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

[Diamondhands69]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

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

I agree. How in the world could we let women lead anything?? That would upset people

[BlueDreams]

I never responded to the initial article because I’ve not had enough time. My initial response was similar to when I was listening to an interview of a woman who left the church and one of her big problems was based on feminist concerns. Though I consider myself a feminist, use feminist ideals in my work setting, I noticed that there seemed to be a singular lens when interpreting experiences. That singular lens gives both a simplified interpretation of events/contexts and a simplified answer to said concerns.

I’ll start with what I agree with the most though:

-        I agree that there’s a recent legacy that puts being a stay-at-home mom above all else. I’d also agree that it’s been slow to balance out. I got many of those messages most of my teen and early YSA years. And I’m 35.  I wasn’t exactly enthused by the messages and had the spiritual backup of my patriarchal blessing to counter-balance some dominant messages at the time: namely that Women’s education was important “just in case something happened” to the husband and that working outside the home was something one shouldn’t do if you didn’t need to. My PB contradicted both messages pretty hard. Honestly it contradicted a ton of gendered messages that were common in my teens living in a TX suburb that was fairly conservative both in and out of our church…in so much that at times It would confuse me. And I’m not the only one who would end up struggling with the conflict between what they felt drawn to do and this quasi-spiritual expectation. It unnecessarily tainted a lot of things for me. I did try to find some stats on the level of stay-at-home moms in the Church. LDS mothers are more likely to stay-at-home then the US gen pop. I’d be curious if they held for wealth and race. It also depends on how you cut it. In some I would be considered a stay-at-home mom, because I don’t work full time and the number of LDS moms who work part-time is statistically higher than gen pop. When you put both part-time and full time workers together the gap isn’t super big…a 5 pt gap compared to a 14 pt gap. I assume that gap will continue to shrink as the messages from the past become dull. I would hope the focus on family life as most important doesn’t change but becomes less gendered

-        I’ve also had a long problem with how modesty was taught. It’s gotten better. Like the above, I’ve seen the messages try to be more balanced, less shamey, more nuanced, etc. But there’s still problems in both that have been hard to shake.

-        I do think there were some concerning trade offs to how the RS functioned back in the day compared to now.

A number of things I don’t get. I’ve never felt a particular sense of empowerment from anything to do with money. I can’t name an organization that I’ve given to that I have more direct say on how its used beyond “leave a comment.” There have been money problems with my ward/stake dynamics that I was aware of when I was a YW’s counselor and with my husband as ward clerk. I seriously don’t know how that problem would have been solved if other women were more involved in the process. It was a conflict between ward and stake not male and female leaders

-        I don’t feel the same pressure to “wait and follow,” seek permission for things, etc as this person did. I do see where this stems culturally in the church, particularly in the mountain west where there is more hesitancy to rock the boat or stand out. I’ve seen people who do succinctly feel that pressure and assumption of how they engage with leaders. And I know leaders will vary in their capacity for flexibility, humility, and collaborative attitudes. Still I haven’t had this same experience. There is agentic ways to engage in church, and I’ve used many of them: negotiating callings, telling leaders what callings I most prefer, taking most of my spiritual development and concerns first/directly to God and not conflating bishop to spiritual guru, engaging and offering leadership help within my expertise, etc. Again, none of these are easily inserted by changing the gender of the leaders. Its about how we change as a church culture and highlight as healthy engagement with leadership/teach how to lead.

-        I don’t know how many of these policies and decisions are made with just male leadership. What I see on the local level is usually group decisions that incorporates the bishopric’s input but isn’t largely dictated by him. I don’t know, but assume to some degree, that is something that happens beyond the local level. But again, I have no clue. I know that proportionality means that many decisions are likely made in male-heavy discussions. I do think that’s a problem and I would want to see more women in these discussions/decisions. But I have a hard time critiquing cuz I have no/little clue what happens.

 

With luv,

BD

[MorningStar]

My first full length talk as an adult was on tithing and I've still never forgotten the lessons I learned. Everything we have is from God and He only asks for 10 percent back. It's His. When we don't pay tithing, the scriptures say we are robbing God. 

