A boycott and a birthday - Women's boycott this Sunday

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

*shrug*.  I guess when some hoped-for activism goes universally unnoticed by everyone, then questioning adjectives and identity politics is the standard fallback position.

@Rain's questioning adjectives: Fine, pick whatever modifier word you'd like.  How about this: "It's hard for resolutely mature and steadfastly determined activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."  Does that work?  I feel like it comes across as sarcastic, especially when you envision the words coming out of my avatar's mouth.  Anyway, in your effort to move against my overall statement,

Are they angry?  Are they activist? Your point only works if your assumptions of their intentions are right.  So I'm asking, not making a point, if they are angry or activist because I want to know if you are stating their intentions truly or not.

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

pick whatever adjective you feel appropriate.  My overall point remains the same.  Feel free to actually interact with it if you wish.

 

 

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good question.

By the same argument, her comment seems to suggest that men who have never been endowed with priesthood (Aaronic or Melchizedek) but who hold a church calling, actually hold and exercise the priesthood.  If they do, then why do they need to be endowed further?   Whatever it is that women and unordain men hold, it clearly is not an endowment they hold with the same authority/power/privilege, otherwise they would be able to serve in a priesthood office as a priesthood holder, no further endowment would be needed if they already have the authority of the priesthood, and equal opportunity to preside would be afforded.  If anything, it is a temporary borrowed authority that does not belong to them, but they are allowed to use (kind of like how keys can be borrowed temporarily for callings),

That's kind of how priesthood has been talked about overall.  The keys are never owned by priesthood leaders. They are still Gods. 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

but it is in no way the same as being endowed or ordained to priesthood authority like men get in our church and like women get in other churches. 

So where it all brings me back to is if women in callings and as mothers etc have priesthood authority without being endowed then what is the point of ordination?  Is it because priesthood also has power?  If so then women have authority without power. 

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Rain said:

So where it all brings me back to is if women in callings and as mothers etc have priesthood authority without being endowed then what is the point of ordination?  Is it because priesthood also has power?  If so then women have authority without power. 

Women in the church can have priesthood authority or power in callings because they are given it (or authorized to use it) by one holding keys when set apart. 

Edit to add that the same is true for men, whether ordained or not, when it comes to a calling.  They may have been ordained to an office in the priesthood but they have no priesthood authority in the church unless/until they are set apart and given that authority by one holding keys.

Unendowed mothers don't have priesthood authority or power, but I'm sure they have access to divine help in that stewardship in some ways by virtue of having partnered with God to create a body for one of His children.  

Edited March 18 by bluebell

[LoudmouthMormon]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

Your point only works if your assumptions of their intentions are right.

I believe my point about activist folks remains valid, regardless of adjective.  

Perhaps you could let me know which instances below you agree with, and which you disagree:

"It's hard for angry activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for happy activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for peaceful activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for violent activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for educated activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for ignorant activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for women activists to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for men activists to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."

 

Edited March 18 by LoudmouthMormon

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I believe my point about activist folks remains valid, regardless of adjective.  

Perhaps you could let me know which instances below you agree with, and which you disagree:

"It's hard for angry activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for happy activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for peaceful activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for violent activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for educated activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for ignorant activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for women activists to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."
"It's hard for men activists to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare."

 

I thought we were talking specifically about the women who started this idea of not coming to church yesterday.  If not then I apologize for misunderstanding your point. 

If we are talking in general then I would say it depends on what you mean by activist.  Was Emma activist when she came to Joesph about the tobacco mess?  She might be considered as such depending on how you look at it.  Are some activists led by the Spirit?  I would think some are and if so if the church is really led by Christ then I don't think successes would be rare in those cases.   

So really it comes back to intentions - both by those who are "activist" and those who lead the church. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

But you unrighteously judge me, and your unrighteous judgment is false at that. 

My apologies.  
I was honestly speaking in terms of more generalities, rather than even thinking about you. But I can understand the offense.

