Conference Announcements--Gender Equity Implications

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Here is the responsibility of HTers from Church Handbook 1:

Edit to add: HTing is an assignment, not a calling, if that makes much of a difference. But the stewardship of HTers is listed below. EQP and HPGL have stewardship of HTing in general.

Responsibilities of Home Teachers

Home teaching is one way Heavenly Father blesses His children. Home teachers “visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties” (D&C 20:51). They are assigned to families and individuals to “watch over … and be with and strengthen them” (D&C 20:53). They “warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ” (D&C 20:59).

Where possible, home teachers visit members in their homes at least monthly. Home teachers may also find other meaningful ways to watch over and strengthen the families they are assigned. For example, they may render service to the families or contact family members by mail or telephone.

Home teachers represent the Lord, the bishop, and quorum or group leaders. They can be an important source of help to members. They consult with the head of the household about the family’s needs and about ways to be most helpful.

Home teachers become acquainted with family members’ interests and needs and recognize special events in their lives.

As needed, home teachers help parents ensure that their children are blessed, baptized, and confirmed. They may also help parents ensure that their sons have the Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon them and are ordained to priesthood offices at the appropriate ages.

Home teachers offer help when members are unemployed, ill, lonely, moving, or have other needs.

Home teachers help members strengthen their faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and encourage them to make and keep sacred covenants. This service is especially important to new members and less-active members.

Home teachers make appointments for their visits at times that are convenient for the individuals or families. They remember that they are guests of the members they visit.

Each visit should focus on a planned purpose. Before visiting a home, companions pray together. They discuss ways they can strengthen those they will visit. Based on this discussion and the guidance of the Holy Ghost, they share a message, usually taken from the scriptures and the First Presidency’s message in the Ensign or Liahona magazine. Other messages may come from the bishop or other leaders. The head of the household may also request a special message. Home teaching visits typically include a prayer.

Each month, home teachers report to quorum or group leaders on the spiritual and temporal welfare of the members they visit. If a member’s needs are urgent, home teachers report them immediately.

I understand the responsibility of HT.  Each HT is has stewardship over their specific families, including the women in them.  

That doesn't mean that the EQP has stewardship over everyone in the ward.  I've been looking (and I haven't looked everywhere so maybe I haven't been able to find it yet) and I haven't found anything listed under Elder's Quorum responsibilities or stewardship that says that the quorum (not HT but the quorum) has stewardship over the entire congregation.  Can you provide a reference that says that?  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, filovirus said:

In a way this is/was true, as pertaining to HTing.

One of the responsibilities of EQP and HPGL is "They organize and oversee home teaching." (Church Handbook 2).

Here are the families that should be assigned HTers from the Church Handbook 2:

Organizing Home Teaching

A household that is headed by an elder usually has home teachers from the elders quorum. A household that is headed by a high priest usually has home teachers from the high priests group. When a household is not headed by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, the bishopric determines whether that household should have home teachers from the elders quorum or the high priests group. In making this decision, the bishopric may consult with the priesthood executive committee and ward council.

In organizing home teaching, quorum and group leaders prayerfully discuss the needs of individuals and families. Leaders discuss ways home teachers can watch over and strengthen these members, consulting with the priesthood executive committee and ward council as needed. Leaders also consider factors such as distance, travel, and safety.

 

With this in mind, every "household" should be assigned a HT. So yes, HTing covers the entirety of the ward. And there is a stewardship that HTers have, according to the definition you stated above. Is it the same stewardship that a bishop has? NO. But we have never been arguing that this is the case. Is it the same stewardship that the RS has? NO. But we have never be arguing that is the case. But they have a stewardship.

 

Yes, HT covers the entire ward.  That's never been in question.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, HT covers the entire ward.  That's never been in question.

