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

[Amulek]

I asked my wife about this last night and she hadn't heard anything about it.

So far as I know, the only thing she's boycotting this Sunday is making 'big breakfast' for everyone.

Of course, is it really a boycott if it just happens to be your husband's turn to make breakfast for St. Patty's day? 🍀

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

for RS women in honor of the organization's birthday?  The testimony meeting will not be worldwide as I understand it but rather something held in wards and stakes (who choose to gather) after the broadcast is over.

It's also pre-recorded (video is already available. ) There was an example meeting agenda sent out with the details about it. It's pretty much an entirely local affair.

Our one for example will be held when most members in the world are still in their pyjamas on Sunday morning (based on the time differences between the east coast of Australia and USA/Mexico).

Edited March 15 by JustAnAustralian

[let’s roll]

On 3/14/2024 at 2:37 PM, pogi said:

Report back from your wards if you noticed a smaller women's presence on Sunday (or maybe you won't be there due to the boycott). 

The fact that I’m speaking is Sacrament Meeting on Sunday is far more likely to suppress attendance than is this protest.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, let’s roll said:

The fact that I’m speaking is Sacrament Meeting on Sunday is far more likely to suppress attendance than is this protest.

If I were in your neck of the woods, I would come!  (Having car trouble, anyway, even if I am in your neck of the woods.  She won't turn over. If you know a good mechanic who makes house calls ... )  Anyway, good luck/best wishes.

[mfbukowski]

Who wants to be on the stand in the first place?

When I was a practicing bishop, I got to share ever sleepy moment, every sneeze and cough, at least one bloody nose, many runny ones, a few rolled eyes unfortunately, and at least one or two "calls of nature"due to medication with EVERYONE in the church.

No sneaking out the back door for a few minutes.... biology suspended.

Even when on the HC visiting a ward, I would sit among the members, and run up to the stand to give my talk.

You want everyone watching you every moment?

Be my guest!

But wonder within yourself why you have that need.  

Yes I think the cause here is a worthy one, then regarding not coming to church- how is that supposed to hurt others to allow you to get your way?

All you are doing is deliberately showing that coming to church is no big deal to you, that you would give it up and sleep in "just to show THEM a thing or two.

It reminds me of kids not going to school to prove a point.   Oh yeah- will show THEM!

Sorry, I just cannot see the logic.   Write letters, carry signs, wear a weird color to make a point. THAT will do more than not appearing and sleeping in, to make your argument!

But just wanting to be on the stand smacks of an attitude of "OK I am important! Look at me!"

Just walk up and do it if you insist!

What are they going to do?  Call the cops?

Womensplain it please.

Incidentally out here in the mission field, I have never seen a RS society presidency or other female leaders on the stand just to be there, as opposed to having to speak or etc.

Nice opportunity to have a chat with my wife who is in the RS presidency- but I strongly suspect she will believe as I do.   And YES she is as much of an advocate for women's rights as anyone I have heard.

 

Edited March 16 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

ut wonder within yourself why you have that need.  

 

Totally misses the point. 

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who wants to be on the stand in the first place?

When I was a practicing bishop, I got to share ever sleepy moment, every sneeze and cough, at least one bloody nose, many runny ones, a few rolled eyes unfortunately, and at least one or two "calls of nature"due to medication with EVERYONE in the church.

No sneaking out the back door for a few minutes.... biology suspended.

Even when on the HC visiting a ward, I would sit among the members, and run up to the stand to give my talk.

You want everyone watching you every moment?

Be my guest!

But wonder within yourself why you have that need.  

Yes I think the cause here is a worthy one, then regarding not coming to church- how is that supposed to hurt others to allow you to get your way?

All you are doing is deliberately showing that coming to church is no big deal to you, that you would give it up and sleep in "just to show THEM a thing or two.

It reminds me of kids not going to school to prove a point.   Oh yeah- will show THEM!

Sorry, I just cannot see the logic.   Write letters, carry signs, wear a weird color to make a point. THAT will do more than not appearing and sleeping in, to make your argument!

But just wanting to be on the stand smacks of an attitude of "OK I am important! Look at me!"

Just walk up and do it if you insist!

What are they going to do?  Call the cops?

Womensplain it please.

Incidentally out here in the mission field, I have never seen a RS society presidency or other female leaders on the stand just to be there, as opposed to having to speak or etc.

Nice opportunity to have a chat with my wife who is in the RS presidency- but I strongly suspect she will believe as I do.   And YES she is as much of an advocate for women's rights as anyone I have heard.