There is not a lot of leeway for women to feel strongly about things without being judged as well. I’ll have to ask my husband how I do at the second commandment.

[pogi]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, and I agree with most of what you said.  One point of disagreement (more with Sheri Dew than you):

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think this quote by Sheri Dew is relevant:

“What does it mean to have access to priesthood power? It means that we can receive revelation, be blessed and aided by the ministering of angels, learn to part the veil that separates us from our Heavenly Father, be strengthened to resist temptation, be protected, and be enlightened, and made smarter than we are—all without any mortal intermediary.”

I disagree with this because any person (not just those who have access to priesthood power) has the privilege, opportunity and right as a child of God to "receive revelation, be blessed and aided by the ministering of angels, be strengthened to resist temptation, be protected, and be enlightened...all without any mortal intermediary."  None of that has anything to do with access to priesthood authority.  Joseph had ministering of angels and revelations, etc. long before priesthood was restored to the earth, for one obvious and quick example. 

No priesthood necessary there.  I feel like a lot of effort is being made to create the impression that women in the church do have special authority or power, when really, they have as much right to these things as any non-member. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Presiding doesn't have anything to do with being ordained.

As far as the home goes, I was always taught that it did.  Being a parent is required for one, and you are right that a women can preside in the home when a male parent is not present, but the parent who holds the priesthood always presides in the home by right of that priesthood - same is true at church.  As you note women can preside in certain callings, but only because a man lets them borrow their priesthood authority.  So again, it all points back to priesthood when presiding is concerned.     At least that is what I was always taught.   Why else are we taught that men preside in the home?

In terms of presiding in the home, it seems to me that the next to quotes are contradictory:

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Elder L. Tom Perry explained it this way:

Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity. Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.”

Vs.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Pres. Oaks taught:

"When my father died, my mother presided over our family. She had no priesthood office, but as the surviving parent in her marriage she had become the governing officer in her family. At the same time, she was always totally respectful of the priesthood authority of our bishop and other Church leaders. She presided over her family, but they presided over the Church."

President Oaks rightly notes that her mother only presided once his father passed away.   That is not "equal footing" in terms of presiding. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I get what she's saying.  I think it misses the point a little because men's priesthood power is also exercised exclusively with the permission and at the direction of others. 

I don't think it is an equivalent comparison though because men don't have that authority "under the authority" of another human, they hold the keys and authority independent of any other human and can act independently within the bounds of the keys.   For example, men don't need permission or direction to give priesthood blessings once they are endowed with those keys. 

Just some things to think about. 

 

Edited March 18 by pogi

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you agree that the Church tops the list of church's for power and authority given to women?

God’s priesthood authority that he has chosen to assign to members of the Church of Jesus Christ in all dispensations, yes.

There may be other forms of his authority that he has not given us, but has given to other individuals or organizations though to fulfill what is necessary for the progression of humanity.

There are other forms of authority though, including in the Church. Women in the Church have little to none of some of those forms.  A lot of men don’t either, but they have the potential to receive such or have received such even if they don’t currently hold it and often even if they never hold such a calling, they receive training and instruction about the use of such authorities that women have never received.

Quote

What kind of authority is it they hold if it can only be exercised under the authority of a man? 

Much the same most men in the Church hold.

Edited March 18 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

As far as the home goes, I was always taught that it did.  Being a parent is required for one, and you are right that a women can preside in the home when a male parent is not present, but the parent who holds the priesthood always presides in the home by right of that priesthood - same is true at church. 

Men who are not ordained also preside though, so in the home it's not about who holds the priesthood. 

In the church it's not about who holds the priesthood either, but it's about who has been given authority in that calling to be in charge, basically.  It just so happens that most of the time--with the exception of the Primary president--men over women and not the other way around.

Quote

 

I don't think it is an equivalent comparison though because men don't have that authority "under the authority" of another human, they hold the keys and authority independent of any other human and can act independently within the bounds of the keys.   For example, men don't need permission or direction to give priesthood blessings once they are endowed with those keys. 