[Nofear]

20 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I agree. How in the world could we let women lead anything?? That would upset people

Upsetting people isn't really an issue to worry about (though, there are many things the Lord is withholding from us because we would not stand it or handle it appropriately). Starkly gender divided ward leaderships as you proposed certainly isn't the answer. Not a very satisfying answer, I know. As my father would say, "One of the most arrogant things a person can say is, 'I don't know what the right answer is, but I know your answer isn't it.'"

 

[Diamondhands69]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Upsetting people isn't really an issue to worry about (though, there are many things the Lord is withholding from us because we would not stand it or handle it appropriately).

I am aware. I suppose your sense for sarcasm isn’t keen.  Anyway

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Starkly gender divided ward leaderships as you proposed certainly isn't the answer. 

We currently exist in s church where the leadership is starkly divided already. Will just be the opposite gender in charge for a while and men can offer an opinion from time to time … so long as they don’t talk too much of course

Edited September 30, 2023 by Diamondhands69
Too not to

[why me]

It seems to me that she has a particular Mormon corridor attitude. If one goes outside the corridor one would find perhaps a different reality. The church is a world wide church and as such women are not hindered by the corridor, especially the Utah corridor. And this is the problem with the newspaper article and where the opinion piece is printed. It is very much USA centered.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I suppose your sense for sarcasm isn’t keen.

Your judgement duly note.

[BlueDreams]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:29 PM, Amulek said:

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. 

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.

Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy weekend. 

Unless one is completely unregulated and purposely seeking out places like "massage" parlors, or clandestine hook ups (and no, this is not hypothetical hyperbole...seen/heard it many times), proximity is necessary for cheating. It's kinda like saying you need soil to grow weeds. Yes, that makes it far more likely for a weed to grow. But the answer isn't to strip the soil, artificially cover it up, douse it with weed killer, or restrict watering. That can ironically make it harder for wanted plants to grow and inadvertently encourage unhealthy growth/depletion overtime. In terms of relationship there can be some serious fallouts from focusing on avoiding the weeds than on promoting health growth. It can limit relationships and hinder healthy collaboration and decision making, it can reduce understanding and diversity in perspectives in public spheres. 

I'm not saying that all people growing up and figuring out how to work their shiz out without cheating is realistic. What I am saying is that the cost for not having mix gender collaboration and workspace is high as well and needs to be apart of the conversation when discussing this. What do we lose when women are not proactively at the table with men? I would say quite a bit.   

Also I found the stat that your HR manager was probably referencing on this article. It's not 40% overall, but 40% of the people who reported some form of a workplace romantic or sexual relationship (which was 60%). So within the overall workplace population it would be around 24%. That's a little higher than the overall average and I would assume that number would be higher or lower depending the careers. That's in a place where people spend large chunks of their days with the same people....more than the callings we have usually ask for. 

 

Quote

 

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

 

Shortly after this, I texted an old mission buddy of mine to see how he and his family are doing. We shared pics of our kids and house projects, brushed up on a couple personal challenges, and wished each other the best in our lives. My husband's closest friends are almost all women (particularly if he befriended pre-marriage). He's currently been helping a woman with understanding her coding homework. This usually entails fairly long conversations hammering this out. These do not have official structures in our interactions, they just have boundaries. Teaching people relational and sexual boundaries can be a thing in any context. 

 

With luv.

BD

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not saying that all people growing up and figuring out how to work their shiz out without cheating is realistic. What I am saying is that the cost for not having mix gender collaboration and workspace is high as well and needs to be apart of the conversation when discussing this. What do we lose when women are not proactively at the table with men? I would say quite a bit.   

I don't disagree. I strongly favor both involving and listening to women. I value their contributions - their perspectives - their voices.

