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

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, manol said:

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.)

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

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

In the endowment, the women don't do the exact same things. Part of that comes with differences in the veil versus the cap.  And yes, I was also talking about the initiatory and ordination.  

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

Thank you for letting me know about the covenants.  

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

An excerpt from Bro. Corbitt's 2022 address:

Quote

Today, I would like to address an especially effective tactic Satan is using to blind and mislead the young, those transitioning from other religious traditions and cultures, and even long-time and life-time members of the Lord’s restored church. In my humble view, it is one of the great mists of darkness of our time. I speak of our enemy’s effort to transform disciples of Jesus Christ into activists towards or against the Lord’s church – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – and its leaders.

Kierstyn Kremer Howes was pretty clear in what she was encouraging (misappropriating a sacred convocation), and towards/against whom/what ("send a message" to the Church and its leaders).

2 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

Did Emma go out and publicly encourage others to misappropriate a church meeting to "send a message" to Joseph?  Or did she voice her complaints in a private (or semi-private) way?

2 hours ago, Rain said:

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. 

Again, from Bro. Corbitt:

Quote

What do I mean by activism toward the Church? “Activism” has been defined as “the policy or action of using (campaigning or) vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change” “especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.” Thus, activism or advocacy directed toward or against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a secular, worldly device misapplied in a spiritual, otherworldly context.

Thoughts?

More:

Quote

To be sure, righteous change is needed in our church.  For example, members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have spoken out against prejudice in any form. The Savior organized His church in large part to effect positive change of many kinds in God’s children. But change in the Kingdom of God is not accomplished in the same way as change in, say, government. The faulty assumption is that because some of the same social ills in secular society occasionally rear their ugly heads in the Lord’s church  the same remedial methods and manners should be used in both contexts. 

Is Brother Corbitt saying activism and advocacy are bad? Not at all. Like all Americans, and arguably most people on earth, you and I and our families are beneficiaries of activism.
...
However, when activism or advocacy is directed at the Kingdom of God on earth or its leaders, especially prophets and apostles, it is the wrong tool for the wrong job in the wrong place. Why? Because it effectively but subtly undermines the doctrine of Christ, which is God’s plan for changing, saving and exalting His children. How timely is the recent declaration of the Lord’s prophet, “There has never been a time in the history of the world when knowledge of our Savior is more personally vital and relevant to every human soul. … The pure doctrine of Christ is powerful. It changes the life of everyone who understands it and seeks to implement it in his or her life.” As I speak further on the threat to the doctrine of Christ, may I humbly suggest you, as chaplains, and your families, consider the following three points...

The entire talk is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 18, 2024 by smac97

[manol]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

In the endowment, the women don't do the exact same things. Part of that comes with differences in the veil versus the cap. 

Ha!  How subtly sexist of me - I FORGOT about it because it doesn't affect me!  Still, I would argue that step is cultural and not something that matters in the slightest to God, and I expect it will disappear in a future revision. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

If so then women have authority without power. 

Or at least that power.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Why else are we taught that men preside in the home?

Aren’t all men seen as appropriately presiding in homes even when the family are not members of the Church based on the interpretation of Genesis?

Quote

To the woman he said, 'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours 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...

Quote

Consider the ‘double-bind’ or ‘assertiveness penalty’ facing women aspiring to leadership. Studies show that when women exhibit stereotypically masculine traits commonly associated with leadership like assertiveness, they are less-liked when compared with men exhibiting the same traits. In a 2008 study published in Psychological Science, men received a boost in their perceived status after expressing anger. In contrast, “women who expressed anger were consistently accorded lower status and lower wages, and were seen as less competent.” Another study showed women’s perceived deserved compensation dropped by 35%, twice as much as men’s dropped when equally aggressive in workplace communication. Because likability can be an even more important factor than competence for getting hired, women who breach gender stereotypes may jeopardise their career prospects.