Just some things to think about. 

 

Very few ordained men will ever hold keys though, and even when they do hold them it is just for a time. Once they are released they no longer hold those keys.  The priesthood callings that include keys are temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents, district presidents, bishops, branch presidents, and quorum presidents.  Anything that a man does in the church--unless he has one of the callings listed above--is done by permission and under the authority of another human.  

Even when a man has priesthood keys, he is almost always (the only exception is probably the prophet) still under the authority of another human though.  Bishops hold keys but are still under the authority of the stake president.  Quorum presidents hold keys but are still under the authority of the bishop or stake president.  Stake presidents are under the authority of area presidents, etc. etc.

Really, ordained men can almost never act independently in their priesthood callings or offices.

(Also, no keys are required to give priesthood blessings.) 

 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Was Emma activist when she came to Joesph about the tobacco mess?

Various definitions.  She was not a 'proponent of activism', nor was she 'aggressively active on behalf of a cause'.  However, she was a proponent for change, so I guess, maybe?  

If you can consider Emma an activist, that would be one of the rare successes I mentioned in my point. 

 

56 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

There is not a lot of leeway for women to feel strongly about things without being judged as well.

You figure that's true for women and not for men?  I dunno.  When I show feelings, there's hardly a human witness who doesn't pass some sort of judgment...

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(Also, no keys are required to give priesthood blessings.) 

A good question to raise then is this - if keys are not needed, why can't women give priesthood blessings if they have authority and power as suggested?   Why can't they bless their own babies and instead have to rely on other men, who sometimes are not even related to the child, when a priesthood holder is not in the home? 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

guess when some hoped-for activism goes universally unnoticed by everyone, then questioning adjectives and identity politics is the standard fallback position.

You are so misreading posters here.  I don’t see much, if any investment in this allegedly “hoped for” event by any posters here.  I suspect it has less to do with the activism effort amd all to do with your choice of labels.

As far as I know, it has nothing to do with misogyny and you just have a habit of labeling efforts emotional whenever you feel like it for some reason, though most likely based on how you responded as a way to dismiss the efforts as reasonable or meaningful.

Mindreading and tagging people as being emotional, in this case “angry” is a long used tactic for dismissing efforts, especially women (an assertive woman too often gets labeled an angry **** or my favorite, there are side comments of “must be that time of the month” or some variation), so it is not unusual for those of us with a long personal history of people “humorously” or otherwise attaching labels of emotion to our behaviour to question when we see it used when there appears evidence of strong emotion in the actual behaviour. 

Edited March 18 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You figure that's true for women and not for men?  I dunno.  When I show feelings, there's hardly a human witness who doesn't pass some sort of judgment...

It's hard to judge. 

Women are often accused of being hysterical when they show strong emotions, or of being crazy.Men certainly have not been allowed to show weakness (such as crying) in our culture, so there is a measure of sameness between those two treatments. 

Maybe the difference is that the labels that women have historically been given when speaking up (hysterical, crazy, difficult, bitchy, etc.) tend to serve to silence them in the public arena and to make their voices less trustworthy or less valid.  Essentially, those labels are used as way to ignore what women are feeling or trying to say.  Men, especially historically, could be strident and dominant in a conversation in public without fear of being negatively labeled as the words i've bolded above.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

A good question to raise then is this - if keys are not needed, why can't women give priesthood blessings if they have authority and power as suggested?   Why can't they bless their own babies and instead have to rely on other men, who sometimes are not even related to the child, when a priesthood holder is not in the home? 

Because even though priesthood blessings do not require keys, they do require ordination to the priesthood, and women are not ordained.

In the past women did give blessings of healing to other women, but that practice was discontinued.  

[manol]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think this quote by Sheri Dew is relevant:

“What does it mean to have access to priesthood power? It means that we can receive revelation, be blessed and aided by the ministering of angels, learn to part the veil that separates us from our Heavenly Father, be strengthened to resist temptation, be protected, and be enlightened, and made smarter than we are—all without any mortal intermediary."

