Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Women leaders ordered off the stand


JAHS

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That could work (but she would have to take a turn at conducting), but what about the EQ president.  The RS president is the equivalent of the EQ president, not the bishop. 

Not quite "equivalent."  The RS president can preside in RS meetings, but not EQ meetings.  The EQ president can preside in EQ meetings and, if designated by the stake president, in Sacrament Meeting, but not in RS meetings.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Why would it just be her and him?

(not arguing but asking for your thoughts on possible valid reasons for including the RS president but not the EQ president)

I am likewise curious.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think almost all bishoprics would love this idea.

I think so too, but I think many would not be on board with it.  The ward's need for visible and coherent organization / structure / leadership would, for many, supersede personal preferences.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So nobody sits on the stand?  Nobody visibly "presides"?  Why would that make sense?

Virtually every organizational meeting has the equivalent visible representation of who is running the meeting.  A city council.  A court.  A Comicon panel.

Thanks,

-Smac

“Visibly presides”?  Why is that important doctrinally or functionally?  What purpose does it serve?  
 

City counsel and judge are more interactive roles and need to functionally direct and interact with others present.  Not so with the bishopric, other than the one who is conducting who could easily walk up when needed, like those who say prayers.

It is simply an unnecessary custom.

Why do we have to follow what everyone else does anyway?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ann Eliza said:

There are always members who see the need for Christ centered changes long before the “leaders” adapt. This would be expected and totally acceptable *if said leaders admitted to being only inspired sometimes by God and sometimes by their human flaws. 

Pres. Uchtdorf in 2013

Quote

Mistakes of Imperfect People

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

And Elder Uchtdorf in 2021:

Quote
Because of Jesus Christ, our failures do not have to define us. They can refine us. Our mistakes do not disqualify us; they are part of our progress.
 

Thoughts?

1 hour ago, Ann Eliza said:

It harms many people when they are told at times they must be wrong if they don't agree. 

Usurpative activism in the Church is also harmful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think so too, but I think many would not be on board with it.  The ward's need for visible and coherent organization / structure / leadership would, for many, supersede personal preferences.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, if they are not visible on the stand, the organization is no longer coherent?  Why? 
What’s the worst that could happen?  There is a “bishops office” after all.  All contact info and organizational structure is easily accessible.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, pogi said:

“Visibly presides”?  Why is that important doctrinally or functionally?  What purpose does it serve?  
 

City counsel and judge are more interactive roles and need to functionally direct and interact with others present.  Not so with the bishopric, other than the one who is conducting who could easily walk up when needed, like those who say prayers.

It is simply an unnecessary custom.

Why do we have to follow what everyone else does anyway?

Who is going to turn off the mike, huh? Who?!?! ;)

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

I think so too, but I think many would not be on board with it.  The ward's need for visible and coherent organization / structure / leadership would, for many, supersede personal preferences.

So, if they are not visible on the stand, the organization is no longer coherent?  Why? 

For the same reasons most organizational meetings have a "Leaders and the front, facing the audience/group" physical layout.  

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

What’s the worst that could happen?  There is a “bishops office” after all.  All contact info and organizational structure is easily accessible.  

Tokenism.  Pandering.  Performative virtue signaling.

None of this is helpful in administering formal sacred gatherings in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

So nobody sits on the stand?  Nobody visibly "presides"?  Why would that make sense?

Virtually every organizational meeting has the equivalent visible representation of who is running the meeting.  A city council.  A court.  A Comicon panel.

“Visibly presides”?  Why is that important doctrinally or functionally?  What purpose does it serve?  

The Church is well-organized.  Tossing aside visible expressions of that organization to pander and virtue signal would do nothing to help the Church, would sow confusion, would constitute kowtowing to usurpative activism, and makes no sense on its face.

I've got more if you need 'em.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

City counsel and judge are more interactive roles and need to functionally direct and interact with others present.  Not so with the bishopric, other than the one who is conducting who could easily walk up when needed, like those who say prayers.

That's simply not so.  A member of the bishopric conducts the meeting by interacting with the congregation.  He stands up, walks to the lectern, welcomes everyone, introduces himself, states what the meeting is, states who is presiding, lays out the schedule of the meeting, makes announcements, asks for sustaining/opposing votes for callings and such, and so on.

All of this is "interactive."  It would be absurd for a judge to sit in the gallery of his own courtroom while taking oral argument or issuing rulings.  It would be absurd for the City Council to be spread out in the audience, sitting with their families, while at the same trying to proceed with the meeting's agenda, vote on presented matters, etc.  And it would be absurd for nobody to sit on the stand in Sacrament Meetings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

These absurdities would be confusing, unnecessary, and an extension of the pandering, tokenism and usurpative activism inherent in the proposal.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is simply an unnecessary custom.

