If Jesus Christ was so radical, why not buck the system and....

[Tacenda]

This woman is feeling much like MustardSeed it appears. 

https://margmowczko.com/bible-women-leaders-had-one-thing-in-common/

"In the Bible we see that there was a place for prophetic women leaders in Israelite and Jewish society, and there was a place for them in the church. What saddens me is that in many Christian communities today there is no longer a place for women leaders. In most churches, gifted women are not even being recognised, let alone being encouraged and permitted to lead and speak. Some are even offended by the idea of women leaders. The church and the world are suffering because the prophetesses—women with God-given spiritual authority—are being silenced and sidelined."

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think there’s writings that most definitely support it. 

Or possibly Mary was his wife.  I’m open to both. 

Why did he appear to her first when he returned?  Who would you come to see first?

Being married to him is VERY different from being an apostle.  

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Being married to him is VERY different from being an apostle.  

Yup. Thus my usage of the word “or” and not “and”.

But to be more clear, should have used “either”!

Edited March 18, 2019 by JulieM

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yup. Thus my usage of the word “or” and not “and”.

I got that.  I am simply suggesting that visiting her first is not evidence that she was an apostle, despite what you would like to believe or are "open to".  Does it suggest that he cared for her deeply?  Yes.  That he was married to her?  Not enough evidence.  That she was an apostle? Something seems to be missing in that equation.   If visiting an apostle first was priority, why not visit the head apostle Peter first.  Anything else doesn't make sense.  

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I got that.  I am simply suggesting that visiting her first is not evidence that she was an apostle, despite what you would like to believe or are "open to". 

That was actually in reference to her being Christ’s wife (evidence).

Others believe she possibly could have been an apostle.  I’m open to that as well and actually love the thought of either.

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Seeing that picture seemed to have a profound impact on you if the seeming imbalance never bothered you before.  That is interesting.  What changed?

To be fair, this is the first time the apostles have all been invited to anything like this - so I don't think that is why women rarely contribute in your local Sunday School.  It doesn't seem to be a church wide problem from my experience however. 

I think the apostles were invited to symbolically tie the old church to the restored church in a historic city with ancient apostolic presence.

Why did Jesus only call men as apostles?  He may have been radical in some regards, but he is not radical to the extent that he will go rogue and cross God's will.  The ancient and modern apostles were foreordained to those positions for reasons known to God, just as Christ himself was foreordained.  I don't think God has anything against women, but for whatever reason, they have been foreordained to different (not lesser) roles.  Equality of roles is a man made ethic.    

I was clearly sensitive yesterday.  The picture was not evidence in itself but more symbolic, and got under my skin in an environment of blatant imbalance.  It also was a blaring example of something that is so given.... that we easily don’t question it.  Just like my whole life never hearing a woman pray at conference until that recently changed. 

I think that roles themselves could be a man made ethic.  I know that is heresy in the face of the proclamation but I truly think women are capable of much more than we are given or take on.   

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This woman is feeling much like MustardSeed it appears. 

https://margmowczko.com/bible-women-leaders-had-one-thing-in-common/

"In the Bible we see that there was a place for prophetic women leaders in Israelite and Jewish society, and there was a place for them in the church. What saddens me is that in many Christian communities today there is no longer a place for women leaders. In most churches, gifted women are not even being recognised, let alone being encouraged and permitted to lead and speak. Some are even offended by the idea of women leaders. The church and the world are suffering because the prophetesses—women with God-given spiritual authority—are being silenced and sidelined."

I did fee this way yesterday.  I notice this a lot but don’t feel it, typically, because in my home I am absolutely 100% equal in status, power, influence and income. 

I’ve been paying a lot of attention at church and am starting to notice things.  

[Calm]

8 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 did not try to invalidate, but simply expand the reference.  People share personal experiences if others bring up their own, sometimes it is the same, other times not.  Sometimes people may be surprised because someone's experience is very different than their own and express that in some fashion, but that doesn't mean they don't believe them.  It is just what happens on the board.

