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

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

I had one person semi-sarcastically suggest that we should hold off and extend mission calls to young married couples immediately after the marriage. If they can survive being together all the time that much for a year their marriage has a great chance of success. If not, better to find out early.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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).

 

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.

 

I don’t see two women as necessary in each and every meeting, as familiarity with the setup grows, I doubt meeting dynamics will change if one of the women is absent.  The point would be ensuring the usual set up is more than one woman. Even if the one woman present is uncomfortable for that meeting, she knows this is the exception and not the rule.  I am more concerned with power dynamics than with chastity issues.  I don’t see it as much more likely that something immoral, say grooming will happen with two or more men and a woman in a meeting than with two or more men and two or more women in a meeting.  The only reason I can think of is to protect from false accusations, some might think other men would provide cover or even join in.  If a bishopric is only going to be stopped from doing such things by the presence of additional women, that ward is in major trouble.

What happens these days if the executive secretary or a clerk cannot attend?  Who fills in for their duties?  Just curious how it works.

Certainly in wards that have an abundance of clerks or assistant secretaries you could call more women as these assistants (who would be called even if all male) to make less of a chance any woman was on her own in a meeting  (I was in one ward like that, I don’t know why, maybe they were trying to ensure a calling for every member, but there were a couple of very senior gentlemen that had been clerks for eons, perhaps they just didn’t want to release them until absolutely necessary because they were ward fixtures by then).  However,  I don’t think beside the additional counselor that any additional callings need to be made. 
 

———

What is the current rule for ministers, missionaries, etc if there is no male in the home?

Is it multiple women are okay or does it require something else (couples or sister ministers?)

Edited October 3, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

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

Yeah, and that just reminded me of one companion and then I suddenly had one of those enlightening epiphanies: “Wait……he was flirting with me. HOW DID I NOT SEE THAT?”

[MustardSeed]

I wonder how other churches navigate mixed gender positions

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

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

 

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. 

 

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). 

 

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. 

 

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.

I thought of that earlier today when reading the thread and then realized that doesn't have to be true.  That's assuming the female counselor would take on the exact same duties as the male one, except for the setting apart, but as you described how duties are split up are not set - it depends on the ward and bishop. So a female could take on something different and the male would no longer need to do that. 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

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.

 

 

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see two women as necessary in each and every meeting, as familiarity with the setup grows, I doubt meeting dynamics will change if one of the women is absent. 

I tend to agree.

 

Quote

The point would be ensuring the usual set up is more than one woman. Even if the one woman present is uncomfortable for that meeting, she knows this is the exception and not the rule.  I am more concerned with power dynamics than with chastity issues.  I don’t see it as much more likely that something immoral, say grooming will happen with two or more men and a woman in a meeting than with two or more men and two or more women in a meeting.  The only reason I can think of is to protect from false accusations, some might think other men would provide cover or even join in.  If a bishopric is only going to be stopped from doing such things by the presence of additional women, that ward is in major trouble.

I don't think meetings would be the problem as there will almost always be multiple people. When too many people are absent in a given week, bishop's usually just cancel the meeting.

The potential for grooming or false accusations would become a bigger issue in the context of the bishop's extra-meeting appointments. The bishop and executive secretary are frequently the only two people around each other while waiting for appointments outside of normal church hours. And here at least it's not uncommon for them to be the only two people in the building on a weeknight as they wait for people to show up (or not). I'm not saying that's a problem that can't be solved, but it's one of those pragmatic factors that kind of weighs in the other direction.

 

Quote

What happens these days if the executive secretary or a clerk cannot attend?  Who fills in for their duties?  Just curious how it works.

In my experience, when the executive secretary or clerk are out, nobody attends in their place. The bishop usually just assigns someone else who is present in the meeting to cover for them - which usually just involves taking notes, sending out action items, etc.

 

Quote

What is the current rule for ministers, missionaries, etc if there is no male in the home?

Is it multiple women are okay or does it require something else (couples or sister ministers?)

