Something New

[Senator]

Hi All,

This past Sunday was Fast Sunday for us.  So, as usual I get a knock at the door and I think, "it must be the deacons collecting fast offerings".  Well, I open the door to find one deacon, and one beehive!

Wha???

I've never seen this before. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a change in things?

 

[bluebell]

I'm in the YW's presidency in our ward and this is definitely not happening here (or in wyoming in my parents' ward).   I personally think it's kind of dumb, but don't know that it's breaking any rules.

Edited January 10, 2017 by bluebell

[Senator]

Why do you think it's dumb?

[ERayR]

14 minutes ago, Senator said:

Why do you think it's dumb?

 

Because not following procedures leads to problems down the road.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Senator said:

Why do you think it's dumb?

Probably part of my personality and also some assumption on my part, but i think it's dumb when someone thinks that the way to make women equal in the church is to give them some of the men's responsibilities.  

I don't see making the young women more like the young men (not in the physical sense, of course) is any kind of an answer.  From my perspective, it assumes that women only gain equality as they move into men's spheres because men's sphere's are inherently superior.

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Senator said:

Hi All,

This past Sunday was Fast Sunday for us.  So, as usual I get a knock at the door and I think, "it must be the deacons collecting fast offerings".  Well, I open the door to find one deacon, and one beehive!

Wha???

I've never seen this before. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a change in things?

 

Maybe it was his sister who pitched in if he didn't want to go alone perhaps?

[why me]

At the end of the day, it is really not that important. Maybe it was an one off happening.

[Duncan]

That young women collect fast offering isn't new. A young an and women going togther, maybe but ah so what. I saw a old photo of a YW's group that out collected their ward's fast offerings, it was from the 1940's or 50's, it was in the paper

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Probably part of my personality and also some assumption on my part, but i think it's dumb when someone thinks that the way to make women equal in the church is to give them some of the men's responsibilities.  

I don't see making the young women more like the young men (not in the physical sense, of course) is any kind of an answer.  From my perspective, it assumes that women only gain equality as they move into men's spheres because men's sphere's are inherently superior.

So if a ward has baby changing tables in the women's bathroom, you would oppose the installation of the same tables in the men's restrooms? 

Or if the church has only male missionaries, you would oppose the introduction of female missionaries (as President Woodruff did circa 1890)?

 

[Buckeye]

FWIW, having served with YM for many years in wards with very large boundaries, I tend to look down on deacon fast offering collection as a net waste of time and money. Generally speaking, the bishop doesn't have much need for deacons to assist here (or YW). And the cost in gas and time is significant, especially since at least half the time the members aren't home. Many times I've seen a member ready to pay FO at church, but then be told they need to wait for the deacon to come to their house later that afternoon, but then there is a mixup and the schedules don't work and everyone is frustrated. FO collection really is a make work assignment. There's so many other better places we could put the youth - YM and YW - to work. Just my 2 cents.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Buckeye

[halconero]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Hi All,

This past Sunday was Fast Sunday for us.  So, as usual I get a knock at the door and I think, "it must be the deacons collecting fast offerings".  Well, I open the door to find one deacon, and one beehive!

Wha???

I've never seen this before. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a change in things?

 

Maybe they were just an extremely young looking High Priest and his wife...

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Hi All,

This past Sunday was Fast Sunday for us.  So, as usual I get a knock at the door and I think, "it must be the deacons collecting fast offerings".  Well, I open the door to find one deacon, and one beehive!

Wha???

I've never seen this before. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a change in things?

 

Seems like an anomaly to me. Probably not worth any great worry or protracted discussion.

[bluebell]

Just now, Buckeye said:

So if a ward has baby changing tables in the women's bathroom, you would oppose the installation of the same tables in the men's restrooms? 

Or if the church has only male missionaries, you would oppose the introduction of female missionaries (as President Woodruff did circa 1890)?

 

If there is a specific need of others (such as a child with a dirty diaper or an investigator that can only connect to missionaries of a certain gender) that doing something fills, then great.  If not, then doing it just so women (or men) don't feel like losers seems counterproductive to me.  

I personally think we devalue women when we teach them that getting what men have and becoming more like them is the goal.  Why is gaining what men have the ultimate victory for women?  I really don't get it.  Can we not think of anything better for women to aim for than that?   Is that how small our imagination is, that we can't conceive of an equal role for women that has not first been occupied by a man?  