 I have no problem believing in your ward the women are less involved in discussions, even if it is not consistent with my experience.  In my experience wards vary in personality.  Wards that don't have a lot of turnover may come to have longer patterns of behaviour than ones that do.  I have been in a ward where it was the same four people who said anything for a time.  I have been in a ward where the younger people didn't say much, it was mostly older ones who talked, probably due to the younger being from student wards so they weren't longtimers in a ward.  After a time, there were several families that moved from being students to being homeowners in the area and they became more of the core of the ward as the seniors got hit with health issues.  

I think one of the reasons it can vary so much is if leaders tend to call the outgoing people as youth teachers or if they see the quieter ones as part of the teaching pool as well.  If the first, adult classes may be dominated by the fewer outgoing personalities that are leftover due to the majority being quieter personalities.  Another reason could be the personality and preferences of the teacher, I have heard of some who choose to call on the men who have held higher callings and engage with their comments more and I can see why some other members, especially quieter women, would stop responding.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I did not try to invalidate, but simply expand the reference.  People share personal experiences if others bring up their own, sometimes it is the same, other times not.  Sometimes people may be surprised because someone's experience is very different than their own and express that in some fashion, but that doesn't mean they don't believe them.  It is just what happens on the board.

 I have no problem believing in your ward the women are less involved in discussions, even if it is not consistent with my experience.  In my experience wards vary in personality.  Wards that don't have a lot of turnover may come to have longer patterns of behaviour than ones that do.  I have been in a ward where it was the same four people who said anything for a time.  I have been in a ward where the younger people didn't say much, it was mostly older ones who talked, probably due to the younger being from student wards so they weren't longtimers in a ward.  After a time, there were several families that moved from being students to being homeowners in the area and they became more of the core of the ward as the seniors got hit with health issues.  

I think one of the reasons it can vary so much is if leaders tend to call the outgoing people as youth teachers or if they see the quieter ones as part of the teaching pool as well.  If the first, adult classes may be dominated by the fewer outgoing personalities that are leftover due to the majority being quieter personalities.  Another reason could be the personality and preferences of the teacher, I have heard of some who choose to call on the men who have held higher callings and engage with their comments more and I can see why some other members, especially quieter women, would stop responding.

My ward was sort of similar to MustardSeed's a few years ago, I remember when one gal would speak up in GD and I would be amazed at her scripture knowledge. Could it be that women either aren't that big into scriptures etc. or that we aren't feeling brave enough to share our thoughts.

I know the one time at the beginning of my faith crisis and having been listening to sermons from other faiths, the scripture touted was "works are like dirty rags". When I was brave enough, I rose my hand and asked about it in Gospel Doctrine when discussing works in the church.  It was a woman teacher, who use to be my visiting teacher so I felt a little more comfortable asking about that scripture. But she had no idea about that scripture and had never heard of it. My question basically was met with a big thud and nothing was offered to help her answer me. It was like no one in the room had ever heard of it.

So maybe it may be that we need to be well aware of the scriptures in advance to compete with the rest? I just remember not a lot of women rose their hand, but this one woman, and I was quite impressed with her. Now if this was a common occurrence I wonder how impressed I'd be? Or more than likely, women do raise their hands quite frequently on other items? It's been a while since I've attended any classes though.  

[Gapper]

