Women, Men, and Priesthood

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Ok.  What sort of value does having the highest authority on the stand provide? If we think out of the box, I see tons of value.  In addition, I see equal value in a woman sitting in the stand.  Though she will never preside a meeting attended by any male in leadership, I see many good things that would happen for the ward. 

We are different in that aspect, I can accept that. 

 

If a YW president is in a meeting with the YM president, then they both have the same authority and can take turns presiding.  I know that doesn't really affect much but I think that acknowledging such things helps to dispel the common idea, held by both men and women, that if a priesthood holder is in the room the woman is always subordinate to him.  It's time to get away from such old traditional thinking.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not the one claiming he is beyond the temptations of tribalism burned into our fallen DNA. I am trying to fight it.

Meh.  Feel free to continue with the navel-gazing and virtue signaling schtick.

I'm not impressed with people who presume to ignorantly accuse others of misconduct.  

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are pretending to some kind of holy state.

No, I'm not.  You're projecting again.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

More likely you are just completely blind to how your unconscious tribalism and sexism impacts your behavior.

Says the person who has never met me before.

Navel gazing, virtue signalling and judgmentalism.  A hat trick!

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the value would be de minimis.  And I think most women would prefer to sit with their families.  Shoot, I know for a fact that the bishopric members would prefer to sit in the pews rather than on the stand.

I know I would never want to be a RS pres nor do I enjoy being in charge any more than anyone else.  Nor do I like sitting on a stand.  Bishop doesn’t like it either, but it benefits the ward- a lot, in my opinion.  Having been a little girl, then a teen, then a young woman , now an old one, I am going to wonder out loud- might I have seen my value and my worth differently if small (albeit meaningless to smac and imo too many like him) differences like a woman on the stand, women handling finances, being final speaker, praying in general meetings, addressing priesthood class as often as bishoprics address RS, , taught ym as often as bishoprics teach yw.... if men outnumbered women washing dishes after ward Christmas dinner ( I know, it happens all the time in your ward but I’m waiting)... would I see myself any differently now than I do right now, in the context of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?  Might I see myself as the savior sees me, as opposed to how my human eyes see me in the context of the unimportant limits set for me in a human world where power rules? 

Edited August 15, 2019 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps, but I doubt it that this is just a "tradition."  I'm open to correction on that point.  After all, there seems to have previously been a "tradition" of women not offering prayers in General Conference.  I'm glad we corrected that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thankfully we did, but it took a lot of years to fix it and us getting passed the idea that there was a   I really don't care either way about Sunday school leadership.  Like I said before, changing thinking requires acknowledgement of the possible that it might need to change.  That see that acknowledgement as the ultimate goal.  Questioning why the status quo is the status quo is a part of that process.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Thankfully we did, but it took a lot of years to fix it and us getting passed the idea that there was a   I really don't care either way about Sunday school leadership.  Like I said before, changing thinking requires acknowledgement of the possible that it might need to change.  That see that acknowledgement as the ultimate goal.  Questioning why the status quo is the status quo is a part of that process.

Agreed.  IMO, I don’t think the lord decided one day that ok NOW women are ready to pray.  I think we all absolutely got in our own way on that one.  

It took time, and discussions like these, and I’m sure there was resistance for some time,  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Yes.  It seems formal ‘ recognition’ for he who is presiding offers nothing but recognition.  No one here appears to take issue with that.  But if I suggest a woman take the stand ( for multiple reasons of useful service and healthy messaging) it’s accused of as being prideful.  I suggest my recommendation is as innocent of such things as is the directive that we ‘recognize’ the highest positioned officer in the room. 

I don't see it as recognition for recognition's sakes but serving as a visual 'line of authority.'  Authority is so important in our religion (the restoration is all about the need for authority before being able to do anything in the name of Christ) that it seems reasonable to me that recognizing who is presiding in a meeting is necessary. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  Feel free to continue with the navel-gazing and virtue signaling schtick.

I'm not impressed with people who presume to ignorantly accuse others of misconduct.  

No, I'm not.  You're projecting again.

Says the person who has never met me before.

Navel gazing, virtue signalling and judgmentalism.  A hat trick!

Thanks,

-Smac

Come on guys.  This situation needs a hero (and by hero I mean someone who can just walk away and let the other guy have the last word  )

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't see it as recognition for recognition's sakes but serving as a visual 'line of authority.'  Authority is so important in our religion (the restoration is all about the need for authority before being able to do anything in the name of Christ) that it seems reasonable to me that recognizing who is presiding in a meeting is necessary. 

