Women, Men, and Priesthood

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

Married to each other.  

 

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

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes 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

I confidently argue that RS President is already co Bishop but is not held in any such esteem.  If we showed equal reverence and respect for the mantle we might start with a seat up front to allow people to recognize her as respected and dare I say worthy of inspiration for the ward needs. 

No need to overlap responsibilities. Just get that woman out from behind the curtain for goodness sake. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

The exclusion is not subjective. Women are excluded from leadership and authority roles in the church because they are women. You keep citing 1 Corinthians as if it is an answer. By all means, if you think that is solves the problem of exclusion, explain how it does. 

I reject the notion that a person who is not in a leadership/authority role in the Church is "excluded" from or not "included" in the Church.

Again, 2 Nephi 26:33, Moroni 8:17, 1 Corinthians 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1 minute 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.

Not to mention even further alienation of our very capable unmarried members. 

If people aren’t capable of platonic partnership in the work then we don’t deserve all the good stuff that would come from women being offered their potential anyway. 

[smac97]

Just now, MustardSeed said:

I confidently argue that RS President is already co Bishop but is not held in any such esteem.  

So in the end, all this is about . . . "esteem?"  

Really?

We've been warned against aspiring to positions in the Church, particularly when motivated by something as fatuous and empty, and perhaps even unrighteous, as seeking to gain glory and praise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Revelation still has to go through a mortal filter. And in the church, always through a male filter.

Not so.  Every member is entitled to revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is getting ugly.

Yep.  Ugly.

I utterly reject this characterization.

I reject this too.

Right.  To disagree with you and yours is to be stupid ("the brain shuts down"), irrational ("against all reason") and bigoted.

Yep.  Ugly.

Here you are, publicly accusing people like me of being stupid and irrational and bigoted, and then in the next sentence you object to such things being treated "as an attack."

Gaslighting, anyone?

Thanks,

-Smac

I did not say it was about you but yeah, I expected you to make it personally about you. I even said so. And no comment on my linked article on the Church website?

Also, not gaslighting even if you were right. That word has a specific meaning and it is not telling someone they are wrong.

Anyways, I would like to introduce this post as Exhibit A in support of my hypothesis.

I also utterly reject all your rejections. Where does that leave us?

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Resisting the effort to sow dissension in the Church?

Working against attempts to pit the women in the Church against the men, as if service in the Church is a zero sum game?

Thanks,

-Smac

So, I think this is an unfair assumption. Why would airing hurts be an attempt to sow dissension or to pit men against women?  It truly does not have to be either. Airing unseen wounds is a good! How much do the Saints want to be pure in heart, to be one? When someone is wounded, caring for them, addressing the wound and its source, and helping the individual, can make the entire whole more healthy.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I did not say it was about you but yeah,

"But yeah."

I picked up what you were putting down.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Also, not gaslighting even if you were right. That word has a specific meaning and it is not telling someone they are wrong.

Publicly slandering X, and then criticizing X for taking exception to such slanders, is not gaslighting?

Reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose.

Quote

Anyways, I would like to introduce this post as Exhibit A in support of my hypothesis.

I also utterly reject all your rejections. Where does that leave us?

Parting ways.  I find your remarks uncivil, so I'll refrain from further interaction with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject the notion that a person who is not in a leadership/authority role in the Church is "excluded" from or not "included" in the Church.

Again, 2 Nephi 26:33, Moroni 8:17, 1 Corinthians 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

An entire gender or group is excluded from leadership and authority roles. You seem to think the scriptures you cite provide some insight. Would you like to explain and describe it, in your own words?

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  Every member is entitled to revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Every human being, not just every member. However, all revelation for the entire church comes through a mortal and male filter. 

[MustardSeed]

whoops 

Edited August 15, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know this is a minor thing but I would point out that now this is all done online and the Relief Society President calls or texts the Bishop and the approval goes right out even if he is out of town.

Nehor, thanks for the update. It's been a few years!

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Not to mention even further alienation of our very capable unmarried members. 

If people aren’t capable of platonic partnership in the work then we don’t deserve all the good stuff that would come from women being offered their potential anyway. 