Rule of thumb is that ministering brothers would still be assigned. When that isn't the case (exceptions are allowed where only ministering sisters are assigned), leaders make sure she still has someone she can ask for a priesthood blessing.

For missionaries, they generally need to have either one additional adult male or two additional adult women present.

 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

Eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds are technically teenagers still.  They are considered adults by law only and that is a relatively recent change (mid twentieth century),

Quote

I then came across a well-researched law review by Vivian Hamilton (2016) documenting how the accepted age of adulthood has fluctuated back and forth throughout history as a function of the needs of each culture. For instance, the age of majority in America was once 21 but was gradually lowered to 18 in the mid-20th century to accommodate the need for soldiers during WWII.

Even more surprising is that 2,000 years ago, early Roman law set the age of full maturity at 25, which established the minimum age for young men to independently engage in formal acts and contracts without advisement. Furthermore, between the ages of 15 and 25, young Roman men were placed under the temporary guardianship of adults known as Curatores, and "a curator’s approval was required to validate young males’ formal acts or contracts until they reached twenty-five years of age."

but developmentally they are in more adolescent stages of brain development. 

Quote

As neuroscientist Leah Sommerville noted in a 2016 New York Times interview (Zimmer, 2016): "Adolescents do about as well as adults on cognition tests, for instance. But if they’re feeling strong emotions, those scores can plummet. The problem seems to be that teenagers have not yet developed a strong brain system that keeps emotions under control."

Quote

Though we've known for some time children as young as 15 can demonstrate cognitive abilities on par with adults (Brown, 1975; Keating, 2004), contemporary neuroimaging research (Sommerville, 2016, Tamnes et al., 2010) suggests that the human brain continues to develop well into the third decade of life, with the latest development occurring in the prefrontal cortex and striatocortical circuits: brain areas responsible for executive functioning and synthesizing cognitive and emotional inputs for decision-making (Casey et al., 2016; Goldberg, 2001; Sommerville, 2011).

Quote

Adolescence is the transitional stage from childhood to adulthood that occurs between ages 13 and 19.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/adolescence

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

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? 

No, living together is more than just time together.  Other dynamics and types of interactions/exposures change significantly than happens in a professional working relationship or in church callings - even if they would be sleeping in different rooms. 

You seem bent on trying to demonstrate that time together is a cause of infidelity, therefore time with the opposite sex should be discouraged.  You guys never answered the question about professional work relationships.  If that is true, then why shouldn't the church be discouraging working with the opposite sex?  Do you not see any potential risks/harm in such teachings?    Do you not see any differences besides the amount of time together when comparing working with someone of the opposite sex vs living with them?  Are there no other variables, dynamics, types of interactions, types of exposure, type of relationship to consider?    Is there no difference between a working relationship and a live-in relationship?  Does nothing change but time?   

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by pogi

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You seem bent on trying to demonstrate that time together is a cause of infidelity, therefore time with the opposite sex should be discouraged. 

Mere time together doesn't cause infidelity. But time spent together does tend to promote attraction, and attraction plus time (over time) has fairly predictable results.

As such, I think it's good idea to avoid spending lots of time alone with members of the opposite sex who are not your spouse.

 

Quote

You guys never answered the question about professional work relationships. 

And you never answered my question about missionaries being paired up for proselytizing only. Assuming they sleep in separate apartments at night, do you think it would be a good idea to have missionaries spend their 'work days' together as opposite sex companions? I'm pretty certain it would be a disaster, but what say you?

 

Quote

If that is true, then why shouldn't the church be discouraging working with the opposite sex? 

Because, at least in my view, "working with the opposite sex" isn't a problem. It's spending large amounts of unstructured time alone with members of the opposite sex that can (predictably) lead to problems. You can discourage the latter without avoiding the former.

 

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Mere time together doesn't cause infidelity. But time spent together does tend to promote attraction, and attraction plus time (over time) has fairly predictable results.

As such, I think it's good idea to avoid spending lots of time alone with members of the opposite sex who are not your spouse.

