What I want my church to do for Latter-day Saint women

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I personally think this culture of separating the sexes in adulthood is unhealthy.   Every other day of the week we are expected to work with and coordinate with members of the opposite sex as coworkers, leaders or subordinates to them.  We need to learn how to work together in more healthy ways, because life requires that, and this culture is a barrier to that growth.  

Pretty old fashioned.  But proximity increases sexual desire.  So there is that.  We cannot be trusted. 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

Pretty old fashioned.  But proximity increases sexual desire.  So there is that.  We cannot be trusted. 

Yes, it is that attitude that “we cannot be trusted” that is a more damaging than effective approach.  
There is also the “forbidden fruit” mentality that may actually be increasing desire and may be hampering our ability to act in healthy ways around the opposite sex.

I think the healthier approach would be to focus on what to do when sexual desire arises, and that sexual desire is a healthy and normal aspect of human existence that is better to be reined and directed rather than attempting to extinguish and avoid it.  

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

It’s only “chatty” if it’s a woman. Priesthood holders can talk all day and get nothing done and it’s fine. Women?? Just wasting time

Oh, men can certainly be "chatty" too. That we ascribe the term "chatty" more often to women is a sociological construct (perhaps with some degree of statistical merit, but unnecessary). I am certain that Elder Ballard would be very much opposed to men wasting time in church councils with frivolous banter (e.g. sport team chit chat, etc.).

[Diamondhands69]

16 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Oh, men can certainly be "chatty" too. That we ascribe the term "chatty" more often to women is a sociological construct (perhaps with some degree of statistical merit, but unnecessary). I am certain that Elder Ballard would be very much opposed to men wasting time in church councils with frivolous banter (e.g. sport team chit chat, etc.).

I agree- I suppose I need to add a  “/s “ for those who don’t catch the sarcasm. 
 

nearly every  meeting I have ever been in in the church (most of which are men only) not much was ever accomplished 

[juliann]

It is not helpful to throw tithing in as a woman's issue. Aside from the leadership the church is throwing away, I don't think the current situation is a problem for adult women as much as our girls. (If you have poor male leadership it can become a big problem for women.) Single women are in a different category, however, since they have no way to network the male power circles. 

In no particular order,

* older women and single women often feel disconnected. That is a loss of a powerful group that could advance church interests. 

* the church cannot keep excluding women at the current rate and expect growth. Low women representation at General Conference is a public embarrassment (along with the flower arrangements.)

* women leaders at top levels need to be given the opportunity to grow and advance rather than being thrown out every five years when they are just learning the job. Again, no opportunities to network and make changes....probably not even enough time to learn how. That might be deliberate.

* stop the ruse that there are "women led" organizations. Men ultimately call the shots. Turn the RS back to the women. 

*stop the ruse that priesthood ordination is needed for almost every leadership position when in other situations we accept that priesthood holders can designate authority. (I'm not explaining that well.)

*stop the ruse that women are "equal". Admit what is going on for cryin' out loud, we look STOOPID when we make up lame excuses and reasons.

* have women in every leadership decision making council from the top to the bottom, that includes the First Presidency.

*stop, stop, stop the silly gender distinction stuff. If women want to talk about that, we will do it in RS. 

* girls should pass the sacrament.

 

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

But in our latter-day church, does one need to hold the priesthood to be a financial clerk?

While I think the current setup is consistent with what has been revealed with respect to church organization, and it certainly comports with how the church has handled temporal affairs historically (and has some other pragmatic advantages as others have mentioned), I don't know that I would go so far as to say there is a doctrinal requirement that it must be this way.

 

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I personally think this culture of separating the sexes in adulthood is unhealthy.   Every other day of the week we are expected to work with and coordinate with members of the opposite sex as coworkers, leaders or subordinates to them.  We need to learn how to work together in more healthy ways, because life requires that, and this culture is a barrier to that growth.  

I’d say if the brethren have that big of a concern that indicates to me our temple recommend holding men and women have a problem keeping their hands to themselves. Maybe we are not the chosen people we have been told we are. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

perhaps with some degree of statistical merit, but unnecessary

https://time.com/4837536/do-women-really-talk-more/#:~:text=In a now-classic study,shortest comment by a man.

Only for private speaking, public speaking it’s the reverse.

Quote

For similar reasons, when they talk in a formal setting, many women try to take up less verbal space by being more succinct, speaking in a lower voice and speaking in a more tentative way. 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Calm

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I’d say if the brethren have that big of a concern that indicates to me our temple recommend holding men and women have a problem keeping their hands to themselves. Maybe we are not the chosen people we have been told we are. 

You would think that temple recommend holders would not have a problem with theft.  Yet when you go to the temple and change out of your clothes you put them in a locker that you lock.

Acknowledging that all of us face temptation and putting measures in place to mitigate those temptations seems appropriate. 

