Conference Announcements--Gender Equity Implications

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I generally feel that the change is good.  The concept of "ministering" could be seen as more inclusive than "teaching".  I know that this is just semantics, but perception is a powerful thing.

Oh yeah, I agree totally.   No I think it is a lot more than semantics if it helps people realize they are not "oppressed" by the priesthood.   

A semantic solution for a semantic problem.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I can't say that my opinion was all that different from yours until my 8 year old daughter started to ask why God favored the boys.  I don't think the pursuit of equality for equality's sake is needed.  But there are good reasons to pursue equality.

It all revolves around the definition of equality.  The moment you try to make everyone the same, then I am totally against it.  For example, tonight I was watching an episode of Designated Survivor (you could pick from a host of serials on T.V. and find the same thing). Their FBI agent is a woman; maybe 5'2" - 5'6", but she can completely pound any male of any size at any time.  Does not matter if he is a Seal, an Army Ranger, a spy, you name she is woman and she can kill any man.  This is something beyond fantasy, but hey, men and women are equal....or maybe women are actually better than men, but that is acceptable.

An author by the name of James Kalb has written a few books.  Neither of the books I have linked to address this topic specifically, but he does an excellent job of producing a critical review of the Liberal political agenda.  I have only read one of these and was relatively impressed.  It may be worth a read.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Of course I have experience with those types of service (though I’ve never know an EQP to be involved with dispensing ward welfare. I’ve only ever had RS president being in charge of that under authority of the bishop—including when I was a RS president). I am so thankful for the men of the church.

But none of that means that I fall under the stewardship of the EQ. When the RS takes a meal in to a man or otherwise serves him, it doesn’t mean he is under their stewardship either.

Who is your neighbor? Do you have stewardship for him?

And whom do you serve?  Do we have a list of those whom we do not serve or "over" whom we have stewardship?

[Calm]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Tomb Raider were not chick flicks.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Tomb Raider were not chick flicks.

Huh?

[gopher]

I can't believe you left out the biggest change!  In a victory for my MRA group and our silent protest, children and youth can no longer be alone with one adult women.  Previously, it was only men that needed two deep leadership in Primary and Scouts.  The church has finally corrected this egregious wrong.  So we are going to celebrate with a night of bowling and karaoke.

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it's awesome.  Though it has been funny to listen to some of the men complaining about how hard it's going to be to combine the older/younger experienced/less experienced men together.  Women have been doing it since the beginning so hopefully the men can manage.  

Some of the men have been complaining?

[Traela]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

"believe that inviting the YW 14+ to participate in the ministering program is a move to create more gender equity."

I think it is less about gender equality and more about filling a need for Young Women to be integrated into the ward and their gender's ward organization.  It has been a useful practice that helped the Young Men move from youth to adult association.  Makes sense to use a tried and true program for the Young Women who have been struggling at times to know what their role in the ward family is (see Sister Oscarson's talk https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/media/session_2_talk_8/5761570154001?lang=eng )

Most Young Women I know could care less about doing the same thing Young Men do on a long term basis unless they can be shown there is a reason for the YW to start doing it.

Maybe 15 years ago, the big buzzword in RS was "transition."  As in, how do we get the young women comfortable and excited with the idea of moving on to RS?  My thought at the time was, well, duh, include the older girls in VT so they get to know more of the adult women.  But no one asked me...

 

[Traela]

.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Traela
Double post

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who is your neighbor? Do you have stewardship for him?

And whom do you serve?  Do we have a list of those whom we do not serve or "over" whom we have stewardship?

That’s not the kind of stewardship the poster was talking about.  Your questions aren’t relevant to what he said or my question back to him.

There’s a reason why, in ward council, the bishop asks me about the YW and not primary kids. There’s a reason he asks the RS president about certain sisters in the ward but never asks the EQP about them. There is a reason that the Sunday School President is asked about Sunday school teachers and not the teachers in YM. We all have different stewardships.

