give them courage to do an about-face.

At the youthful age of 22, even Joseph Smith forgot which way he faced when he repeatedly importuned the Lord to allow Martin Harris to borrow the 116 manuscript pages. Perhaps Joseph wanted to show gratitude to Martin for his support. We know that Joseph was extremely anxious for other eyewitnesses to stand with him against the distressing falsehoods and lies being spread about him.

Whatever Joseph’s reasons were, or as justified as they may appear, the Lord did not excuse them and sharply rebuked him: “How oft you have transgressed … and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God” (D&C 3:6–7; emphasis added). This poignant experience helped Joseph remember, forever after, which way he faced.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

Perhaps she was pleasing God in reporting to the prophet about the women so that he could study it out in his mind and receive revelation which then enabled Sister Okasaki to bring the prophet to the people/women.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Rain

[Calm]

Church leadership did not seem to see it as a confrontation with an adversary when she reported to the RS Presidency the lack of women on the curriculum and instead would appear to not only think it was a great idea, but were grateful for it.

I have no reason to suppose they would have reacted differently to concerns expressed about women giving input on the Fam Proc if it had happened in time.  I suspect at most they would have declined by explaining why it had to stay that way.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that is indeed her calling, does it conceivably bring her (or any other auxiliary leader) into adversarial confrontation with the prophets and apostles?

No, i'm sure it didn't.  I feel comfortable saying that none of the Apostles or prophets that worked with her would have described their relationship as "adversarial confrontation."  I would worry that it might be speaking ill of the Lord's (previously) anointed to even suggest that about Sister Okazaki.  

[Scott Lloyd]

There's no way (for me, anyway) to know what the circumstances were at the time. What troubles me is that she was still grumping about it many years after the fact in quoted statements giving critics occasion to find fault. As I said, I contrast this with the published reminiscence of Siister Virginia H. Pearce (linked to above) who doesn't seem to have any problem with how things went down. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There's no way (for me, anyway) to know what the circumstances were at the time. What troubles me is that she was still grumping about it many years after the fact in quoted statements giving critics occasion to find fault. As I said, I contrast this with the published reminiscence of Siister Virginia H. Pearce (linked to above) who doesn't seem to have any problem with how things went down. 

Scott, I find nothing wrong with her reminiscence but she says nothing beyond referring to her own personal experience of hearing the Proc for the first time in conference so I don't find it really comparable to what we are talking about in regards to Sister Okazaki.  She may have been moved in much the same way, but still felt there were things that women could have contributed if they had the chance.  Sister Pearce might have been quite enthusiastic and made a number of suggestions if her dad had asked her about it prior to the release.

Sister Clyde shares her memory of the experience which sounds quite like Sister Okazaki:

 

[Calm]

I can't confirm this as accurate, but it appears that three women were consulted, just not the RS Presidency for some reason.

Quote

He mentioned that Beverly Campbell, Lucielle Tate and Claire Johnson were the women consulted during its preparation. At the time, I thought it odd–and disheartening–that the General Relief Society presidency was not.

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

https://www.lds.org/callings/relief-society/messages-from-leaders/news-and-announcements/frequently-asked-questions?lang=eng

Quote

In 1996 Sisters Lucile Tate and Elaine R. Harris were called and set apart to compile an unpublished history of the Relief Society. Their work was kept as a resource in the archives of the Church and served as a foundation to Daughters in My Kingdom.

Quote

Beverly Campbell, director of the Church’s international affairs office.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/02/news-of-the-church?lang=eng

I have not been able to find a reference to Claire Johnson.  If anyone knows who she was save for a friend of Elder Packer, I would love to know.

[rongo]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Ward RSs have their own budget.

It depends.

I don't give the organizations a "budget" in my ward. The bishopric knows what the amount for activities is (in our ward, it's around $13,000 per year, allocated to the ward by quarter), and then the organizations request authorization for activities or plans. Almost always, the answer is "yes," and we give guidance on roughly how much would be acceptable for each activity, based on availability. I find that this works better than setting some arbitrary amount ("RS gets $2,000, YW gets, um, how about $4,000? . . ."). And that's for a ward of 550+ with 65+ youth and a large primary. Our RS is able to do anything they want as frequently as they want to do it (the current RS presidency likes to have monthly activities, but they were quarterly when my wife was RS president). 

We also don't fundraise at all in our ward --- for boys' camp, girls' camp, cub camp. Anything. That is the spirit and pretty close to the letter of the handbook instruction (ward budget should be sufficient for all activities without fundraising, and fundraisers should be for extreme circumstances only, and then only one for camp and only one per camp). Members are first incredulous, and then jubiliant at the prospect of no fundraising. We live within our means as a ward, while limiting the time and money demands on our members. 

[Calm]

Perhaps Sister Tate was consulted for her expertise in writing:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/deseretnews/obituary.aspx?n=lucile-christenson-tate&pid=125307096

[rongo]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

She may have been moved in much the same way, but still felt there were things that women could have contributed if they had the chance. 

I think Carol Lynn Pearson would have loved to have had a hand in contributing/vetoing things in the PotF . . .

Kate Kelly, too, for that matter . . . 

I'm curious what people think faithful women like the former RS presidents named would have said or worded differently in the PotF, if only they were unshackled or consulted more thoroughly by the patriarchy. 

[Calm]

I am more curious what Sister Okazaki had in mind, I don't really care about what other people thought she might want to change.

 

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am more curious what Sister Okazaki had in mind, I don't really care about what other people thought she might want to change.

 

Sis. Okazaki gave an interview some years ago, "There is Always A Struggle" from Dialogue Magazine, an interview she gave with Greg Prince obviously published Spring 2012

Edited August 16, 2016 by Duncan

[Calm]

It is in the Dialogue article that has been quoted, Duncan.  I haven't read much more than the section that was quoted at this time (hard to read on my iPad), if someone has and seen where she mentioned what she would change, it would be nice of them to post that.

The quote did not say she was unhappy with the Proc or thought it was wrong.  Changing something can be improving a really good thing to make it great.  I do think Sister Clyde sounded disappointed they hadn't been able to do their diverse family conference, but it is possible that they were able to use that preparation in other ways.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Calm