 

I hear ya, I would hate to sit up in the stands. But from what I've understood, it's for the younger girls in the audience to see women present on the stand. Below is the podcast and introduction.

https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-168-revisiting-what-women-dont-get-in-our-church/

Some questions need to be revisited often so we don’t lose sight of the fact that no satisfactory answer has been given. In Episode 91, Cynthia asked, “If history shows that patriarchy is bad for women, and data shows that girls and women fare better when they can see themselves at every level of leadership in our churches, schools, and societies…why do LDS women and men continue to cling to old ideas that deny history and data?” Unfortunately, her question stands, as little if any progress has been made. In Episode 168 we preface a rerun of this previous conversation with a few of the thoughts we have about it now.

Edited March 16 by Tacenda

[Rain]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who wants to be on the stand in the first place?

When I was a practicing bishop, I got to share ever sleepy moment, every sneeze and cough, at least one bloody nose, many runny ones, a few rolled eyes unfortunately, and at least one or two "calls of nature"due to medication with EVERYONE in the church.

No sneaking out the back door for a few minutes.... biology suspended.

Even when on the HC visiting a ward, I would sit among the members, and run up to the stand to give my talk.

You want everyone watching you every moment?

Be my guest!

But wonder within yourself why you have that need.  

Yes I think the cause here is a worthy one, then regarding not coming to church- how is that supposed to hurt others to allow you to get your way?

All you are doing is deliberately showing that coming to church is no big deal to you, that you would give it up and sleep in "just to show THEM a thing or two.

It reminds me of kids not going to school to prove a point.   Oh yeah- will show THEM!

Sorry, I just cannot see the logic.   Write letters, carry signs, wear a weird color to make a point. THAT will do more than not appearing and sleeping in, to make your argument!

But just wanting to be on the stand smacks of an attitude of "OK I am important! Look at me!"

Just walk up and do it if you insist!

What are they going to do?  Call the cops?

Womensplain it please.

Incidentally out here in the mission field, I have never seen a RS society presidency or other female leaders on the stand just to be there, as opposed to having to speak or etc.

Nice opportunity to have a chat with my wife who is in the RS presidency- but I strongly suspect she will believe as I do.   And YES she is as much of an advocate for women's rights as anyone I have heard.

 

When you look at the real heart of it, It is NOT about me, the leader (if I were one) being seen.  It is about women in general knowing they are cared about by male priesthood leaders.

Edited March 16 by Rain

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I hear ya, I would hate to sit up in the stands. But from what I've understood, it's for the younger girls in the audience to see women present on the stand. Below is the podcast and introduction.

https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-168-revisiting-what-women-dont-get-in-our-church/

Some questions need to be revisited often so we don’t lose sight of the fact that no satisfactory answer has been given. In Episode 91, Cynthia asked, “If history shows that patriarchy is bad for women, and data shows that girls and women fare better when they can see themselves at every level of leadership in our churches, schools, and societies…why do LDS women and men continue to cling to old ideas that deny history and data?” Unfortunately, her question stands, as little if any progress has been made. In Episode 168 we preface a rerun of this previous conversation with a few of the thoughts we have about it now.

I haven't listened to this episode (or many others) and don't know if I will get around to it or not.  Are these women pushing for female ordination or have they contrived some other way for women to be in every level of leadership in our churches?

Also, do they believe that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet of God and are they active believing members of the church?

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who wants to be on the stand in the first place?

When I was a practicing bishop, I got to share ever sleepy moment, every sneeze and cough, at least one bloody nose, many runny ones, a few rolled eyes unfortunately, and at least one or two "calls of nature"due to medication with EVERYONE in the church.

No sneaking out the back door for a few minutes.... biology suspended.

Even when on the HC visiting a ward, I would sit among the members, and run up to the stand to give my talk.

You want everyone watching you every moment?

Be my guest!

But wonder within yourself why you have that need.  

Yes I think the cause here is a worthy one, then regarding not coming to church- how is that supposed to hurt others to allow you to get your way?

All you are doing is deliberately showing that coming to church is no big deal to you, that you would give it up and sleep in "just to show THEM a thing or two.

It reminds me of kids not going to school to prove a point.   Oh yeah- will show THEM!

Sorry, I just cannot see the logic.   Write letters, carry signs, wear a weird color to make a point. THAT will do more than not appearing and sleeping in, to make your argument!

But just wanting to be on the stand smacks of an attitude of "OK I am important! Look at me!"

Just walk up and do it if you insist!

What are they going to do?  Call the cops?

Womensplain it please.

Incidentally out here in the mission field, I have never seen a RS society presidency or other female leaders on the stand just to be there, as opposed to having to speak or etc.

Nice opportunity to have a chat with my wife who is in the RS presidency- but I strongly suspect she will believe as I do.   And YES she is as much of an advocate for women's rights as anyone I have heard.

 

I am with you about sitting on the stand. You describe the negative aspects well.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who wants to be on the stand in the first place?

