Women leaders ordered off the stand

[Buckeye]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Like what?  When does a Primary teacher or child for that matter have a chance to see a YM’s presidency?

The Church got rid of YM presidencies a few years ago. If you mean deacons or teachers quorum presidencies, those are sustained in the annual ward conference (which forces bishoprics to quickly complete those presidencies the week beforehand 🙂 ). In some wards the deacons quorum president may come visit the boys in the 11-yr old primary class once a year to get them excited about joining the quorum the coming year. If so, the same should be done by the “beehive” class president (not to raise another bone of contention). 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I suppose you could do that. I just think it's far more practical to have the presiding authority be present on the stand for all of the times he may need to intervene in the meeting.

Say, for example, you have got someone who messes up the sacrament prayer repeatedly. Having the presiding authority on the stand makes it convenient for him to signal that it needs to be re-done and, if necessary, to walk over and quickly provide instruction.

Or when you have someone during Fast & Testimony meeting who needs to be encouraged to wrap things up. When I was a counselor we had that happen on multiple occasions, and I found that my personal tolerance for when they should have been asked to shut things down was markedly less than the presiding authority's (probably one of the many reasons why I'm not cut out to be a bishop). Again, having the bishop be feet away - as opposed to in the congregation - seems much more practical.

Need to change the closing song or adjust the number of verses being sung? Again, easier to lean over and whisper to the organist/conductor than to try and relay that via text or sign language to the person conducting the meeting.

 

Bishops are also given the responsibility to prevent false doctrine. That can be touchy - no bishop I know likes the job - buts it is helpful for the congregation to have a clear line of authority when some bozo goes off in F&T meeting about how church members can’t be democrats. 
 

I think I’ve solved the puzzle now. RS Presidents should be given the job to prevent false doctrine. Put them on the stand! 

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It’s not a pedestal if it has a purpose. In our RS room the presidency sits in chairs at the pulpit facing the group. They do so because they’re presiding and directing the meeting. Same thing with bishoprics and sacrament meeting.

I think there’d less concern with RS presidents on the stand if they had a reason other than to be seen. Someone mentioned here that it gives the president a chance to watch for sisters who need support. That seems like stretch to me.  But my main point is that sisters should be at the head of this discussion. 

I keep going back to this. WHY are the extra 1, 2, 3 etc people up there? The only thing I have heard is that they are part of a bishopric/presidency.  But if one stays home sick or is out of town you can be up there on the stand without them. Bishops go to stake meetings without their counselors. Parts of bishoprics visit people. Sometimes a bishop will be in YM, 1st in YW and 2nd in RS. So it's really not clear to me why the counselor who is not conducting or presiding has to be ON THE STAND. If there is an actual reason then maybe that fits with women being up there as well. 

27 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I personally like the ‘knights of the round table’ approach but that also is a bit sad because it usually means the quorum isn’t very large. 

That was something the general RS tried to get RS to do sometimes. Most of the women in our ward hated it for some reason.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Like what?  When does a Primary teacher or child for that matter have a chance to see a YM’s presidency?

Bad example because the YMs presidency is the bishopric.   

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

you mean deacons or teachers quorum presidencies

Sorry, distracted right now…I like the idea of the youth leaders being up there.  I have heard some wards have problems with the youth taking this seriously or the advisers actually letting the youth lead; this would likely help get that point across.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Bad example because the YMs presidency is the bishopric.   

Yeah…can you tell I have very limited contact with the ward youth these days.   

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it has roots in the way Jesus taught. Jesus taught in a synagogue, where men (on the floor) and women (in balconies or raised galleries) sat separately facing the rabbis in front. Rabbis led the meeting from the bimah, an elevated platform in front of the Torah ark that faced the congregation. There were seats for other officers as well on this stand. The congregation faced them, or in the general direction of Jerusalem, symbolic of the coming Messiah and in remembrance of Har Sinai. Orators and cantors performed their functions here in front also, often with a desk facing either the congregation or the ark. It seems our placement of the “rabbi analog” (bishopric) in front seems to be both practical for leading the congregation and, symbolic (which is also a practical matter; impractical symbols are useless!) in recognition of the presence of the Lord (Coming Messiah, Mount Sinai) through those chosen to administer His covenants to His people.

Thank you for responding. These are some interesting thoughts. 

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

It’s not a pedestal if it has a purpose. In our RS room the presidency sits in chairs at the pulpit facing the group. They do so because they’re presiding and directing the meeting. Same thing with bishoprics and sacrament meeting.

