More female representation in general conference

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

These are the traditional symbols of yin and yang, on which most of Eastern religion and philosophy are structured.  However, I don't recall Peterson arguing what you indicate.  That's like claiming that Daniel Peterson advises that we worship Ashera. 

Actually he doesn't believe in the patriarchy.  He says instead that men and women have traditionally cooperated with one another and loved one another.  He denies silly feminist claims.

He actually gives a very rational argument completely unrelated to your wild M'Khia Bryant stabbing motion. 

He wasn’t teaching yin and yang. I do recall it. It is not equivalent to that at all.

“silly feminist claims” such as pretty much all of the feminist movement.

Jordan Peterson is one of those weird figures teens are attracted to like Ayn Rand but are supposed to outgrow except Peterson largely only attracts one gender of teen.

Edited April 26, 2021 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He wasn’t teaching yin and yang. I do recall it. It is not equivalent to that at all.

“silly feminist claims” such as pretty much all of the feminist movement.

Jordan Peterson is one of those weird figures teens are attracted to like Ayn Rand but are supposed to outgrow except Peterson largely only attracts one gender of teen.

His book 12 Rules for Life was directed specifically at young men because (as a therapist) he thought they needed help.  Most of those have long since left their teen years behind.  And they have responded to his common sense recommendations.  However, Peterson often deals with major societal problems, and bases his recommendations on research data.  He finds major fault with neo-Marxist thinking -- especially in academia -- and the concomitant condemnation of free inquiry.  He is condemned by both the extreme left and the extreme right because he won't tolerate their totalitarian tendencies.

His book Maps of Meaning has been broadly praised, and it is not directed at young men.

[secondclasscitizen]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

 

If the FP gives 2 talks each and the 12 give 1 talk each why would it be burdensome for each of the women to give 1 talk each? 

 

According to elder Ballard they shouldn’t say too much. Maybe this is the reason only a couple get to speak in conference: /s

“We need your voices. They need to be heard. They need to be heard in your community, in your neighborhoods, they need to be heard within the ward council or the branch council. Now don’t talk too much in those council meetings, just straighten the brethren out quickly and move the work on. We are building the kingdom of God.” Elder Ballard 

[juliann]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Writing and prepping for a talk like that is a lot of work. Then there might be suggested changes for translation reasons and everything else. It doesn’t seem like a fun process. For the apostles it is really a part of their calling so even if it is burdensome it kind of has to be done. For auxiliary leaders it is more like ‘once every three conferences’ and it is something they may or may not do. They still have more obligations in this area than the 70s and the 70s are usually better (self) trained in public speaking because a lot of their responsibility is to go around speaking at meetings. If I was in the Sunday School Presidency I would wonder why anyone wanted to listen to me and my current calling probably doesn’t involve nearly as much time learning to speak well publicly as even the 70s get.

That is why I see it as potentially burdensome. I am sure that is not true for everyone who is a general officer. Some might enjoy it. It is just more out of their wheelhouse though, of course, some are still very good at it in spite of that.

And yet women regularly line up for professions which require even more public speaking. They like being professors, doing workshops, company presentations of all sorts and other public presentations that are much more “burdensome” than a once or twice a year 15 minute talk. It’s usually called a job or profession and taken for granted. And women are just as likely to enjoy the exposure and influence as men are. 
 

I am becoming very interested in the persistence of the “it’s too much work” apologetic that is always applied to women as a reason for denying them opportunities taken for granted by males in the church. I don’t think it holds up at all in a world where women do everything that is supposedly too much work in every other area of life. 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it would go a long way to include women in the priesthood session.  I do think it would help both men and women views women leaders differently.  Maybe even help push the local EQ's to study talks by a woman on Sundays every now and then.  