Then I don't see how MP leaders can make assignments that cover the entire ward if they don't have some responsibility over the entire ward. I suspect we're in a circle talking past each other even though we likely agree for the most part.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Then I don't see how MP leaders can make assignments that cover the entire ward if they don't have some responsibility over the entire ward. I suspect we're in a circle talking past each other even though we likely agree for the most part.

The original statement was the the elder's quorum has stewardship over all the women in the ward.  If that's true then that means that Brother Smith, who is a member of the Elder's quorum but is not my HT, has stewardship over me.  

Does Brother Smith have stewardship over me?

[filovirus]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, HT covers the entire ward.  That's never been in question.

Got it. You are arguing semantics in my word choice, but not the overall concept I was trying to convey in regards to HTing. Unfortunately I am not the most adapt at conveying what I am thinking at times. My mistake.

EQP and HPGL have stewardship over HT, which in turn should cover the entirety of the ward. They thus have stewardship over each member of the ward, pertaining to HTing, and the responsibilities associated with HTing.

Does that help?

Anyway, this debate is starting to become comical.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The original statement was the the elder's quorum has stewardship over all the women in the ward.  If that's true then that means that Brother Smith, who is a member of the Elder's quorum but is not my HT, has stewardship over me.  

Does Brother Smith have stewardship over me?

Brother Smith? No. But President Smith would. The average elder will only have a stewardship so far as he is assigned, just like anything else. But the Presidency would have responsibility/stewardship over the larger group and then make the individual assignments to accomplish its stewardship goals. So since the Presidency has a stewardship over all it would make sense to say the EQ has a stewardship over all, even if each individual does not. The stewardship is achieved through a collection of all of the assigned stewardships through the presidency. Same with RS presidency versus the average RS sister. Same thing.

BTW- sorry if I'm harping too much. Just trying to be helpful.

Edited April 4, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Then I don't see how MP leaders can make assignments that cover the entire ward if they don't have some responsibility over the entire ward. I suspect we're in a circle talking past each other even though we likely agree for the most part.

Blessed are they who go around in circles for they shall be called Big Wheels.

It's a little hard to visit every member without having responsibility to do that.

Every member. Not just the brothers not just the sisters.

Every member.

Perhaps now we need to define "every?"

Really?

Edited April 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The original statement was the the elder's quorum has stewardship over all the women in the ward.  If that's true then that means that Brother Smith, who is a member of the Elder's quorum but is not my HT, has stewardship over me.  

Does Brother Smith have stewardship over me?

Oh come on. Now you are really reaching for it.

[mfbukowski]

Fergitaboutit

Edited April 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Brother Smith? No. But President Smith would. The average elder will only have a stewardship so far as he is assigned, just like anything else. But the Presidency would have responsibility/stewardship over the larger group and then make the individual assignments to accomplish its stewardship goals. So since the Presidency has a stewardship over all it would make sense to say the EQ has a stewardship over all, even if each individual does not. The stewardship is achieved through a collection of all of the assigned stewardships through the presidency. Same with RS presidency versus the average RS sister. Same thing.

BTW- sorry if I'm harping too much. Just trying to be helpful.

So the elder's quorum does not have stewardship over the entire ward.  That's what I've been saying all along.

To ask another question, does Bro. Smith EQ secretary have stewardship over me?  I'm also still looking for an official source to this concept.  Does LDS.org say nothing about the stewardship of Elder's quorum presidencies?

Edit-the quorum is made up of individual people, so I'm not sure it does make sense to equate "Elder's quorum" to "Elder's quorum President."  

Edited April 4, 2018 by bluebell

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh come on. Now you are really reaching for it.

My original question to Filo stemmed from his statement of "the elder's quorum has stewardship over all the women in the ward."  I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding of the discussion between myself and Filo before you decided to jump in.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

Got it. You are arguing semantics in my word choice, but not the overall concept I was trying to convey in regards to HTing. Unfortunately I am not the most adapt at conveying what I am thinking at times. My mistake.

