Ideas on possible ways the church could include women more without the need for ordination

[bluebell]

We've been talking about this in a roundabout way in the "boycott" thread but I thought it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to ideas and feelings on ways the church could include women in organizational and leadership fronts.

I'll start.  This is not my idea; I got it from an instagram reel (it doesn't share the source) but I thought it was an intriguing idea and it also seems very doable.  Essentially, the reel talked about how they just got a new stake presidency in their stake (they made sure to say that all the men who were called are good men) but brought up the point that no women are ever consulted when the visiting authorities come to a stake and discuss with leaders about possible men to be called to the position. 

First, does anyone know if other leaders in the stake are talked to or asked about names?  I have no idea how a man is called into that position or how the visiting authorities get names to figure out who to call in for an interview when figuring out who the next stake president should be.

Second, if they do talk to male leaders in that stake about possible new stake president options, why couldn't women leaders in the stake be included in that process as well?  

[ZealouslyStriving]

I wouldn't be opposed to Matriarchal input.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We've been talking about this in a roundabout way in the "boycott" thread but I thought it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to ideas and feelings on ways the church could include women in organizational and leadership fronts.

I'll start.  This is not my idea; I got it from an instagram reel (it doesn't share the source) but I thought it was an intriguing idea and it also seems very doable.  Essentially, the reel talked about how they just got a new stake presidency in their stake (they made sure to say that all the men who were called are good men) but brought up the point that no women are ever consulted when the visiting authorities come to a stake and discuss with leaders about possible men to be called to the position. 

First, does anyone know if other leaders in the stake are talked to or asked about names?  I have no idea how a man is called into that position or how the visiting authorities get names to figure out who to call in for an interview when figuring out who the next stake president should be.

Second, if they do talk to male leaders in that stake about possible new stake president options, why couldn't women leaders in the stake be included in that process as well?  

While the calling is extended, the wives are asked. But time is short, the whole weekend is a fast blur and all will testify that revelation rules the day.

[Smiley McGee]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We've been talking about this in a roundabout way in the "boycott" thread but I thought it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to ideas and feelings on ways the church could include women in organizational and leadership fronts.

I'll start.  This is not my idea; I got it from an instagram reel (it doesn't share the source) but I thought it was an intriguing idea and it also seems very doable.  Essentially, the reel talked about how they just got a new stake presidency in their stake (they made sure to say that all the men who were called are good men) but brought up the point that no women are ever consulted when the visiting authorities come to a stake and discuss with leaders about possible men to be called to the position. 

First, does anyone know if other leaders in the stake are talked to or asked about names?  I have no idea how a man is called into that position or how the visiting authorities get names to figure out who to call in for an interview when figuring out who the next stake president should be.

Second, if they do talk to male leaders in that stake about possible new stake president options, why couldn't women leaders in the stake be included in that process as well?  

Could modify high councils, adding a certain number of women to it. Have high councilor be a stand alone calling for women and give existing women stake leaders a seat on the council. Note that having women simply attend high council meetings is not the same as being on the High Council. Give them the calling.
 

Could go even further and allow women to be councilors in Stake presidencies and Bishoprics. I don’t know that doctrinally it’s all that much of a stretch. 

Edited March 18, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

While the calling is extended, the wives are asked. But time is short, the whole weekend is a fast blur and all will testify that revelation rules the day.

I’m asking more about the process that occurs while they are deciding who they are going to call. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Could modify high councils, adding a certain number of women to it. Have high councilor be a stand alone calling for women and give existing women stake leaders a seat on the council. Note that having women simply attend high council meetings is not the same as being on the High Council. Give them the calling.
 

Could go even further and allow women to be councilors in Stake presidencies and Bishoprics. I don’t know that doctrinally it’s all that much of a stretch. 

Doctrinally I don’t know that counselors need to be ordained but I don’t think the church will ever call mixed-gender presidencies.  Too many RS presidents and Bishops have had affairs even in the very limited contact they have with each other. Increasing the amount and intimacy/intensity of that kind of contact will probably always be a no-go for the church.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We've been talking about this in a roundabout way in the "boycott" thread but I thought it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to ideas and feelings on ways the church could include women in organizational and leadership fronts.

I'll start.  This is not my idea; I got it from an instagram reel (it doesn't share the source) but I thought it was an intriguing idea and it also seems very doable.  Essentially, the reel talked about how they just got a new stake presidency in their stake (they made sure to say that all the men who were called are good men) but brought up the point that no women are ever consulted when the visiting authorities come to a stake and discuss with leaders about possible men to be called to the position. 