Well, I don't know about your ward, but our Elders Quorum does study general conference talks given by sisters from time to time. It depends, I think, upon the topic that is to be emphasized, which varies according to the perceived needs at any given time among the quorum members.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I don't know about your ward, but our Elders Quorum does study general conference talks given by sisters from time to time. It depends, I think, upon the topic that is to be emphasized, which varies according to the perceived needs at any given time among the quorum members.

I bet finding their talks is like finding a needle in a haystack.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

And yet women regularly line up for professions which require even more public speaking. They like being professors, doing workshops, company presentations of all sorts and other public presentations that are much more “burdensome” than a once or twice a year 15 minute talk. It’s usually called a job or profession and taken for granted. And women are just as likely to enjoy the exposure and influence as men are. 
 

I am becoming very interested in the persistence of the “it’s too much work” apologetic that is always applied to women as a reason for denying them opportunities taken for granted by males in the church. I don’t think it holds up at all in a world where women do everything that is supposedly too much work in every other area of life. 

I don't deny that many women are skilled public speakers.

However (for better or worse) the positions women currently hold amongst the General Officers of the Church are not primarily speaking roles. They are administrative. Some also happen to be skilled in public speaking.

If you think there should be more women given roles like the apostles where teaching and public speaking are the primary roles I have no objection to that happening. It is not the "too much work" that I am pointing out. It is that it is outside the normal role of being an administrator that could make it burdensome. Some are skilled in both administration and public speaking. To mitigate any concerns about chauvinism I would have similar concerns if the Young Men or Sunday School Presidency were asked to speak more in General Conference.

Put in other terms I am trained to be skilled in written communication. If I ever get another job in that field (fingers crossed) and they tried to have me do sales I would probably be abysmally bad at it. It is outside the role of the job. Similar with auxiliary presidents. Imagine a person who is skilled in organization. A genius at it. However they are mediocre at public speaking. Give them a calling in an auxiliary presidency and then add speaking in General Conference more than once every three or four conferences and it could be genuinely burdensome. You could look for people who are also skilled public speakers but then you are excluding more people from the role. Maybe it is a persnickety point but I think it is valid.

As I said I consider anything but an apostle speaking secondary so to get more women speaking we need to get women into the apostleship. No idea if it will ever happen but I suspect it will or possibly some sort of joint married couple apostleship setup. I might be off my rocker.

Clarification: When I talk about pools of candidates and narrowing them I am not suggesting in any way that there is no divine guidance in calling people to positions.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I think right now might be a good time to have the relief society go back to how it used to be before correlation. Let it be independent financially like it used to be. I personally think that could be a good thing for the church and its image.

Why would it be a good thing for the church and its image?

And then the question comes: how was the Relief Society at all levels financed before correlation? Just checked with my wife (she's served in RS presidencies in the past), and she says that as far as she knows, the Relief Society at all levels has always gotten its budget from the ward. Only occasionally did they ever fund-raise for special events.

By the way, "correlation" has been in effect since the 1960s. I suspect that was before you were born. I recall hearing about it when correlation came in, and I was still wet behind the ears as a member of the church. Do we really have a handle on how it was before? 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I bet finding their talks is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Their talks aren't hidden. They're right out there with all the others.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Their talks aren't hidden. They're right out there with all the others.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

I was kidding. Or not kidding, we don't get many talks by women to learn from.

[Rain]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Why would it be a good thing for the church and its image?

And then the question comes: how was the Relief Society at all levels financed before correlation? Just checked with my wife (she's served in RS presidencies in the past), and she says that as far as she knows, the Relief Society at all levels has always gotten its budget from the ward. Only occasionally did they ever fund-raise for special events.

By the way, "correlation" has been in effect since the 1960s. I suspect that was before you were born. I recall hearing about it when correlation came in, and I was still wet behind the ears as a member of the church. Do we really have a handle on how it was before? 