I think this is a very simplistic view.  It is only looking at 2 factors - time and attraction.  "Attraction plus time (over time)" is not going to lead to infidelity for most married people who work with the opposite sex (often spending more waking hours with them then their spouses).   Why is that, do you think?   That is the important question you keep neglecting.  What are the other factors you are not even considering that distinguish the cheaters from the faithful when time + attraction are equal.    

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And you never answered my question about missionaries being paired up for proselytizing only. Assuming they sleep in separate apartments at night, do you think it would be a good idea to have missionaries spend their 'work days' together as opposite sex companions? I'm pretty certain it would be a disaster, but what say you?

When you said "different sleeping quarters" I thought you meant sleeping in different rooms in the same apartment.  I did answer that question:

2 hours ago, pogi said:

No, living together is more than just time together.  Other dynamics and types of interactions/exposures change significantly than happens in a professional working relationship or in church callings - even if they would be sleeping in different rooms. 

If you mean sleeping in different apartments all together, then you have logistics against you because missionaries are never supposed to be alone.   

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because, at least in my view, "working with the opposite sex" isn't a problem.

But working with them in a church calling is a problem?  

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It's spending large amounts of unstructured time alone with members of the opposite sex that can (predictably) lead to problems.

What church calling does that happen in? 

I think more unstructured time happens at work than in church callings.  

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You can discourage the latter without avoiding the former.

The problem I see is that the former is being discouraged and avoided, without addressing the latter. 

 

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think this is a very simplistic view. 

It's not meant to be unified theory of infidelity. It is, however, what I believe to be a broadly accurate view based on personal observations throughout my lifetime.

People who spend lots of time with those they are attracted to tend get together romantically at some point. Are those the only two factors involved in a relationship? Obviously not, but they are pretty significant ones.

As I said before though, I'm not sure that our views are significantly different with respect to working with women at church, so I'm not really sure why I continue to keep arguing with you about this - other than the fact that I am sometimes (if not often) terribly stubborn. So I'm going to pull an Elsa here and let it go. I respect your opinions and believe they come from a good place. Take care.

 

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I wonder how other churches navigate mixed gender positions

Fertility orgies.

Or did you mean Christian churches?

[Peacefully]

On 10/3/2023 at 1:08 PM, Amulek said:

Mere time together doesn't cause infidelity. But time spent together does tend to promote attraction, and attraction plus time (over time) has fairly predictable results.

As such, I think it's good idea to avoid spending lots of time alone with members of the opposite sex who are not your spouse.

 

And you never answered my question about missionaries being paired up for proselytizing only. Assuming they sleep in separate apartments at night, do you think it would be a good idea to have missionaries spend their 'work days' together as opposite sex companions? I'm pretty certain it would be a disaster, but what say you?

 

Because, at least in my view, "working with the opposite sex" isn't a problem. It's spending large amounts of unstructured time alone with members of the opposite sex that can (predictably) lead to problems. You can discourage the latter without avoiding the former.

 

I hope working together in a church setting would not be unstructured. There should always be an agenda and a purpose. If people are just sitting around in meetings shooting the breeze then I would say an email would have sufficed. 

[Nofear]

On 10/3/2023 at 4:20 PM, The Nehor said:

Fertility orgies.

Or did you mean Christian churches?

There's a difference?!

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I hope working together in a church setting would not be unstructured. There should always be an agenda and a purpose. If people are just sitting around in meetings shooting the breeze then I would say an email would have sufficed. 

The unstructured time doesn't occur primarily during meetings - it takes place during all the extra-meeting interactions that go along with some of these callings.

Say, for example, it's the second day of the month and somebody in the ward needs help paying rent, so the bishop needs the clerk to come up to the church that evening and cut a check. The person who needs assistance is supposed to meet you there at 7pm, but guess who invariably happens to be the only two people who actually show up on time? You guessed it - the bishop and the clerk. So you end up just kind of hanging out until the person hopefully, eventually, shows up; and while you wait there's pretty much nothing to do other than shoot the breeze.