Assertiveness backlash places women in a tenuous position. On the one hand, to emerge as a leader, women must adopt traits consistent with leadership stereotypes, i.e. act more stereotypically masculine. But, when women do act more assertively, they breach feminine stereotypes and suffer a likeability penalty that, in turn, limits their professional success. Not only do women need to work harder to be assessed at the same level of competence as men, they also need to work differently—treading a fine line between masculinity and femininity. Asking for a promotion, offering unsolicited opinions, challenging the status quo, negotiating for a raise, or speaking up about concerns may help a male employee get ahead, but a female employee could easily end up labelled as “bossy” or worse for the exact same behaviour.

https://cultureplusconsulting.com/2018/03/10/gender-bias-work-assertiveness-double-bind/
 

Let me know if you want the actual studies…

The workplace is the easiest place to study, but I have seen studies in other contexts.

Women are also typically viewed as more emotional than men, but this is likely incorrect.  They are more emotionally expressive, but experience emotion similar to men.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.74.3.686

Edited March 18, 2024 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Lots of interesting stuff going on here.  Lots of questions.  Why could women only bless women?  Why can't they do so now?  Why must one be ordained to the priesthood to give blessings?  Why can't they "borrow" the power and authority like they do in their callings?

When people say that women in the church do have the "power" of the priesthood (as distinct from the clerical authority to perform duties in their church callings, etc.), what are they referring to?    If they have the power of the priesthood, why can't they use it to give blessings?

If all priesthood authority and keys etc. are under the authority of someone else, and if one doesn't need to be ordained to the priesthood to "borrow" that authority or keys, why does anyone need to be ordained to the priesthood at all who is not needed to be a key holder?  Why must one be ordained to give blessings? 

Just some thoughts running through my head. 

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by pogi

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

why isn't the Relief Society presidency referred to as "President

The President (but not the counsellors) is referred to as President based on the church website https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/camille-n-johnson?lang=eng

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Lots of interesting stuff going on here.  Lots of questions.  Why could women only bless women?  Why can't they do so now?  Why must one be ordained to the priesthood to give blessings?  Why can't they "borrow" the power and authority like they do in their callings?

When people say that women in the church do have the "power" of the priesthood (as distinct from the clerical authority to perform duties in their church callings, etc.), what are they referring to?    If they have the power of the priesthood, why can't they use it to give blessings?

If all priesthood authority and keys etc. are under the authority of someone else, and if one doesn't need to be ordained to the priesthood to "borrow" that authority or keys, why does anyone need to be ordained to the priesthood at all who is not needed to be a key holder?  Why must one be ordained to give blessings? 

Just some thoughts running through my head. 

 

Here's a good article on the historical practice of women giving blessings in the church.

https://www.ldsliving.com/mormon-women-giving-blessings-everything-you-need-to-know/s/81418

And here's a Gospel Essay on the same topic.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Aren’t all men seen as appropriately presiding in homes even when the family are not members of the Church based on the interpretation of Genesis?

I don't usually hear it taught that way as to why men preside in the home in our religion (not saying that it has never been taught by someone, but certainly is not a theme that I am accustomed to).   

This is usually what I hear:

Quote

A worthy man is given the priesthood so he can preside in the home and bless his family.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2004/02/presiding-righteously-in-the-home?lang=eng

In some cases, it is even taught that it is a priesthood calling, apparently:

Quote

 

Brethren, I invite you to give serious consideration to your divine calling and responsibility to worthily receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and to magnify your priesthood calling as a father and husband.

https://pacific.churchofjesuschrist.org/area-presidency/messages/2013/march

 

In comparing the priesthood in the home to priesthood at church, Pres Oaks taught:

Quote

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.
 

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.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/priesthood-authority-in-the-family-and-the-church?lang=eng

There is patriarchal priesthood order (home) and hierarchal (church).  But the patriarchal order is considered a priesthood order.