[Nofear]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://time.com/4837536/do-women-really-talk-more/#:~:text=In a now-classic study,shortest comment by a man.

Only for private speaking, public speaking it’s the reverse.

 

Thanks for the data! Good info I'll add to my worldview.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

It is not helpful to throw tithing in as a woman's issue. Aside from the leadership the church is throwing away, I don't think the current situation is a problem for adult women as much as our girls. (If you have poor male leadership it can become a big problem for women.) Single women are in a different category, however, since they have no way to network the male power circles. 

In no particular order,

* older women and single women often feel disconnected. That is a loss of a powerful group that could advance church interests. 

* the church cannot keep excluding women at the current rate and expect growth. Low women representation at General Conference is a public embarrassment (along with the flower arrangements.)

* women leaders at top levels need to be given the opportunity to grow and advance rather than being thrown out every five years when they are just learning the job. Again, no opportunities to network and make changes....probably not even enough time to learn how. That might be deliberate.

* stop the ruse that there are "women led" organizations. Men ultimately call the shots. Turn the RS back to the women. 

*stop the ruse that priesthood ordination is needed for almost every leadership position when in other situations we accept that priesthood holders can designate authority. (I'm not explaining that well.)

*stop the ruse that women are "equal". Admit what is going on for cryin' out loud, we look STOOPID when we make up lame excuses and reasons.

* have women in every leadership decision making council from the top to the bottom, that includes the First Presidency.

*stop, stop, stop the silly gender distinction stuff. If women want to talk about that, we will do it in RS. 

* girls should pass the sacrament.

 

👋👆👍🙌🤗

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I’d say if the brethren have that big of a concern that indicates to me our temple recommend holding men and women have a problem keeping their hands to themselves. Maybe we are not the chosen people we have been told we are. 

You would think that temple recommend holders would not have a problem with theft.  Yet when you go to the temple and change out of your clothes you put them in a locker that you lock.

Acknowledging that all of us face temptation and putting measures in place to mitigate those temptations seems appropriate. 

It seems to me the question is whether it is necessary to go to the extreme separating the sexes in adulthood in order to achieve the goal of mitigating temptation.

[Diamondhands69]

40 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

It seems to me the question is whether it is necessary to go to the extreme separating the sexes in adulthood in order to achieve the goal of mitigating temptation.

Kinda the same concept as hiding church history so people don’t lose their faith because they don’t know the whole truth.
 

They are being protected from their own agency by having choices eliminated. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I personally think this culture of separating the sexes in adulthood is unhealthy.   Every other day of the week we are expected to work with and coordinate with members of the opposite sex as coworkers, leaders or subordinates to them.  We need to learn how to work together in more healthy ways, because life requires that, and this culture is a barrier to that growth.  

Are you trying to start a cootie epidemic?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, tagriffy said:

It seems to me the question is whether it is necessary to go to the extreme separating the sexes in adulthood in order to achieve the goal of mitigating temptation.

It has always seemed strange to me that the most homophobic societies are generally the most obsessed with keeping men and women socially separate except for family relationships and legit stuff designed to create a marriage.

[Malc]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, it is that attitude that “we cannot be trusted” that is a more damaging than effective approach.  
There is also the “forbidden fruit” mentality that may actually be increasing desire and may be hampering our ability to act in healthy ways around the opposite sex.

I think the healthier approach would be to focus on what to do when sexual desire arises, and that sexual desire is a healthy and normal aspect of human existence that is better to be reined and directed rather than attempting to extinguish and avoid it.  

When I was a Branch President, decades ago, I advised the youth to avoid being alone for a prolonged period with another youth of the opposite sex. (Clearly I wasn't thinking about anything other than heterosexual desires.)

In your opinion, was that bad advice, or do you think it's OK to have the opposite advice for youth and adults? 

I also advised them that they should give some thought, ahead of time, to what they would do if they found themselves in a compromising situation. The idea was for them to make correct decisions while not under the influence of temptation, in the hope that they would remember, and be less likely to do the wrong thing in the heat of the moment.

Do you see that as generally good thinking, or flawed and/or useless?

[MrShorty]

29 minutes ago, Malc said:

do you think it's OK to have the opposite advice for youth and adults? 

I'm inclined to say that it's okay to have different advice for youth and adults on this. Youth are immature and having reasonable guidelines to protect against that immaturity while helping them grow into mature adults is good. If we've done our job well when they were young, adults should be mature enough to handle these situations.

[juliann]

I think perhaps the biggest and possibly irreversible damage that this exclusion has done is the mess it has made with priesthood authority/power. It goes back to the unwillingness to admit women aren't equal and coming up with stuff to avoid it. Thus, they have watered down priesthood to keep women out by basically saying we can call on the same power without ordination rather than elevating it by including more worthy members. In other words, faith is just as effective as priesthood. Women kind of know that anyway merely from experiencing it but now there is language behind it. 