The problem is that teaching in the Church has been seen as a sage on a the stage where the teacher gives out sage wisdom and knowledge to those they are teaching.  That mirrors education from the public, to the charter, to the private to the university.  We are learning though that the instructor/teacher as a facilitator who asks questions, collaborates replies and allows others to construct their knowledge from discourse with others is a true teacher.  Perhaps what we are seeing is more and more people participating instead of the vocal few and in my ward, that means about an equal balance of sisters and brethren.  Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that as we are prepared and ready to receive knowledge, then the Lord directs his prophet to deliver that knowledge and make the appropriate changes. The Temple changes in January reflect that. If anyone thinks the wording hasn't changed since the Prophet Joseph revealed them, they haven't studied. President Woodruff basically implied that they have changed and will continue to change as the people are ready for more knowledge. I don't find anything new here as I find that in reality husband and wife are equal in terms of value and love by our Heavenly Father and hopefully complimentary to each other in their roles as wife and mother, husband and father, acting as one or learning to in this mortal journey so they may continue so in the Spirit World until their are gloriously resurrected and enter into the Celestial Kingdom. People have to be ready to receive and live revelation. If they are not, as further revelation is revealed, they will most likely depart from the cause, fall into the mists of shadows and get lost, or end up thinking they are righteous but truly mocking the true Saints of God who have partaken of the fruit and are journeying home.  Much like Lehi on his journey to the "Promise Land" (speaking of the Celestial Kingdom), he shared what he saw with his family, was rejected and mocked by his two oldest sons and their families but I think the key point is he kept trying.  Same for us today, be it in our families or within a ward or Church family.  Hold to the rod, stay true, and in the end, as we walk through the trials and challenges, we may just find we are a little bit more like the Savior through it all.  Just my two cents. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ve been paying a lot of attention at church and am starting to notice things.  

Once you see stuff, it is hard to unsee it.  :)

[bluebell]

Was Jesus a radical?  I'm not sure if He was.  He did seem to be a rebel (because he did not follow the Jewish religion the way that the other Jewish leaders believed it had to be followed) but is that the same thing as a radical?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

In my sisters ward, it was not Religious Education experts...just a bunch of random professors and a lot of lawyers.

Lawyers...dangerous!   My husband, being a prof, tends to be friends with any profs in the wards I have been in.  That probably colors my view of their input...plus I just don't remember any that were arrogant, so I think we lucked out there.  I have known plenty of arrogant people including professors (my husband's life was made a hell at times by some) though, so I have no doubt such have made life unpleasant for others.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I was clearly sensitive yesterday.  The picture was not evidence in itself but more symbolic, and got under my skin in an environment of blatant imbalance.  It also was a blaring example of something that is so given.... that we easily don’t question it.  Just like my whole life never hearing a woman pray at conference until that recently changed. 

I think that roles themselves could be a man made ethic.  I know that is heresy in the face of the proclamation but I truly think women are capable of much more than we are given or take on.   

I think that both women and men are capable of so much more in general in serving where we are called.  I have no aspiration to serve in "higher" positions personally - I feel like there is so much more that I could do in the roles I currently have as a father, husband, brother, friend, minister,  and a Young Men leader, that other callings would distract from those roles.  I know that women could successfully serve in apostolic positions, given the authority and opportunity - I don't think it is a matter of ability.

"Whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."  Serving in these positions is not about representation of men or women, it is about representing the Lord.  The Lord calls, he instructs, he directs, and we obey.  These positions are not supposed to be used to further our personal agenda, but simply to be an instrument in the Lord's hand - in the end, it is His voice that we are to follow.   

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting thoughts. How would you square this with Alma 13? 

Not seeing a problem.  We have Sister missionaries, so we allow women to be called as teachers as well, do we not?  I am not suggesting wives share in the authority of their husband's calling anymore than a mission president's wife or temple matron can stand in for the mission or temple president, just that they be recognized as the teachers they are in the case of the women that are constant/frequent teaching companions of their husbands.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Once you see stuff, it is hard to unsee it.  

Yes. 

It dawns on me that also Friday I read a book on Bravery written by a woman who talked about girls participating in classrooms.  She gave stats and I’m sure that made me more aware of what was and what wasn’t happening at church. 

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Was Jesus a radical?  I'm not sure if He was.  He did seem to be a rebel (because he did not follow the Jewish religion the way that the other Jewish leaders believed it had to be followed) but is that the same thing as a radical?

I guess it’s a semantics thing.  I have a hard time calling Jesus a rebel because I hear that word and think “punk”

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

None of which were women? Women professors and lawyers, in my experience, behave much like their male counterparts. It’s human nature.

