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

[MustardSeed]

56 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

would probably say the biggest source of the affair is issues in the marriage and/or issues with the cheating person that aren't being addressed. Cheating's just an expression of an underlying problem. 

I would hazard a guess, that doing church work, can have people, confusing feelings of the spirit or goodness for emotional or romantic feelings for another person.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I would hazard a guess, that doing church work, can have people, confusing feelings of the spirit or goodness for emotional or romantic feelings for another person.

This can happen. One of my Mission Presidents told us to never study the scriptures one-on-one with another person because it is easy to confuse those feelings.

When I was a missionary I had several people think they were in love with me because of the spirit kicking in. One of them told me this while her boyfriend was sitting next to her. That was awkward.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I would hazard a guess, that doing church work, can have people, confusing feelings of the spirit or goodness for emotional or romantic feelings for another person.

Wouldn't surprise me. Especially if they're missing feelings of love, vulnerability, or care in their life. It can be disorienting to experience that. 

Heaven knows I had that happen a couple times while I was working. Usually with my porn clients funny enough. Such a blast. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Proximity also happens to be the initial source of friendship and healthy social activity.  Healthy relationships between men and women is a good thing that shouldn’t be mitigated out of life out of life due to potential risk.

Very true. Yet societal trends are such that it often deemed weird if a cross gender pair have a close relationship without sexual intimacy. Heck, often true for same gender relationships now. Also trends in looking at historical relationships of friendships and people wondering openly and seriously, “surely they were having sex”.

This “demand” for sexual intimacy as the only normal behavior for friendship of any kind is not helping us.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Probably the closest comparison would be to the community of Christ.   They have a similar structure to ours but have ordained women, and so have an organization where each sex is required to work closely with members of the opposite sex in leadership roles.   There are women apostles working closely with men apostles.  Locally, they have pastors (man or woman) who work closely with members of the opposite sex in leadership roles such as finance and other priesthood callings.  A member of the Seventy (man or woman) has been "teamed" with an apostle (man or women).   It appears there are pairs of men and men, women and women, and also men with women, or women with men.    

Community of Christ membership and field organization - Wikipedia

Yes they would be a great resource.  From what I've seen so far, there are no studies and no data discussing it.  Probably because they are so small in numbers and not on many people's radar.  It would also be interesting to know if they do have policies in regards to different-gender relationships and how they are to be conducted (like, no one on one stuff maybe, for example).

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes they would be a great resource.  From what I've seen so far, there are no studies and no data discussing it.  Probably because they are so small in numbers and not on many people's radar.  It would also be interesting to know if they do have policies in regards to different-gender relationships and how they are to be conducted (like, no one on one stuff maybe, for example).

Might be something in here, no time to really search as lunch time

https://midsouthmc.org/wp-content/pdf/church-admin-handbook.pdf

However, I found a reference to this handbook on a webpage that said there were rules not included in it.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Very true. Yet societal trends are such that it often deemed weird if a cross gender pair have a close relationship without sexual intimacy. Heck, often true for same gender relationships now. Also trends in looking at historical relationships of friendships and people wondering openly and seriously, “surely they were having sex”.

This “demand” for sexual intimacy as the only normal behavior for friendship of any kind is not helping us.

I don't think it would be considered weird for people of the opposite sex to have work/church related relationships without intimacy.  If they start going to the movies (does anybody still do that?) together after dropping off church deposits at the bank or start frequently doing other non-church related activities together without involving their spouses, then that would raise some cultural red-flags.   I have several close relationships with co-workers of the opposite sex.  I am a male nurse, so we are kind of outnumbered and I don't have many other options. 

I don't think there is any cultural "demand for sexual intimacy" in the types of relationships and dynamics we are talking about.  

[Rain]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I would hazard a guess, that doing church work, can have people, confusing feelings of the spirit or goodness for emotional or romantic feelings for another person.

Especially when we confuse feelings with the Spirit all the time.

[Nofear]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think there is any cultural "demand for sexual intimacy" in the types of relationships and dynamics we are talking about.  

