Involvement of RS and women in creating curriculum and manuals

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

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 . . . 

Pearson and Kelly were never set aside as general officers of the RS who were given stewardship over the adult women of the Church as Sister Okazaki and Sister Clyde were.

I don't think it is unreasonable for anyone to expect that if any women were consulted (and apparently some were), that it would be the RS Presidency as they would most likely have great experience with what women believed they needed most to fulfill their roles as mother and wives as well as daughters of God, including what guidance from their church leaders they desired.

[stemelbow]

16 hours 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 think, simply, she felt a woman's perspective could have added to the document.  That she was one of a number of women who were in a position in the Church in which they could have participated in its creation.  I think women can participate in revelatory documents, myself.  I personally don't have an issue with her concern. 

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Sure.  We're all different and have varying ideas, feelings, and concerns.  That's great.  Let's not shut each other out, condemn each other, or make a fuss when ideas differ.  At least that's my take.

[stemelbow]

15 hours 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? 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.

 

 

If her speaking up for women in the Church, if her push to get women involved in things like the manuals is so bad, then the leaders would have done something about it.  Instead they continued to embrace her and make the types of changes she was gunning for. 

I think your condemnation of her to be untenable and completely silly.  She obviously helped to forge a place for more of a woman's voice in Church.  For that I commend her.  And I say, there is along way for us to God as a Church. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Have you considered that setting budgets doesn't have to be an arbitrary amount? If you were just picking numbers out of your hat and saying, "RS you have $2000 for the year, have fun," I would agree with you but who would do that? On the other hand, if the RS Pres submits their annual budget request based on specific needs and activities, the bishopric can make an informed budget decision, approve the budget, and then allow the RS Presidency to act with greater autonomy throughout the year. They wouldn't have to run to you for approval for every expenditure. Preparing an annual budget necessitates annual planning. Sure, some things will change, but there's a good framework for the year to help achieve specific goals.

In short, having auxiliary leaders prepare annual budget requests tied to activities which are tied to goals, is a great planning tool and allows them the autonomy they need to truly be stewards and leaders.

[rongo]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Have you considered that setting budgets doesn't have to be an arbitrary amount? If you were just picking numbers out of your hat and saying, "RS you have $2000 for the year, have fun," I would agree with you but who would do that?

That's how every organization actually does their budget requests, in practice. They might have a rough ballpark figure in mind, but they don't really know.

Quote

On the other hand, if the RS Pres submits their annual budget request based on specific needs and activities, the bishopric can make an informed budget decision, approve the budget, and then allow the RS Presidency to act with greater autonomy throughout the year.

The organizations do make annual big-picture plans "based on specific needs and activities." That doesn't mean that they have any idea, really, of an exact dollar amount. It's not just RS ---- by far, the biggest "consumer" of the budget is the YW and YM. Primary's pretty big, too.

Quote

They wouldn't have to run to you for approval for every expenditure.

"Running" to the bishop "for approval for every expenditure." Loaded language designed to portray RS as subservient underlings. According to Church financial policy, every reimbursed expense out of the budget has to be approved by the bishop before it is incurred. Even if the organizations submitted a detailed annual budget and were "granted" an annual dollar amount. They can't do whatever they want with that money once it is "given."

Quote

In short, having auxiliary leaders prepare annual budget requests tied to activities which are tied to goals, is a great planning tool and allows them the autonomy they need to truly be stewards and leaders.

I don't accept the notion that my leaders aren't "truly . . . steward and leaders" if I don't give them an annual dollar amount at the beginning of the year.

Edited August 17, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Pearson and Kelly were never set aside as general officers of the RS who were given stewardship over the adult women of the Church as Sister Okazaki and Sister Clyde were.

I know that. 

I'm still curious what people think might/would have been different (both extra wording and removed wording, along with restated wording) if the "set apart" female general Church leadership had had active input on the PotF.

I know this is just a message board, and no one really knows or is in a position to say. But what do you (anyone) think ? Those bringing up resentment about the consultation have some things in mind. What are they? I'm curious.

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know that. 

I'm still curious what people think might/would have been different (both extra wording and removed wording, along with restated wording) if the "set apart" female general Church leadership had had active input on the PotF.

I know this is just a message board, and no one really knows or is in a position to say. But what do you (anyone) think ? Those bringing up resentment about the consultation have some things in mind. What are they? I'm curious.

I don't have any ideas. No resentment here or any feelings that it should have been done that way.  

I am curious though if it would have been different. When I think of Elder Ballard talks of how councils should be and that women should be participating I wonder even more.  

Again,  no feelings on this.  Just curiosity. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Rain

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't have any ideas. No resentment here or aby feelings that it sold have been done that way.  

I am curious though if it would have been different. When I think of how Elder Ballard talk of how councils should be and that women should be participating I wonder even more.  

Again,  no feelings on this.  Just curiosity. 

Me, too. I also don't think it would have been any different, even if Sisters Okizaki and Clyde wanted to have more direct input. Maybe they just wanted the direct input.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't have any ideas. No resentment here or any feelings that it should have been done that way.  

I am curious though if it would have been different. When I think of Elder Ballard talks of how councils should be and that women should be participating I wonder even more.  

Again,  no feelings on this.  Just curiosity. 

What Rain said...

[bsjkki]

An update on the topic. I read this today which seems to refute the original article.  http://www.wheatandtares.org/22062/more-charity-for-bad-examples/. Women appear to write the visiting teaching lessons.  This is good news.  

[bluebell]

Always a good reminder that we should save our angst for things we actually know instead of fighting scenarios that only exist in our heads.