Within the church, my perception is that the potential cost involved with infidelity is given a very high weight. Violating temple covenants is a Big Deal. As such, involving women collaboratively in leadership is generally accomplished through counsels rather than incorporating mixed genders in any individual presidency. With maybe a few exceptions, I don't know that it has to be done this way, but I kind of understand the reasoning behind it.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't disagree. I strongly favor both involving and listening to women. I value their contributions - their perspectives - their voices.

Within the church, my perception is that the potential cost involved with infidelity is given a very high weight. Violating temple covenants is a Big Deal. As such, involving women collaboratively in leadership is generally accomplished through counsels rather than incorporating mixed genders in any individual presidency. With maybe a few exceptions, I don't know that it has to be done this way, but I kind of understand the reasoning behind it.

 

Time spent together is a correlation, not the cause of making really bad choices like infidelity.   

It is kind of like saying that increased time together increases the odds of murdering, or being murdered, by someone.  It is a true statement of correlation, but it really misses the mark.

We shouldn't be sending the message that it is wrong or dangerous to spend time with members of the opposite sex, as that is an unavoidable part of life that we shouldn't be afraid of.   It may create a sense of caution and/or even anxiety over what should be viewed as normal and healthy behavior. 

Isn't it better to teach correct principles that address causes and core issues, and let them govern themselves?   

When we try to control for risk by discouraging (especially to the point of force) healthy behavior that is merely correlative and not causative, then I think we are doing more harm than good.  There is more than enough opportunity elsewhere.  Cheaters find a way.  

 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't disagree. I strongly favor both involving and listening to women. I value their contributions - their perspectives - their voices.

Within the church, my perception is that the potential cost involved with infidelity is given a very high weight. Violating temple covenants is a Big Deal. As such, involving women collaboratively in leadership is generally accomplished through counsels rather than incorporating mixed genders in any individual presidency. With maybe a few exceptions, I don't know that it has to be done this way, but I kind of understand the reasoning behind it.

 

Understanding the reasoning doesn't make it the right choice. I can get where it comes from and why. But I disagree with it because it comes with immediate limitations to avoid a potential and most likely it doesn't do that good of a job with helping members avoid said fraternizing. Again, even IF a job where people spend up to 40 hrs a week with other people has a similar effect as having a calling where most people spend around 5-10 extra hours on a busy week in largely small-medium group settings where people are almost never alone, that would only increase the odds of cheating by ~4-6 percentage points then general proximity would usually do. But I strongly doubt it's the same. When the numbers indicate its more of a fear than a strong risk, it's time to reevaluate whether that's a good enough reason to stop mixed gender presidencies or calling relationships that don't have other  rationales for keeping it they way.

 

For the record I'm just fine if things like YW'S or YM's//RS and EQ maintained gendered presidencies and advisors. It has some benefits that I think are worth the work to keep all male or all female. But there's others that don't have great rationale to maintain this and could lead to really positive changes as well. 

I get that cheating is a big deal. It is, I've worked personally with the damage it causes. But it's not a given and most don't fall into it. To me having women in the conversation is an important aspect in creating a Zion people. It's hard to be of one heart, when the hearts of half the people aren't easily seen or incorporated into the whole. 

 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Time spent together is a correlation, not the cause of making really bad choices like infidelity.   

It is kind of like saying that increased time together increases the odds of murdering, or being murdered, by someone.  It is a true statement of correlation, but it really misses the mark.

We shouldn't be sending the message that it is wrong or dangerous to spend time with members of the opposite sex, as that is an unavoidable part of life that we shouldn't be afraid of.   It may create a sense of caution and/or even anxiety over what should be viewed as normal and healthy behavior. 

Isn't it better to teach correct principles that address causes and core issues, and let them govern themselves?   

When we try to control for risk by discouraging (especially to the point of force) healthy behavior that is merely correlative and not causative, then I think we are doing more harm than good.  There is more than enough opportunity elsewhere.  Cheaters find a way. 

If all of these premises are correct (e.g., time spent together merely correlates with bad behavior; not wanting to send harmful messages about it being wrong / dangerous to spend time with members of the opposite sex; not 'forcing' people to be discouraged from engaging in healthy socializing behavior, etc.), then I suppose we should look into changing the mission program of the church and start having elders and sisters be paired up together as mixed sex companions. I'm not sure this would result in greater convert baptisms, though I do suspect the number of members could still very well increase.