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

The unstructured time doesn't occur primarily during meetings - it takes place during all the extra-meeting interactions that go along with some of these callings.

Say, for example, it's the second day of the month and somebody in the ward needs help paying rent, so the bishop needs the clerk to come up to the church that evening and cut a check. The person who needs assistance is supposed to meet you there at 7pm, but guess who invariably happens to be the only two people who actually show up on time? You guessed it - the bishop and the clerk. So you end up just kind of hanging out until the person hopefully, eventually, shows up; and while you wait there's pretty much nothing to do other than shoot the breeze.

 

Yep, it is this. I am the Ward Clerk and I spend a lot of unstructured time with the Bishop. Probably more than his counselors.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, it is this. I am the Ward Clerk and I spend a lot of unstructured time with the Bishop. Probably more than his counselors.

 

 

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

The unstructured time doesn't occur primarily during meetings - it takes place during all the extra-meeting interactions that go along with some of these callings.

Say, for example, it's the second day of the month and somebody in the ward needs help paying rent, so the bishop needs the clerk to come up to the church that evening and cut a check. The person who needs assistance is supposed to meet you there at 7pm, but guess who invariably happens to be the only two people who actually show up on time? You guessed it - the bishop and the clerk. So you end up just kind of hanging out until the person hopefully, eventually, shows up; and while you wait there's pretty much nothing to do other than shoot the breeze.

 

I can see where it might make some women and men uncomfortable. I’ve worked and traveled with men my whole adult working life since women are the minority in the truss business so it wouldn’t be a problem for me. Perhaps the women and men who would be uncomfortable in those situations shouldn’t be given the calling. 

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

 

 

I can see where it might make some women and men uncomfortable. I’ve worked and traveled with men my whole adult working life since women are the minority in the truss business so it wouldn’t be a problem for me. Perhaps the women and men who would be uncomfortable in those situations shouldn’t be given the calling. 

I am not suggesting that I think a bishop and a clerk would fall into sin being alone. It hasn’t happened for me yet anyways.

Edited October 6, 2023 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

 

 

I can see where it might make some women and men uncomfortable. I’ve worked and traveled with men my whole adult working life since women are the minority in the truss business so it wouldn’t be a problem for me. Perhaps the women and men who would be uncomfortable in those situations shouldn’t be given the calling. 

I struggle with applying RBG’s quote to the church, only because I think it really depends on what kinds of decisions are being made. I don’t think that women need to be present for elders quorum presidency meetings for example, and I don’t think that men need to be present for primary presidency meetings, etc. even though decisions are made in both.

Beyond that, I’m not sure that executive secretaries or Ward clerks, even if they are present at meetings were decisions are made, have any input in those decisions. Maybe someone who has served in that calling can jump in. But, I’m not sure there is value in being present in a meeting if you are not allowed to have any say in those decisions. But maybe there would be? I haven’t really considered that very much so I’m not sure where my thinking is on that.

I would be more willing to go to bat for the idea of women being present in meetings where decisions are being made, where they would have a voice in those meetings, annd when those meetings affect women in general. Like, maybe high Council meetings? It seems like a lot of decisions are made in high Council meetings that impact women in the stake, and yet there are no women present in those. I think that could be a spot where RBG‘s quote works perfectly!

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It hasn’t happened for me yet anyways.

Disappointing, huh?  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Disappointing, huh?  

No, I have served under four bishops now and two of them were over 20 years older than me and the other two weren’t my type.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not suggesting that I think a bishop and a clerk would fall into sin being alone. It hasn’t happened for me yet anyways.

Statistically speaking, I think it’s almost a guarantee that it would happen in some cases. The issue would be whether or not the benefit to women in general would be worth the small percentage where it would go very very wrong.

I think our church leadership has clearly decided that the risk is not worth the benefit. Speaking for myself, I’m really not sure.  I can’t decide what all the benefits would be of having a woman executive secretary, and I’ve seen some fallout from an affair in the church between a man and a woman in leadership callings, and when it goes wrong it’s so incredibly bad.  It takes out to families (almost always with children) and often destroys the ward too.