It appears that President Oaks is saying that the priesthood in the home is patriarchal.  In other words, the patriarchal system exists as a priesthood order in the home and patriarchy is not expected or mandated by God outside of the priesthood.   Therefore, where the priesthood does not exist (such as in matriarchal societies or single parent homes) the same rules and expectations do not necessarily apply.  I certainly hope, anyway, that the church does not teach that the matriarchal societies which do exist are inappropriate?  

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by pogi

[manol]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Here's a good article on the historical practice of women giving blessings in the church.

https://www.ldsliving.com/mormon-women-giving-blessings-everything-you-need-to-know/s/81418

About three decades ago the topic of women giving blessings was of great interest to me. Among other things, I investigated why the practice was discontinued. 

For the record, in my opinion there was more to it than Heber J. Grant "failing to see the consistency" in women giving blessings in the context of male priesthood holders being available, especially given that when Joseph Smith quotes Jesus Christ in defense of women giving blessings, Joseph does so in the context of male priesthood holders being available. 

I think the LDS Church lost something plain and precious.   Hopefully future leadership will correct that. 

Edited March 18, 2024 by manol

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

don't usually hear it taught that way as to why men preside in the home in our religion (not saying that it has never been taught by someone, but certainly is not a theme that I am accustomed to).   

 

I was taught that way growing up.  Maybe it was just those wards or maybe they wanted more priesthood emphasis and less Eve being punished flavor later on.

Edited March 18, 2024 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me know if you want the actual studies…

I was born into a country where women had to come up with a dang convincing reason why they needed their own checking account.  I personally witnessed people trying to teach me about the dangers of educating women too much, because it diverted blood flow from the reproductive areas.  I remember witnessing the grand debate in the country about whether it was even possible for a husband to rape his wife.  When I started watching the debate, the majority opinion was that it was not a real thing.   

I've been a personal witness to radical progressive change in cultural understanding and practice regarding women's issues across 5 decades.  Please understand that your quote referencing a 16 yr old study, and your link to a quarter-century old APA journal article fail to impress.  Please present your studies.  I'll be impressed by anything from the last 8 years.  I'll be ecstatic if you can show me something studying pre- and post-covid changes in such things.  I'm not aware that any have been published yet.  Maybe because everyone's still afraid to use the word "woman" as if it was something that has any sort of agreed-upon definition.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I was born into a country where women had to come up with a dang convincing reason why they needed their own checking account.  I personally witnessed people trying to teach me about the dangers of educating women too much, because it diverted blood flow from the reproductive areas.  I remember witnessing the grand debate in the country about whether it was even possible for a husband to rape his wife.  When I started watching the debate, the majority opinion was that it was not a real thing.   

I've been a personal witness to radical progressive change in cultural understanding and practice regarding women's issues across 5 decades.  Please understand that your quote referencing a 16 yr old study, and your link to a quarter-century old APA journal article fail to impress.  Please present your studies.  I'll be impressed by anything from the last 8 years.  I'll be ecstatic if you can show me something studying pre- and post-covid changes in such things.  I'm not aware that any have been published yet.  Maybe because everyone's still afraid to use the word "woman" as if it was something that has any sort of agreed-upon definition.

 

If you are aware of these attitudes that have been out there, may I ask what exactly are you challenging that you want studies for?  I am lazy enough I don’t want to do unnecessary work.   

Edited March 19, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I was born into a country where women had to come up with a dang convincing reason why they needed their own checking account.  I personally witnessed people trying to teach me about the dangers of educating women too much, because it diverted blood flow from the reproductive areas.  I remember witnessing the grand debate in the country about whether it was even possible for a husband to rape his wife.  When I started watching the debate, the majority opinion was that it was not a real thing.   

I've been a personal witness to radical progressive change in cultural understanding and practice regarding women's issues across 5 decades.  Please understand that your quote referencing a 16 yr old study, and your link to a quarter-century old APA journal article fail to impress.  Please present your studies.  I'll be impressed by anything from the last 8 years.  I'll be ecstatic if you can show me something studying pre- and post-covid changes in such things.  I'm not aware that any have been published yet.  Maybe because everyone's still afraid to use the word "woman" as if it was something that has any sort of agreed-upon definition.