I agree that it's not universal. But, it's there in many circumstances (if popular media is to be believed at all, which it can't). I can't say if it was more prevalent in the 60's or such though.
Saying "I love you" is often seen as more substantive and consequential than having sex. (https://www.google.com/search?q=when+to+say+I+love+you+after+sex)

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I agree that it's not universal. But, it's there in many circumstances (if popular media is to be believed at all, which it can't). I can't say if it was more prevalent in the 60's or such though.
Saying "I love you" is often seen as more substantive and consequential than having sex. (https://www.google.com/search?q=when+to+say+I+love+you+after+sex)

I can see that, however, the phrase I love you can reflect a spectrum of thoughts, feelings, or intention. In my opinion, consensual sex is consistently going to reflect desire. Being told that somebody loves me may or may not be a threat to my husband. Every single experience of consensual sex outside of marriage is always going to be a threat to him.

 

I do believe we have gone way off topic, but it is an interesting discussion as sex often is. 

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Proximity also happens to be the initial source of friendship and healthy social activity. 

Sure. People who are in close physical proximity naturally tend to form relationships with one another.

Friendship may be the most common form these relationships take, but romantic attraction is pretty common as well - just ask anyone who works in HR.

 

Quote

Healthy relationships between men and women is a good thing that shouldn’t be mitigated out of life out of life due to potential risk. 

I agree.

 

Quote

The vast majority of us are going to have working relationships with members of the opposite sex.  We shouldn't make it all taboo. 

Again, I agree.

I work as a manager at a small(ish) company and interact with members of the opposite sex all the time. I regularly have one-on-one meetings with my superior (who happens to be a woman) and with my direct reports as well (about half of whom are women). I don't find any of that inappropriate.

And when I'm working late into the night during our busy season, if I notice there are only two people left in the building - myself and a member of the opposite sex - I have yet to ever feel the need to pull a Joseph and run away in order to preserve my chastity.

 

Quote

There are potential risks with all good things in life, that doesn't mean that we should avoid those good things because a minority of people make unhealthy choices.   It feels overly controlling with unhealthy dominion.  Again, the parent child dynamic shows up.   I like the idea of being taught correct principles and let people govern themselves.

As a general rule, I think it's eminently reasonable for the church to discourage married men and women from spending lots of time alone with a member of the opposite sex who isn't their spouse.

In terms of "correct principles," that one seems to pass muster. YMMV.

 

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I would probably say the biggest source of the affair is issues in the marriage and/or issues with the cheating person that aren't being addressed. Cheating's just an expression of an underlying problem. 

Sure. There are lots of reasons why people ultimately cheat. Proximity may not be the root cause, but it can certainly provide both attraction and opportunity.

In my experience, whenever I see members of the opposite sex spending lots of what I would characterize as unstructured time together, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover they ended up becoming romantically involved at some point.

Whenever I hear about some teacher (usually a band director or coach) becoming involved with a student I think to myself, yup, there’s another one. I remember talking to our HR manager one time and she said that there have been studies which indicate something like 40% (may have been more) of employees reported having engaged in infidelity with a co-worker. It’s definitely a thing.  

 

23 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

People who know how to healthily work through problems, have a mature attitude around relational boundaries, etc very rarely cheat. 

I very much wish everyone could be like this. However, given what we know about the incidence of infidelity in the US, it’s pretty clearly the case that not nearly enough people are so equipped. To be clear, I’m supportive of trying to change that. And I think we can work on that while simultaneously cautioning people (many of whom will likewise be ill-equipped to work through relationship problems) to avoid situations that might put them in a position to act in ways they may ultimately regret.

 

23 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Personally when I see/hear this I think of that time that I was meeting with my bishop on the regular to discuss sexual concerns that may come up in a ward multiple times and alone. Or the many times I've worked with men alone about their emotional and sexual issues. Or the emails I send my male boss. Or the plethora of other ways I work closely with men. There's never been a serious concern for me. The only time there's been a problem for their end is when I'm working with clients who struggle with sexual/emotional boundaries in general. Keeping them away from the opposite sex doesn't fix that. If anything it delays their maturation and confrontation of unhealthy behaviors/cognitions they've held onto.

All of these sound like structured interactions to me; I don’t see anything problematic about any of them.

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

As a general rule, I think it's eminently reasonable for the church to discourage married men and women from spending lots of time alone with a member of the opposite sex who isn't their spouse.