When I was a practicing bishop, I got to share ever sleepy moment, every sneeze and cough, at least one bloody nose, many runny ones, a few rolled eyes unfortunately, and at least one or two "calls of nature"due to medication with EVERYONE in the church.

No sneaking out the back door for a few minutes.... biology suspended.

Even when on the HC visiting a ward, I would sit among the members, and run up to the stand to give my talk.

You want everyone watching you every moment?

Be my guest!

But wonder within yourself why you have that need.  

Yes I think the cause here is a worthy one, then regarding not coming to church- how is that supposed to hurt others to allow you to get your way?

All you are doing is deliberately showing that coming to church is no big deal to you, that you would give it up and sleep in "just to show THEM a thing or two.

It reminds me of kids not going to school to prove a point.   Oh yeah- will show THEM!

Sorry, I just cannot see the logic.   Write letters, carry signs, wear a weird color to make a point. THAT will do more than not appearing and sleeping in, to make your argument!

But just wanting to be on the stand smacks of an attitude of "OK I am important! Look at me!"

Just walk up and do it if you insist!

What are they going to do?  Call the cops?

Womensplain it please.

Incidentally out here in the mission field, I have never seen a RS society presidency or other female leaders on the stand just to be there, as opposed to having to speak or etc.

Nice opportunity to have a chat with my wife who is in the RS presidency- but I strongly suspect she will believe as I do.   And YES she is as much of an advocate for women's rights as anyone I have heard.

 

Anyone who wants to be up front to be "seen of men", deserves to be up there I suppose, because I'm with you in that it's not something the normal believing church member is at all interested in.  

But, if it served a purpose and God asked me to, then I would do it (and try to do it without resentment), despite hating every minute of it. 

I struggle with this new social cause because it feels like making up a purpose for women to be up there and it also feels like putting women on a pedestal since the men who serve in the same callings are not being asked to do the same (as the RS presidency is the equivalent of the EQ presidency and not the bishopric). 

But, coming at this issue from a "women wanting to feel important" angle is missing the point of what these women are asking for.  They don't want to be seen, they want girls and young women to be able to see them. 

I know that sounds like semantics, but it's not.

Edited March 16 by bluebell

[teddyaware]

A question pertaining to this boycott for believing members of the church to contemplate. In consideration of the fact that the boycott’s organizers are encouraging members to break the commandment to attend sacrament meeting and renew their sacred covenants by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, do you believe there’s a possibility that the boycott’s organizers are actually being inspired of God?

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Anyone who wants to be up front to be "seen of men", deserves to be up there I suppose, because I'm with you in that it's not something the normal believing church member is at all interested in.  

But, if it served a purpose and God asked me to, then I would do it (and try to do it without resentment), despite hating every minute of it. 

I struggle with this new social cause because it feels like making up a purpose for women to be up there and it also feels like putting women on a pedestal since the men who serve in the same callings are not being asked to do the same (as the RS presidency is the equivalent of the EQ presidency and not the bishopric). 

But, coming at this issue from a "women wanting to feel important" angle is missing the point of what these women are asking for.  They don't want to be seen, they want girls and young women to be able to see them. 

I know that sounds like semantics, but it's not.

Yes, but it's not just for girls and young women.  It is also for women who are struggling to find a place in the church.  It is for women in marriages with unequal partnerships. It is for women who are strong in the church and just are ready to know God cares for them as the sex they are. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, but it's not just for girls and young women.  It is also for women who are struggling to find a place in the church.  It is for women in marriages with unequal partnerships. It is for women who are strong in the church and just are ready to know God cares for them as the sex they are. 

I agree, I do believe those are the people that the organizers of this cause believe having women sitting on the stand will help.

I personally have struggled sometimes to know that God cares about His daughters in the same way that He cares about His sons, but having the RS presidency sitting on the stand, for me, is irrelevant to that struggle.  And at this point--and after all of this--having our leaders acquiesce to what I view as an insignificant change in order to keep the women "happy" would feel condescending to me.   

I understand that other women see things differently though and I don't want to belittle their perspective or their voices so I will be supportive where I can.  I'm not boycotting sacrament meeting though as that makes zero sense to me.

Edited March 16 by bluebell

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

A question pertaining to this boycott for believing members of the church to contemplate. In consideration of the fact that the boycott’s organizers are encouraging members to break the commandment to attend sacrament meeting and renew their sacred covenants by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, do you believe there’s a possibility that the boycott’s organizers are actually being inspired of God?

I realize you are not talking about me since I'm no longer a believing member, but I'm answering how I would have as a believing member. 

