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

[bluebell]

There were as many women in sacrament meeting today as their normally are.  If someone had stayed home because of the boycott no one would know though.  Everyone would just assume they were sick or out of town.

The idea of a boycott to draw attention to putting women on the stand doesn't' seem very well thought out.

[CV75]

In our ward today, many women were wearing something green, none stayed home in protest (that I could tell), and five that started coming back regularly a few weeks ago attended yet gain!

[Stargazer]

On 3/15/2024 at 5:20 PM, smac97 said:

The RS presidency sitting on the stand during Sacrament Meeting does not seem to make much sense.  They are not there to preside or participate or speak.  And if they are there for "representation," then that rationalization applies to all presidencies in the ward, of which there are a lot.  Does it make sense for all those presidencies to also sit on the stand in the name of "representation"?  It seems not.

 

In our small ward, half the congregation would be on the stand. 

Well, maybe not half, but I think all seats on the stand would be occupied.

[Stargazer]

On 3/15/2024 at 5:28 PM, smac97 said:

I was serving as my ward's bishop during the "Wear Pants to Church" protest.  I was aware of the protest ahead of time.  We had one sister in the ward, a newly-married woman, who wore pants on that Sunday.  She did not speak or act out in any untoward way, and I felt no need to say or do anything about it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

One young sister in our ward wears trousers* to church every Sunday. She sometimes wears a white shirt with a tie, along with a sport coat. Nobody seems to care.

* I write "trousers" because here in the UK, "pants" has a different meaning.

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 3/15/2024 at 2:05 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

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

Action item taken.   

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.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

many women were wearing something green

Thanks for reminding me it Saint Paddy’s….don’t want to space on wishing my sister happy birthday.

[pogi]

Sounds like the boycott was the dud I thought it would be.  
 

Even if there were 1 or 2 women in every ward decided to boycott it wouldn’t even be perceivable.

Edited March 18 by pogi

[Rain]

2 hours ago, 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.  

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.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

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.

Don’t you know? Women who assert their preferences are all Angry Women.  

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Today is St. Patrick's Day -- I propose green water and green bread. There is no scriptural prohibition, no revelation against the color of the sacramental emblems. Thus we recognize out common humanity of all people everywhere.

I would have no problem with this

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I read from the bottom up, it was obviously sarcasm with the previous post

... otherwise there would be no reason for a sarcastic post.

[ZealouslyStriving]

A 13-15 yo girl gave the opening prayer in Sacrament meeting... is that progress? I don't remember youths doing prayers during SM before.

Edited March 18 by ZealouslyStriving

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

A 13-15 yo girl gave the opening prayer in Sacrament meeting... is that progress? I don't remember youths doing prayers during SM before.

The youth in our ward have been giving them for a few months (They give both prayers every 2-3 weeks). I figured it was just something in our ward.  Maybe it's being encouraged everywhere.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't remember youths doing prayers during SM before.

Except blessing and passing the sacrament?

[The Mean Farmer]

In my Stake.  Stake Council meeting and High Council meeting are back to back.  98% of the time we are in Stake Council.  Only things that have to be done by the High Council are saved for that meeting.

 

Just a data point

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

A 13-15 yo girl gave the opening prayer in Sacrament meeting... is that progress? I don't remember youths doing prayers during SM before.

They recently made a change that anyone who has been baptized, can pray in sacrament meeting. I think it’s wonderful. My 10-year-old niece said the prayer in their ward last month. I remember when, for a short time, they stopped letting women pray in Sacrament meeting because they decided that it was a priesthood meeting and so needed to be opened by a priesthood holder. We’ve definitely come along way.   

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, The Mean Farmer said:

In my Stake.  Stake Council meeting and High Council meeting are back to back.  98% of the time we are in Stake Council.  Only things that have to be done by the High Council are saved for that meeting.

 

Just a data point

What are the things that must be done by the high Council?

[The Mean Farmer]

It's mostly sustaining of Stake callings.

It probably isn't by the book.  And you can imagine there isnt a great deal of counciling done .  But most of the affairs of the Stake arent saved for the High Council.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

The youth in our ward have been giving them for a few months (They give both prayers every 2-3 weeks). I figured it was just something in our ward.  Maybe it's being encouraged everywhere.

They have youth team teaching our family history class, helping with the tech stuff.  I thought that was brilliant.  They are also helping with being the chorister.  I haven’t been on a Sunday where they gave prayers, but wouldn’t be surprised if it was happening.  The ward is making a strong effort to give youth meaningful roles, which I fully back.  Been very please to see it.

[pogi]

On the Birthday of the Relief Society, Sister (why isn't the Relief Society presidency referred to as "President...") J. Anette Dennis said the following:

Quote

There is no other religious organization in the world that I know of, that has so broadly given power and authority to women.

Her reasoning:

Quote

Yes, other faiths ordain women to roles like priest or pastor, but those individuals represent a small minority when compared to the total number of women within their congregations.