I think we see it the same but you are more eloquent than I am, thus my fangirl status🤘

*than am I.  Ugh! 

Edited August 15, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is there a priesthood reason that the sunday school presidency must be all male?

While I think there are some practical reasons for why you wouldn't want to have co-ed presidencies (not that I think that's what you were suggesting), I don't know of any doctrinal reason why the Sunday School Presidency couldn't be comprised of three women rather than three men - though, as has been pointed out, the current policy is that it be run by priesthood holders. 

My suspicion is that a good part of the reason why it is organized the way it is derives from tradition. Sunday School began as kind of a grass roots thing that just sort of caught on. It's popularity was, at the beginning, largely driven by congregations in Utah adopting Brother Ballantyne's model - he had been a former Sunday School teacher in another church prior to his conversion.

From the get-go, the program was organized and largely run by men, so when it came time to form it into an official auxiliary and bring it under correlation, it was probably natural to just leave it as a priesthood responsibility. The priesthood has a responsibility for teaching, in general, so it kind of makes sense that it be organized this way, but I wouldn't lose my testimony or anything if a revelation ever generated a change on that front.

 

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

While I think there are some practical reasons for why you wouldn't want to have co-ed presidencies (not that I think that's what you were suggesting), I don't know of any doctrinal reason why the Sunday School Presidency couldn't be comprised of three women rather than three men - though, as has been pointed out, the current policy is that it be run by priesthood holders. 

My suspicion is that a good part of the reason why it is organized the way it is derives from tradition. Sunday School began as kind of a grass roots thing that just sort of caught on. It's popularity was, at the beginning, largely driven by congregations in Utah adopting Brother Ballantyne's model - he had been a former Sunday School teacher in another church prior to his conversion.

From the get-go, the program was organized and largely run by men, so when it came time to form it into an official auxiliary and bring it under correlation, it was probably natural to just leave it as a priesthood responsibility. The priesthood has a responsibility for teaching, in general, so it kind of makes sense that it be organized this way, but I wouldn't lose my testimony or anything if a revelation ever generated a change on that front.

 

I think this is largely what I speak to.  Tradition.  Resistance to change.  Fear -and discomfort. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

I always assumed such recognition was so that people understood who presided at the meeting and for no other purpose.  Are you saying that it would be nice if the RS president was also recognized each week?  (asking for clarity's sake to see if I understand what you are saying).

Yes.  

But then why not "recognize" the EQ president?  And the Sunday School president?  And the YM and YW presidents?  And the Primary president?

Why single out the president of just one ward organization?  Is it solely because of her gender?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Come on guys.  This situation needs a hero (and by hero I mean someone who can just walk away and let the other guy have the last word  )

I'll do it!  I'll be the hero!

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is there a priesthood reason that the sunday school presidency must be all male?

No. It's purely for historic reasons in terms of who developed what. Basically Primary was organized by the Relief Society Presidency and Sunday School by the Apostles. Originally the Relief Society was much more independent than it became in the early 20th century.

Given that the Primary and Sunday school had their duties severely constricted I could easily see them merging the two callings soon. Honestly through most of the 20th century there was a lot of duplication between Primary and Sunday School. More or less making one priesthood tied is purely because of who originally ran it versus Primary. Why there was this duplication isn't quite clear. There were problems with the Relief Society modernizing around the turn of the century which might be tied into it.

Before the move to the 3 hour block in 1980 (I remember it well) you had Sunday School on Sunday mornings for about two hours, which included sacrament. You then had Sacrament Meeting that evening. Primary was on Tuesday. With the move to the block, Primary took over most of Sunday School and then kids moved into Sunday School at 12. While arguably it'd have made sense to unify things then, they mostly kept the older organization even though the reasons for it were now far less clear.

As others noted a big incentive in keeping them separate were worries about men and women cavorting with each other. While that seems more silly today where most people work in mixed gender environments, it was a huge issue in the more Victorian culture of the early 20th century. With the backlash to the counterculture movement in the last 60's and early 70's it was probably inevitable the separation would maintain itself. Now that there almost is no Sunday School, I think things are more complex. Especially now that we have merged Priesthood and Relief Society lessons reasonably regularly. 