Sister Dew pulled her punches; she could have also said this:

The ministering of angels is a right of the Aaronic Priesthood, and a right of women.  And it doesn't stop with the Aaronic:  Women can also bless and heal the sick as well as any Melchizedek priesthood holder (the practice has been discontinued, but you absolutely can.)  In the temple women wear garments and robes explicitly linked to the holy priesthood.  In the temple women participate in temple priesthood ordinances to the same extent as men who are required to be Melchizedek priesthood holders.  In the temple women say the same words (make the same claims, affirm the same truths) as the men.  Including at the veil.

Hmmmm.  Maybe God's work isn't yet finished?  Maybe God still has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God? 

Edited March 18 by manol

[MustardSeed]

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You figure that's true for women and not for men?  I dunno.  When I show feelings, there's hardly a human witness who doesn't pass some sort of judgment...

Are you referring to real life or online life? Online life is strife with disagreement argument and contention. We are all susceptible to that for sure.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Pres Oaks:  “Church callings are always temporary, but family relationships are permanent”

I disagree to a certain extent for this.  Once a child is an adult, much of the authority that governs their life passes to the child from the parent.  A father does not have the God-given authority to insist revelation he believes he has received to supersede the choice, even if non revelatory, of the adult child.

So the relationship may be permanent in terms of there is always a relationship there if family isn’t dysfunctional, but the nature of the relationship changes over time extensively.

Edited March 18 by Calm

[Rain]

 

 

29 minutes ago, manol said:

Sister Dew pulled her punches; she could have also said this:

The ministering of angels is a right of the Aaronic Priesthood, and a right of women.  And it doesn't stop with the Aaronic:  Women can also bless and heal the sick as well as any Melchizedek priesthood holder (the practice has been discontinued, but you absolutely can.)  In the temple women wear garments and robes explicitly linked to the holy priesthood.  In the temple women participate in temple priesthood ordinances to the same extent as men who are Melchizedek priesthood holders.  In the temple women say the same words (make the same claims, affirm the same truths) as the men.  Including at the veil.

Hmmmm.  Maybe God's work isn't yet finished?  Maybe God still has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God? 

This isn't quite true.  There are lots of differences in the temple for women. There are ordinances done for men that are not for women.  Things said in ordinances for women are not all the same things said for men.  At least at one time covenants made were not the same for women as for men (I'm not sure about currently).  

[manol]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

 There are lots of differences in the temple for women. There are ordinances done for men that are not for women.  

In the endowment ceremony?  I should have specified that's what I was talking about.  Am I missing something?  (My point was that, in the endowment ceremony, women do the exact same things - perform same priesthood ordinances, make the same claims, evidently having the same authority before God - that men must hold the Melchizedek priesthood in order to do and claim.)

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

Things said in ordinances for women are not all the same things said for men. 

My understanding is that this is true of one of the initiatory ordinances, with the difference favoring the women.

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

 At least at one time covenants made were not the same for women as for men (I'm not sure about currently).  

Agreed, it's more egalitarian now (or was as of however many years ago). 

Edited March 18 by manol

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

 

This isn't quite true.  There are lots of differences in the temple for women. There are ordinances done for men that are not for women.  Things said in ordinances for women are not all the same things said for men.  At least at one time covenants made were not the same for women as for men (I'm not sure about currently).  

Are you speaking of the ordinance of ordination for deceased, brethren, as the ordinance done for men but not for women in the temple?

The covenants are the same now. 

[smac97]

On 3/17/2024 at 1:10 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Zero absences noted.  Sister X gave a banger of a talk on that Italian pastor who got a BoM and a testimony in WWI days.  Sister Y did a musical number that brought tears to people's eyes.  Organist & conductor were the same gender they always were.  Ward is full of working and retired professionals, lots of folks savvy in matters of social media and online presences.  

It's hard for angry activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare.  