I don't want 'what the men have and do' to be what decides what a girl's role and purpose should be.  

Women don't need men to be equal.  We don't need what men have to be equal and we don't need what men do to be equal.  Our equality is independent of men.  Just like male equality is independent of women.

Neither gender (their roles, responsibilities, or anything else) should be held up as the gold standard, but the way some people react to gender issues in the church, that's exactly what they are doing.  They are holding up men's roles, responsibilities, etc, as the gold standard-the ultimate goal for women.  

And I think that's dumb.

 

[Buckeye]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If there is a specific need of others (such as a child with a dirty diaper or an investigator that can only connect to missionaries of a certain gender) that doing something fills, then great.  If not, then doing it just so women (or men) don't feel like losers seems counterproductive to me.  

I personally think we devalue women when we teach them that getting what men have and becoming more like them is the goal.  Why is gaining what men have the ultimate victory for women?  I really don't get it.  Can we not think of anything better for women to aim for than that?   Is that how small our imagination is, that we can't conceive of an equal role for women that has not first been occupied by a man?  

I don't want 'what the men have and do' to be what decides what a girl's role and purpose should be.  

Women don't need men to be equal.  We don't need what men have to be equal and we don't need what men do to be equal.  Our equality is independent of men.  Just like male equality is independent of women.

Neither gender (their roles, responsibilities, or anything else) should be held up as the gold standard, but the way some people react to gender issues in the church, that's exactly what they are doing.  They are holding up men's roles, responsibilities, etc, as the gold standard-the ultimate goal for women.  

And I think that's dumb.

 

So just to be clear, its fine to call women to be missionaries, but only to teach investigators that can't be reached by men? And its fine for men to change diapers, but only if women can't do it first?  It seems like you're the one who is more caught up in roles more than those who aim for equality.

For my part, I'm sympathetic to equality concerns, but I've come to see equality as a less-effective approach because it generates severe push back (such as your comments). The better approach is summed up in the 13th AOF: "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." If FO collection is good for boys then its good for girls too and should be supported. (As I stated above, I personally think its a net waste) A charitable response to the OP would be to not assume the girls' involvement with FO was to make them equal to boys, or to give the girls "boys work" because its more important than "girls work," but rather to give the girls something good to do because it will make them better people. It's no different than sports or camping. I encourage my daughters to do these things because they bless their lives and make them better; not because they make them boys.

Likewise, allowing women to gain higher education, serve missions, baptize their children, serve as bishops, etc. is laudable because those things are good for women to do. The goal isn't to make women into men anymore than it is to make boys into men. The goal is to make us all into Christ. And there is only one path there from all people, regardless of gender. Gender is not eternal. Gender roles only serve to damn. Its time to let all people seek after all things that are virtuous, lovely, or of good report and stop damning them because of traditional barriers on what is a proper role. 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, Senator said:

Hi All,

This past Sunday was Fast Sunday for us.  So, as usual I get a knock at the door and I think, "it must be the deacons collecting fast offerings".  Well, I open the door to find one deacon, and one beehive!

Wha???

I've never seen this before. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a change in things?

 

They were just collecting funds so they could run to McDonalds for a treat before church

Of course collecting fast offerings isn't an official duty of a deacon anyway. It's not in the D&C so I so no reason that the duty couldn't be modified to include the YW. In any case, it's a total busy work assignment.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Probably part of my personality and also some assumption on my part, but i think it's dumb when someone thinks that the way to make women equal in the church is to give them some of the men's responsibilities.  

I don't see making the young women more like the young men (not in the physical sense, of course) is any kind of an answer.  From my perspective, it assumes that women only gain equality as they move into men's spheres because men's sphere's are inherently superior.

Great point. But what if the Beehive wanted to help collect fast offerings? If she wanted to help I think it's great that she was able to and not prohibited because of some arbitrary rule.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

FWIW, having served with YM for many years in wards with very large boundaries, I tend to look down on deacon fast offering collection as a net waste of time and money. Generally speaking, the bishop doesn't have much need for deacons to assist here (or YW). And the cost in gas and time is significant, especially since at least half the time the members aren't home. Many times I've seen a member ready to pay FO at church, but then be told they need to wait for the deacon to come to their house later that afternoon, but then there is a mixup and the schedules don't work and everyone is frustrated. FO collection really is a make work assignment. There's so many other better places we could put the youth - YM and YW - to work. Just my 2 cents.