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Understanding the reasoning doesn't make it the right choice. I can get where it comes from and why. But I disagree with it because it comes with immediate limitations to avoid a potential and most likely it doesn't do that good of a job with helping members avoid said fraternizing. [...]

For the record I'm just fine if things like YW'S or YM's//RS and EQ maintained gendered presidencies and advisors. It has some benefits that I think are worth the work to keep all male or all female. But there's others that don't have great rationale to maintain this and could lead to really positive changes as well. 

If we're excluding EQ, RS, YM, and YW from the equation then the only presidencies remaining are Primary and SS. Now, I don't see why a guy couldn't serve as a Primary President or a woman as a Sunday School president, but having them split they way they are now ensures there will always be parity on the Ward Council. And when it comes to having a seat at the table, that's the table that counts at the ward level.

Maybe having mixed presidencies for these two organizations would be a net positive; I honestly don't know. I'm skeptical that it would be a major improvement though. I honestly can't name a single person who has served as a Second Counselor in a Sunday School Presidency - like, ever - so I'm just not sure how impactful that would be. Like I said though, I honestly don't know. And, for the record, I'm not categorically opposed to the idea - I just don't know if it would be meaningfully different.

 

[Calm]

Not advocating for this change here, just speculating how it might be made to work….

Seems like the only change that would increase the female presence in ward leadership without requiring a major overhaul that would be both meaningful and useful, imo, is one of the bishopric counselors and the addition of a female clerk/secretary.

How often do bishops meet with their counselors one on one?

While an MP holder needs to preside in SM, is the priesthood required to conduct it?  Seems like it wouldn’t be.  Between the bishop, the male counselor, and the EQ president, it seems unlikely there would be a problem with finding a MP holder to preside.  A high councilor could always step in if needed.

If the bishop’s counselor who is over Primary, Relief Society, and Young Women? (is the bishop officially over that as well as YM?) is a woman, that could be helpful given she likely would have some experience with them at least as a teacher.  Even more helpful if experienced as a leader as then it would be easier for her to understand and therefore communicate important needs.  I have been in one ward where the Primary President’s requests were pretty much ignored (he may have been ignoring others as well, but I wasn’t involved in those) and it was hard not to wonder if the bishopric was clueless about what Primary was like, that all one needed to find substitutes for classes without teachers was to grab a parent or that the Presidency could cover it themselves like in SS when they were needed in Sharing Time.  There were just two of us in the presidency for a couple of months of a very big Primary, no second counselor or secretary (though that may be a faulty memory on the secretary, she just may not been around much).

The male counselor can handle anything that requires priesthood that the bishop doesn’t deal with as well as SS and EQ.

Given many women might feel uncomfortable meeting with multiple men on their own, there could be a specific clerk or assistant secretary calling that is designated for another woman so there are always at least two women in any meeting the bishopric has (besides the one on one counseling or interviews).

Edited October 2, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

If all of these premises are correct (e.g., time spent together merely correlates with bad behavior; not wanting to send harmful messages about it being wrong / dangerous to spend time with members of the opposite sex; not 'forcing' people to be discouraged from engaging in healthy socializing behavior, etc.), then I suppose we should look into changing the mission program of the church and start having elders and sisters be paired up together as mixed sex companions. I'm not sure this would result in greater convert baptisms, though I do suspect the number of members could still very well increase.

I support discouraging teenagers of the opposite sex from living together before marriage.  Live-in relationships with teenagers sharing the same bedroom/dressing/undressing room, is a different ball game all together with different risks.   I equally support discouraging married spouses from living together in the same room with other people's spouses.  That is not what we are talking about here though.  There are other factors besides time involved in those scenarios. 

Interesting side note - they seem to be fine with gay missionaries working/living with the same sex...  

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by pogi

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not advocating for this change here, just speculating how it might be made to work….