By contrast, all women, 18 years and older in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who choose a covenant relationship with God in the House of the Lord are endowed with priesthood power directly from God.

And that’s not all.

All Latter-day Saint women are given priesthood authority to fulfill their callings, or volunteer positions within their congregations, and other assignments, she said, regardless of whether they have performed the rituals found within the faith’s temples.

My dear sisters, you belong to a church which offers all its women priesthood power and authority from God.

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

I know that President Oaks gave a talk which alluded to the idea that women get the priesthood in temples, but is this an actual ordination to priesthood authority?  If so, which priesthood, Melchizedek or Aaronic?   If women truly hold the priesthood as alluded to, why can't they hold any office?  

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

Why do men preside in the home?  Because, we are taught, that they hold the priesthood.  So, which is it?  I thought women hold the priesthood too?  It feels disingenuous to suggest that women hold authority in our church like they do in other churches, when they can't hold office and can't ever preside over a man like they can and do in other churches.  

Kristine Haglund, a writer and former editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, responded by "noting that the church’s patriarchal structure bars women from its central decision-making structure in their local congregations and church headquarters."

Quote

 

Latter-day Saint women’s ecclesiastical authority is dramatically less,” she said, “than in churches which extend priesthood to women.

While “distinguishing between priesthood power and priesthood office in this way may feel empowering for many LDS women,” Haglund said, “the fact that women’s priesthood power is exercised exclusively with the permission and at the direction of men who hold priesthood office feels constraining and disempowering to many.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lds-church-gives-more-power-to-women-than-any-other-religious-organization-leader-declares/ar-BB1k3vqR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=30c872b78b7a4a2f996ba47b913ff659&ei=9

 

 

 

Edited March 18 by pogi

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

On the Birthday of the Relief Society, Sister (why isn't the Relief Society presidency referred to as "President...") J. Anette Dennis said the following:

Her reasoning:

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

I know that President Oaks talk alludes to the idea that women get the priesthood in temples, but is this an actual ordination to priesthood authority?  If so, which priesthood, Melchizedek or Aaronic?   If women truly hold the priesthood as alluded to, why can't they hold any office?  

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

Why do men preside in the home?  Because, we are taught, that they hold the priesthood.  So, which is it?  I thought women hold the priesthood too?  It feels disingenuous to suggest that women hold authority in our church like they do in other churches, when they can't hold office and can't ever preside over a man. 

Kristine Haglund, a writer and former editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, responded by "noting that the church’s patriarchal structure bars women from its central decision-making structure in their local congregations and church headquarters."

 

 

From what you quoted: "All Latter-day Saint women are given priesthood authority to fulfill their callings, or volunteer positions within their congregations, and other assignments, she said, regardless of whether they have performed the rituals found within the faith’s temples."

You don't need to go the temple to have the authority.  So if you have a calling that doesn't require a member to be in it (let's say organist, but I can't remember if that was actually one of them) does that mean an unendowed member has priesthood authority playing this week and the nonmember playing next week doesn't? 

[LoudmouthMormon]

18 hours ago, Rain said:

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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.

18 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Don’t you know? Women who assert their preferences are all Angry Women.  

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

@MustardSeed's identity politics: I totally get that the entire point of the thing is a women's issue.  But you unrighteously judge me, and your unrighteous judgment is false at that.  I've studied activism for decades, and my point stands for activists of any and all genders.  Trying to paint a picture of me as some sort of mysogynist or someone biased against women?  Because I made a point with which you disagree?  2nd great commandment much?  I'm not feeling the love.  It's like you're looking at me already concluded about who you think I am, and the image you have of me doesn't match what I see in the mirror.  But I'll tell you what - in case I'm somehow blind to my own male chauvenism, I'll ask my wife to opine about how being assertive intersects with her emotions, and I'll listen to what she has to say.

Edited March 18 by LoudmouthMormon

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

From what you quoted: "All Latter-day Saint women are given priesthood authority to fulfill their callings, or volunteer positions within their congregations, and other assignments, she said, regardless of whether they have performed the rituals found within the faith’s temples."

You don't need to go the temple to have the authority.  So if you have a calling that doesn't require a member to be in it (let's say organist, but I can't remember if that was actually one of them) does that mean an unendowed member has priesthood authority playing this week and the nonmember playing next week doesn't? 

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), 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. 

Edited March 18 by pogi

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

On the Birthday of the Relief Society, Sister (why isn't the Relief Society presidency referred to as "President...") J. Anette Dennis said the following:

Her reasoning:

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

I think that one has to have a belief and testimony of the priesthood of God as the authority to act for God as well as a belief and testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the only church with that authority, for her statement to make sense.

And I think it does make sense in the way that she means it, but not in application.  It may be true in terms of women being endowed with that authority and power but I don't think it's true when it comes to women's ability to exercise that power.  And when you divorce power from the ability to exercise it, then the waters get muddied.  

Quote

I know that President Oaks gave a talk which alluded to the idea that women get the priesthood in temples, but is this an actual ordination to priesthood authority?  If so, which priesthood, Melchizedek or Aaronic?   If women truly hold the priesthood as alluded to, why can't they hold any office?  