It is a very necessary custom.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why do we have to follow what everyone else does anyway?

The weird proposal at hand is a pretty good example of "follow{ing} what everyone else does."  Usurpative activism, tokenism, pandering, etc. are all too prevalent in society these days.

Chesterton's Fence comes to mind:

Quote

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

I think the severity of such behaviors is getting worse because we live in a much more interconnected and information-is-instantly-available-at-our-fingertips world.  

I think the severity of this transgressivism ramps up through one-upmanship.  If Person A comes along and pushes against Chesterton's Fence, Person B says "Oh yeah?  Well here, I'm going to actually tear down the fence and spit on it.  Ptooey!"  Person C then comes along and says "Hold my beer.  I'm going to douse the fence in gasoline, torch it, and then dance on its smoldering ashes."  And so on.

I think we are seeing many instances in society of thoughtless, feckless transgressivism which contravenes the continuing utility of, and hence the importance of preserving, Chesterton's Fence.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

..feckless transgressivism which contravenes the continuing utility of, and hence the importance of preserving, Chesterton's Fence.  

😳

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Who is going to turn off the mike, huh? Who?!?! ;)

Lemme tell ya, sometimes it hasta be done. Seriously.  Fistfights in the foyer might be fun alliteration, but when it starts....🥺

Just one example- a guy started denouncing ALL the folks in his un-favorite political party, and the comments started from the groundlings, and then...

Well that's exaggerated a tiny bit, but... 😉

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we are seeing many instances in society of thoughtless, feckless transgressivism which contravenes the continuing utility of, and hence the importance of preserving, Chesterton's Fence.  

Maybe there is no functional purpose to Chesterton's Fence.  Maybe it is just an old and tired symbol.  Maybe it is a way to show off the vastness of the land he presides over.  A way to stand above other's.  A way to be divisive and exclusive.  A way to delineate his patriarchal club he runs. 

Even if it is only perceived as such by others, then its existence can become more hurtful than helpful.  It would be a foolish leader who keeps it at that point.   I am not saying we have reached that point in the church, but it seems to be becoming more and more so.  

It is kind of funny to me that you perceive a woman leader on the stand as an intolerable gesture of putting them on a pedestal.  But can't see the same when it is a male leader on the stage.  Only then does it become necessary to preserve order - to preserve the patriarchy.  Tradition...tradition! 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is a very necessary custom.

Ummm, no it's not.  That is silly.  I think you are being a tad dramatic. 

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church is well-organized.  Tossing aside visible expressions of that organization to pander and virtue signal would do nothing to help the Church, would sow confusion, would constitute kowtowing to usurpative activism, and makes no sense on its face.

Many don't see it as a visible expression of the church's organization, especially when they don't let female and other organizational leaders to be represented as well.   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So nobody sits on the stand?  Nobody visibly "presides"?  Why would that make sense?

Virtually every organizational meeting has the equivalent visible representation of who is running the meeting.  A city council.  A court.  A Comicon panel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, but them being there is just tokenism, pandering, and performative virtue signaling.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Maybe there is no functional purpose to Chesterton's Fence. 

Maybe.  But that needs to be demonstrated, not presumed without analysis or explanation.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Maybe it is just an old and tired symbol.  Maybe it is a way to show off the vastness of the land he presides over.  A way to stand above other's.  A way to be divisive and exclusive.  A way to delineate his patriarchal club he runs. 

Usurpative and backbiting activism has no place in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even if it is only perceived as such by others, then its existence can become more hurtful than helpful.  It would be a foolish leader who keeps it at that point.   I am not saying we have reached that point in the church, but it seems to be becoming more and more so.  

If that were so, the explanation and rationale for tearing down Chesterton's Fence would be forthcoming.

I think administering Sacrament Meeting via current means makes far more sense than some arbitrary and reductionist proposal.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is kind of funny to me that you perceive a woman leader on the stand as an intolerable gesture of putting them on a pedestal. 

It is kind of funny that you put words into my mouth and impute ideas to my mind which I have never said or thought, and which I reject on their face.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

But can't see the same when it is a male leader on the stage.

I certainly can.  Having the decidedly male EQP sit on the stand for no reason except tokenism, pandering, and usurpative activism would be just as problematic.  It's just that nobody is calling for that.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Only then does it become necessary to preserve order - to preserve the patriarchy.  Tradition...tradition! 