First, does anyone know if other leaders in the stake are talked to or asked about names?  I have no idea how a man is called into that position or how the visiting authorities get names to figure out who to call in for an interview when figuring out who the next stake president should be.

Second, if they do talk to male leaders in that stake about possible new stake president options, why couldn't women leaders in the stake be included in that process as well?  

Typically the existing presidency, Bishops and High Council members are interviewed and asked whom they would pick for the job and why.

IIRC Notes are made by the authorities and I seem to recall multiple check marks being placed after certain names.

All I saw was a list with check marks behind certain entries

I don't think it was a grocery list.

I am sure there is some heavy duty going on as well.

No idea why women leaders are not polled.

That might be one way to change the process 

Edited March 18, 2024 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Typically the existing presidency, Bishops and High Council members are interviewed and asked whom they would pick for the job and why.

IIRC Notes are made by the authorities and I seem to recall multiple check marks being placed after certain names.

All I saw was a list with check marks behind certain entries

I don't think it was a grocery list.

I am sure there is some heavy duty going on as well.

No idea why women leaders are not polled.

That might be one way to change the process 

Thanks for the info!

[nuclearfuels]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We've been talking about this in a roundabout way in the "boycott" thread but I thought it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to ideas and feelings on ways the church could include women in organizational and leadership fronts.

I'll start.  This is not my idea; I got it from an instagram reel (it doesn't share the source) but I thought it was an intriguing idea and it also seems very doable.  Essentially, the reel talked about how they just got a new stake presidency in their stake (they made sure to say that all the men who were called are good men) but brought up the point that no women are ever consulted when the visiting authorities come to a stake and discuss with leaders about possible men to be called to the position. 

First, does anyone know if other leaders in the stake are talked to or asked about names?  I have no idea how a man is called into that position or how the visiting authorities get names to figure out who to call in for an interview when figuring out who the next stake president should be.

Second, if they do talk to male leaders in that stake about possible new stake president options, why couldn't women leaders in the stake be included in that process as well?  

Ideas on possible ways the church could include women more without the need for ordination

Permit polygamous families - in countries where that's legal - to join the Church. This would help the Curch include more women w/o ordination.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Note that having women simply attend high council meetings is not the same as being on the High Council.

As I recall, I believe monthly, there is a meeting including ALL the leaders of every organization with the HC and stake presidency, in a stake council meeting.  Every organization leader reports, and is available for questions etc.

But it's been a while

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Ideas on possible ways the church could include women more without the need for ordination

Permit polygamous families - in countries where that's legal - to join the Church. This would help the Curch include more women w/o ordination.

Howso? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Ideas on possible ways the church could include women more without the need for ordination

Permit polygamous families - in countries where that's legal - to join the Church. This would help the Curch include more women w/o ordination.

And how would that include more women in leadership roles?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Could modify high councils, adding a certain number of women to it. Have high councilor be a stand alone calling for women and give existing women stake leaders a seat on the council. Note that having women simply attend high council meetings is not the same as being on the High Council. Give them the calling.
 

Could go even further and allow women to be councilors in Stake presidencies and Bishoprics. I don’t know that doctrinally it’s all that much of a stretch. 

The link I posted with a podcast with two feminist LDS women talk about this very thing, and how sometimes men are wanting that for women. And that there really isn't anything doctrinal against it is there? But did think maybe the men and women being alone together might put a monkey wrench in the idea. 

Another thing they bring up is that there isn't anything in church that a male leader can't overrule with women. Like males with the PH have full authority and the women have zero. Not sure if I worded that right. Hopefully it's understandable. So whatever a female wants to do in the church/ward, she can be overruled by a male leader in charge, I guess.

So maybe give women some authority that cannot be overruled? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Doctrinally I don’t know that counselors need to be ordained but I don’t think the church will ever call mixed-gender presidencies.  Too many RS presidents and Bishops have had affairs even in the very limited contact they have with each other. Increasing the amount and intimacy/intensity of that kind of contact will probably always be a no-go for the church.

In my comment I said this about men/women in a bishopric, hadn't read yours yet. We were thinking along the same lines. Back to square one.  Thanks so much for starting this topic.