EQP and HPGL have stewardship over HT, which in turn should cover the entirety of the ward. They thus have stewardship over each member of the ward, pertaining to HTing, and the responsibilities associated with HTing.

Does that help?

Anyway, this debate is starting to become comical.

Yes, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.  

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So the elder's quorum does not have stewardship over the entire ward.  That's what I've been saying all along.

To ask another question, does Bro. Smith EQ secretary have stewardship over me?  I'm also still looking for an official source to this concept.  Does LDS.org say nothing about the stewardship of Elder's quorum presidencies?

Edit-the quorum is made up of individual people, so I'm not sure it does make sense to equate "Elder's quorum" to "Elder's quorum President."  

No. I must not have been clear. The EQ, as now constituted (or the EQ and HPG previously) have responsibility for the entire ward. The stewardship of the EQP is carried out through the administration of the entire quorum via assignments like home teaching to every member of the ward. 

As I said before, Bro. Smith doesn't have stewardship over you and your family unless he is assigned as your home teacher. Similarly, Sis. Smith from the relief society doesn't have any stewardship over you unless she is called as your visiting teacher. But if you take Sis. Smith and all the other sisters in the RS assigned to Visit teach (minister) combined the RS has a stewardship over all the sisters under the general stewardship of the RS President.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

It is sad to see that some on this thread see HTing as only "helping with moves" when this is in fact a very small and minor thing that HTing takes part in. Perhaps this has been perpetuated because of inefficient or lackadaisical HTers. Those good HTers will find that not much changes with the new program. They would have already been ministering to their families.

If this in part refers to me, I did not equate HTing and "helping with moves".

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I must not have been clear. The EQ, as now constituted (or the EQ and HPG previously) have responsibility for the entire ward. The stewardship of the EQP is carried out through the administration of the entire quorum via assignments like home teaching to every member of the ward. 

As I said before, Bro. Smith doesn't have stewardship over you and your family unless he is assigned as your home teacher. Similarly, Sis. Smith from the relief society doesn't have any stewardship over you unless she is called as your visiting teacher. But if you take Sis. Smith and all the other sisters in the RS assigned to Visit teach (minister) combined the RS has a stewardship over all the sisters under the general stewardship of the RS President.

Thanks for clarifying.  

A lot of my questions come from my experience with our ward's current EQP, of which my husband is a member.  His quorum presidency takes their calling very seriously.  They are out visiting people ever single week for two hours and then do other visits on Sundays, and they've been able to increase HT from less than 20% to 80+% in a year.  Attendance at EQ also has gone up from about 5 or 6 elders to over 30 on an average sunday (I just say all of that so you understand that the presidency takes their stewardship very very seriously).  The stake president has used them as an example of what an EQ and EQP should be like.

But I've never known them to be concerned about a sister.  I mean, they are of course concerned about all members, sisters included, but if a sister is struggling personally they turn that over to the bishop and the RS presidency. They then will serve that sister if or as the bishop and the RS president suggest, if her needs are applicable to what the EQ can provide.  Otherwise, they do not consider helping her (other than doing what i've just said they do) to be under their stewardship.  

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for clarifying.  

A lot of my questions come from my experience with our ward's current EQP, of which my husband is a member.  His quorum presidency takes their calling very seriously.  They are out visiting people ever single week for two hours and then do other visits on Sundays, and they've been able to increase HT from less than 20% to 80+% in a year.  Attendance at EQ also has gone up from about 5 or 6 elders to over 30 on an average sunday (I just say all of that so you understand that the presidency takes their stewardship very very seriously).  The stake president has used them as an example of what an EQ and EQP should be like.

But I've never known them to be concerned about a sister.  I mean, they are of course concerned about all members, sisters included, but if a sister is struggling personally they turn that over to the bishop and the RS presidency. They then will serve that sister if or as the bishop and the RS president suggest, if her needs are applicable to what the EQ can provide.  Otherwise, they do not consider helping her (other than doing what i've just said they do) to be under their stewardship.  