"The patriarchy."  To quote a guy: "Why do we have to follow what everyone else does anyway?"

I don't think we ought to import sociopolitical buzzwords into discussions about the governance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, particularly when the buzzwords are incoherent, accusatory, misleading, and divisive.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

It is a very necessary custom.

Ummm, no it's not.  That is silly.  I think you are being a tad dramatic. 

Virtually all meetings of hierarchal organizations are structured with those conducting/presiding/leading at the front and facing the audience/congregation. 

29 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

The Church is well-organized.  Tossing aside visible expressions of that organization to pander and virtue signal would do nothing to help the Church, would sow confusion, would constitute kowtowing to usurpative activism, and makes no sense on its face.

Many don't see it as a visible expression of the church's organization,

Well, then they need to get out more.

When I walk into a courtroom, I have no need to guess who the judge is.  It is the man or woman wearing a robe, sitting on the raised "bench" at the front, with a gavel at hand, the state or national seal behind him/her, the flag of the United States, etc.  This is not - in your wording - intended to "preserve the patriarchy" (whatever that means).  It is a visible expression or organization, intended to let everyone know who is running the show.

Now, a person may come along and claim confusion about who the judge is, such as we sometimes see with "Sovereign Citizen" types.  But their protestations and harrumphs don't mean much.  I suspect these folks don't even really buy into their rhetorical and performative nonsense. 

So it is, I think, with the self-selected "many" you reference here.  Again, usurpative activism has no place in the Church.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

especially when they don't let female and other organizational leaders to be represented as well.   

This is an unserious statement.  Every ward has a few dozen people that fall into this category, yet no serious-minded person wants to require them to sit on the stand every week.  That's just tokenism.  Pandering.  Usurpative and performative activism.  Such things have no place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the Church that houses it.

Sitting on the stand is not about "representation."  It is intended to establish who is presiding at the meeting, and who has business during the meeting.  Hence, a member of the Stake Presidency who is visiting a ward in his stake ought to sit on the stand, but not when he is visiting a ward outside his stake, because he would have no authority to preside.

A member of the High Council attending a ward on stake business ought to sit on the stand, but not when he is not acting in his calling, because he would have no business to present to the ward.

The EQP (or RSP, or any other "president" in the ward organization) ought to sit on the stand when asked to give a talk, but not otherwise, as he/she would have neither authority to preside nor business to present to the ward.

There is no value in slicing and dicing the membership of the ward in the way you propose.  What's next on the "Representation" hit parade?  Why limit your Smash the Patriarchy! schtick to just gender?  Should members of different ages "be represented" by sitting on the stand?  How about members of different races?  Or members of various income categories, or professions?  If you're that keen to tear down Chesterton's Fence...

Thanks,

-Smac  

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Virtually all meetings of hierarchal organizations are structured with those conducting/presiding/leading at the front and facing the audience/congregation. 

So have the person conducting up front.  Have the person presiding if different acknowledged at the beginning and in the program so people are aware and let him sit with his family.

Link to comment

 

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is kind of funny that you put words into my mouth and impute ideas to my mind which I have never said or thought, and which I reject on their face.

You reject it on its face, eh?  

Hmmm...

Buckeye stated the following:

Quote

Sitting a leader on the stand to be seen with no authority or purpose is literally ‘putting her on a pedestal’

Instead of acknowledging the visual representation of organizational order and leadership (something that you seem to think is "necessary") by placing her on the stand, you chose instead to respond:  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.

Followed by:

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Tokenism.  Pandering.  Performative virtue signaling.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church is well-organized.  Tossing aside visible expressions of that organization to pander

Having 3 people out of the Church’s 24? organizational leaders sit on the stand for the purpose of being visible doesn’t seem logical if the purpose is a visible expression of the organization of the Church. Having all 24 leaders take turns being visible makes more sense as that fills the need to make the organization of the Church much, much more visible and is still practical…it is easier to officially recognize and observe 3 extra people on the stand and retain their faces in memory rather than 24, it’s too cluttered, too distracting and that allows those who prefer to sit with their families to do so the majority of the time.  
 

It would also probably be wise to have secretaries sit with the presidencies as well when it is the secretary members call to make appointments and such, if they don’t work with the members that much, not as much need imo.  If one auxiliary’s presidency is up there for a month at a time, they could even take turns that month having a little bio in the bulletin about who they are the first month and then later on what their calling entails and then current projects so that all the ward becomes more familiar with how the different auxiliaries work even when they will never be part of them.  Less feelings of being outsiders, more unity among members.  Lots of meaningful wins with this, imo.