There has been only one female professor in all my wards and she is married to another professor.  Don't know if this is just the randomness of where we have lived or Saints don't produce that many female professors.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ll also refuse to believe that my experience of women taking a back seat in “presence” is isolated to my ward. 

I have heard of other women experiencing similar things, though it is often more along the lines of former bishops and stake presidents as being treated as final authorities by teachers or class members as opposed to men in general....though I can see the first being relatively easily shifted to the second.  I have no clue on how widespread it is and therefore how much resulting from Church culture as opposed to ward culture.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

possibly all wives of the Apostles and the Prophet)

There was a spouse picture in the DN article, iirc there were 9 women.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you know what blessings or settings apart are given to the Apostles’ wives?

I know they are not officially announced ones such that they get introduced as " the wife of" and not "Sister ______, a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or some other title.

I would like the most visible over a long period of time women in the Church to be seen as valued for more than being someone's wife.  I am certain they are wonderful wives, but that role does not convey to others scriptural knowledge or even determine life experiences that lead to greater wisdom and inspiration.  It conveys they are a support to the man who people are there to listen to.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think the church leaders have gone as far as they can go in giving the sisters more responsibility and recognition. Any imbalance that still exists, perceived or real,  is something that only God can change. 

They could easily include the general Relief Society Board in more meetings and more public facing events like Rome. No revelation is necessary for that and I hope they eventually do that. I'd like to see some callings be seen as "team" callings such as Mission President where unarguably the wife of the MP does a lot of important things. Elevate them, make the callings a team calling. One might possibly do that for other callings as well.

19 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? 

It would have been extremely radical - perhaps too radical for the Judaism of the era. The Gospel of Thomas is generally thought of to have been far more inclusive of women - although the way it is phrased will grate on modern sensibilities. But I think it clear from the Bible that making these huge social changes was secondary to Christ to getting individuals to change.

However just because Jesus didn't see it as his primary job to overthrow Jewish, Greek and Roman social conventions doesn't mean we should just accept them. But by the same token, I think we sometime elevate the political to a level that it replaces the religious. I think God takes us as we are in the society we are in.

Edited March 18, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, it must be true, then. 😊

I can’t imagine a “”high end donor” accepting or needing to have all their expenses paid for by the Church, but perhaps there are some who would. 

I don't have a problem if donors who have put out millions for the whole Church's benefit to then receive a gift that amounts to a small percentage of what they gave anymore than I would have a problem with a guest bringing flowers or a plate of cheese and crackers to a party they were invited to.  It matters to do more than just say thank you at times to show you care.  Including people who have given much in a celebration makes sense to me.  And practically speaking, it will probably encourage even more giving than was spent so it's not like the money is a loss and therefore should have been spent on other things that were actually needed.  (If I had that much money and the Church paid for something for me, I would be sure to donate at least enough to balance that cost).

I would hope the Church recognizes those who give of their time and talents to the whole Church in ways other than money as well.  I have no reason to assume they don't.

People are important, we should recognize generosity when it happens.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which Priesthood? Aaronic, Melchizedek, Patriarchal? How does Alma 13 relate to the temple ordinances? Was there a 50/50 chance that the Firstborn would have been a woman?

According to the endowment, both the Aaronic and Melchizedek orders, and according to current explanations, the patriarchal order is entered through sealing, so that one too. Could Jesus have been a girl? Again, I’m not sure why he couldn’t have been.

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Was Jesus a radical?  I'm not sure if He was.  He did seem to be a rebel (because he did not follow the Jewish religion the way that the other Jewish leaders believed it had to be followed) but is that the same thing as a radical?

I think by any standards, he said some radical things. His most radical statements were that he was the son of God and that only way to God was through him. By Jewish standards, suggesting that the law of Moses was outdated was radical. Similarly whenever any progressive Mormon suggests some policy or even doctrine is out of date or disfunct, it is often labeled as apostate, our going word for radical.