This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[Rain]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

It isn't a "belief." It is a very large body of research. Labeling it as "liberal" doesn't even make sense. It just is, it is not a value judgment.

I think you are labeling when I said, "I don't agree" as showing I think what has been found is a "belief"? If so,  that was not my intention.  It isn't the the things observed and found that I disagree with. It is some of the conclusions - I don't always agree with your conclusions. I was trying to say that even though I don't always agree with your conclusions, I have been more aware of the things you have talked about.  When I was talking to Rod about it I was trying not to make an assumption of why he said what he said and just ask him. 

I also specifically didn't use liberal because it didn't convey what I was trying to say.  I used conservative because it was the best word I could think of to show what I was trying to say.  To be honest I don't want go through the process of how to explain that better right now. Maybe later.

[juliann]

Again, when you specifically talk about communication styles and I am giving information from research, it isn't "my conclusion." What conclusions there are are from the body of research, which is remarkably consistent. My conclusion, based on research and studies, is that men and women do not behave differently in church than they do in society when it comes to something as fundamental as communication. And men's way, statistically, of interacting with women is to silence them whether it is purposeful or not. (Likely not for our purposes.) 

The Church is ahead of society in setting up councils that are optimal for female success, even though men may be in the majority. A council is based on consensus, not majority rule. Consensus requires that all participate. Thus, women can't be overlooked or silenced as they are as a minority in a majority rule situation. Thus, the church has set up the optimum situation for women to succeed assuming the male leader is cooperative. That was my conclusion, church councils were not mentioned in the book. 

It is a common complaint that women just won't speak up. This book tells why they can't be blamed for that, in fact it is the most educated and higher socio-economic groups of women who shut down first. In the Church situation, they not only are required to speak, the others must listen. Thus, Mormon women stand a much better chance of being heard and learning to stand equal to men than in other group situations (community, political, business.)  The problem is when the same ten people have the callings that give them the opportunity to interact in councils.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

Again, when you specifically talk about communication styles and I am giving information from research, it isn't "my conclusion." What conclusions there are are from the body of research, which is remarkably consistent. My conclusion, based on research and studies, is that men and women do not behave differently in church than they do in society when it comes to something as fundamental as communication. And men's way, statistically, of interacting with women is to silence them whether it is purposeful or not. (Likely not for our purposes.) 

The Church is ahead of society in setting up councils that are optimal for female success, even though men may be in the majority. A council is based on consensus, not majority rule. Consensus requires that all participate. Thus, women can't be overlooked or silenced as they are as a minority in a majority rule situation. Thus, the church has set up the optimum situation for women to succeed assuming the male leader is cooperative. That was my conclusion, church councils were not mentioned in the book. 

It is a common complaint that women just won't speak up. This book tells why they can't be blamed for that, in fact it is the most educated and higher socio-economic groups of women who shut down first. In the Church situation, they not only are required to speak, the others must listen. Thus, Mormon women stand a much better chance of being heard and learning to stand equal to men than in other group situations (community, political, business.)  The problem is when the same ten people have the callings that give them the opportunity to interact in councils.

Is a ward council meeting set up this way? Does it require consensus or is there one ultimate decision maker?

IMO ward councils are coordinating bodies. All are not equal advisors to the presiding leader who makes the final decision. The others are then expected to sustain the decision, but that is hardly consensus.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is a ward council meeting set up this way? Does it require consensus or is there one ultimate decision maker?

IMO ward councils are coordinating bodies. All are not equal advisors to the presiding leader who makes the final decision. The others are then expected to sustain the decision, but that is hardly consensus.

While it doesn't demand the unanimity the Quorum of the Twelve does, it would be a mischaracterization to say it is just a coordinating committee. I recommend to you the handbook ii description and the several training videos online.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is a ward council meeting set up this way? Does it require consensus or is there one ultimate decision maker?

IMO ward councils are coordinating bodies. All are not equal advisors to the presiding leader who makes the final decision. The others are then expected to sustain the decision, but that is hardly consensus.

I dispute the notion that the Q12 and FP must be/are always unanimous. They are *unified*, yes, but often not unanimous. Which is actually how stake and ward councils, RS/EQ/HP/YM/YW/P presidencies usually function, too. 

There is an important difference between being unified and being unanimous. This notion that councils function under a unanimity model that has been bandied about here for a few months is nonsense in the real world, frankly. Most often, people have slightly-to-significantly different views on issues and initiatives, offer their input and perspective and feedback, and then most often sustain the decision of the presiding authority. Much less often does a dissenting member go along "under protest" (although that happens, too, sometimes). The notion that councils should strive for 100%, plainsong, absolute unanimity, and not move on anything until everyone falls into absolute lockstep, is completely outside of my experience, and what I know about how the Q12/FP/Q70s actually operate. 

They are marvelously unified, but often disagree significantly about what should be done. But, sustain the decision of the presiding authority, just the same. 

[juliann]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is a ward council meeting set up this way? Does it require consensus or is there one ultimate decision maker?

IMO ward councils are coordinating bodies. All are not equal advisors to the presiding leader who makes the final decision. The others are then expected to sustain the decision, but that is hardly consensus.