Wanted to share this partial c/p of an interview with Chieko N. Okazaki and Greg Prince. I bolded the one part of the article that could be said in this day and age. To me, there hasn't been enough change. Wish more women in the church were outspoken like Chieko! From the link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

Partial interview below:

Chieko Okazaki: When girls ask me some questions about some pretty tough topics, sometimes I say, “You know, that’s an interesting question! Tell me more about it.” And they do. I say, “Oh, so you find yourself in that dilemma? How would you change that? What would you like to see happening?” As you ask them, they become a lot more honest, and they just say it. If I said, “You shouldn’t be thinking like that,” that would be the end of the conversation.

Greg Prince: They know when you speak to them honestly and want them to answer honestly. They can spot it immediately.

Chieko Okazaki: But how do you get these women to learn how to do that? That’s the question.

Greg Prince: You’re supposed to give me the answer!

Chieko Okazaki: I know, but I’m not called into those kinds of positions. I was the education counselor, so I worked with one of the men on the curriculum committee. We wanted to change the manual so that it brought up modern-day problems that women have to face and focus on how to implement some of the gospel doctrines and principles in dealing with the problem. I had written a general outline, and the Relief Society presidency approved it. So I talked about it to a man on the Curriculum Committee. He went to his boss, and the boss said, “We don’t need a new manual for the Relief Society.” “Why don’t we need a new manual?” “We already are writing a manual for them.” So he came back and told me that a new manual was already being prepared. I asked what it was, and he said, “Well, it’s the manual on Harold B. Lee.” It was the first one in that series of teachings of the Church presidents. I asked, “Why are they writing a manual for us on Harold B. Lee?” He didn’t know. I told the presidency, so we went and asked the Curriculum Committee, “What is this all about?” They said, “Well, we’re already almost finished with the first book.” We said, “You’re almost finished with the first book, and you didn’t tell us that you were doing this? Why is this is the first time we have heard about it? Chieko has been writing an outline in relation to what women need.” So I asked, “Who is writing this manual?” It turned out to be five men, and the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society would have the same lessons. I asked, “Why aren’t the women included in this?” Then they sort of got the point and called three women to the committee. I had one of our board members assigned to be the liaison with these three women. They got to the point where they could go through the manual and write questions in relation to the manual. And for the second one, they were part of it. But that’s how it was. I just thought, “Where are we, anyway, in this entire thing?” It was such a shock! I said, “How did this come about?” “Well, President Hinckley thought that many of the people who live outside the United States don’t have the privilege of having any doctrinal books in their homes. He thinks we should have a manual where we have the prophets speak about their doctrines, so they would at least have a doctrinal book in their home.” That’s a good idea. “He decided maybe this would be a good thing to have for the priesthood and the Relief Society.” “Well, why wasn’t it discussed with us, too?” We asked one time if we could be on the building committee and the temple committee, because sometimes we think, “Why did they build it this way?”—because it doesn’t work very well for the women’s needs. And we wanted to be on the temple committee, because there are many things that affect women in the temple. But we were never allowed to be a part of those committees. I think we could help a great deal, but you have to have leaders in the Church who are willing to make that possible.

Greg Prince: Do you see that as perhaps coming from beneath? That as you have new generations of women who are the wives of bishops and stake presidents, and who are ward and stake Relief Society and Young Women leaders, that they are going to grasp the reins a little bit stronger than their predecessors?

Chieko Okazaki: I have to say that, in my sixty-four years in the Church, I sometimes see a little bit of a change that the women themselves prompt, but most of the time, I haven’t seen women who would make that change possible. Wherever I go, I think that they already know their place. Maybe they’d be able to be more open if there were open-minded bishops or stake presidents who would listen to some of the feelings and the ideas of the women. But when women get the message that their job is to be supportive and just agree with the decisions of the bishop, they become clams.

Greg Prince: Should the Relief Society president sit in on bishopric meetings?

Chieko Okazaki: It would be a great idea. They are in the council meetings, but in many council meetings the person who is in charge is the only one who is talking. I’m on several community boards, and sometimes I’m the only woman there or one of two or three women. I’m on the YWCA advisory board; I’m on the advisory board for the University of Utah Graduate School of Social Work; and I’m on the Belle Spafford Chair board. If I got the message that I was supposed to just sit there and listen to the men, I’d quit that board. I’d say, “What am I here for?” I speak up a lot in all of these board meetings. In contrast, in 1995 when “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”

Greg Prince: You didn’t even know it was in the works?