In terms of "correct principles," that one seems to pass muster.

I agree.  The workplace, where married persons regularly interact with persons of the opposite sex, is one of the biggest sources (or locations) of marital infidelity.

Here:

Quote

40% have cheated on an existing partner with a colleague

With the prevalence of workplace romances comes workplace affairs. Of those who had a workplace romance, a staggering 40% said they had cheated on a partner with a colleague.

Here:

Here:

Quote

2. 85% of affairs outside of marriage start at the office, workplace romance statistics show.

(GoodTherapy)

Late nights at the office, long work trips, common interests – add it all up, and it becomes clear why so many extramarital relationships begin at work.

Here:

Quote

38% of cheating spouses have engaged in workplace affairs.

Delving into the realm of workplace affairs statistics, one cannot overlook the compelling figure: the intriguing revelation that 38% of unfaithful spouses have succumbed to illicit entanglements with coworkers. This nugget of information adds fuel to the fire of understanding the intricacies of extramarital dalliances, illuminating the significant role that office settings play as breeding grounds for temptation and impassioned misadventures.

Here:

Quote

Nearly one-quarter of workers who reported a workplace romance said their affair involved a person who was married at the time, according to the results of a CareerBuilder survey.

Here:

Quote

Infidelity

Nineteen percent of people surveyed admitted to being involved in a relationship at work where at least one of the parties was either married or in a long-term relationship, according to Vault.

We already see too many instances of Latter-day Saints engaging in misconduct in violation of the policies of the Church (as well as the doctrines).  Imagine how much bigger a problem this would be if the Church's policies essentially required members to serve in the Church in a quasi "workplace" way, with unmarried persons of the opposite sex having to spend considerably amounts of (unsupervised) time together.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[ksfisher]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:02 PM, BlueDreams said:

People who know how to healthily work through problems, have a mature attitude around relational boundaries, etc very rarely cheat. 

What percentage of adults would you guess know how to healthily work through problems and have a mature attitude around relational boundaries?

[BlueDreams]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What percentage of adults would you guess know how to healthily work through problems and have a mature attitude around relational boundaries?

Depends their background. But considering the stats usually say around 15-25% of married partners cheat (dependent on length of marriage and gender according to a quick google  search before I eat), I'm going to say most have at least some degree of maturity to realized cheating ain't gonna solve their problems. 

I know some people will insist it's more...I wouldn't be surprised if it was a little more, but I would strongly doubt that it was a ton more. Cheating is still a limited issue I deal with and I've worked a ton with couples. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Meadowchik]

I can't access it either, but I'll answer the general question.

My mother was a ward chorister for decades, and had her favourite hymns. So this last Sunday when I attended for the first time in a long while, I was looking forward to feeling close to my mom through the music.

And I did. It was powerful indeed. Also as I'm undergoing some very difficult things right now, it touched me deeply. I almost thought of "what if I returned to belief?" This was the most I felt anything close to that, six years after leaving the church. 

The feeling lasted briefly, but was then quickly chased away by the reminder of a simple gesture--the priesthood bringing the trays to the bishop first. It's a little thing but a piercing reminder of the fundamentally misguided sexism of the church.

From my perspective, the church inhibits females' development as whole human beings. 

One of the last things my mom spoke to me about was affirming to me that I deserve to be treated as a person. I do think she wanted me to have more than she had in terms of being respected as a person. 

I think the church has been in a potentially bridging position. It is more enlightened about the personhood of women than some, but not yet capable of affirming the full personhood of women.

I think it can do better.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Meadowchik

[Okrahomer]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I almost thought of "what if I returned to belief?" This was the most I felt anything close to that, six years after leaving the church. 

I hope you will “lay hold” of this thought.  The Church needs you.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

As a general rule, I think it's eminently reasonable for the church to discourage married men and women from spending lots of time alone with a member of the opposite sex who isn't their spouse.

What does "lots" mean?  Because I can't think of a church calling that requires being alone with anyone for more time than is required at most full-time jobs.   

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

In terms of "correct principles," that one seems to pass muster. YMMV.