 

I was born into a country where women had only had the legal right to open a checking account for two years.  It's embarrassing that that country was the United States and that I was born in 1976.

Being a woman does allow a person to personally experience and witness women's issues, and all of the changes that have taken place within that topic, on an interesting and appalling level.  Not everything has changed for the better but I'm so glad that so much has.  

[gopher]

Are members becoming more wary of these types of protests/boycotts?  We've seen a number of them end badly in the recent years.  It starts with someone claiming to be a believing member who just wants to make the church better, but they soon turn antagonistic towards the church and its members and either leave or their membership is withdrawn.  They often manage to take others out of the church with them.  I've never heard of this person before so I hope she doesn't follow that path.  I'm not sure taking your case to the Tribune is the best course of action, but you know you'll get lots of snark in the comments from critics of the church.

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

If you are aware of these attitudes that have been out there, may I ask what exactly are you challenging that you want studies for?

You mentioned ‘double-bind’ or ‘assertiveness penalty’ facing women aspiring to leadership.  From what I can tell, here in my little bubble in a global high tech corporation heavily investing in DEI practices and issues, the issue has been nonexistent for years.  Your 16 and 24 year old studies on the topic seem about as relevant as a post-civil-war study on how many slaves were currently owned in the US post-civil war.  That might be overstating it a bit, but not much.  I've personally urged female co-workers to consider the management track opportunities, and I'm an excellent representative of my company's culture.  I'm a graduate of female-led male allyship training.  Every year my company publishes metrics on female hiring goals compared to actual results.   

Generalizing my perspective across the American landscape, the largest, almost the only, reason we don't have more women in leadership roles in 2024 America, is despite all our educational efforts like STEM, there's still only 1 woman graduating in a relevant field for every 5 men graduating in a similar field.  More women graduate, but they ain't getting degrees in/jobs in fields/careers that point to management.  And when they do, they continue to shoot for management more rarely than men, citing reasons like work/life balance, or interests not aligning.

Here's a fairly recent article with lots of fairly recent data on all that: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01588-z

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was born into a country where women had only had the legal right to open a checking account for two years.  It's embarrassing that that country was the United States and that I was born in 1976.

???

Huh??

I was an adult in 1976 and I don't recall anything like that...

My wife had her own accounts for years.

What am I missing ?

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You mentioned ‘double-bind’ or ‘assertiveness penalty’ facing women aspiring to leadership.  From what I can tell, here in my little bubble in a global high tech corporation heavily investing in DEI practices and issues, the issue has been nonexistent for years.  Your 16 and 24 year old studies on the topic seem about as relevant as a post-civil-war study on how many slaves were currently owned in the US post-civil war.  That might be overstating it a bit, but not much.  I've personally urged female co-workers to consider the management track opportunities, and I'm an excellent representative of my company's culture.  I'm a graduate of female-led male allyship training.  Every year my company publishes metrics on female hiring goals compared to actual results.   

Generalizing my perspective across the American landscape, the largest, almost the only, reason we don't have more women in leadership roles in 2024 America, is despite all our educational efforts like STEM, there's still only 1 woman graduating in a relevant field for every 5 men graduating in a similar field.  More women graduate, but they ain't getting degrees in/jobs in fields/careers that point to management.  And when they do, they continue to shoot for management more rarely than men, citing reasons like work/life balance, or interests not aligning.

Here's a fairly recent article with lots of fairly recent data on all that: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01588-z

My husband's experience in the tech world for 30 years differs from yours.  He is constantly working to help make it better in the companies he has been in, but has often felt a lot of resistance from upper management. Just a couple of years ago there were women from his company who left not only the company he was with, but the company he was with before and were joined by other women from other companies who started a company with all women because of the problems. 