Chieko Okazaki: No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it. Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there. It’s different from the time when Belle Spafford was president of the Relief Society. She was her own boss, as I read her life. And so was Florence Jacobsen. There’s a great deal of difference now.

Greg Prince: Don’t forget LaVern Parmley.

Chieko Okazaki: Yes. “The Big Three,” I call them. Boy, they were staunch and strong women!

Greg Prince: And it didn’t bother David O. McKay one bit.

Chieko Okazaki: No! It did not. Sister Spafford was on international and national women’s committees. Mormon women were out there! But gradually, things were taken away from Belle Spafford. I remember when the U.N. sponsored a women’s international meeting in Beijing. Elaine asked if we could attend, and we were denied. We couldn’t go.

Greg Prince: Do you see change coming?

Chieko Okazaki: There’s change in society. Women are now presidents of companies and presidents of countries—

Greg Prince: But it’s still in transition.

Chieko Okazaki: Oh, yes, it’s in transition. I guess it’s a cultural thing. You know, when we went on our mission, the members would see Ed and me working together, and I would conduct the programs and assignments that I had, and the brethren were taken aback when they saw that. But in the three years we were there, we saw a lot of change about how husbands and wives worked together. Many Japanese women told me how much they appreciated the example that Ed and I were to them.

Greg Prince: And not because you were pushing an agenda, but because that’s what you were.

Chieko Okazaki: That’s exactly right. And, you know, we need to talk about this to the young women. Greg Prince: And let them know that it’s okay for them to speak in an honest voice.

Chieko Okazaki: It seems to me like Christ loved the women. I think he really included them in many areas where Jewish society excluded them. He didn’t mind breaking those rules.

Greg Prince: So where do we need to go to get women in the Church where He wants them to be?

Chieko Okazaki: I think women should continue really immersing themselves in the scriptures and praying so that they know what Christ really thinks. We say that we are not perfect yet, but we can become more perfect every time we go to church. Something I’d like to see is better integration between sacrament meeting and the classes. I’ve commented to several bishops that sacrament meetings are where we hear about the doctrines and principles, and see how Christ has tied it into our lives. It’s where everybody listens to the same thing. If speakers were assigned to talk about specific principles, then in the classes, then in the Sunday School, and maybe in the Relief Society and priesthood meetings, that’s where the application and the practicum should be. I’m a teacher. If we just teach doctrine, doctrine, doctrine, and never teach application, how will we learn? If I read the Sunday School lesson and the Relief Society lesson and then the teacher just goes through the manual again, why should I bother to read it? Why can’t we talk instead about how to apply it? I think we could have great discussions. Somebody will say, “I’ve used this principle as I worked with my son or daughter or husband by doing this.” “And what success did you have?” “Well, this is what happened.” And someone else will say, “Oh! I’m going to try that.” “What else can we do to become more perfect in that principle or that doctrine?” And so you say to the sisters or to the Sunday School class, “Try this principle for the whole week, and then come back and tell us in class for five minutes what happened, whether you have improved, and what you need to do to be more perfect.” So the next week, you discuss it again, and the other sisters suggest, “Well, have you tried this?” Now your question, in relation to women, I think that women feel that they need to know every law and every principle of the gospel, and have to live it, so that they can be more perfect. They’re hard on themselves because they’re not already perfect."

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Typically the existing presidency, Bishops and High Council members are interviewed and asked whom they would pick for the job and why.

Each person suggests three names. The people being interviewed also fill in a profile sheet (covers things like job, age, health, family situation etc) before hand which is given to the visiting authorities prior to the interviews starting. From what I can tell, these interviews also function as pre-screening interviews as there's a reasonable chance that one of the people being interviewed will be the one that gets called. 

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

. But time is short, the whole weekend is a fast blur

Yep. The interviews (above) happen during Saturday morning and afternoon, call is extended to potential new president Saturday evening, call extended to new counsellors later that evening. Sustained on Sunday morning. 

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As I recall, I believe monthly, there is a meeting including ALL the leaders of every organization with the HC and stake presidency, in a stake council meeting

Stake Council still exists. Stake Presidency + HC + RS Pres + YW Pres + Pri Pres + a few others.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

So maybe give women some authority that cannot be overruled? 

Aren’t all the men in the same situation though except maybe the prophet?  Even there, they operate as a unified quorum or not at all.