Seems like the only change that would increase the female presence in ward leadership without requiring a major overhaul that would be both meaningful and useful, imo, is one of the bishopric counselors and the addition of a female clerk/secretary.

I am struggling to find too much rationale to say this is a horrible idea. A literal descendant of Aaron apparently can serve without counselors but otherwise the bishop has counselors. Originally also high priests, but the requirement to be a high priest was relaxed in student wards where the bishop could have a young college aid counselor but not be a high priest (that was prior to the current scenario, so not sure if that policy was reverted). Whatever the policy is now, revelation could change it.

If the ward clerk or executive secretary (or both) and one of the counselors were female, that would be a "safety net" of two deep leadership (in both directions).

One current downside is that the YM presidency was disbanded in favor of the bishopric being the YM presidency. Some thought would have to go there.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Nofear said:

where the bishop could have a young college aid counselor but not be a high priest

Yep, which is why my son was always the quietest kid in SM.  When you are the only child in a sacrament meeting, even if you are a toddler, you learn to be quiet by example…I think we went to the off campus singles ward until our son was three, maybe four.  The shock of going back to a married student housing was massive (sooooooo noisy).

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I am struggling to find too much rationale to say this is a horrible idea. A literal descendant of Aaron apparently can serve without counselors but otherwise the bishop has counselors. Originally also high priests, but the requirement to be a high priest was relaxed in student wards where the bishop could have a young college aid counselor but not be a high priest (that was prior to the current scenario, so not sure if that policy was reverted). Whatever the policy is now, revelation could change it.

If the ward clerk or executive secretary (or both) and one of the counselors were female, that would be a "safety net" of two deep leadership (in both directions).

One current downside is that the YM presidency was disbanded in favor of the bishopric being the YM presidency. Some thought would have to go there.

What are the divisions now?  The male counselor could be over missionary work or activities or however many assignments balances the time and attention commitment of the female being over Primary and RS.  Divide the time and attention as evenly as possible between the two after dividing the gendered assignments the bishop doesn’t cover between them.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Nofear said:

A literal descendant of Aaron apparently can serve without counselors but otherwise the bishop has counselors.

He could have two male counselors to fulfill that need and then add a female counselor and clerk.  Not saying you need identical numbers in the bishopric.  Maybe it would encourage a bishop to delegate more if he has an additional counselor.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What are the divisions now?  The male counselor could be over missionary work or activities or however many assignments balances the time and attention commitment of the female being over Primary and RS.  Divide the time and attention as evenly as possible between the two after dividing the gendered assignments the bishop doesn’t cover between them.

The 2nd counselor is over the Deacons quorum, so that might be an issue.  They are also either over primary or SS I think but I'm not sure what other responsibilities they have (one is probably over missionary work and the other temple and family history but I don't know for sure).    

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Not advocating for this change here, just speculating how it might be made to work….

Seems like the only change that would increase the female presence in ward leadership without requiring a major overhaul that would be both meaningful and useful, imo, is one of the bishopric counselors and the addition of a female clerk/secretary.

I don't know that counselor would work without a major overhaul, as the bishop's counselors serve as counselors in a designated Priesthood Quorum (i.e., the Priest Quorum). That's why the priests are only ever called to serve as assistants to the bishop and not as president/counselors as they are in the deacon's / teacher's quorums. If you were to add women into a bishopric level position without ordaining women to a priesthood office, you would likely have to create a completely new calling. 

Ward Clerk / Executive Secretary might be possible though. As I said before, while I think these positions are presently consistent with how the church has been organized and administered historically, I don't know that such organization is technically required. It could be changed in the future. 

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

How often do bishops meet with their counselors one on one?

Not super often. When I was serving in the bishopric I would say we probably had PPI's quarterly-ish. 

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

While an MP holder needs to preside in SM, is the priesthood required to conduct it?  Seems like it wouldn’t be.  

I'm not sure that it is. The handbook states the bishopric is to plan and conduct sacrament meetings, but I suspect that's more on the tradition / pragmatic policy side of things rather than being doctrinally required. 