We had a family activity, so my wife did not attend the event.

I agree about activism not really working well in the Church.  Interestingly, Kierstyn Kremer Howes uses, as a basis for her activism, excerpted examples from Neylan McBaine’s “Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Woman’s Local Impact,” a book that is sold at Deseret Book, and in the FAIR bookstore, and has been favorably reviewed by FAIR:

Quote

Neylan McBaine is one of several notable and thoughtful participants in the conversation that has been taking place about the roles and situation of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Her soon-to-be-released book, Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact, is both a tremendous synopsis of that conversation for those who are still trying to get a handle on its many facets and a valuable and constructive contribution in its own right. Sister McBaine is the founder of the Mormon Women Project, which collects stories of LDS women for the purpose of celebrating and highlighting their lives, accomplishments, and contributions, a worthy goal in a church that celebrates that which is of good report and praiseworthy, but also a worthy goal for one interested in better understanding the human condition.

The website for Sis. McBaine's Mormon Women's Project is worth some time, as are its various hosted essays touching on women and the priesthood (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here).  Some of these make a candid point here and there ("I’m like everyone else: I’ve had glorious experiences working with priesthood leaders, and I’ve had terrible experiences working with priesthood leaders. I get that whole picture."), but they are overwhelmingly faith-affirming, uplifting, and support the Church.  From its Mission Statement:

Quote

The LDSWP is composed of faithful women of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anxiously engaged in the good cause of edifying our sisters and brothers, that we may all experience a joy-filled worship and a sanctifying mortal experience.

We believe that the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ blesses the lives of its members and provides the ordinances necessary for salvation.

We sustain our church leaders and contribute to the functionality of our wards by steadfastly fulfilling our callings.

We work within the framework of current LDS doctrine to question traditions that may limit us as individuals and as a people.

We view both our commonalities and our differences as strengths as we explore alternative approaches that empower everyone.

We do this by seeking out and sharing the stories of women in the Church.

We provide tools that allow members to quote women and highlight their voices and experiences in worship and personal study.

We are committed to highlighting the diversity and breadth of experiences in living a life of faith and devotion.

"We work within the framework of current LDS doctrine to question traditions that may limit us as individuals and as a people."

I don't think Kierstyn Kremer Howes is doing this.  She's going more the adversarial / critical / publicly complaining / activist route.  From her Trib opinion piece:

• "Send church leaders a message on March 17..."
• "I suggested women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should stay home from church March 17..."
• "I’ll email my bishop to let him know I opted out of church..."
• "This testimony meeting would be a great time to share your experiences as a woman in the church and your hopes that the church will work to improve the lives of Latter-day Saint women."
• "I suggest that, on March 17, we use #JesusChristisRelief to send a message to the First Presidency. We can tell them the stories we’ve been sharing among ourselves. We can tell them why we decided to stay home from church that day."
• "A lot of women reached out to me after I published my first article. I heard a lot of stories of women being belittled, maligned, insulted and ignored. I heard a lot of concerns about raising daughters in an environment that so obviously favors sons. I heard a lot of heartbreak."
• "I know it can be scary to speak up or step out of line at church. But to quote Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Latter-day Saint Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, 'Well-behaved women seldom make history.'"

She is encouraging other Latter-day Saint women to not attend Sunday services.  She is encouraging other Latter-day Saint women to misappropriate one of the Church's sacred convocations, intended to focus on testifying of Jesus Christ, and to instead use it (and its associated hashtag) as a platform to "send a message" about something other than Jesus Christ.  She is characterizing her encouragement as "step{ping} out of line at church," and then justifies it by quoting Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who has elaborated on her "well-behaved women" comment:

Quote

I don’t know why so many people find my words appealing. Perhaps it is the ambiguity of the term well-behaved. Without a fixed definition, it evokes whatever anxiety a woman might feel about behavioral codes that constrain her power to act. The slogan works because it simultaneously acknowledges and defends misbehavior as a necessary consequence of making history. Yes, well-behaved women can make history. But when they do, they often lose their reputation for being well-behaved.
...
Here, I am defining good behavior as playing by the rules, even the unspoken rules, in a person’s own community. In most circumstances, that is a wise thing to do: children should be taught to obey “don’t walk” signs; drivers should stay on the right side of the road, except in countries where the right side is on the left. Rules hold families and communities together. They keep us safe. But some rules hurt people; others lose their relevance. The first people to figure that out often make history. They refuse to move to the back of the bus. They stop wearing button-up shoes and corsets. They write new laws. Some of them become famous. Most are ordinary people, like us. They make small changes. They push forward into the dark not knowing quite where they are going. Intentionally or not, they make a difference.
...
I related to the women who created this project because at a crucial moment in my own life, I had been involved in a collaborative effort to fill in the gaps in my own people’s history. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I had heard plenty of faith- promoting stories about pioneer women, but I had difficulty connecting their challenges with my own. If anything, their apparent heroism made me feel diminished, unequal to the challenges of my own time and place. Working with other women to produce a more complete and less idealized history of early Mormon women reaffirmed my commitment to my faith and reduced my anxiety about combining my responsibilities as a wife and mother with my aspirations as a writer.

I think Sisters McBaine and Ulrich are interested in speaking out in support of, and advancing the interests of, Latter-day Saint women, but not in ways that publicly denigrate or work against the Church.  As Bluebell noted earlier: "Speaking personally, I would struggle to maintain good feelings towards any sister who hijacked the meeting for that purpose unless she could do it in a way that keep her words focused on testifying of the Savior and His gospel."  Yep.  Again: "We work within the framework of current LDS doctrine to question traditions that may limit us as individuals and as a people."  And as Sister Ulrich put it: "In most circumstances, {playing by the rules} is a wise thing to do. ... Rules hold families and communities together."

I hope Sis. Howes reconsiders her adversarial "activist" approach, and instead chooses efforts more akin to those of Sister McBaine.  Yes, the voices of Latter-day Saint women need to be heard, but I hope they are borne of faith and encouragement, not of defiance, frustration, anger, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 18 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Or does empowerment come solely by being the one telling others what to do and when to do it? Does the gender of the boss have a measurable impact on the empowerment of the people being bossed?  

I think empowerment comes not only in exercising power, but in understanding and being familiar with how power works…as in someone can be appointed a boss, but if they are clueless on what that job is, they may feel more helpless than empowered.

And while someone may not have the decision making power themselves, they may feel somewhat empowered if they are familiar with whatever process is used in applying that power because they will have better ways to predict what direction will come from those in power and even more important, knowing how a hierarchy functions, including the unwritten rules, increases one’s ability to influence that hierarchy or at least the small part of it they can directly interact with.  Having confidence that one could influence if one chose empowers even if one does not make the choice to do so.  

When one knows one will never be able to hold a position, one will likely be less interested in learning what that position does because they may perceive no need to invest the effort.  A boy or young man or even an adult male (assuming they still have classes in PH on how things operate in the church) who imagines they might be at least in a bishopric, if unlikely to be a bishop, some day will likely pay closer attention when taught and ask more questions about the calling than a girl, young woman, or woman who will never be called to any position in a bishopric.

Also important is being present where the decisions are being made.  Greater understanding will come from being aware of the behind the scenes as well as the very important opportunities of being able influence the decision, sometimes by just asking a question in a certain way, but also volunteering an opinion, providing useful info, etc.  In the past, women leaders were less likely to be present in most decision making discussions in the Church.  And girls and women weren’t given much, if any practical knowledge with how networking occurs among priesthood leaders.  There may not have been much there to learn, but if you are not present where the work happens, you don’t even know what you don’t know and that is disempowering.

There has been a real effort by the Church with its councils to include women…which educates them more in the process even if not making the final decision themselves as well as giving them more opportunities to provide input in more than just their specific callings.  These women may then go and be a source of instruction to other women.  Knowing that is happening, even if happening to a woman besides oneself, can be empowering for a woman, imo.