I'm glad your company is having better success with this, but it is certainly not an overall American thing yet.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was born into a country where women had only had the legal right to open a checking account for two years.  It's embarrassing that that country was the United States and that I was born in 1976.

"When were women allowed to have bank accounts in California?

 

1862

In 1862, California became the first state to allow women to open a bank account under their own name, regardless of whether or not they were married.Mar 25, 2021"

Ok, I guess it was regional, state by state.

Shocking!

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

???

Huh??

I was an adult in 1976 and I don't recall anything like that...

My wife had her own accounts for years.

What am I missing ?

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/#:~:text=It wasn't until 1974,a signature from their husbands.

"It wasn’t until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, that women in the U.S. were granted the right to open a bank account on their own.

Technically, women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused to let women do so without a signature from their husbands. This meant men still held control over women’s access to banking services, and unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibited financial institutions from discriminating against applicants based on their sex, age, marital status, religion, race or national origin. Because of the act’s passage, women could finally open bank accounts independently.

In 1974, the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act allowed women to open bank accounts, apply for credit and commit to a mortgage without needing a male co-signer."

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

My husband's experience in the tech world for 30 years differs from yours.

Sorry, his recent experience over the last few years?  Or his experience over 30 years?

I want to make sure I'm being understood.  Across my 5 decades, I've witnessed all sorts of massive change on women's issues.  Over the last 4 years, (basically, since COVID), I've witnessed another round of massive change.  

So yeah, hubby's and my experiences probably are similar 1, 2 decades ago.  What about the last 4-5 years?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sorry, his recent experience over the last few years?  Or his experience over 30 years?

I want to make sure I'm being understood.  Across my 5 decades, I've witnessed all sorts of massive change on women's issues.  Over the last 4 years, (basically, since COVID), I've witnessed another round of massive change.  

So yeah, hubby's and my experiences probably are similar 1, 2 decades ago.  What about the last 4-5 years?

 

33 minutes ago, Rain said:

Just a couple of years ago there were women from his company who left not only the company he was with, but the company he was with before and were joined by other women from other companies who started a company with all women because of the problems. 

 

[Rain]

37 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sorry, his recent experience over the last few years?  Or his experience over 30 years?

I want to make sure I'm being understood.  Across my 5 decades, I've witnessed all sorts of massive change on women's issues.  Over the last 4 years, (basically, since COVID), I've witnessed another round of massive change.  

So yeah, hubby's and my experiences probably are similar 1, 2 decades ago.  What about the last 4-5 years?

It was in the last 3 years that the women I was talking about started their own business because of the problems.  And currently he still sees similar problems. He also works closely with many customers (tech and medical) where he sees the problem there as well.

Edited March 20, 2024 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/#:~:text=It wasn't until 1974,a signature from their husbands.

"It wasn’t until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, that women in the U.S. were granted the right to open a bank account on their own.

Technically, women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused to let women do so without a signature from their husbands. This meant men still held control over women’s access to banking services, and unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibited financial institutions from discriminating against applicants based on their sex, age, marital status, religion, race or national origin. Because of the act’s passage, women could finally open bank accounts independently.

In 1974, the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act allowed women to open bank accounts, apply for credit and commit to a mortgage without needing a male co-signer."

That's a misleading statement- not your fault unless you actually researched it.   Obviously shocking but not accurate.

It was a state by state thing.

It was legal in many states including CA and Utah in the 1800's.

That 1974 thing made it federally legal.   So your quoted wording is technically incorrect- not really your fault though.

This post is kind of a repeat but there is a good link that ought to be seen, below.

Quote

 In 1862, California became the first state to allow women to open a bank account under their own name, regardless of whether or not they were married. 

https://www.mcaad.org/explore/view/ladies-banking-spaces#:~:text=In 1862%2C California became the,or not they were married.

Edited March 20, 2024 by mfbukowski