That is not what consensus means in this context. The researchers measured group configurations, women are silenced when they are in the minority and the deliberation style is majority rule. They do best, even when a minority, with deliberation style that requires everyone to speak.  Consensus doesn't require every person have the same thoughts anyway. 

[Nofear]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

I dispute the notion that the Q12 and FP must be/are always unanimous. They are *unified*, yes, but often not unanimous. Which is actually how stake and ward councils, RS/EQ/HP/YM/YW/P presidencies usually function, too.

If Pres. Packer, Faust, and Hinckley are comfortable with using ''unanimous'', I'll defer to their language over some guy on the internet saying he knows how it really works (see https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-5-the-quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng). This, of course, does not mean there are not often variations of opinion, even significant ones. But as described in the link above (and elsewhere) decisions of import are defered/discussed/revisited/etc. until all are unanimously supportive of the decision.

Ward Councils are not bound in this way.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

If Pres. Packer, Faust, and Hinckley are comfortable with using ''unanimous'', I'll defer to their language over some guy on the internet saying he knows how it really works (see https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-5-the-quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng). This, of course, does not mean there are not often variations of opinion, even significant ones. But as described in the link above (and elsewhere) decisions of import are defered/discussed/revisited/etc. until all are unanimously supportive of the decision.

Ward Councils are not bound in this way.

I fully agree that, as you say, "decisions of import" require unanimity among the governing quorums. D&C 107 specifies that non-unanimous decisions from a quorum don't carry the same authority as unanimous ones, and this applies to "decisions of import." What I was responding to was the thought expressed here by multiple people that this unanimity must extend to every action and issue considered by these governing quorums, including ones that do not rise to "decisions of import." This is demonstrably not the case, and I have cited a few instances. This is evident even in your response, where you agree that there can be and often are "variations of opinion, even significant ones" among the governing quorums (which is, by definition, not unanimity). 

What I was also responding to was the thought expressed here by multiple people that this unanimity in all things, great and small, is what our ward and stake councils should look like as well. Anyone with any experience with either knows that this isn't the case, while it is  still possible to be (as I have said) unified instead of unanimous. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by rongo

[Nofear]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

I fully agree that, as you say, "decisions of import" require unanimity among the governing quorums. D&C 107 specifies that non-unanimous decisions from a quorum don't carry the same authority as unanimous ones, and this applies to "decisions of import." What I was responding to was the thought expressed here by multiple people that this unanimity must extend to every action and issue considered by these governing quorums, including ones that do not rise to "decisions of import." This is demonstrably not the case, and I have cited a few instances. This is evident even in your response, where you agree that there can be and often are "variations of opinion, even significant ones" among the governing quorums (which is, by definition, not unanimity). 

What I was also responding to was the thought expressed here by multiple people that this unanimity in all things, great and small, is what our ward and stake councils should look like as well. Anyone with any experience with either knows that this isn't the case, while it is  still possible to be (as I have said) unified instead of unanimous. 

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement, especially on the local level. Perhaps the unity of the Twelve is something to strive for at the local level. I personally don't see it as particularly practical though. From my understanding, when they disagree (and it's not uncommon for these are men of experience who can hold pretty strong opinions and perhaps are used to being deferred to) they take the time to reach unanimity -- as opposed to simply acquiescing as may happen in Wards. That takes time that lay clergy simply don't have.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 hours ago, Nofear said:

While it doesn't demand the unanimity the Quorum of the Twelve does, it would be a mischaracterization to say it is just a coordinating committee. I recommend to you the handbook ii description and the several training videos online.

I was asking specifically about ward council, not the council of 12. You got that, right?  

[HappyJackWagon]

It seems that there is confusion about what "consensus" means. I am using the text book definition.

Quote

consensus

1. 1 a :  general agreement :  unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>b :  the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2. 2 :  group solidarity in sentiment and belief

I maintain my position that ward council does not require consensus nor is consensus a goal of a ward council. There often is no "general agreement" about the best course of action. The only "solidarity" of belief is based on the hierarchical model of who gets to make the final decision and then the duty of the group to support it. 

Having said that, I agree with Juliann's assertion that a council structure like this is more welcoming to women's voices as it is not designed to set cliques or majority rules results. Each person can make a case and then the decision-maker decides.

[Meadowchik]

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 9:34 PM, CMZ said:

As with many things this comes down to each individual perceiving things correctly and acting correctly in the matter. When people truly understand the gospel correctly then for them there is no sexism, not even benevolent sexism. There are other such issues where the gospel itself does or does not say something on a particular matter but a sizeable subset of membership within the Church believes that something has or has not been said on a certain matter. An example is a sizeable subset of membership within the Church believing that Coca-Cola is specifically against the Word of Wisdom. I just had a co-worker the other day say, "Mormons can't drink soda, right?" So, a rampant, entrenched misunderstanding is taken as though it is concrete, eternal doctrine, when it is no such thing.

On the other side of the coin you can have things that someone else perceives as sexism that may not be sexism. Except now I'm wondering if people are going to perceive me as sexist for opening the car door for my wife (which I do). I suppose someone will say I'm demeaning women for doing that.