Quote

In the years before the First Presidency announced that ward and stake budgets would pay for all activities on the local level, each auxiliary had its own budget and raised its own funds. Relief Society sisters paid yearly dues, and local Relief Society units held annual bazaars selling homemade items. Similar activities took place in the Young Women Mutual Improvement Association and in the Primary. Such was the situation in October 1947 when Relief Society general president Belle S. Spafford asked all Relief Society sisters to donate $5 and each stake Relief Society to donate one-half of their funds for one year to the building of the proposed Relief Society Building.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/09/the-relief-society-building-a-symbol-of-service-and-sacrifice?lang=eng

[AtlanticMike]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Why would it be a good thing for the church and its image?

I don't know much about the relief society but I do remember when I was young one of my aunt's would talk about how she enjoyed relief society better before correlation. 

    I think it would be a good idea to have the R.S, one of the largest women's organizations in the world actually managed by women, even financially. 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Do we really have a handle on how it was before? 

I don't, no. But looking forward I also think it would be a good idea to have a whole evening, maybe the Friday before conference dedicated to the relief society and young womens. Who knows, if done correctly it might outshine conference. 

[juliann]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don't deny that many women are skilled public speakers.

However (for better or worse) the positions women currently hold amongst the General Officers of the Church are not primarily speaking roles. They are administrative. Some also happen to be skilled in public speaking.

If you think there should be more women given roles like the apostles where teaching and public speaking are the primary roles I have no objection to that happening. It is not the "too much work" that I am pointing out. It is that it is outside the normal role of being an administrator that could make it burdensome. Some are skilled in both administration and public speaking. To mitigate any concerns about chauvinism I would have similar concerns if the Young Men or Sunday School Presidency were asked to speak more in General Conference.

 

Have you read the job description? Surely you are not suggesting that among the many qualifications of these women, all sorts of college degrees, businesses, etc., they must have a degree in public speaking?https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=relief society general board&highlight=true&page=1 The men certainly don't.

You are setting up a can't walk and chew gum situation for women only. Teaching is right there along with everything else in the job description. Teaching is speaking. I don't think you are aware of how much they travel. And like any GA, they will be celebrities, speaking at every stop. So why is General Conference the glass ceiling for women who are giving much longer sermons on multiple occasions and even writing books?

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Why would it be a good thing for the church and its image?

And then the question comes: how was the Relief Society at all levels financed before correlation? Just checked with my wife (she's served in RS presidencies in the past), and she says that as far as she knows, the Relief Society at all levels has always gotten its budget from the ward. Only occasionally did they ever fund-raise for special events.

By the way, "correlation" has been in effect since the 1960s. I suspect that was before you were born. I recall hearing about it when correlation came in, and I was still wet behind the ears as a member of the church. Do we really have a handle on how it was before? 

I remember the death knell. We lost the RS Magazine in 1970. But even by then, the men were starting to take over the content. I also remember all the fund raising my mother did.  The RS was self-sufficient. In fact, the church took their money along with the autonomy they did have.

BTW, "correlation" has happened in stages for over a century. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

I remember the death knell. We lost the RS Magazine in 1970. But even by then, the men were starting to take over the content. I also remember all the fund raising my mother did.  The RS was self-sufficient. In fact, the church took their money along with the autonomy they did have.

BTW, "correlation" has happened in stages for over a century. 

I sometimes wonder if this wasn't the beginning of RS becoming something completely different than it started out as.

It's hard to see it now as a voluntary organization where women agree to take on specific responsibilities when no one really has a choice about being a member.  You age out of YW and BAM, you are now a member of the RS, even if you know nothing about it or don't want to be.  

I kind of wish I could have seen the days when membership meant something more than just 'that's where the women go for the second hour of church twice a month' and where the leaders were elected rather than called.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are setting up a can't walk and chew gum situation for women only.

Nope. Absolutely wrong.

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

So why is General Conference the glass ceiling for women who are giving much longer sermons on multiple occasions and even writing books?

