Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Calm said: I assume the wives don't travel all the time, but my memory says I see them mostly with the apostles when I am searching out news, so I would be surprised if they mostly home. Iirc, Sharon Eubank mentioned through a story that the wives are out there teaching when they accompanying their husbands, though it may not have been in reference to apostles. If so they are doing more than just speaking at the pulpit and it makes sense to me if so, they should be set apart for that stewardship. Knowing our church, I would be shocked if the wives aren't involved in training and things happening with the women of an area when the husbands are with the men simply because leaders just look for work that needs to be done in my experience. I would love to see wives who accept the task of speaking along side their husbands frequently, such as Sis. Nelson, being officially set apart as a missionary (or something along those lines). They are often acting, imo, like a senior missionary couple. It makes more sense to me than having a woman speak from the standpoint of every other member could be in her position as she is not set apart and is only there because she is married to someone who needs to be there for his calling. Recognize it as a calling for her because that is what she is functioning as and senior missionary seems to fit as far as I could tell. "Itinerant minister" perhaps? Would you extend this logic to all levels of leadership...for example, the wife of the elders Quorum President or the husband of the Relief Society President? Edited March 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Robert F. Smith Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Calm said: Which means if Sis Nelson, for example, is serving in much the same way, it makes sense to view her work as a calling and set her apart as a sister missionary or some appropriately defined calling. She should not be viewed, imo, as some random woman who just happened to be in the right time and place with the right connections. The only real valued imo "it's who you know" position in the Church is those who know God. Being someone's wife says nothing about her or her work in the Church, just her role in her family. This would seem to be doubly the case if Wendy Nelson is the prime mover she is rumored to be.
Calm Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Would you extend this logic to all levels of leadership...for example, the wife of the elders Quorum President or the husband of the Relief Society President? Are they asked to travel all the time and speak by the sides of their husbands? If not, no need. Apostles' wives are often co-speakers with their husbands from what I have seen, like the return missionary who for 6 months is the high councilman's warmup act. If it looks like a calling (and it will be a lifetime one unless they divorce which isn't likely), why not make it official? It seems similar to temple matrons and missionary presidents' wives. Are these not callings? Maybe apostles' wives are given the option not to travel or speak, but those who do act as speaking companions for their husbands, it is a calling, imo, and should be recognized as one. Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 5 hours ago, MustardSeed said: ...treat women as equals the way I believe He actually sees me? Why not have women as apostles? Would it have been “too” radical , or maybe it’s just that women are indeed not actually designed to be leaders? Or another reason? I have to admit, when in Sunday school today a picture of the general authorities in the Rome temple was passed around, zero female presence in the picture, I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one). I for one feel I’m really along for the ride.... unless there’s a personal service to fill or a children’s class to be taught. It never bothered me that there is a seeming imbalance, til today. The dedication of the Rome Temple and the meeting between the highest LDS and Roman Catholic leadership is cause for great rejoicing. I don’t see it as a cause for lamentation. 3
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 Just now, Calm said: Are they asked to travel all the time and speak by the sides of their husbands? If not, no need. Apostles' wives are often co-speakers with their husbands from what I have seen, like the return missionary who for 6 months is the high councilman's warmup act. If it looks like a calling (and it will be a lifetime one unless they divorce which isn't likely), why not make it official? Perhaps it is and we are not privy. 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Are they asked to travel all the time and speak by the sides of their husbands? If not, no need. Apostles' wives are often co-speakers with their husbands from what I have seen, like the return missionary who for 6 months is the high councilman's warmup act. If it looks like a calling (and it will be a lifetime one unless they divorce which isn't likely), why not make it official? Our stake presidency speaks frequently at many church functions. So does our bishopric.
Calm Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Perhaps it is and we are not privy. Why not? What calling would not be appropriate to share? Is there any that you are aware of? (All serious questions as it seems quite contrary to the order of the Church).
Calm Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Our stake presidency speaks frequently at many church functions. So does our bishopric. And do their wives also speak at the same time? When leaders are training the men, are their wives training the women? Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Why not? What calling would not be appropriate to share? Is there any that you are aware of? (All serious questions as it seems quite contrary to the order of the Church). I don’t hobnob in those circles, but I assume there is much more happening behind the scenes than we are aware of. Health issues at that age, for example. Where is Scott when we need him? Edited March 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Calm said: And do their wives also speak at the same time? The question is, should they and should they be set apart for some purpose. Perhaps some don’t want the extra responsibility.