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Between the bishop, the male counselor, and the EQ president, it seems unlikely there would be a problem with finding a MP holder to preside.  A high councilor could always step in if needed.

When the bishopric is absent, the Stake President appoints another MP holder to preside. They will usually ask the EQ president to preside, but it could technically be any MP holder in the ward (note: it will almost never be a high counselor, so as to avoid confusion about their normal scope of authority). 

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If the bishop’s counselor who is over Primary, Relief Society, and Young Women? (is the bishop officially over that as well as YM?) is a woman, that could be helpful given she likely would have some experience with them at least as a teacher.  

Delegation of duties is left up to the bishop's discretion. When I was last serving in the bishopric we had things divided by ages (e.g., Bishop responsible for EQ/RS and Priests/Laurels; First Counselor responsible for Sunday School and Teachers/Mia Maids; and Second Counselor in charge of Primary and Deacons/Beehives). But there is pretty wide latitude with how that's organized, so this would be the easiest part to modify. 

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The male counselor can handle anything that requires priesthood that the bishop doesn’t deal with as well as SS and EQ.

The most common requirement being setting apart those who have been given callings. If you were to remove a priesthood holding counselor from the bishopric you would end up increasing that administrative responsibility on the bishop and the other counselor. Now, to be fair, most callings don't require a member of the bishopric to perform the ordinance - most of these can technically be assigned to any worthy MP holder(s). People like me would have no problem with that, but I know others who would feel slighted if a member of the bishopric wasn't involved. That's something that could probably be addressed with training and time though. 

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Given many women might feel uncomfortable meeting with multiple men on their own, there could be a specific clerk or assistant secretary calling that is designated for another woman so there are always at least two women in any meeting the bishopric has (besides the one on one counseling or interviews).

I'm not sure how a calling to effectively act as an emotional support companion / chaperone might be received. Still, I think you are on to something here - if there were to be a change, I think you would want to have it incorporate the presence of multiple women. Three seems like the right number to target; that way there's usually going to be more than one woman present even when people are sick, traveling, etc.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm not sure how a calling to effectively act as an emotional support companion / chaperone might be received. Still, I think you are on to something here - if there were to be a change,

Why would a calling someone as a clerk be effectively calling them as an emotional support companion?  Are clerks currently there as emotional support companions?  I am not saying create a new calling for a female here, just require that one slot is filled by a woman.  If only one clerk is needed, that can be a female.

Could the exec secretary be female?  Is there any need for the priesthood for that calling?  The point would be to ensure two females at each meeting outside the few one on one meetings and to divide the work among all there as needed so as to ease burdens as well.  

From when my husband was a counselor and also when he was executive secretary and even clerk, he was quite busy in each of the callings (unlike SS President or counselor and a couple of other callings, so adding another counselor if there is an need for two male counselors due to revelation or priesthood responsibilities and just calling a woman as one of the clerks (iirc most wards I have been in have had more than one) or the executive secretary seems like the least disruptive to the current setup.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Calm

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I support discouraging teenagers of the opposite sex from living together before marriage.  Live-in relationships with teenagers sharing the same bedroom/dressing/undressing room, is a different ball game all together with different risks.  [...] That is not what we are talking about here though.  There are other factors besides time involved in those scenarios. 

Proselyting missionaries aren't teenagers though - they are adults. So why not just teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves?

Living together is just extra time being around each other, and time is just something that correlates with sexual indiscretions, right? So why "force" these missionaries to not be allowed to work together? 

How about if we required them (paternalistically, of course) to return to sex-segregated sleeping quarters at night? Do you think, given that condition, that it would still be a net benefit to have them spend all of their 'work days' with a companion of the opposite sex? I mean, we wouldn't want to be sending them the wrong messages about how it's dangerous to spend time alone with members of the opposite sex after all.

I honestly can't think of a better way to practically ensure that the overwhelming majority of women would stop volunteering to serve missions overnight. 