If I'm remembering right, in that talk Pres. Oaks spoke about how women are not ordained to the priesthood as men are.  We do not hold the priesthood but we have access to its power by virtue of being endowed.  Even unendowed women have access to priesthood power when they are called and set a part of given an assignment by one holding keys.

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.”

Quote

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

I don't know. 

Quote

Why do men preside in the home?  Because, we are taught, that they hold the priesthood.  So, which is it?  I thought women hold the priesthood too?  It feels disingenuous to suggest that women hold authority in our church like they do in other churches, when they can't hold office and can't ever preside over a man like they can and do in other churches.

Presiding doesn't have anything to do with being ordained.  When there is no father in the home, or no ordained father, an ordained son does not preside.  The mother (or unordained father) still preside in the home.  Primary presidents preside over the all the teachers in the primary, including ordained men, as another example.

This quote is from an article written by Barbara Gardner published in the church magazine in 2019 that explains how being ordained doesn't have anything to do with presiding in the church either:

"When teaching this concept to my students, I often ask, “If a stake is having a joint Young Men and Young Women presidency meeting, who presides?” Because both the stake Young Women president and the stake Young Men president were called and set apart by one holding priesthood keys (the stake president), with their callings, both have the same priesthood authority and therefore neither presides over the other. It would make sense for them to take turns in conducting meetings."

In terms of priesthood in the home, I think it's good to remember that the priesthood authority functions differently in the home than it does at church.  Sis. Gardner explains it by saying that the church organization is hierarchical while the family is patriarchal.  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.”

 

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."

More from Pres. Oaks on the different ways that priesthood functions in the family compared to in the church, as shared from a talk he gave in 2005:

Quote

 

There are many similarities and some differences in the way priesthood authority functions in the family and in the Church. If we fail to recognize and honor the differences, we encounter difficulties.

Keys. One important difference between its function in the Church and in the family is the fact that all priesthood authority in the Church functions under the direction of the one who holds the appropriate priesthood keys. In contrast, the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. This family authority includes directing the activities of the family, family meetings like family home evenings, family prayer, teaching the gospel, and counseling and disciplining family members. It also includes ordained fathers giving priesthood blessings.

However, priesthood keys are necessary to authorize the ordaining or setting apart of family members. This is because the organization the Lord has made responsible for the performance and recording of priesthood ordinances is the Church, not the family.

Boundaries. Church organizations like wards, quorums, or auxiliaries always have geographic boundaries that limit the responsibility and authority of the callings associated with them. In contrast, family relationships and responsibilities are not dependent upon where different family members reside.

Duration. Church callings are always temporary, but family relationships are permanent.

Call and release. Another contrast concerns the initiation and termination of positions. In the Church, a priesthood leader who holds the necessary keys has the authority to call or release persons serving under his direction. He can even cause that they lose their membership and have their names “blotted out” (see Mosiah 26:34–38; Alma 5:56–62). In contrast, family relationships are so important that the head of the family lacks the authority to make changes in family membership. That can only be done by someone authorized to adjust family relationships under the laws of man or the laws of God. Thus, while a bishop can release a Relief Society president, he cannot sever his relationship with his wife without a divorce under the laws of man. Again, his sealing for eternity cannot be ended without a cancellation procedure under the laws of God. Similarly, a youth serving in a class or quorum presidency can be released by priesthood authority in the ward, but parents cannot divorce a child whose life choices are offensive to them. Family relationships are more enduring than Church relationships.

Partnership. A most important difference in the functioning of priesthood authority in the family and in the Church results from the fact that the government of the family is patriarchal, whereas the government of the Church is hierarchical. The concept of partnership functions differently in the family than in the Church.

The family proclamation gives this beautiful explanation of the relationship between a husband and a wife: While they have separate responsibilities, “in these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102; emphasis added).

President Spencer W. Kimball said this: “When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 315).

President Kimball also declared, “We have heard of men who have said to their wives, ‘I hold the priesthood and you’ve got to do what I say.’” He decisively rejected that abuse of priesthood authority in a marriage, declaring that such a man “should not be honored in his priesthood” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 316).

 

I hadn't really ever thought of the priesthood functioning differently at home and at church so I thought that was all interesting.

Quote

Kristine Haglund, a writer and former editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, responded by "noting that the church’s patriarchal structure bars women from its central decision-making structure in their local congregations and church headquarters."

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. 

The issue here is that it is always a man who has the ultimate say and never a woman (which is a noteworthy distinction), but pragmatically, would a woman feel more empowered if it was always another woman telling her what to do rather than a man?

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 don't know that we can assume that's how empowerment works.  I've never felt more empowered when I've had female bosses, for example.  Do men feel more empowered when they have male bosses than when they have female bosses?

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Rain said:

does that mean an unendowed member has priesthood authority playing this week and the nonmember playing next week doesn't? 

Yes, that's what it means, according to Pres. Oaks.