I see what you're saying. Frankly it would be weird for an Elder to take too much interest in a sister's needs. The RS is much better at addressing those individual needs. The EQ would help the women by working more with the entire family unit. It was a little bit different for HPG though. Traditionally the HPG had the stewardship for special care of single sisters and widows so they would HT and serve those groups specifically whereas the EQ typically wouldn't. Now that it's all one quorum, I'm assuming the EQ will continue to fulfill the HPG role of serving the single sisters and widows. So what you describe as the EQ focus was normal (though unusually successful), but the HPG was a little different. Still, I assume the RS will take the primary role with the sisters and the EQ will overlap the stewardship.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

So what would you use instead of "equality" or "equity"?

 

You know, I don't think I would use either one.  I don't think our Father in Heaven thinks of us are identical; I think he sees us as individuals.  He uses each individual in the capacity he needs, but it does not change the degree to which he values us. That is why I think the parable of the widow and the two mites is so overwhelming. It is the last that shall be first.  It has nothing to do with gender in any capacity. We each have a role to play; our responsibility is to serve.

This conversation makes me think of Hugh B. Brown's great talk on the currant bush.  How desperately the current bush wanted to grow tall like the shade trees. He was on his way, but his growing also required that the bush was turning mostly to wood and would not produce currants.  The gardener knows what he wants from us.  Some of us will be shade trees or fruit trees and some of us will be very small snowdrop flowers that will only be seen the very first of spring and only for a short time. The rest of the time will go unnoticed.

I know individuals that, as young people, are desperate to be out front, leading, so that all can see them. They have a need for the adulation of people.  Their heart is completely in the wrong place....but sometimes I wish they would get exactly what they want.  A leader, in the Church, is a servant of all or that is what they are supposed to be.  

We are each valued and loved equally by the Lord, but we were not created identical.  Let me be the snowdrop in his garden and let others be shade trees.

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I mean, they are of course concerned about all members, sisters included, but if a sister is struggling personally they turn that over to the bishop and the RS presidency. They then will serve that sister if or as the bishop and the RS president suggest, if her needs are applicable to what the EQ can provide. 

That's all I have been saying.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You know, I don't think I would use either one.

I think Rain understood that as she asked you what you would use instead.

Are you suggesting in your commentary in this post there is no need for any other terms because we are not identical or did you just misunderstand the question?

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think Rain understood that as she asked you what you would use instead.

Are you suggesting in your commentary in this post there is no need for any other terms because we are not identical or did you just misunderstand the question?

No, I don't think it is an issue of not needing a vocabulary, rather I think we do need a vocabulary, but it is not what is used in the secular world. The saints fail in the way we treat one another; we fail in the way we undervalue one another; spouses fail in the way they should treat their spouse.  We have a vocabulary and it is found in the gospel and the teachings of the Church. 

If we are called to the work - regardless of what the work is be it being a doctor, an academic, a tradesman, or being a husband or wife then that is what we must do. If we valued one another and treated each other properly as disciples of Jesus Christ wouldn't the needs of the individual be met?

I am rejecting the paradigm that is presented in the secular world.  The objectives of the saints are aligned to the glory of God; this is completely foreign to the secular world and their concept of feminism.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am rejecting the paradigm that is presented in the secular world.  The objectives of the saints are aligned to the glory of God; this is completely foreign to the secular world and their concept of feminism.

Okay, so what terms would you use to talk about the subject within the category of the Church?

[Storm Rider]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Okay, so what terms would you use to talk about the subject within the category of the Church?

I think that is up to the individual that has a complaint or that feels they are not fulfilling God's will for their lives. I have used many terms already in my previous posts.  