I don't consider attending and partaking to be a hard and fast commandment.  People who are sick, need to work or are in situations where they have no priesthood holders are not required to have the sacrament every week. When we went out of the country we would ask our bishop if my husband could do it if we couldn't get to the church because of transportation.  The last time we asked the bishop looked it up in the handbook and told us it wasn't required every week so we could go without that week. The church does not consider it a saving ordinance. With that being the case, then yes these organizers could be inspired by God. 

Were they actually inspired?  I have no idea. I don't know them.  I don't know their hearts. I haven't taken the boycott up in prayer and have no intention to do that. 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, I do believe those are the people that the organizers of this cause believe having women sitting on the stand will help.

I personally have struggled sometimes to know that God cares about His daughters in the same way that He cares about His sons, but having the RS presidency sitting on the stand, for me, is irrelevant to that struggle.  And at this point--and after all of this--having our leaders acquiesce to what I view as an insignificant change in order to keep the women "happy" would feel condescending to me.   

I understand that other women see things differently though and I don't want to belittle their perspective or their voices so I will be supportive where I can.  I'm not boycotting sacrament meeting though as that makes zero sense to me.

Yes, while you and I are sitting at different positions in matters of faith now we feel similar on this - we understand why it's important to some women and want to support them, but may not agree with what or how it is done.

If only I could get people to look at hearts! Obviously there are some who are "look at me! I want to get my own way!", but there are so many who are "God has given me much, I want to give as He wants me to give and I feel like I'm not being allowed by other humans to do that." Night and day different, but so often where women are considered the first is the default.

[Teancum]

50 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

A question pertaining to this boycott for believing members of the church to contemplate. In consideration of the fact that the boycott’s organizers are encouraging members to break the commandment to attend sacrament meeting and renew their sacred covenants by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, do you believe there’s a possibility that the boycott’s organizers are actually being inspired of God?

Did they claim God was "inspiring" them?  

[Danzo]

A couple of months ago, Our bishop's wife sat on the stand with him.  He explained that since both of his counselors were away that Sunday, he didn't want to sit by himself.

As far as I know, no one cared or thought it was a big deal.

 

Also, Every Sunday the ward chorister and organist, who both happen to be female at this time sit on the stand.  

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A couple of months ago, Our bishop's wife sat on the stand with him.  He explained that since both of his counselors were away that Sunday, he didn't want to sit by himself.

As far as I know, no one cared or thought it was a big deal.

 

Also, Every Sunday the ward chorister and organist, who both happen to be female at this time sit on the stand.  

The bishop's wife and the organist are not "leaders". The chorister, even when called a music leader, doesn't even choose the music in sacrament meeting (at least not in the wards I have been in).  The ward music chairman does. So I'm not sure how much the chorister really is considered a leader is.

It's not about having women on the stand.  It is having women leaders there.

[MustardSeed]

Who sits on the stand is a symbolic representation of who has power. 

I realize the word power can insinuate something negative. But all relationships have factors of power. Women have significantly less power, and it is possible that if women were on the stand, it might change the way people see women and pave the way for more power. 
 

I would rather see the actual power shift, before the symbolic representation of such, but I do believe that things need to be shaken up and if this is one way to do it, I’m down.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I haven't listened to this episode (or many others) and don't know if I will get around to it or not.  Are these women pushing for female ordination or have they contrived some other way for women to be in every level of leadership in our churches?

Also, do they believe that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet of God and are they active believing members of the church?

They aren't pining for Priesthood ordination. As far as I know they are active believing members.

[MustardSeed]

Just now, Tacenda said:

They aren't pining for Priesthood ordination. As far as I know they are active believing members.

They want something different- don’t want “the men’s priesthood” - they want the women’s priesthood restored used and respected.  
They are active members with callings.  

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, but it's not just for girls and young women.  It is also for women who are struggling to find a place in the church.  It is for women in marriages with unequal partnerships. It is for women who are strong in the church and just are ready to know God cares for them as the sex they are. 

Yes, you say it better. Thanks Rain

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They aren't pining for Priesthood ordination. As far as I know they are active believing members.

I find it helpful to know where people are coming from when they discuss ways they want the church to change.  An active believing member will be coming at the topic in a completely different way than an ex-member, nonmember, or critic.   I know they have guest speakers who are not believing (my good friend has been a guest speaker before) but I wasn't sure where the hosts fell on that line.  

Did they share their thoughts on how women were going to be able to serve in a calling like apostle without ordination?  If they are believing members then they typically would view the top leadership position in the church as requiring ordination.  

Edited March 16 by bluebell

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

They want something different- don’t want “the men’s priesthood” - they want the women’s priesthood restored used and respected.  
They are active members with callings.  

That's intriguing.  Do you know what they are pointing to in the past in regards to women's priesthood that they would like to see restored?