PS:  before some labels my idea as virtue signaling or pandering, I personally hate the whole status recognition process.  I find them pretty meaningless pats on the head so people don’t have to bother making the effort the rest of the time to be involved in others’ lives enough to engage with them about what they are doing.  Never went to any of my own graduations, for example and hated getting up in front of people to get rewards and such (just send the check in the mail please).  I don’t see the need for it in the Church when the point it to have no more “ites” among us.  We all wear white in the temple, if we don’t need status recognition there in the highest, holiest assemblies of the Church, then why would we need it anywhere else.  I am not thinking about how the people on the stand feel good about being there as my guess is most don’t want to be, but it is a service to those they lead to do so.  It will, imo, make them more effective leaders to be seen, to be visible at the one time they can be really to everyone in the ward.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Someone perceived to be a "leader" to:

1. approve the sacrament prayer

2. make decisions about cutting off a speaker who is overtime or out of line

3. Watch for nuanced behavior in the audience (chuckles, whispers, shocked expressions) which might indicate some kind of problem with the speaker or the message.

4. Give direction in case of emergency.

5. Appear to be awake and involved 😉

6. Pretend to actually sing. 🤭

Also, to provide doctrinal correction following speakers' remarks should the need arise.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

Having 3 people out of the Church’s 24? leaders sit on the stand for the purpose of being visible doesn’t seem logical if the purpose is a visible expression of the organization of .  

I don't understand what you are saying here.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Having all 24 leaders take turns being visible makes more sense as that fills the need to make the organization of the Church much, much more visible and is still practical…it is easier to observe 3 extra people on the stand and retain their faces in memory rather than 24, it’s too cluttered, too distracting and that allows those who prefer to sit with their families to do so the majority of the time.

Having a few dozen "presidents" and their counselors sit on the stand rather than with their families, where they have no business to present to the ward, nor authority to preside or conduct, makes no sense.  

Thanks,

Smac

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Virtually all meetings of hierarchal organizations are structured with those conducting/presiding/leading at the front and facing the audience/congregation. 

So have the person conducting up front.  Have the person presiding if different acknowledged at the beginning and in the program so people are aware and let him sit with his family.

To what point and purpose?  Again, if you want to tear down Chesterton's Fence, you should explain why it should be torn down.  What's the rationale?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 11/25/2023 at 7:25 AM, bluebell said:

Rather than questioning it he was probably feeling like he dodged a bullet.

Eq pres doesn’t need to contend with any reality that something he was born with precludes his participation in anything, be that color or organs/hormones.  Sounds crude but I don’t understand any of this — I operate from a lens that says there are no limits for me  that are any different from others’- but at church, those limits are extremely clear.

even yesterday, I was asked to sit in the young women’s class as a two deeper. Class was pretty dull but when 11 year olds have to teach a class about family history no one’s gonna be on the edge of their seats.  Anyway, a bishopric member sat in on the class and literally took over.  I was stunned.  He self described as being “further along the covenant path” than the rest of us.  
He even stood to speak while the rest of us , including the teaching youth, sat in a circle.  
 

No one questioned this.  What if I went in to my husbands deacons aquarium and took over in such a way?  Ok I’m not correcting the spelling on that, that’s hilarious.  Anyway, point is here, our problems in this church regarding the dismissal of what women have to offer are deep and static.  Yet here we are 10 pages in arguing about something as insignificant as women being represented as part of leadership on a stand is good or bad.  We are sooooo far off the mark in this church.  
 

IMO Jesus would have walked into that meeting in San Fran and hugged whomever was on the stand and let it be .  But we just can’t. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Someone perceived to be a "leader" to:

1. approve the sacrament prayer

2. make decisions about cutting off a speaker who is overtime or out of line

3. Watch for nuanced behavior in the audience (chuckles, whispers, shocked expressions) which might indicate some kind of problem with the speaker or the message.

4. Give direction in case of emergency.

5. Appear to be awake and involved 😉

6. Pretend to actually sing. 🤭

You forgot one, the man has to have the sacrament first where all can see...  

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To what point and purpose?  Again, if you want to tear down Chesterton's Fence, you should explain why it should be torn down.  What's the rationale?

Thanks,

-Smac

The point of Chesterton’s fence is to know why something was done the way it was in the first place so as not to make things worse by removing it. Do we know the original purpose of all Bishopric members sitting on the stand? Were things ever done differently? If so, why the change?  

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...