As an incapable unmarried member I resent being excluded like that.  

People in general seem to be incapable of platonic partnership in a one on one relationship that involves spending a lot of time alone. I think caution in this particular area is warranted. Fortunately most meetings in the Church outside of interviews are in groups.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

An entire gender or group is excluded from leadership and authority roles. You seem to think the scriptures you cite provide some insight. Would you like to explain and describe it, in your own words?

I went to the Bible scripture and it only mentioned gifts of the spirit, basically. In context I believe it goes on to say think of the church as a human body, and each part has it's importance.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

You can argue that the status quo is the way it is meant to be but it does mean women are inherently excluded from decision making roles. 

Going back to the ward council example. A woman never runs this meeting or leads the discussion or prioritizes the topic. This is a huge power imbalance that is never changed. 

As a ‘president,’ I manage my meetings. Everyone has an opportunity to contribute or bring up topics that are discussed but ultimately, I decide when to move on, what to table for later and also what course of action will be taken. (Even then, this requires Bishop approval.) We seek for unanimity but it doesn’t always happen.

The difference between being a ‘president’ and a ‘counselor’ is huge.

In ward council, the female voice will always be able to be ignored or not prioritized or tabled. We may speak, express concerns but ultimately hold no power. 

This dynamic will never change. 

Woman will be always at the mercy of men on whether their views are relevant in the current operational structure of church.

(I use the words ‘always’ and ‘never’ intentionally.)

 

[MustardSeed]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So in the end, all this is about . . . "esteem?"  

Really?

We've been warned against aspiring to positions in the Church, particularly when motivated by something as fatuous and empty, and perhaps even unrighteous, as seeking to gain glory and praise.

Thanks,

-Smac

(I’ll try again, had to delete the wrong quote last time)

Respectfully, I think all sides can win this problem with simple adjustments.  

I can see how my statement could come across as defending a woman’s need for glory and praise.  It’s truly not how I feel.  

The absence of acknowledgment indicates to me an imbalance.  I think that is easily corrected.  I don’t worship my bishop, and I’m not looking for RS pres to be worshiped either.  

I think it’s a relatively reasonable suggestion with more benefits to be had than drawbacks.  

Imo. 

“We’d like to recognize brother so and so on the stand with us today”.  This is not intended to build up a guys ego.  If it does, that’s on him. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Resisting the effort to sow dissension in the Church?

Working against attempts to pit the women in the Church against the men, as if service in the Church is a zero sum game?

So, I think this is an unfair assumption. Why would airing hurts be an attempt to sow dissension or to pit men against women? 

Take a look at Nehor's remarks.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It truly does not have to be either.

I agree.  And yet often both of these things come up.  Again, see Nehor's remarks.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Airing unseen wounds is a good!

Not really.  Airing the family's dirty laundry is seldom a good idea.  I recommend you consider Elder Oaks's 1987 Ensign article, entitled "Criticism," which covers this topic in substantial detail and depth.  A money quote:

Quote

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences {in the Church} is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

None of this is happening in this thread.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How much do the Saints want to be pure in heart, to be one?

Members publicly slandering fellow members of the Church are not helping us "be one."

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

When someone is wounded, caring for them, addressing the wound and its source, and helping the individual, can make the entire whole more healthy.  

Yes.  But in the right time, and place, and manner.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

An entire gender or group is excluded from leadership and authority roles.

I have a good friend who is one of the finest people I know.  But he's divorced, and so will likely never be called as a bishop.

I have another friend who is single, and hence cannot be called as a bishop.  

I have untold numbers of women of my acquaintance who cannot be called as a bishop.

That says exactly nothing about them, about their worth and standing before God.  Nothing.

My stake president was recently called to serve as a mission president (Mesa).  I am reasonably confident that I will never be called as a mission president, or as a general authority.  If so, that will have said exactly nothing about me, about my worth and standing before God.  Nothing.

In the end, everyone has an opportunity to obtain the Celestial Kingdom.  Many (most?) of us will do it without having served in "leadership and authority roles."  Because 1 Corinthians 12.  Because 2 Nephi 26:33.  Because Moroni 8:17.  Because Ephesians 4.