Calm Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) Quote I am going to tell you a story, and it actually happened to Lillian DeLong, a friend of mine. She served on a Relief Society board years ago. And she was assigned to go to Ghana. And she had her husband with her. And they were in a very rural part of Ghana. So, they did their training. She was there to do Relief Society Training. And it is a very simple structure and they were in different rooms, and her husband was in Priesthood and she was in Relief Society and they did their training. After it was over, a woman came up to her, in her beautiful Ghanaian church dress, and she shook her hand and she kept saying “This is a woman’s church.” She’s just crying and tears are just streaming down her face. She kept saying, “This is a woman’s church.” Lillian didn’t really know what she was talking about. And she’s smiling and saying, “Yeah.” But the woman just kept pumping her hand and saying over and over again, “This is a woman’s church.” And finally Lillian said, “What do you mean, ‘This is a woman’s church?’” And she said, “We have just been in the marvelous Relief Society that teaches us not only spiritual things but temporal things about how to make our lives and our children and our families better. And at the same time your husband is in the Priesthood room and he is teaching our husbands that the culture of the church does not allow for them to beat their wives and their children.” If a husband or wife is leading training by virtue of being the spouse of a leader or preaching or proselyting by the side of their spouse, it seems appropriate to me for them to be called and set apart to that position. They deserve the inspiration that comes with such a mantle. (Though I may have misunderstood the story and her husband had his own calling and they just happened to be there at the same time.) https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/womans-church Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm
Calm Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The question is, should they and should they be set apart for some purpose. Perhaps some don’t want the extra responsibility. Then they could turn down the calling. Seems a logical extension of senior couple missionary work though, where they may be assigned different positions in the mission office for example, but at times proselyte/speak together. Some callings it is essential for the husband and wife to be working together. At the bare minimum the wife needs to be a believing member for the majority of leadership bishop and above, correct? Temple recommend holder? They don't call bachelors or widowers as apostles, do they? So it would seem at least to begin with, having a wife is essential...why? Perhaps it is not essential for apostles to have a 'working' wife (this would be interesting to find out...if a wife isn't willing to be a traveling companion at times, will that prevent her husband from receiving a calling?), but it could relatively easily be shifted to be seen as a joint calling like temple president and matron, mission president and wife, couldn't it? This would allow for significantly greater visibility of women if recognition were given for what many already do. Would probably need a revelation to take it to apostle and apostless, but Elder Apostle and fellow minister, Sis. Apostle....no major revelation there, surely? Not saying it is a hill to die for, but could be one of the ways to address perceived inequality or lack of voice. I think from what I hear many listen to a prophet's wife because they think she is an interesting speaker. If she wasn't a good speaker, they wouldn't listen as they don't view her as inspired or called to preach as a witness or church leader. They pay as much attention as they would to a congregation member who gets up to share their testimony. Now maybe we should be listening to that congregation member as we listen to the prophet, so it shouldn't matter...but callings do impact how we listen to the speakers in our faith and how important we judge them as teachings we need to take seriously or someone just sharing a personal journey and opinion. Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm
MustardSeed Posted March 18, 2019 Author Posted March 18, 2019 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: The dedication of the Rome Temple and the meeting between the highest LDS and Roman Catholic leadership is cause for great rejoicing. I don’t see it as a cause for lamentation. The highest LDS are of course men.
MustardSeed Posted March 18, 2019 Author Posted March 18, 2019 I find it interesting that if I make an observation of how things are in my area, people are swift to invalidate by saying “well that’s not how it is here”. This is not the first time this has happened here. I am sure I’m the ONLY person in a ward where women are not comfortable participating (s/) - regardless, it would be nice if perhaps I could share my experience and frustration and not be gaslit. I’m wondering though really about God. Did the Savior, while on the earth, recognize women’s equality? Did he see that humans at the time did not treat women equally?
SouthernMo Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Did the Savior, while on the earth, recognize women’s equality? Did he see that humans at the time did not treat women equally? It’s difficult to say. Clearly, Christ held women in special regard. Even after centuries of selective and male-biased transmission of the records that eventually became “the Bible”, we see Christ interacting a lot with women. On the other hand, if we trust the record to be correct, Jesus only called men as his twelve disciples. I am very open to women holding priesthood leadership positions and working shoulder to shoulder with men in today’s church. But, I can’t ignore the record of Christ’s choice of disciples and wonder what that means. 1
bsjkki Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 10 hours ago, Calm said: With my wards, I think it is more people appealing to professors for info, but that may be my proprofessor bias coming through....when BYU Religious Education profs are in a ward, might as well take advantage of that, right?(they have all been very nice people, that helps). In my sisters ward, it was not Religious Education experts...just a bunch of random professors and a lot of lawyers.