So I don’t think “can’t be overruled” is appropriate, though I agree with what you actually mean I think and that women have callings that don’t technically need approval by men for it to go through even if men have oversight over them.  A bishop may choose to give the women leaders of the ward the power to do stuff without him doublechecking, but the next bishop can change it to they have to run everything by him…at least anything that costs money or that he could track by looking at building schedules, emails that get sent out with announcements. 

Edited March 18, 2024 by Calm

[Smiley McGee]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Too many RS presidents and Bishops have had affairs even in the very limited contact they have with each other.

Wait what? is this something you’ve observed or is there data on this?

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Wait what? is this something you’ve observed or is there data on this?

It's just something that I've observed and heard reported by others.  I'm not saying it's endemic or anything but it happens enough that I've personally heard of or personally know of multiple accounts, not counting the ones that people share online.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In my comment I said this about men/women in a bishopric, hadn't read yours yet. We were thinking along the same lines. Back to square one.  Thanks so much for starting this topic.

Wanted to share this partial c/p of an interview with Chieko N. Okazaki and Greg Prince. I bolded the one part of the article that could be said in this day and age. To me, there hasn't been enough change. Wish more women in the church were outspoken like Chieko! From the link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf

Partial interview below:

Chieko Okazaki: When girls ask me some questions about some pretty tough topics, sometimes I say, “You know, that’s an interesting question! Tell me more about it.” And they do. I say, “Oh, so you find yourself in that dilemma? How would you change that? What would you like to see happening?” As you ask them, they become a lot more honest, and they just say it. If I said, “You shouldn’t be thinking like that,” that would be the end of the conversation.

Greg Prince: They know when you speak to them honestly and want them to answer honestly. They can spot it immediately.

Chieko Okazaki: But how do you get these women to learn how to do that? That’s the question.

Greg Prince: You’re supposed to give me the answer!

Chieko Okazaki: I know, but I’m not called into those kinds of positions. I was the education counselor, so I worked with one of the men on the curriculum committee. We wanted to change the manual so that it brought up modern-day problems that women have to face and focus on how to implement some of the gospel doctrines and principles in dealing with the problem. I had written a general outline, and the Relief Society presidency approved it. So I talked about it to a man on the Curriculum Committee. He went to his boss, and the boss said, “We don’t need a new manual for the Relief Society.” “Why don’t we need a new manual?” “We already are writing a manual for them.” So he came back and told me that a new manual was already being prepared. I asked what it was, and he said, “Well, it’s the manual on Harold B. Lee.” It was the first one in that series of teachings of the Church presidents. I asked, “Why are they writing a manual for us on Harold B. Lee?” He didn’t know. I told the presidency, so we went and asked the Curriculum Committee, “What is this all about?” They said, “Well, we’re already almost finished with the first book.” We said, “You’re almost finished with the first book, and you didn’t tell us that you were doing this? Why is this is the first time we have heard about it? Chieko has been writing an outline in relation to what women need.” So I asked, “Who is writing this manual?” It turned out to be five men, and the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society would have the same lessons. I asked, “Why aren’t the women included in this?” Then they sort of got the point and called three women to the committee. I had one of our board members assigned to be the liaison with these three women. They got to the point where they could go through the manual and write questions in relation to the manual. And for the second one, they were part of it. But that’s how it was. I just thought, “Where are we, anyway, in this entire thing?” It was such a shock! I said, “How did this come about?” “Well, President Hinckley thought that many of the people who live outside the United States don’t have the privilege of having any doctrinal books in their homes. He thinks we should have a manual where we have the prophets speak about their doctrines, so they would at least have a doctrinal book in their home.” That’s a good idea. “He decided maybe this would be a good thing to have for the priesthood and the Relief Society.” “Well, why wasn’t it discussed with us, too?” We asked one time if we could be on the building committee and the temple committee, because sometimes we think, “Why did they build it this way?”—because it doesn’t work very well for the women’s needs. And we wanted to be on the temple committee, because there are many things that affect women in the temple. But we were never allowed to be a part of those committees. I think we could help a great deal, but you have to have leaders in the Church who are willing to make that possible.

Greg Prince: Do you see that as perhaps coming from beneath? That as you have new generations of women who are the wives of bishops and stake presidents, and who are ward and stake Relief Society and Young Women leaders, that they are going to grasp the reins a little bit stronger than their predecessors?