I agree with teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves.  That is not what is happening here though.  If it is true that women are deprived of these callings for the reasons that are being speculated about, then that is not a recommendation or discouragement, it is an act of compulsory means in controlling behavior.

I don't agree that it is a "correct principle" to discourage men and women from working together in church callings.  I think the "correct principles" address the real core issues that drive infidelity and not the correlations of time together. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  The workplace, where married persons regularly interact with persons of the opposite sex, is one of the biggest sources (or locations) of marital infidelity.

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

We already see too many instances of Latter-day Saints engaging in misconduct in violation of the policies of the Church (as well as the doctrines).  Imagine how much bigger a problem this would be if the Church's policies essentially required members to serve in the Church in a quasi "workplace" way, with unmarried persons of the opposite sex having to spend considerably amounts of (unsupervised) time together.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Should the church then discourage working with the opposite sex?

[bluebell]

If I understand right, the Sunday School presidency used to preside at the sunday school meeting that took place when the meetings were all held separately and not in a block.  I'm guessing that's why it started out as a priesthood calling.  I wouldn't be surprised if it continues as a priesthood calling simply so that the number of mens callings and womens calling in auxiliaries remains kind of even (ie, the primary presidency cancels out the sunday school presidency, making the number of men and women needed for auxiliaries the same and balancing the ward council.)

I can't really think of any blessings that come from being in the SS presidency that are not available to members in general so I don't think that women are being held back in that regard (especially considering that not every member will even get to serve in a presidency and we don't believe they are being held back from blessings when that happens).

Not serving closely with members of the opposite sex (especially when some service requires night meetings and confidentiality that cannot be shared with a spouse which could create close emotional bonds between men and women outside of their marriages) seems like a reasonable policy. 

The risks (infidelity and emotional affairs) to benefits (?) seems to be in favor of choosing caution.  

[Diamondhands69]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Should the church then discourage working with the opposite sex?

I think a reasonable solution would be to replace all melch priesthood holders in leadership positions with females in an entire stake and flip the male female role. That way there’s will be no mixed sex callings and they won’t all be having sex with each other. Each stake is either all male or all female leadership. Will be interesting when men come to see the bishop and have to confess their porn habits to the next door neighbor’s wife who is the “bishop”

I’ve said it before-says a lot about the trust our leaders do not have in us. I guess we are not any different than the Catholics, Protestants et all. We have to have all these rules to keep us apart else we be fornicating and committing adultery right and left. Are we really all that much better than our Baptist  or Jewish neighbor? I think not. 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[FearlessFixxer]

When the day comes that women will start receiving the Priesthood (I think this is more likely to happen than full fellowship for LGBTQ people) most of the people here claiming they don't agree with anything said in the OpEd will celebrate the Revelation.

It is akin to MAGA types who vehemently defended the Iraq war only to change their tune on a dime the moment Trump started saying it was a boondoggle and a big mistake.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

When the day comes that women will start receiving the Priesthood (I think this is more likely to happen than full fellowship for LGBTQ people) most of the people here claiming they don't agree with anything said in the OpEd will celebrate the Revelation.

It is akin to MAGA types who vehemently defended the Iraq war only to change their tune on a dime the moment Trump started saying it was a boondoggle and a big mistake.

Even if the women ever do get the priesthood (something that I will accept if it happens but would struggle with) a lot that's in the OP still wouldn't make any sense.  Like, how is women holding the priesthood going to affect tithing and agency?  

The OP, in my opinion, connected a lot of things to gender issues that really aren't.  I would continue to think that even if women are ever ordained.

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

When the day comes that women will start receiving the Priesthood (I think this is more likely to happen than full fellowship for LGBTQ people) most of the people here claiming they don't agree with anything said in the OpEd will celebrate the Revelation.

Lol so true. many if they people that used to gossip about members leaving second and third hour to hang out in their cars or go home were elated at the two hour church announcement. 
 

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I think a reasonable solution would be to replace all melch priesthood holders in leadership positions with females in an entire stake and flip the male female role. That way there’s will be no mixed sex callings and they won’t all be having sex with each other. Each stake is either all male or all female leadership.

Gosh, I couldn't imagine any scenario where that would create division, ward or stake "shopping", or any other slew of problems.