I remember one of the men who was involved in forming the Family Proclamation answering criticisms that women weren’t consulted as part of the process attempting to correct that impression by providing a few women’s names they had discussed the Proclamation with.  Problem was none of them were actual female church leaders.  They were women who just happened to be there for other reasons whose opinions were trusted, but who did not have callings that gave them the right to ask and receive revelation for directing the membership of the Church as a whole or at least half of the adult population.  There is something very wrong, imo, in believing that asking the opinion a couple of women who were conveniently there was even close to sufficiently seeking out the appropriate input from women, imo.

I doubt is such neglect would ever happen today, though it might happen at local levels with leaders who refuse to take advantage of the council system to get a variety of input from the appropriate leaders.

Edited March 18 by Calm

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

My understanding is that this is true of one of the initiatory ordinances, with the difference favoring the women.

My understanding is hat this does not favor the women (over men), but is requisite to endowing offspring with birth in the covenant, akin to dedicating a temple for the transmission of sacred promises. The corresponding pronouncements for the women and the men become shared, or full, once they are sealed as one and to Christ in marriage. 

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Rain said:

Quote

Zero absences noted.  Sister X gave a banger of a talk on that Italian pastor who got a BoM and a testimony in WWI days.  Sister Y did a musical number that brought tears to people's eyes.  Organist & conductor were the same gender they always were.  Ward is full of working and retired professionals, lots of folks savvy in matters of social media and online presences.  

It's hard for angry activist folks to make a difference in a church led by Christ.  Successes are rare.  

Are you saying women who participated in this were doing it out of anger?  If so, please show me where it says they were angry.

And:

Quote

Are they angry?  Are they activist? Your point only works if your assumptions of their intentions are right.  So I'm asking, not making a point, if they are angry or activist because I want to know if you are stating their intentions truly or not.

A Latter-day Saint publicly encouraging other Latter-day Saints to misappropriate the Church's sacred convocation would, for me, be an indicator of angry intent.  And activism.

Publicly disparaging the Church as "an environment that so obviously favors sons {over daughters}" seems to be an indicator of angry intent.

Publicly encouraging other Latter-day Saints to "{s}end leaders a message" by "step{ing} out of line" and not being "well-behaved" in a church setting seems to be an indicator of angry intent.  And activism.

To me, her Trib piece was not cheerful or faith-affirming, but rather angry and defiant.  I hope either I was incorrect in my assessment, or that she has a change of heart.

Meanwhile, Bro. Corbitt's thoughtful 2022 talk on activism in the Church continues to increase in relevance and potency.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 18 by smac97

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A Latter-day Saint publicly encouraging other Latter-day Saints to misappropriate the Church's sacred convocation would, for me, be an indicator of angry intent.  And activism.

Publicly disparaging the Church as "an environment that so obviously favors sons {over daughters}" seems to be an indicator of angry intent.

Publicly encouraging other Latter-day Saints to "{s}end leaders a message" by "step{ing} out of line" and not being "well-behaved" in a church setting seems to be an indicator of angry intent.  And activism.

Maybe if you were to act that way, you would have to be angry, but I can imagine myself doing so because I strongly felt the need for change and was concerned if change wasn’t sooner rather than later, many in the faith would be harmed while still recognizing the Church got to this state not out of maliciousness or a desire to oppress women, but because of misguided expectations of men and women, so there is no need for me to be angry about it even if I were to be passionate about bringing change.

She expressed her feelings as “weariness”, which does imply frustration to me, but is not usually associated with anger (it takes a lot of energy to be angry).

I think the “well behaved” comment does not imply her being angry or encouraging women in general to get angry, but rather it’s encouraging women to control their fear, to be brave enough to be different.

Quote

I know it can be scary to speak up or step out of line at church. But to quote Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Latter-day Saint Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “Well-behaved women seldom make history.”

 

Edited March 18 by Calm