 

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would a calling someone as a clerk be effectively calling them as an emotional support companion?  Are clerks currently there as emotional support companions?  I am not saying create a new calling for a female here, just require that one slot is filled by a woman.  If only one clerk is needed, that can be a female.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I took this comment here:

"Given many women might feel uncomfortable meeting with multiple men on their own, there could be a specific clerk or assistant secretary calling that is designated for another woman so there are always at least two women in any meeting the bishopric has (besides the one on one counseling or interviews)."

To be suggesting that some women might feel uncomfortable meeting with multiple men without another woman being present. So, for example, if you called a woman to be the Ward Clerk (who attends bishopric meetings) but still had a male Executive Secretary, then you would need to call another woman to serve as an Assistant Clerk and have her attend bishopric meetings as well - that way the one woman wouldn't feel uncomfortable being the only woman present. I'm not saying that the Assistant Clerk couldn't fulfil the duties of that calling - only that their presence in bishopric meetings would only really be to make sure the other woman feels comfortable (emotional support companion was probably a little too snarky a way to phrase that though, sorry).

 

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could the exec secretary be female?  Is there any need for the priesthood for that calling?  The point would be to ensure two females at each meeting outside the few one on one meetings and to divide the work among all there as needed so as to ease burdens as well.  

I can't think of a theological requirement that the Executive Secretary hold the priesthood. But if you were wanting to ensure two females be present at each meeting, you're going to need extra people. If the Executive Secretary is sick or out of town then you're going to need to have an additional woman who is available (on call) to attend in order to meet that quorum. You could call assistant executive secretaries to fulfill that need, but if there isn't really a need for them to actually function in that role other than to act as a backup for meetings, I'm not sure that will really be an empowering change. That's all I mean.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Amulek

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

If we're excluding EQ, RS, YM, and YW from the equation then the only presidencies remaining are Primary and SS. Now, I don't see why a guy couldn't serve as a Primary President or a woman as a Sunday School president, but having them split they way they are now ensures there will always be parity on the Ward Council. And when it comes to having a seat at the table, that's the table that counts at the ward level.

Maybe having mixed presidencies for these two organizations would be a net positive; I honestly don't know. I'm skeptical that it would be a major improvement though. I honestly can't name a single person who has served as a Second Counselor in a Sunday School Presidency - like, ever - so I'm just not sure how impactful that would be. Like I said though, I honestly don't know. And, for the record, I'm not categorically opposed to the idea - I just don't know if it would be meaningfully different.

I think calm threw in some really interesting ideas and scenarios that shows have things could shift to increase parity on the ward level. I would add that the imbalance in the ward level is fairly small comparatively to what it has been. But it quickly grows once you get to the stake and area levels. By the general leadership it's extremely stark. I won't pretend to have an answer to all of that. I would restate that I don't know a ton about how it works past the ward level. I don't know how they may seek counsel less formally from women. 

I think there could be both practical and positive spiritual differences that could be meaningful. On the practical end, it just expands the pool of people they can ask to help in certain callings.  It can also help confront and reduce ideas we have in the Gospel that are incorrect, some not even directly related to gender. For example, you mentioned that some members may be miffed is a blessing can't include. Bishop's counselor. There's nothing extra special about a bishop or counselor giving a blessing. But there's plenty who erroneously treat the bishop as extra special as opposed to having a specific calling that largely entails overseeing temporal affairs in an area. Shifts can change the engagement which helps remove incorrect attitudes and beliefs.

it would also increase the opportunity for women to practice and consecrate their talents/spiritual to the body of the church. Especially if there were changes that increased participation on stake, area, or general levels. I don't think that would be insignificant. Women have often been missing or minimized in the judeo Christian traditions. But the stories and examples we do have of women leading and serving and guiding are often pivotal examples of change and needed growth for the people around them. Increasing the input and access would likely not just help the individual woman grow from her calling to lead in the church, but those around her and the church as a whole. 

 

again just as a qualifier: I don't know what that would look like, I don't make assumptions about things I don't see, and I'm not expecting that to mean ordination. 

 

 

With luv, 

BD