Chieko Okazaki: I have to say that, in my sixty-four years in the Church, I sometimes see a little bit of a change that the women themselves prompt, but most of the time, I haven’t seen women who would make that change possible. Wherever I go, I think that they already know their place. Maybe they’d be able to be more open if there were open-minded bishops or stake presidents who would listen to some of the feelings and the ideas of the women. But when women get the message that their job is to be supportive and just agree with the decisions of the bishop, they become clams.

Greg Prince: Should the Relief Society president sit in on bishopric meetings?

Chieko Okazaki: It would be a great idea. They are in the council meetings, but in many council meetings the person who is in charge is the only one who is talking. I’m on several community boards, and sometimes I’m the only woman there or one of two or three women. I’m on the YWCA advisory board; I’m on the advisory board for the University of Utah Graduate School of Social Work; and I’m on the Belle Spafford Chair board. If I got the message that I was supposed to just sit there and listen to the men, I’d quit that board. I’d say, “What am I here for?” I speak up a lot in all of these board meetings. In contrast, in 1995 when “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”

Greg Prince: You didn’t even know it was in the works?

Chieko Okazaki: No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it. Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there. It’s different from the time when Belle Spafford was president of the Relief Society. She was her own boss, as I read her life. And so was Florence Jacobsen. There’s a great deal of difference now.

Greg Prince: Don’t forget LaVern Parmley.

Chieko Okazaki: Yes. “The Big Three,” I call them. Boy, they were staunch and strong women!

Greg Prince: And it didn’t bother David O. McKay one bit.

Chieko Okazaki: No! It did not. Sister Spafford was on international and national women’s committees. Mormon women were out there! But gradually, things were taken away from Belle Spafford. I remember when the U.N. sponsored a women’s international meeting in Beijing. Elaine asked if we could attend, and we were denied. We couldn’t go.

Greg Prince: Do you see change coming?

Chieko Okazaki: There’s change in society. Women are now presidents of companies and presidents of countries—

Greg Prince: But it’s still in transition.

Chieko Okazaki: Oh, yes, it’s in transition. I guess it’s a cultural thing. You know, when we went on our mission, the members would see Ed and me working together, and I would conduct the programs and assignments that I had, and the brethren were taken aback when they saw that. But in the three years we were there, we saw a lot of change about how husbands and wives worked together. Many Japanese women told me how much they appreciated the example that Ed and I were to them.

Greg Prince: And not because you were pushing an agenda, but because that’s what you were.

Chieko Okazaki: That’s exactly right. And, you know, we need to talk about this to the young women. Greg Prince: And let them know that it’s okay for them to speak in an honest voice.

Chieko Okazaki: It seems to me like Christ loved the women. I think he really included them in many areas where Jewish society excluded them. He didn’t mind breaking those rules.

Greg Prince: So where do we need to go to get women in the Church where He wants them to be?

Chieko Okazaki: I think women should continue really immersing themselves in the scriptures and praying so that they know what Christ really thinks. We say that we are not perfect yet, but we can become more perfect every time we go to church. Something I’d like to see is better integration between sacrament meeting and the classes. I’ve commented to several bishops that sacrament meetings are where we hear about the doctrines and principles, and see how Christ has tied it into our lives. It’s where everybody listens to the same thing. If speakers were assigned to talk about specific principles, then in the classes, then in the Sunday School, and maybe in the Relief Society and priesthood meetings, that’s where the application and the practicum should be. I’m a teacher. If we just teach doctrine, doctrine, doctrine, and never teach application, how will we learn? If I read the Sunday School lesson and the Relief Society lesson and then the teacher just goes through the manual again, why should I bother to read it? Why can’t we talk instead about how to apply it? I think we could have great discussions. Somebody will say, “I’ve used this principle as I worked with my son or daughter or husband by doing this.” “And what success did you have?” “Well, this is what happened.” And someone else will say, “Oh! I’m going to try that.” “What else can we do to become more perfect in that principle or that doctrine?” And so you say to the sisters or to the Sunday School class, “Try this principle for the whole week, and then come back and tell us in class for five minutes what happened, whether you have improved, and what you need to do to be more perfect.” So the next week, you discuss it again, and the other sisters suggest, “Well, have you tried this?” Now your question, in relation to women, I think that women feel that they need to know every law and every principle of the gospel, and have to live it, so that they can be more perfect. They’re hard on themselves because they’re not already perfect."