[MrShorty]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think perhaps the biggest and possibly irreversible damage that this exclusion has done is the mess it has made with priesthood authority/power. It goes back to the unwillingness to admit women aren't equal and coming up with stuff to avoid it. Thus, they have watered down priesthood to keep women out by basically saying we can call on the same power without ordination rather than elevating it by including more worthy members. In other words, faith is just as effective as priesthood. Women kind of know that anyway merely from experiencing it but now there is language behind it. 

Bingo. I remember when Pres. Nelson gave his Spiritual Treasures talk thinking exactly this. I would have all of the exact same authority/power if I abdicated my ordination, except that I would no longer be eligible to be called into church government positions (bishopric, EQ presidency, etc.).

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Pretty old fashioned.  But proximity increases sexual desire.  So there is that.  We cannot be trusted. 

It's not old fashioned, it's fashioned for our time.  We live in a crazy time. 

Sexual desire isn't really the only reason for the rules, although it could be part of it.  It's like what I quoted for the "Companionship Principle" regarding church finances:  "This principle is essential to safeguarding sacred funds and protecting Church leaders."  The same principle applies to the Church's Youth Protection program and the old Boy Scout Youth Protection program.  It's not always about two adults trusting each other behind closed doors, but for parents or other outsiders that might make false or misinformed accusations.  It happens.  And it's not always about sexual issues, sometimes it's about safety (like in the case of church finances or in a youth program).  As I said, we live in crazy times.  I'm aware of a family that sued one bishop and is now trying to sue another (making false accusations about safety issues for their child), simply because they got away with it once and think they can get away with it again.

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Pretty old fashioned.  But proximity increases sexual desire.  So there is that.  We cannot be trusted. 

I don’t know if it’s so much a lack of trust, so much as the fact that we all make mistakes. 

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Kinda the same concept as hiding church history so people don’t lose their faith because they don’t know the whole truth.
 

They are being protected from their own agency by having choices eliminated. 

So you’d favor getting rid of the locks on temple changing room lockers, on the grounds that they take away agency?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you’d favor getting rid of the locks on temple changing room lockers, on the grounds that they take away agency?

The locks on temple lockers don’t inhibit people from friendships or interacting with other people.

[Diamondhands69]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you’d favor getting rid of the locks on temple changing room lockers, on the grounds that they take away agency?

Sure… I don’t ever go there-too many thieves lol. For those that do, sure says something about the trust they have in other recommend holders.
 

All that these security measures and separating men women show is we ( Mormons ) are not one bit better than anyone else. Should be disappointing to any TBM s out there thinking we Mormons own the high ground on righteousness. I know many of my family only trust Mormons. Hell some of em refuse to do business with anyone but a Mormon if they can help it. Right in the shadow of the largest FBI affinity fraud bureau in the nation. Lol

yea take the locks off. Catch someone stealing then take them out back and give them a compelling reason to go see a dentist for an emergency. Brigham would approve. 
 

locks in the temple is a sad indictment on the reality of “discernment” and the superiority of recommend holders to everyone else. There is no discernment and a recommend seems to mean not much at all. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

For those that do, sure says something about the trust they have in other recommend holders.

I have always thought it was more about not accidentally putting items in the wrong locker, picking something up accidentally, forgetting something, as well as making it very easy to find one’s locker again.  How often are people going to forget which row and which cubicle locker is theirs when they come back?  I would be forgetting each and every time most days.  That kind of stuff just doesn’t take root anymore.  They need a tag that isn’t going to be able to be accidentally hung on the wrong hook and therefore force a nightly check to make sure all the tags are on their hooks or whatever.  A key is a tag that belongs to only one locker.  The key solves several problems at once, none of which have to do with thieves.

Those locks are not exactly invulnerable.  At best they are a mild deterrence,  and that would seem enough.

I have been going to an often crowded  Utah Valley Center for a year or so now and people come in with purses and keys and phones and they leave them in their lockers.  Yet in the past year I have only seen one lock used and that is my own.  It was drilled into me by my parents and teachers when I lived in Illinois hitting the YWCA and California in Jr High and High School that locks were the intelligent thing to do and now it’s instinct so I have to even when I know I don’t need them (always use keys as I have way too many nightmares about going back to school after years being gone and being expected to remember not only the locker, but the combo, wish we used keys with those lockers and maybe I would have less nightmares).
At the Rec Center it’s very easy to find the locker you were using, even for me, because I am wise enough always to choose the same location.  Can’t do that in the temple with their setups.

If they don’t need locks to prevent stealing in the Springville rec center, I doubt they need them for that in most temples.  But a key is a very convenient location device and that is something very much needed.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Calm