bsjkki Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I find it interesting that if I make an observation of how things are in my area, people are swift to invalidate by saying “well that’s not how it is here”. This is not the first time this has happened here. I am sure I’m the ONLY person in a ward where women are not comfortable participating (s/) - regardless, it would be nice if perhaps I could share my experience and frustration and not be gaslit. I’m wondering though really about God. Did the Savior, while on the earth, recognize women’s equality? Did he see that humans at the time did not treat women equally? I was not trying to invalidate your experience. I believe you. I think each ward has its own special dynamic based on demographics. I was pointing out that was not my experience and most likely not a church wide issue. Maybe, your local leadership also contributes to this happening and could take steps to help insure Gospel Doctrine is a place many people are comfortable participating? I also believe Christ was a 'radical' in his age and he treated women well and gave them equal attention and treated women with the utmost respect, no matter their earthly circumstances. When reading the New Testament, I begin evaluating things that could be seen as cultural or traditional that could cloud my understanding of things that are doctrinal. What things in the Church would the Savior do away with because they are 'tradition.' With the April conference 'rumor' thread, I started thinking about the Word of Wisdom. What if it went back to being more optional in the church. Guidelines but not commandments? What if it was a not a temple recommend question? I posed this questions to some LDS friends and it was interesting to watch reactions. We know, since a complete alcohol prohibition is unique to our dispensation, that not having a drop of wine with dinner is not a 'doctrinal' issue. Christ drank wine. The answers I got were interesting from, 'why would that ever happen,' to 'I don't want to sit next to a drunk in the temple.' Many would try to explain why they thought the Word of Wisdom was a good thing and how it began. I do know that information and didn't need to be 'sold' on it. The whole concept of withdrawing it and having it again be a 'word of wisdom' was a concept many of my LDS friends found hard to contemplate. Edit: And, what if it was no longer required for baptism but was still required for temple worship? Would membership increase? Edited March 18, 2019 by bsjkki 1
Nevo Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 3 hours ago, MustardSeed said: Did the Savior, while on the earth, recognize women’s equality? Did he see that humans at the time did not treat women equally? There's a good Dialogue article on that: Todd Compton, "Was Jesus a Feminist?" (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V32N04_9.pdf) 1
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, MustardSeed said: The highest LDS are of course men. Yes, God the Father and God the Son. Edited March 18, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
Avatar4321 Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 13 hours ago, MustardSeed said: ...treat women as equals the way I believe He actually sees me? Why not have women as apostles? Would it have been “too” radical , or maybe it’s just that women are indeed not actually designed to be leaders? Or another reason? I have to admit, when in Sunday school today a picture of the general authorities in the Rome temple was passed around, zero female presence in the picture, I thought to myself, it’s really no wonder women rarely contribute in Sunday school (for one). I for one feel I’m really along for the ride.... unless there’s a personal service to fill or a children’s class to be taught. It never bothered me that there is a seeming imbalance, til today. Women rarely contribute in Sunday school? Since when? 4
MustardSeed Posted March 18, 2019 Author Posted March 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes, God the Father and God the Son. Thank you, helpful.
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 7 hours ago, Calm said: Then they could turn down the calling. Seems a logical extension of senior couple missionary work though, where they may be assigned different positions in the mission office for example, but at times proselyte/speak together. Some callings it is essential for the husband and wife to be working together. At the bare minimum the wife needs to be a believing member for the majority of leadership bishop and above, correct? Temple recommend holder? They don't call bachelors or widowers as apostles, do they? So it would seem at least to begin with, having a wife is essential...why? Perhaps it is not essential for apostles to have a 'working' wife (this would be interesting to find out...if a wife isn't willing to be a traveling companion at times, will that prevent her husband from receiving a calling?), but it could relatively easily be shifted to be seen as a joint calling like temple president and matron, mission president and wife, couldn't it? This would allow for significantly greater visibility of women if recognition were given for what many already do. Would probably need a revelation to take it to apostle and apostless, but Elder Apostle and fellow minister, Sis. Apostle....no major revelation there, surely? Not saying it is a hill to die for, but could be one of the ways to address perceived inequality or lack of voice. I think from what I hear many listen to a prophet's wife because they think she is an interesting speaker. If she wasn't a good speaker, they wouldn't listen as they don't view her as inspired or called to preach as a witness or church leader. They pay as much attention as they would to a congregation member who gets up to share their testimony. Now maybe we should be listening to that congregation member as we listen to the prophet, so it shouldn't matter...but callings do impact how we listen to the speakers in our faith and how important we judge them as teachings we need to take seriously or someone just sharing a personal journey and opinion. Interesting thoughts. How would you square this with Alma 13?
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 1 minute ago, MustardSeed said: Thank you, helpful. Would you care to comment on Alma 13?
MustardSeed Posted March 18, 2019 Author Posted March 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, Nevo said: There's a good Dialogue article on that: Todd Compton, "Was Jesus a Feminist?" (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V32N04_9.pdf) This is actually helpful thank you, I’ll read it.
Bernard Gui Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Thank you, helpful. Indeed. It seems to me that Priesthood authority is derived from the relationship between the Fateher and the Son. If we view that authority in the worldly sense, it may seem unfair to women. I think it is something different.
Recommended Posts