I think there’d less concern with RS presidents on the stand if they had a reason other than to be seen. Someone mentioned here that it gives the president a chance to watch for sisters who need support. That seems like stretch to me.  But my main point is that sisters should be at the head of this discussion. 

When I was RS President, we sat at the front until the RS lesson started and then we got up and sat with the rest of the group. We tried to mix in and not all sit together. I guess it was the tradition in that ward, but I kind of liked it. In my current ward, the RS Presidency sits at the front the whole time. Both ways work for me. 
 

Sitting on the stand in the chapel as a token female leader does nothing for me. It doe nothing to break the glass ceiling in church leadership roles for women. Personally, I am fine with the bishopric sitting on the stand because they are the designated leaders for the congregation as a whole. Ministers and their assistants sit at the front of other churches so it doesn’t really seem strange to me. What is strange is that in 2023 we are still so divided over whether women should be eligible through ordination or some other means to be in those roles. IMHO

Edited November 28, 2023 by Peacefully

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Like what?  When does a Primary teacher or child for that matter have a chance to see a YM’s presidency?

I think their opportunities befit the relative priority of recognizing the Lord in sacrament meetings and presidencies in other settings. When the YM's president and counselors are sustained, when they give talks, and when the Primary teacher, child or child's parents believe it is important to see a YM's presidency, and so forth. Inasmuch as a YM presidency is interested in being seen, or in creating service opportunities in counsel with ward leaders to minister to Primary teachers and children, more opportunities await.

Edited November 28, 2023 by CV75

[manol]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

The doctrine, which hasn’t been explicitly taught for that many years, is that all endowed women have access to the power of priesthood without being ordained.

Looks like I've been out of the loop too long! 

I'd like to understand what you are describing.  Can you explain what you mean by the word "access" in your description of the current doctrine:  "all endowed women have access to the power of priesthood without being ordained."

(At first glance, your wording seems reminiscent of Joseph Smith's lecture to the Female Relief Society "showing how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings and gifts of the Priesthood." - History of the Church, volume 4, page 602)

Edited November 28, 2023 by manol

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, manol said:

Looks like I've been out of the loop too long! 

I'd like to understand what you are describing.  Can you explain what you mean by the word "access" in your description of the current doctrine:  "all endowed women have access to the power of priesthood without being ordained."

(At first glance, your wording seems reminiscent of Joseph Smith's lecture to the Female Relief Society "showing how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings and gifts of the Priesthood." - History of the Church, volume 4, page 602)

Here are two great general conference talks that address the concept-

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/36nelson?lang=eng#kicker1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng#kicker1

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I keep going back to this. WHY are the extra 1, 2, 3 etc people up there? The only thing I have heard is that they are part of a bishopric/presidency.  But if one stays home sick or is out of town you can be up there on the stand without them. Bishops go to stake meetings without their counselors. Parts of bishoprics visit people. Sometimes a bishop will be in YM, 1st in YW and 2nd in RS. So it's really not clear to me why the counselor who is not conducting or presiding has to be ON THE STAND. If there is an actual reason then maybe that fits with women being up there as well. 

That was something the general RS tried to get RS to do sometimes. Most of the women in our ward hated it for some reason.

One very important thing that we have all forgotten for why it is done the way it is. 😉

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

 

I so wish you could have asked him to elaborate (for the YW of course ) how he was further along the covenant path than you were.  

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

One very important thing that we have all forgotten for why it is done the way it is. 😉

You and my husband agree. 😁

We have this thing we say sometimes: you can change doctrine, but don't you dare change tradition.

[manol]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Here are two great general conference talks that address the concept-

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/36nelson?lang=eng#kicker1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng#kicker1

Thank you for the links, I read both talks.

Can you tell me in your own words what you mean by the word "access" in the phrase "all endowed women have access to the power of priesthood without being ordained"?  

To put it another way, what specifically do you have access to? 

Or, what can you do that you otherwise would not have been able to? 

Edited November 28, 2023 by manol

[MustardSeed]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I so wish you could have asked him to elaborate (for the YW of course ) how he was further along the covenant path than you were.  

I did lol- told him we were blessed to be in his holy presence.  He backed off and said “maybe a better way to say it is I’m older than you all”- he isn’t, but I’ll take a compliment where I can get one lol- I mean, if our discussion is lacking to the point that he needs to take over (not just comment, but he literally took over) then I’ll take the compliment that he thinks I’m younger than him.  A girl has to matter somehow 🤪🤣

Edited November 28, 2023 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

^^tongue in cheek, I know that wasn’t his intent 

[MiserereNobis]

Some here have said that a leader facing the congregation (or civic audience) is an important part of showing organization and/or leadership. 