Yep. Total time sap. It's a throwback to "the good ole days" when that was a feasible way to collect fast offerings in the Utah neighborhoods. It makes ZERO sense in an area like mine so we don't do it.

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If there is a specific need of others (such as a child with a dirty diaper or an investigator that can only connect to missionaries of a certain gender) that doing something fills, then great.  If not, then doing it just so women (or men) don't feel like losers seems counterproductive to me.  

I personally think we devalue women when we teach them that getting what men have and becoming more like them is the goal.  Why is gaining what men have the ultimate victory for women?  I really don't get it.  Can we not think of anything better for women to aim for than that?   Is that how small our imagination is, that we can't conceive of an equal role for women that has not first been occupied by a man?  

I don't want 'what the men have and do' to be what decides what a girl's role and purpose should be.  

Women don't need men to be equal.  We don't need what men have to be equal and we don't need what men do to be equal.  Our equality is independent of men.  Just like male equality is independent of women.

Neither gender (their roles, responsibilities, or anything else) should be held up as the gold standard, but the way some people react to gender issues in the church, that's exactly what they are doing.  They are holding up men's roles, responsibilities, etc, as the gold standard-the ultimate goal for women.  

And I think that's dumb.

 

I'm not sure why it would be dumb to ensure that men and women have equal opportunities to participate. That's not to say they would be required to do the same things in all cases, but it sure seems positive not to bar someone from participation because of gender.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

So just to be clear, its fine to call women to be missionaries, but only to teach investigators that can't be reached by men? And its fine for men to change diapers, but only if women can't do it first?  It seems like you're the one who is more caught up in roles more than those who aim for equality.

 

Looks like you (really) need some clarification so i'll try again.  Doing something because men (or women) are doing it first, and doing something because it's the right thing to do, are two different things.  The first reason is a dumb reason to do something.  The second reason isn't.

Quote

For my part, I'm sympathetic to equality concerns, but I've come to see equality as a less-effective approach because it generates severe push back (such as your comments).

Yeah, that's where my sincere beliefs come from.  Push back.  That doesn't sound condescending at all.   

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure why it would be dumb to ensure that men and women have equal opportunities to participate. That's not to say they would be required to do the same things in all cases, but it sure seems positive not to bar someone from participation because of gender.

I don't think that God sees it that way.  Participation trophies are kind of lame.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great point. But what if the Beehive wanted to help collect fast offerings? If she wanted to help I think it's great that she was able to and not prohibited because of some arbitrary rule.

Maybe it was.  But i've got different issues with the 'I should always get to do what I want!' mentality.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that God sees it that way.  Participation trophies are kind of lame.

Who said anything about a participation trophy? We're just talking about letting the kids play if they want to.

I'm honestly pretty shocked though that you don't see value in allowing people to have the same kinds of opportunities instead of restricting them based on gender. Why should gender prevent a beehive from collecting fast offerings if she wants to help? Would it be better to tell my 12 year old daughter that she can't help because she's a girl? I don't get it.

Edited January 10, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Looks like you (really) need some clarification so i'll try again.  Doing something because men (or women) are doing it first, and doing something because it's the right thing to do, are two different things.  The first reason is a dumb reason to do something.  The second reason isn't.

Yeah, that's where my sincere beliefs come from.  Push back.  That doesn't sound condescending at all.   

 

So why did you assume that the ward in the OP was acting for a dumb reason rather than because it's the right thing to do? That's where the condescension started. 

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that God sees it that way.  Participation trophies are kind of lame.

Your god sucks. The real God is no respecter of persons. Race, gender, etc. - he does not limit people based on these things like fallen men (and women) are wont to do.

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yep. Total time sap. It's a throwback to "the good ole days" when that was a feasible way to collect fast offerings in the Utah neighborhoods. It makes ZERO sense in an area like mine so we don't do it.

The vast majority of people in my ward donate at church or online. I only use fast offering routes for people I have strategically decided to send the boys to (generally, active members who don't pay fast offerings or whose fast offerings are so small that it wouldn't hurt to give them more chances to donate . . .  ). This works out to only about two households per boy. And it works: sending the boys has brought in donations from people I have asked multiple times before with no result. 

Though, I'm sure if I offered to give it to the Beehives, the boys would be all for it! 

Edited January 10, 2017 by rongo