Honestly there's so much overlap of function and, in many wards, so many callings that need strong members but can't find them, I think the day teaching leadership is unified and streamlined is coming quickly. (I'd add that reducing the bloat of Stake callings would be welcome as well)

Edited August 15, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Rain]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the bishop and his wife act as co-bishops?  Are they co-equal?  Or must they function and attend all meetings together?  

And if the wife is not ordained to the priesthood, how would she preside as a co-bishop?

Thanks,

-Smac

How does a counselor preside without the keys? Why could the women not be given keys/authority to do so? If there are blessings/authority that come to wives through the temple and through their husband's ordination then why can't that work with women in church roles?

I've not seen anything that says authority and leadership for women has to work the same way it does for men.  In fact, usually what I have see is that it works differently. So if some day the Lord says women can now preside in meetings, I figure he has the capability that it could be done in a way unique for women. 

 

[Nofear]

How about ward temple and family history leader? That is now to be a position held by a Melchezidek Priesthood holder (though some exceptions may occur because of local needs).

This isn't a situation of tradition. Indeed, many sisters served in this capacity and were released with the recent adjustments.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I know I would never want to be a RS pres nor do I enjoy being in charge any more than anyone else.  Nor do I like sitting on a stand.  Bishop doesn’t like it either, but it benefits the ward- a lot, in my opinion.  Having been a little girl, then a teen, then a young woman , now an old one, I am going to wonder out loud- might I have seen my value and my worth differently if small (albeit meaningless to smac and imo too many like him) differences like a woman on the stand, women handling finances, being final speaker, praying in general meetings, addressing priesthood class as often as bishoprics address RS, , taught ym as often as bishoprics teach yw.... if men outnumbered women washing dishes after ward Christmas dinner ( I know, it happens all the time in your ward but I’m waiting)... would I see myself any differently now than I do right now, in the context of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?  Might I see myself as the savior sees me, as opposed to how my human eyes see me in the context of the unimportant limits set for me in a human world where power rules? 

One of my mom's favorite stories about me came from when we were living in Hawaii.  I was quite young (four or so), and my dad worked long hours, and thus often missed FHE.

One Monday evening my dad came home a bit early, and after dinner he organized FHE and started things up.  I then had the following whispered conversation with my mom:

• Me: Mom, what is Dad doing?
• Mom: He's starting Family Home Evening.
• Me: He is?  Why?
• Mom: Well, he's in charge.
• Me: Oh.  {Pause of several seconds...} So . . . did you put him in charge?
• Mom: Yes.  Yes I did.

My mom created a 5,000-student "Hope of America" show that's been running in Utah County since 1995.  Here's a picture of her back in 2017, when she retired from it.  The Freedom Festival (of which "Hope of America" is a part) decided to honor her by putting her on the back of a Harley and having it drive through the Marriott Center.  I kid you not.  Take a look:

Yep.  That's my mom!  On a Harley!  In the Marriott Center!

To an extent, I get your point.  My mom was honored for her work with Hope of America, and she appreciated it.  The kids wanted to express their appreciation.

I think it is important that women feel valued in the Church.  I think single folks feel the same way.  Yesterday I had lunch with a friend, a bachelor in his late 30s, who sort of feels out-of-place and under-appreciated.

So what to do?  Dunno.  I'll think on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

How does a counselor preside without the keys?

The counselors in a bishopric have keys to preside.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Why could the women not be given keys/authority to do so?

They would need to be ordained to the priesthood.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

If there are blessings/authority that come to wives through the temple and through their husband's ordination then why can't that work with women in church roles?

I've not seen anything that says authority and leadership for women has to work the same way it does for men.  In fact, usually what I have see is that it works differently. So if some day the Lord says women can now preside in meetings, I figure he has the capability that it could be done in a way unique for women. 

I am open to such things.  I don't think female ordination will happen, but I am open to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But then why not "recognize" the EQ president?  And the Sunday School president?  And the YM and YW presidents?  And the Primary president?

Why single out the president of just one ward organization?  Is it solely because of her gender?  

Thanks,

-Smac

No. 

It's part for the women of her gender to help them have a better understanding of all Heavenly Father wants them to accomplish in their lives. You may see it as a small matter of pride, but it would be a huge thing as to how women would see they are capable of using the talents they know about and are yet to discover. This has NOTHING to do with HER and everything to do with the women she leads and inspires to accomplish their best.

And secondly, it helps men recognize the gifts of women, the value of women and the need to work together as one.