People who aspire to (and/or publicly demand or agitate for) "leadership and authority roles" for the sake of "esteem" or "reverence" or praise from others (or any other reason, for that matter) are getting it wrong.  Very wrong.

Quote

You seem to think the scriptures you cite provide some insight.

Yes.

Quote

Would you like to explain and describe it, in your own words?

I can't really improve on what Paul said.  But I did emphasize what I take to be the most salient bits.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Not really.  Airing the family's dirty laundry is seldom a good idea.  I recommend you consider Elder Oaks's 1987 Ensign article, entitled "Criticism," which covers this topic in substantial detail and depth.  A money quote:

None of this is happening in this thread.

Members publicly slandering fellow members of the Church are not helping us "be one."

Yes.  But in the right time, and place, and manner.

Thanks,

-Smac

It sounds like you are assuming a lot. I wasn't talking about "the family's dirty laundry." I wasn't talking about slandering anyone. SMAC, I don't see any reason to convert "airing wounds" into those things. There are systemic problems inherent to the exclusion of women from leadership roles in the church.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

I think there is a reason we are supposed to have male and female.  We need both.  The more I think about this the more I think that we really can't be symmetrical because we are not identical parts to the eternal picture, however we MUST have balance for this all to work.

So maybe we could think of ways that things are getting weighted to one side or the other to see where maybe we could balance things (with God's approval of course). 

 

What asymmetry is inherent in us, is, already, right?

So, it might behoove us to consider that artificial structures reinforcing exclusion actually prevent lots and lots of beautifully asymmetrical potentials.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"But yeah."

I picked up what you were putting down.

Because you thought it was addressed to you. Why?

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Publicly slandering X, and then criticizing X for taking exception to such slanders, is not gaslighting?

Reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose.

And no, it is not gaslighting. Gaslighting is a severe form of abuse where you tell outright lies about physical reality to convince someone their own memories or sanity are suspect. It is not a conflict of viewpoints. It involves a liar intentionally and deliberately undermining someone’s sense of self to convince them their memories are wrong or doing something bizarre and later claiming it never happened. It is done by an abuser claiming the abuse never happened for example.

So no, reasonable minds cannot disagree on this point if they know what the word means. Not sure why you want to escalate your victimhood here by claiming this kind of abuse is happening to you. I mean, I have heard you go on and on about whiny people making up reasons to be victims and I kind of got the impression you disapproved of this behavior.

For gaslighting’s meaning and origin see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Parting ways.  I find your remarks uncivil, so I'll refrain from further interaction with you.

You just spent the last few pages telling women their views are utterly wrong in every respect and that their perception of the situation is fundamentally flawed. I do the same thing to you for only two posts and you start whimpering about civility and decorum and decide to:

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds like you are assuming a lot. I wasn't talking about "the famly's dirty laundry."

It's a euphemism.  If you want more precision, I refer you to Elder Oaks's article (I linked to it earlier).

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I wasn't talking about slandering anyone.

Okay.  Others did, though.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

SMAC, I don't see any reason to convert "airing wounds" into those things. There are systemic problems inherent to the exclusion of women from leadership roles in the church.

I disagree.  Until and unless you account for the role of priesthood ordination as a necessary component of these leadership roles, and unless and until you explain how your proposal is not a substantial deviation from 1 Corinthians 12, I don't think this discussion will get very far.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So in the end, all this is about . . . "esteem?"  

Esteem affects the level of impact a person can have.  Someone can be in a high position of power, but with low esteem have little influence or ability to get their decisions implemented.  Someone with high esteem may be in a low power position, but still have major impact on decision making because they are listened to.

Some positions carry esteem with them due to the culture.  Imo Bishop is a calling with high inherent esteem.  A man has to work hard to lose respect of his ward when in that position,  With regards to RS President, I think it carries esteem in that people assume the President is a good person, but not necessarily seen as someone who has influence or should be part of the decision making process.  Much of that esteem comes from how the Bishop treats her as well as EQ President, do they actively seek out her input and advice or just let her know what they have decided.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why would you ask that?

I said the Proclamation provides for equality

You said it will be revised. Why? To make things unequal?

Edited August 15, 2019 by mfbukowski