General Conference isn’t the glass ceiling. If you want to frame it in those terms being an Apostle or Seventy is the glass ceiling.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I don't know much about the relief society but I do remember when I was young one of my aunt's would talk about how she enjoyed relief society better before correlation. 

About twenty years ago, I found an old Relief Society manual at our church building and looked through it. I told my mom how interesting it looked, and she lit up reminiscing about the enrichment lessons --- in Church --- about different countries, the Renaissance, inventions --- all sorts of enriching, edifying, and interesting things. 

I didn't write down the entry for "correlation" from Orson Scott Card's "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary," but some of the effects of correlation remind me of the entry for "investigator:"

[quote]investigator Someone who suspects there are exciting, powerful truths in the gospel somewhere, despite the missionaries' best efforts to stick to the discussions.[/quote]

I think the same is true about our manuals. There are people who are convinced that there are exciting, powerful truths in the gospel and in the Church somewhere, despite our current manuals.  

Edited April 26, 2021 by rongo

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Rain said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/09/the-relief-society-building-a-symbol-of-service-and-sacrifice?lang=eng

Thanks for that! I guess I'm just too young to remember any of it.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, rongo said:

I didn't write down the entry for "correlation" from Orson Scott Card's "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary,"

I had a copy of that, once. I enjoyed it greatly.

[Calm]

For those who want to hear more from female General Officers, they are speaking in free sessions online for BYU Women’s Conference:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/event/2021-byu-women-s-conference

Quote

The free sessions also include the Sister to Sister event and five other sessions with presidency members from organizations of the Church. These sessions will be available in English with closed captioning and translation in Spanish and Portuguese. No registration is required for the free sessions. All women and men ages 16 and older are invited to participate. 

BYU Women’s Conference sessions will include topics such as:

  “Exceeding Great and Precious Promises”  

  Fostering understanding and unity in a divisive world

  Preparing children to live in a world of wondrous diversity

  Understanding differences between shame and guilt

  Seeing yourself in the Abrahamic covenant

  Encouraging women to speak out and speak up

  Fostering relationships with loved ones during faith transitions

It would appear we here on the board are not the only ones talking about certain topics.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

For those who want to hear more from female General Officers, they are speaking in free sessions online for BYU Women’s Conference:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/event/2021-byu-women-s-conference

It would appear we here on the board are not the only ones talking about certain topics.  

This is awesome, thanks for posting it!

[juliann]

On 4/26/2021 at 4:47 PM, The Nehor said:

Nope. Absolutely wrong.

General Conference isn’t the glass ceiling. If you want to frame it in those terms being an Apostle or Seventy is the glass ceiling.

The glass ceiling hits long before those callings. I suspect that being called as an apostle is preceded by a lot of speaking opportunity over an extended period, something women won't get other than for a few brief years in a very, very, very short list of callings.

[Calm]

How often do mission presidents’ wives speak publicly at missionary meetings?

General Authorities who live in the area they supervise wouldn’t be as likely to have wives travel with them, so wondering if being a wife to a leader at that level adds any opportunities or not. 

My experience is stake presidents and bishops’ wives rarely speak.

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

How often do mission presidents’ wives speak publicly at missionary meetings?

General Authorities who live in the area they supervise wouldn’t be as likely to have wives travel with them, so wondering if being a wife to a leader at that level adds any opportunities or not. 

My experience is stake presidents and bishops’ wives rarely speak.

I don’t think there is a standard. In most of the missionary Zone conferences I went to the Assistants both spoke, the Mission President’s wife spoke, and the Mission President spoke. If the Mission President had a counselor there (rare) they spoke but this happened twice that I remember.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

The glass ceiling hits long before those callings. I suspect that being called as an apostle is preceded by a lot of speaking opportunity over an extended period, something women won't get other than for a few brief years in a very, very, very short list of callings.

That there is a very very very short list of callings with that opportunity is one of the points in my first post on this issue. It is not in dispute.