We are expected to work together and care for each other, but that does not mean that our specific stewardships don’t exist. 

 

[Storm Rider]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Yeah, not really what I have seen discussed when it comes to equality though there may be some factions that promote that.

Equality is more often promoted in my experience as removing unnecessary burdens from women or minority ethnic groups that prevent them from running as fast as they can, not trying to slow down anyone else.  They want to fulfill their own potential, not hamper anyone else.

I suspect we agree to a large extent on the need to remove unnecessary burdens regardless of gender or race. However, the problem, imo, is that there are some radical ideas floating about and everyone uses the same language when the intent of that language is not remotely similar.  

Too often there appears to be a denigration of the role of motherhood. It is as if the fact that females bring life into the world is some how a limiting, dead end. These genre of topics always makes me think that women need to be "freed" from any form of motherhood in order for them to "real" humans.  Of course, that results in the denigration of the family because it is a sexist institution where a woman is forced to bear children and men just sit back and ask when is dinner.  

More importantly, I want to think and understand what does the end look like?  What does a society look like in the end? Move the clock forward 50 years, 100 years, etc.   I get the impression that it is the antithesis of anything remotely godly or even human as we now see it.  

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Of course I have experience with those types of service (though I’ve never know an EQP to be involved with dispensing ward welfare. I’ve only ever had RS president being in charge of that under authority of the bishop—including when I was a RS president). I am so thankful for the men of the church.

But none of that means that I fall under the stewardship of the EQ. When the RS takes a meal in to a man or otherwise serves him, it doesn’t mean he is under their stewardship either.

If you've ever been home taught, it was on assignment from either the HPGL or EQ President. The priesthood quorums have responsibility to serve every individual and family in the ward. Whether it's a traditional family, a widow, a widower, children with non-member parents, etc. Home teachers responsibilities were to the households they were called to serve whereas VTeachers were called to an individual woman, not the entire household.

[filovirus]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Where does it say that elders quorum has stewardship over the women?  

As a woman I have never had to deal with the elders quorum in any capacity. The elders quorum presidency has no authority over me either. 

Do you not have home teachers? All families in a ward should be assigned home teachers. When I was Elder's Quorum President we assigned home teachers to all the families in my ward, which includes women. Am I missing something?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That’s not the kind of stewardship the poster was talking about.  Your questions aren’t relevant to what he said or my question back to him.

There’s a reason why, in ward council, the bishop asks me about the YW and not primary kids. There’s a reason he asks the RS president about certain sisters in the ward but never asks the EQP about them. There is a reason that the Sunday School President is asked about Sunday school teachers and not the teachers in YM. We all have different stewardships.

We are expected to work together and care for each other, but that does not mean that our specific stewardships don’t exist. 

 

I see.

Thanks for the explanation.

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Do you not have home teachers? All families in a ward should be assigned home teachers. When I was Elder's Quorum President we assigned home teachers to all the families in my ward, which includes women. Am I missing something?

When you were the EQP and a YW or a YM in one of your families that you home taught or that was home taught by an elder was struggling with something, did the Bishop contact you about it first?  When the bishop had a concern about a YM or YW, were you the first person (after the parents) that he spoke about it in the ward?  I'm guessing not.  The bishop likely counseled with the YW and YM presidencies long before he counseled with you about the youth in the ward.  That's because just because the youth had a home teacher assigned to their family, it didn't mean that you as the EQP had stewardship over the youth.  The YM and YW presidents have stewardship.

There are different levels of stewardship.  In a very broad sense, we are all each other's stewards but that does not mean that we don't have specific stewardships based on our callings.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

Do you not have home teachers? All families in a ward should be assigned home teachers. When I was Elder's Quorum President we assigned home teachers to all the families in my ward, which includes women. Am I missing something?

And of course her husband was an elder, to whom she was sealed, and had he passed on, etc. she would have hopefully been taken care of, etc.