Does Mormonism treat people differently based on their gender? Yes. This is sexist. Regardkess of the fact that he "-ist" is derogatory in today's society, sexism is doctrinal in the Church and the gospel.

[Meadowchik]

On Monday, January 02, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Meadowchik said:

Leadership involvement in a civil matter with another member who is dangerous, which (their involvement) imo was mismanaged.

A very good update:

The dangerous member and his family have decided to move (out of the apartment we rent to them.) They have given official notice.

This is imo a very good thing for both our families. It is interesting to me how this came to be:

Five years ago,  a long-time friend moved into that apartment with his wife and then, three years later, the other family moved in when they left. The longtime friend's brother and family moved to this area (because his brother was here, because we were here) this past summer. That brother served a foreign mission in a different country serving in the same ward as the family who now lives here, with which we have problems. 

When the brother met us and eventually learned of the problems, he started trying to help the other family, (something we could not do, given the circumstances.) They also remembered him. He found them an apartment.

And here we are. It's possible that the bishop also pressed them to leave, but I think the biggest factor here was our friend's brother. He has a very calm but assertive, peacemaking character.

Things like this make it hard to believe in "coincidences!"

Edited January 9, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

So happy to hear this.  What a change it will be not to have that stress at the back of one's mind as a constant presence even if you don't have to deal with it right now.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

So happy to hear this.  What a change it will be not to have that stress at the back of one's mind as a constant presence even if you don't have to deal with it right now.

Thanks! Yup, it's a big deal. I hope that we will remember our lessons from this!

[Sleeper Cell]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Does Mormonism treat people differently based on their gender? Yes. This is sexist. Regardkess of the fact that he "-ist" is derogatory in today's society, sexism is doctrinal in the Church and the gospel.

According to my dictionary, “sexist”  means believing that one sex is inferior to another.  Treating people differently based on their gender does not necessarily mean that one believes that one gender is inferior.  

Of course,  if memory serves, the relatively new word “sexist” was invented as a derogatory term to stigmatize those to whom it is applied.  So, in that sense, I suppose it is only natural to expand its definition whenever one believes it will help the cause.  

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

According to my dictionary, “sexist”  means believing that one sex is inferior to another.  Treating people differently based on their gender does not necessarily mean that one believes that one gender is inferior.  

Of course,  if memory serves, the relatively new word “sexist” was invented as a derogatory term to stigmatize those to whom it is applied.  So, in that sense, I suppose it is only natural to expand its definition whenever one believes it will help the cause.  

What year was it published?

From Merriam-Webster:

"

Definition of sexism

1. 1:  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

2. 2:  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"

[CMZ]

On 1/9/2017 at 0:27 AM, Meadowchik said:

Does Mormonism treat people differently based on their gender? Yes.

Yes, there are a number of things that men are expected to do that women aren't. As just one example, men are expected to go on a mission, but women can choose to or not choose to with no consternation from the Church for not choosing to do so. And nobody can claim that that's an anti-woman thing because if a woman wants to go then they are allowed to go.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

Yes, there are a number of things that men are expected to do that women aren't. As just one example, men are expected to go on a mission, but women can choose to or not choose to with no consternation from the Church for not choosing to do so. And nobody can claim that that's an anti-woman thing because if a woman wants to go then they are allowed to go.

But they need approval for everything..and after their hard work and dedication...they can't baptize.

[CMZ]

Male missionaries also need approval from others for many things. Yes, each gender does and doesn't do different things.

[Jeanne]

36 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Male missionaries also need approval from others for many things. Yes, each gender does and doesn't do different things.

And there is no rhyme nor reason for those differences.

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And there is no rhyme nor reason for those differences.

Maybe. Maybe not. If you want you can help out with directing parking at my stake's conference this coming Sunday at 9am. The men are being asked to and the women are not being asked to and I can't see any rhyme nor reason for it.

[Buckeye]

8 hours ago, CMZ said:

Maybe. Maybe not. If you want you can help out with directing parking at my stake's conference this coming Sunday at 9am. The men are being asked to and the women are not being asked to and I can't see any rhyme nor reason for it.

In my stake I sign up to usher parking. I bring some of my older children -sons and daughters -to help. Women make great ushers. They even usher priesthood session of general conference. 

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, CMZ said:

Maybe. Maybe not. If you want you can help out with directing parking at my stake's conference this coming Sunday at 9am. The men are being asked to and the women are not being asked to and I can't see any rhyme nor reason for it.

I agree.  See..there is nothing that all of us should/could not do for the church.  Now parking if parking...how would you feel if you had taught and learned to love a family that wanted to be baptized..but had to call someone else to do it.  I see your point.  I hope you see mine.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Buckeye said:

In my stake I sign up to usher parking. I bring some of my older children -sons and daughters -to help. Women make great ushers. They even usher priesthood session of general conference. 

You better look out

"Women make great ushers" definitely sounds sexist to me.   If it said doctors or lawyers, it would be acceptable, I am sure.  But Poles make good ushers too.