It is no little matter of pride and recognition. I think if one thinks that it is pride for women then they must recognize that at least sometimes it is a matter of pride for men as well or else they are unfairly assuming pride in women alone.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The counselors in a bishopric have keys to preside.

Would you please share where this is found? I've not found anything that says they have them.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They would need to be ordained to the priesthood.

Why? Where is this found?

 

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am open to such things.  I don't think female ordination will happen, but I am open to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not real excited about the idea of female ordination. THIS might be pride in me, but I've felt that whatever the Lord has in mind for women, it comes in a different way. 

Hence, the idea that I am not sold on symmetry - just don't find anything that says it can't be symmetric.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

While I sympathize with the idea that would mostly limit those positions to those who have no young children at home.

Yes. I don't think there is a perfect answer that works with humans in this life. I'm just open to whatever possibilities. Things are out of balance as they stand.

Good information makes for good inspiration. So I think if we are open to possibilities, listen to and discuss them, work together as one, then the Lord works miracle inspirations through us.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Come on guys.  This situation needs a hero (and by hero I mean someone who can just walk away and let the other guy have the last word  )

I am the hero this thread deserves, not the hero it needs. Sorry.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  Feel free to continue with the navel-gazing and virtue signaling schtick.

I'm not impressed with people who presume to ignorantly accuse others of misconduct.  

No, I'm not.  You're projecting again.

Says the person who has never met me before.

Navel gazing, virtue signalling and judgmentalism.  A hat trick!

Thanks,

-Smac

This is where you misunderstand and also why I think we as a people (I mean the world) are stuck in a rut. I am not accusing you of misconduct. I am accusing you of being human. If you are unhappy with that there was another option. Tribalism which encompasses racism and sexism and classism and most other isms that divide us into -ites is a natural human impulse.

We determined these isms are bad and should be corrected. So far so good. Then we got some waxing hyperbolic about how vile and evil they are. Problem is everyone is born with them to some extent. So now we have some people running around creating special rules to interact with everyone else to eliminate all offense and further ostracizing everyone by sucking all the joy out of human contact. Some took this lesson the other way and decided if the isms are that vile that they are not vile people and therefore they are immune to it and everyone else should be too and anyone who mentions it is a whining virtue signaling regressive. And some, realizing they have the isms and not wanting to examine them just give in and indulge them, particularly in anonymous settings.

So when you say you have prejudices and unconscious reactions to various kinds of people I am not accusing you of anything other then being human and I cannot virtue signal over this because I am human. I have nothing to signal about. What you call navel gazing is called self-examination. When you hurt someone due to those unconscious prejudices you can either shut up your brain and ignore them or face them and mitigate them. I am more likely to follow a man in a leadership role. I know this. I am trying to suppress that impulse. Same with trusting church members more then non members. I trust those from similar backgrounds more then I trust one with a foreign way of life. I can control them and overcome them but they are there. I am betting you do this as well. I doubt you are truly as oblivious to your own tribalistic impulses we are born with and develop as we live as you pretend to be.

Also, your declarations of your own purity from all prejudices kind of trump my own comments that prejudices are universal so really you virtue signaled way beyond me. Are you swinging to the Left as you age?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

* Though, in some cases I suspect they have not done it in the right "Not my will, but thine be done" spirit of things. Still, suggesting that is judgemental and usually not productive unless the Spirit paves the way and opens the door for that topic.

I think there are probably as many that get positive correct answers when it is all about their will be rather than God’s that are just lucky that God actually wants the same as they do.  They may get the benefit now, but will eventually find something merging that is going to test their ability to let God take the lead. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thankfully we did, but it took a lot of years to fix it and us getting passed the idea that there was a   I really don't care either way about Sunday school leadership.  Like I said before, changing thinking requires acknowledgement of the possible that it might need to change.  That see that acknowledgement as the ultimate goal.  Questioning why the status quo is the status quo is a part of that process.

The only thing I ever considered about prayers in General Conference was that I was glad I did not have to do it.  Do women really think it is a big deal that a woman prays or doesn't pray?  When I ask my wife she is totally ambivalent about it. 

[MustardSeed]

20 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The only thing I ever considered about prayers in General Conference was that I was glad I did not have to do it.  Do women really think it is a big deal that a woman prays or doesn't pray?  When I ask my wife she is totally ambivalent about it. 

There’s a tremendous difference between not wanting to and not having a right to.