No you weren't missing anything.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you've ever been home taught, it was on assignment from either the HPGL or EQ President. The priesthood quorums have responsibility to serve every individual and family in the ward. Whether it's a traditional family, a widow, a widower, children with non-member parents, etc. Home teachers responsibilities were to the households they were called to serve whereas VTeachers were called to an individual woman, not the entire household.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the HPGL or EQP had stewardship over every person in the ward.  We each have specific stewardships based on our callings.  And women in the church have stewardships too (regardless of the existence of HT).

Like I said to filo, when a youth in a home is struggling with something, the bishop contacts the YM or YW president (assuming the family has already been contacted or is aware of the struggle of course).  He doesn't call up the EQP to discuss the issues the youth is facing.  The bishop will make sure the HT are aware if that is applicable, but much of the time it isn't and the HT will never been told because it doesn't have anything to do with their stewardship.

Edited April 3, 2018 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are different levels of stewardship.  In a very broad sense, we are all each other's stewards but that does not mean that we don't have specific stewardships based on our callings.

Thanks.

I thought that was obvious.

It is a hierarchy of stewardship, and young women typically don't repair cars or roofs or move refrigerators.

Not to imply that they are incapable of that of course.

Perhaps now they will get to do that.

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the HPGL or EQP had stewardship over every person in the ward.  We each have specific stewardships based on our callings.  And women in the church have stewardships too (regardless of the existence of HT).

Like I said to filo, when a youth in a home is struggling with something, the bishop contacts the YM or YW president (assuming the family has already been contacted or is aware of the struggle of course).  He doesn't call up the EQP to discuss the issues the youth is facing.  The bishop will make sure the HT are aware if that is applicable, but much of the time it is and the HT will never been told because it doesn't have anything to do with their stewardship.

I never said women don't also have stewardships. In fact, stewardships will often overlap. Bishopric, YM/YW, Home teachers ( for example) all had stewardship over individuals.

You're right that most often a youth will be included within the stewardship of the entire household instead of as individuals, yet HT were regularly encouraged to be involved with the youth's special events, musical performances, sporting events etc. The HT, within the stewardship of his assignment as HT may also make the bishop aware of specific issues the youth may be dealing with. Bishops were supposed to review and approve all HT companionships and assignments. When I was bishop I would sit down with the HPGL and EQP to choose companionships for families who could relate to the youth. That wasn't always possible, but we tried. Also, when a youth had issues bishops are likely to include multiple resources. Ward councils were sometimes used to coordinate between the overlapping stewardships.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but you seem a little upset about this idea. I'm not sure why. If I am misunderstanding, I apologize. But we'll just have to disagree because from my experience EQP and HPGL absolutely had responsibilities/stewardships related to all members of the ward, including youth and women.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the HPGL or EQP had stewardship over every person in the ward.  We each have specific stewardships based on our callings.  And women in the church have stewardships too (regardless of the existence of HT).

Like I said to filo, when a youth in a home is struggling with something, the bishop contacts the YM or YW president (assuming the family has already been contacted or is aware of the struggle of course).  He doesn't call up the EQP to discuss the issues the youth is facing.  The bishop will make sure the HT are aware if that is applicable, but much of the time it is and the HT will never been told because it doesn't have anything to do with their stewardship.

It should have been the HT who initiated the discussion, reporting directly to the bishop, before the bishop even knew.

That is the way it's supposed to work.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I never said women don't also have stewardships. In fact, stewardships will often overlap. Bishopric, YM/YW, Home teachers ( for example) all had stewardship over individuals.

You're right that most often a youth will be included within the stewardship of the entire household instead of as individuals, yet HT were regularly encouraged to be involved with the youth's special events, musical performances, sporting events etc. The HT, within the stewardship of his assignment as HT may also make the bishop aware of specific issues the youth may be dealing with. Bishops were supposed to review and approve all HT companionships and assignments. When I was bishop I would sit down with the HPGL and EQP to choose companionships for families who could relate to the youth. That wasn't always possible, but we tried. Also, when a youth had issues bishops are likely to include multiple resources. Ward councils were sometimes used to coordinate between the overlapping stewardships.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but you seem a little upset about this idea. I'm not sure why. If I am misunderstanding, I apologize. But we'll just have to disagree because from my experience EQP and HPGL absolutely had responsibilities/stewardships related to all members of the ward, including youth and women.