When an LDS enters into any conversation if we would first use the lens of the Gospel then we automatically reframe the conversation - we begin to acknowledge God's plan for our lives.  I also think that those who are hearing or listening have a better listening to what is being said.  Conversely, the moment we use secular language then we accept all of the baggage of those terms and our communication becomes muddled.

It is just a thought I have been thinking about lately.  When I have a problem and I begin to explain myself I more often than not realize that the first problem is me. I am being selfish and inconsiderate of others around me.  I have been trying to communicate in a way that is cognizant of the gospel and my spiritual responsibilities then I see my self more clearly and hopefully others will also. 

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think that is up to the individual that has a complaint or that feels they are not fulfilling God's will for their lives. I have used many terms already in my previous posts.  

 

Why are you avoiding the question?  What terms have you used?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I think that is up to the individual that has a complaint or that feels they are not fulfilling God's will for their lives. I have used many terms already in my previous posts.  

In addition to what Juliann said asking what specific terms you have used because I saw rejection of terms rather than acceptance, if they chose to use equality because that is how they saw it in Gospel terms without reference to the secular world****, would you be okay with that and if not, why not since you said it was up to the individual?

Sorry if this seems like badgering, people's thought processes fascinate me, especially when they are significantly different from my own and I want to understand, so I ask questions.

*****I don't think "equality" is inherently secular, the Church seems quite comfortable using the term; for example here:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/equality-of-men-and-women?lang=eng

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

In addition to what Juliann said asking what specific terms you have used because I saw rejection of terms rather than acceptance, if they chose to use equality because that is how they saw it in Gospel terms without reference to the secular world****, would you be okay with that and if not, why not since you said it was up to the individual?

Sorry if this seems like badgering, people's thought processes fascinate me, especially when they are significantly different from my own and I want to understand, so I ask questions.

*****I don't think "equality" is inherently secular, the Church seems quite comfortable using the term; for example here:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/equality-of-men-and-women?lang=eng

Sure, now use the concept of equality within the gospel of Jesus Christ to explain a personal problem.  I think what happens when we use this lens we really have to stretch to explain ourselves.

The two talks you cited are interesting.  Ballard's talk appears to be using secular terms, but he then tries to confine the definitions of such words within the context of the gospel.  For example, "Even though men and women are equal before God in their eternal opportunities, they have different, but equally significant, duties in His eternal plan." He does use the word equally or equal a few times in the talk; however, he is clear about the separate roles and responsibilities of men and women and they all fall within the definitions found within the Proclamation on the Family.  How many secular feminists are going to agree with that type of definition?  I am curious, because my perspective is quite jaded from the information I have been exposed to on the topic. 

Everything I read in his talk has a very strong correlation to what I said in my previous posts. Both articles expand on what I tried to say.

The second article echoes much of Ballard's talk.  How much of either of those two articles are acceptable to individuals who protest against the church in the objective to gain the priesthood for women? 

This is where I find the rub between the secular definitions and those within the Church - there is minimal similarity between the two.  The lens of gospel language remains focused on God, our relationship to him, our personal responsibilities on earth, and to serve him and submit to his will.

I am not trying to define the use of vocabulary in terms of good or bad.  What I am striving for is to find a way to improve communication and clarify our own wants and desires.  Some of us are going to be really serious about the objectives of the secular definitions and put everything the Church teaches much lower on the scale of what is desired.  It is clear to me that path is not godly and does not bring anyone closer to God. If we individually strive to use a lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ we will be very contemplative about our heart's desires and we will not be a source of conflict or contention seeking it.  

Finally, I am certain that I am not doing a good job of describing what I mean. I have no advocated a specific vocabulary - which you and julieann seem to think is vitally important - what I have stated repeatedly is to use the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What may have made you focus on specific vocabulary is that I stated that secular terms - and better stated, a secular lens - uses words that come with a lot of baggage.  The way in which we talk about ideas, concepts and philosophies is important - the gospel of Jesus Christ assist in identify the validity and truth within those things. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Storm Rider