I've read that interview before and I think it's so good.  Her points are all extremely valid.  There is a need for women to be more involved in the running of this church and you don't have to start ordaining women to make it happen.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

I've been a fixture of the clerk's office for a lot of years now.  I've seen 6 bishops come and go, suspecting I'll see my 7th this year.  

Something I started doing a while ago, is making an offer to every bishop's wife I meet.  The friendly offer is genuine and simple: You've got a friend in the clerk's office.  I see the time constraints that get put on bishops, and I know it can add stress to a marriage, and it might not be all roses and joy for the wives and children.  So, whatever happens in the clerk's office, stays in the clerk's office.  Especially stuff between bishop and wife. And if I can ever be of use helping you manage your hubby, just let me know. 

Across all those bishops, I've given lots of reminders, even to the point of knocking on doors to bring the daily bishopping to an end so dude won't be late to his wife's thing.  Passed along lots of information, some of it kind of sensitive.  My favorite bishop's wife was a retired nurse, married to an absentminded professor.  They had an admirable and joyously humorous relationship, based on an awful lot of her keeping him out of the rain and remembering to eat, and him being eternally grateful.  She put me to great use, not only in getting him out the door on time, but also in carrying forward some argument they were having.  "Bishop, remember your thing at 6 tonight, and your wife says you'd better get there by 4 so you don't mess up like last time."  She considered me her unordained bishop's wife's counselor and strong man.  It's always cool to see relationships like that, built on love and goodnatured friction.  

Anyway, bishop's wives have it rough.  And the less grief and more help we can give 'em, the better.

Edited March 18, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Yep. The interviews (above) happen during Saturday morning and afternoon, call is extended to potential new president Saturday evening, call extended to new counsellors later that evening. Sustained on Sunday morning. 

Yep! Thanks, forgot those details!

And those called in for interviews are called by phone/(text) to show up at a certain time, as needed, because interviews can vary in length, and Saturday home time for leaders is precious, and you don't need them hanging around waiting.

Hanging around at home is definitely better.

So everyone gets that first call to be interviewed, according to time available for the interviewer.

Then the joke goes that if you get a SECOND call, Sat. PM, you are in deep trouble, because your calling is about to become, a... ,  "heavier". 

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by mfbukowski

[halconero]

Seriously consider the number of callings that actually necesitate priesthood office.

I am currently here in a bishopric in London, and a ton of our problems could be solved overnight if we could just call sisters as Sunday School presidents or Temple/Family History leaders. I can't really think of a good reason why either of these callings actually require someone to hold an office in the MP, especially if women can possess and direct priesthood power in their lives and callings.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, halconero said:

Seriously consider the number of callings that actually necesitate priesthood office.

I am currently here in a bishopric in London, and a ton of our problems could be solved overnight if we could just call sisters as Sunday School presidents or Temple/Family History leaders. I can't really think of a good reason why either of these callings actually require someone to hold an office in the MP, especially if women can possess and direct priesthood power in their lives and callings.

So true!

[Duncan]

30 minutes ago, halconero said:

Seriously consider the number of callings that actually necesitate priesthood office.

I am currently here in a bishopric in London, and a ton of our problems could be solved overnight if we could just call sisters as Sunday School presidents or Temple/Family History leaders. I can't really think of a good reason why either of these callings actually require someone to hold an office in the MP, especially if women can possess and direct priesthood power in their lives and callings.

Our Stake FH Temple Leader is a woman!!!!!!! Our Bishop exhibits mysogynistic tendancies, so it would be nice to get someone who thinks better of women than he does

[Amulek]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

We've been talking about this in a roundabout way in the "boycott" thread but I thought it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to ideas and feelings on ways the church could include women in organizational and leadership fronts.

I don't know that there is a doctrinal reason as to why the Ward Mission Leader couldn't be a woman. You would just need to change the default responsibility from the Elders Quorum to the Relief Society and then have it be either a member of the RS Presidency or someone who they recommend for the position fill the role (which would still approved / called by the Bishopric). They would oversee the ward missionaries which typically includes both men and women, so that would then be another calling that involves presiding over both sexes. Right now, the only other ward calling that really has something similar to that would be the Primary President who presides over the members of the Primary Board.

And I really like the idea of women being solicited with respect to leadership changes. I wonder how many fewer 'bad bishop' stories would exist if the RS, YW, and Primary Presidencies were all asked to provide feedback to the Stake President in advance of that decision being made.

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by Amulek