Yep!

But we can't blame her for not knowing the responsibilities of a home teacher. We can only blame ourselves for not doing them.

Edited April 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It should have been the HT who initiated the discussion, reporting directly to the bishop, before the bishop even knew.

That is the way it's supposed to work.

No, there are a lot of youth struggles that the HT shouldn't know about.  Especially when HT are sometimes young men that know the youth personally.

Parent:  Brother Smith, our daughter is having some struggles with her boyfriend and how much he's pressuring her to have sex.  She's really depressed about it and it's affecting her feelings at church.  Can you please inform the bishop?  

Nope.  That would be awful for the young woman.

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I never said women don't also have stewardships. In fact, stewardships will often overlap. Bishopric, YM/YW, Home teachers ( for example) all had stewardship over individuals.

You're right that most often a youth will be included within the stewardship of the entire household instead of as individuals, yet HT were regularly encouraged to be involved with the youth's special events, musical performances, sporting events etc. The HT, within the stewardship of his assignment as HT may also make the bishop aware of specific issues the youth may be dealing with. Bishops were supposed to review and approve all HT companionships and assignments. When I was bishop I would sit down with the HPGL and EQP to choose companionships for families who could relate to the youth. That wasn't always possible, but we tried. Also, when a youth had issues bishops are likely to include multiple resources. Ward councils were sometimes used to coordinate between the overlapping stewardships.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but you seem a little upset about this idea. I'm not sure why. If I am misunderstanding, I apologize. But we'll just have to disagree because from my experience EQP and HPGL absolutely had responsibilities/stewardships related to all members of the ward, including youth and women.

I'm not upset, i'm annoyed because some men are struggling so much to understand what I'm saying (and sometimes being condescending at the same time).  Our bishop does not approve HT routes in our ward (he doesn't approve the VT routes either).

I've already said (many many times now) that HT have stewardship over their families.  I'm just done with this whole conversation.  It's not worth the energy.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, there are a lot of youth struggles that the HT shouldn't know about.  Especially when HT are sometimes young men that know the youth personally.

Parent:  Brother Smith, our daughter is having some struggles with her boyfriend and how much he's pressuring her to have sex.  She's really depressed about it and it's affecting her feelings at church.  Can you please inform the bishop?  

Nope.  That would be awful for the young woman.

My gosh.

I am presuming common sense.

Young men are companions to adult HT's no one is suggesting one should report intimate details to a 14 year old.  And yes and in a case like this, if the HT sensed a problem he should report it up the line for further interviews.

I'm done on this topic.  This is getting totally ridiculous.

Edited April 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[filovirus]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

When you were the EQP and a YW or a YM in one of your families that you home taught or that was home taught by an elder was struggling with something, did the Bishop contact you about it first?  When the bishop had a concern about a YM or YW, were you the first person (after the parents) that he spoke about it in the ward?  I'm guessing not.  The bishop likely counseled with the YW and YM presidencies long before he counseled with you about the youth in the ward.  That's because just because the youth had a home teacher assigned to their family, it didn't mean that you as the EQP had stewardship over the youth.  The YM and YW presidents have stewardship.

There are different levels of stewardship.  In a very broad sense, we are all each other's stewards but that does not mean that we don't have specific stewardships based on our callings.

The bishop is not over HT. It is strictly the stewardship of the two priesthood quorums. They report directly to the stake president. Now if ward council is working correctly the bishop and the auxillary organizations can offer suggestions to the quorum leaders about who to assign to home teach certain families.

So if I understand you correctly you believe that the quorums only have stewardship over families but not the individuals within those families?