I want women to be more visible in the church, but I don’t know that having women and men working closely together one on one is a beneficial way to do it.

[Peacefully]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I struggle with applying RBG’s quote to the church, only because I think it really depends on what kinds of decisions are being made. I don’t think that women need to be present for elders quorum presidency meetings for example, and I don’t think that men need to be present for primary presidency meetings, etc. even though decisions are made in both.

Beyond that, I’m not sure that executive secretaries or Ward clerks, even if they are present at meetings were decisions are made, have any input in those decisions. Maybe someone who has served in that calling can jump in. But, I’m not sure there is value in being present in a meeting if you are not allowed to have any say in those decisions. But maybe there would be? I haven’t really considered that very much so I’m not sure where my thinking is on that.

I would be more willing to go to bat for the idea of women being present in meetings where decisions are being made, where they would have a voice in those meetings, annd when those meetings affect women in general. Like, maybe high Council meetings? It seems like a lot of decisions are made in high Council meetings that impact women in the stake, and yet there are no women present in those. I think that could be a spot where RBG‘s quote works perfectly!

This quote resonates with me be cause I believe women belong at the highest levels of decision making in our church, either on the ward/stake level or the general authority level. However, I get the feeling most women in the church don’t agree with me so it is what it is:) 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Statistically speaking, I think it’s almost a guarantee that it would happen in some cases. The issue would be whether or not the benefit to women in general would be worth the small percentage where it would go very very wrong.

I think our church leadership has clearly decided that the risk is not worth the benefit. Speaking for myself, I’m really not sure.  I can’t decide what all the benefits would be of having a woman executive secretary, and I’ve seen some fallout from an affair in the church between a man and a woman in leadership callings, and when it goes wrong it’s so incredibly bad.  It takes out to families (almost always with children) and often destroys the ward too.

I want women to be more visible in the church, but I don’t know that having women and men working closely together one on one is a beneficial way to do it.

I don’t know either. I’ve seen it go bad. A bishop hooked up with the Relief Society President. It was a hard ward to lead. We’re talking police showing up to break up fights in Church at least once a quarter hard and the Bishop didn’t live in the ward as they couldn’t find a suitable candidate within the ward boundaries. The Bishop and the Relief Society President’s wife were very close friends. I was told some people tried to warn them that they were spending too much time alone together but the trust of the friendship caused them to reject that advice. I wasn’t close to the situation so I can’t verify that or anything beyond that it happened. Fortunately the ward somehow grew strong and got over its difficulties and was basically functioning fine a year later.

[Tacenda]

I wish more women could speak in general conference, that would be a start. And the church could create callings for women, get feedback from the women on what changes could be made or what changes are needed, and maybe have them lead the way, and take up the mantle. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t know either. I’ve seen it go bad. A bishop hooked up with the Relief Society President. It was a hard ward to lead. We’re talking police showing up to break up fights in Church at least once a quarter hard and the Bishop didn’t live in the ward as they couldn’t find a suitable candidate within the ward boundaries. The Bishop and the Relief Society President’s wife were very close friends. I was told some people tried to warn them that they were spending too much time alone together but the trust of the friendship caused them to reject that advice. I wasn’t close to the situation so I can’t verify that or anything beyond that it happened. Fortunately the ward somehow grew strong and got over its difficulties and was basically functioning fine a year later.

A ward in my Northern California mission also had a bishop and RS president that had an affair. It was horrible.   If I remember right they had to divide the ward because of it. My best friend had the same thing happen in a ward she was in on the East Coast. The RS president was not conventionally attractive and so neither the bishop nor his wife were concerned about him spending one-on-one time with her (they traveled together to stake meetings that were out of town). But they grew close emotionally and physical feelings developed from there I guess.

I don’t think affairs between bishops and RS presidents are as rare as we would hope they would be.  At least not before. I think policy has changed a lot since the two instances that I know of.