Until 1970, the Catholic priest never faced the congregation. He and the congregation both faced the altar (traditionally East). He was literally leading the faithful forward. You can’t lead facing the people you lead — you have to be in front going forward. 

It was the result of activism and pandering that led the Vatican to allow the option of the priest to face the people. It’s not required in the new Mass, but 99.9% of priests choose it. The traditional Mass still requires all to face the altar together. 

My point is that the idea of a religious leader facing the people as a sign of leadership is a novelty in the history of Christianity. Chesterton’s Fence would seem to dictate that the leader actually lead the people, not face them and walk backwards. 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Some here have said that a leader facing the congregation (or civic audience) is an important part of showing organization and/or leadership. 

Until 1970, the Catholic priest never faced the congregation. He and the congregation both faced the altar (traditionally East). He was literally leading the faithful forward. You can’t lead facing the people you lead — you have to be in front going forward. 

It was the result of activism and pandering that led the Vatican to allow the option of the priest to face the people. It’s not required in the new Mass, but 99.9% of priests choose it. The traditional Mass still requires all to face the altar together. 

My point is that the idea of a religious leader facing the people as a sign of leadership is a novelty in the history of Christianity. Chesterton’s Fence would seem to dictate that the leader actually lead the people, not face them and walk backwards. 

Never thought of this. Thanks for sharing! 

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Some here have said that a leader facing the congregation (or civic audience) is an important part of showing organization and/or leadership. 

Until 1970, the Catholic priest never faced the congregation. He and the congregation both faced the altar (traditionally East). He was literally leading the faithful forward. You can’t lead facing the people you lead — you have to be in front going forward. 

It was the result of activism and pandering that led the Vatican to allow the option of the priest to face the people. It’s not required in the new Mass, but 99.9% of priests choose it. The traditional Mass still requires all to face the altar together. 

My point is that the idea of a religious leader facing the people as a sign of leadership is a novelty in the history of Christianity. Chesterton’s Fence would seem to dictate that the leader actually lead the people, not face them and walk backwards. 

I love the analogy and symbolism of that. It’ doesn’t really work for our worship services because if the bishop didn’t face the congregation, he would be facing a few (usually empty) choir seats and the wall (and maybe a piano or organ depending on that building’s set up).

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I love the analogy and symbolism of that. It’ doesn’t really work for our worship services because if the bishop didn’t face the congregation, he would be facing a few (usually empty) choir seats and the wall (and maybe a piano or organ depending on that building’s set up).

The Bishop in the Bonneville ward would be facing this.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The Bishop in the Bonneville ward would be facing this.

This is a policy that is so sad to me, the keeping art out of the chapel. Not even a small statue of the Christus?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is a policy that is so sad to me, the keeping art out of the chapel. Not even a small statue of the Christus?

(Looking around fearfully)OR a.... cross?  Yes I said it!  😲

[Calm]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Some here have said that a leader facing the congregation (or civic audience) is an important part of showing organization and/or leadership. 

Until 1970, the Catholic priest never faced the congregation. He and the congregation both faced the altar (traditionally East). He was literally leading the faithful forward. You can’t lead facing the people you lead — you have to be in front going forward. 

It was the result of activism and pandering that led the Vatican to allow the option of the priest to face the people. It’s not required in the new Mass, but 99.9% of priests choose it. The traditional Mass still requires all to face the altar together. 

My point is that the idea of a religious leader facing the people as a sign of leadership is a novelty in the history of Christianity. Chesterton’s Fence would seem to dictate that the leader actually lead the people, not face them and walk backwards. 

Does a Mass include giving a sermon or readings?  How was that done so people could hear?  And surely they must have been facing each other when members came forward to receive the Eucharist?

Having a hard time visualizing this. Do you have a link that shows a service done in this way?

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

The prayers are always corrected before a single tray is passed from the teacher or priest who is blessing to the deacons who are passing, so it wouldn't make a difference who gets the sacrament first. 

I believe what you meant to say is that the prayers are almost always corrected before a single tray is distributed. It's an admittedly rare occurrence, but it does happen.

Does it happen frequently enough to justify the practice of passing the sacrament to the presiding authority first? If that were the only reason then I would say no, probably not, but there is a legitimate practical benefit to doing so.