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

[Amulek]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

How so? I know in the meetings, the Ward mission leader presides. That’s my understanding anyway.  Does the elders quorum lead or preside in some other capacity?

The Ward Mission Leader is overseen by the EQ Presidency - typically one of the counselors - but I don't know why the RS Presidency couldn't be given that responsibility instead. Everything would pretty much function the exact same way it does today - only now you would have an additional female leader present on the Ward Council.

 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Okay; unfortunately for women this fear of sexual impropriety leads to less representation and opportunity, as people seem to prefer to maintain the status quo, which favors the gender of the incumbent, male leadership. 

Agreed. 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

My idea is for women who have suffered some sort of abuse or even some issue with the law of chastity and they have anxiety about speaking to a man (Bishop) about it that a woman be called to serve as a go between the victim and the bishop.   The middle woman takes the confession/report of abuse and then goes to the Bishop as a proxy for the woman.  We like proxy stuff in the church.  

If a woman was interested in that, I think that is an awesome idea.

I know it’s been broached in the past about having women speak with the relief society president instead of the bishop in terms of repentance for different things, and a lot of women have pushed back against that. Unfortunately, women don’t always trust each other with their vulnerabilities.

But I think it would be wonderful if that kind of proxy was an option. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

The Ward Mission Leader is overseen by the EQ Presidency - typically one of the counselors - but I don't know why the RS Presidency couldn't be given that responsibility instead. Everything would pretty much function the exact same way it does today - only now you would have an additional female leader present on the Ward Council.

 

I wonder why it's considered a priesthood responsibility? I would love to hear an explanation on that. Same for family history and temple leader.

Edited March 20, 2024 by bluebell

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If a woman was interested in that, I think that is an awesome idea.

I know it’s been broached in the past about having women speak with the relief society president instead of the bishop in terms of repentance for different things, and a lot of women have pushed back against that. Unfortunately, women don’t always trust each other with their vulnerabilities.

But I think it would be wonderful if that kind of proxy was an option. 

I would so show up for that role. 

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I would so show up for that role. 

I’m sure there are men who would be uncomfortable sharing with a female ward member their sexual proclivities.  But to this point, hetero men have never had to consider the possibility of confessing to the gender they feel most vulnerable with.  As women, we’ve never had any other option. 

Edited March 20, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Rain]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

My idea is for women who have suffered some sort of abuse or even some issue with the law of chastity and they have anxiety about speaking to a man (Bishop) about it that a woman be called to serve as a go between the victim and the bishop.   The middle woman takes the confession/report of abuse and then goes to the Bishop as a proxy for the woman.  We like proxy stuff in the church.  

I want to make things clear here. Suffering from abuse and chastity issues are very different things.

Generally speaking, someone who has been abused should not be going to a bishop.  They should be going to the police and therapists. Yes, sometimes a bishop can be that trusted initial person or someone will need to let a bishop know about their abuser, but otherwise the church needs to be better about letting people know that bishops shouldn't be the person they go to for everything.

Also if the church is letting women have a choice then they should let men have a choice too. This is something that the bishop and the woman need to be pretty communicative about.   There will be some who take advantage of having a choice - that instead of going in repentant they would go into take advantage of whoever they are confessing to.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I would so show up for that role. 

You would be wonderful in it.

[rpn]

20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

My idea is for women who have suffered some sort of abuse or even some issue with the law of chastity and they have anxiety about speaking to a man

Women (and men and children) already can bring with them someone in any interviews.

And victims of abuse or sexual abuse do not need to confess anything to a bishop.  They are victims and have not committed sin by having been sinned against: nothing to be sorry about.    But it is true that it is not uncommon for bishops to probe into what they shouldn't and to otherwise come across and trying to make sure the victim hasn't sinned (sometimes wrongly because they still believe that you aren't really raped if you remain alive after the event). 

 

[Mystery Meat]

On 3/18/2024 at 5:01 PM, bluebell said:

I wonder if there is any functional difference between the default responsibility being with the EQ ?  In our ward both the RS and the EQ presidencies have counselors who go to the missionary meetings on Sundays and to the once-a-month stake missionary meeting. 

I can't see what the EQ does in terms of that calling that the RS isn't also doing.

I have not posted in who knows how long and this is probably not the best first post back, but I have some thoughts on this.

I am currently serving as an Elders Quorum President (why they chose me is anyone's guess). But there actually is a reason why it can't be the RS. And I have felt it in my current ministry. It all comes down to priesthood keys. The keys for the work of salvation are Melchizedek Priesthood keys. The Stake President holds them for the Stake and the EQP holds them at the ward/quorum level. I report to our Stake Presidency (not the Bishop). This was made clear a couple of years ago when they made changes to the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums.

I genuinely feel those keys and the weight they carry. And forget the Stake President for a minute, I have felt the spirit whisper that the Lord will hold me accountable for the work in our ward (missionary, temple and family history, ministering). And I can't delegate that responsibility. As inadequate as I feel (and in actuality am) to hold keys at any level, I hold them. I can't deny it. And keys are associated with presiding, as uncomfortable as it makes me in my current capacity.

Our understanding of priesthood and keys does not contemplate women holding priesthood keys like the Stake President, Elders Quorum President or Bishop. I think that is what is at the root of some of the current consternation. I am not sure that can be changed doctrinally but I defer to those with keys to receive and enact that sort of change.

But there is always more we can do. For example, I am working to make sure that my counselors who are over Missionary Work and Temple and Family History Work, respectively, always ensure that they are counseling with the relief society counselors who have the same stewardship and I am counseling with the relief society president in these things as well with the goal being consensus and not I hold the keys therefore what I say goes. There are challenges to this, and I could do better I am sure. I will try starting today.

Just my two cents for whatever they are worth.

[Mystery Meat]

On 3/20/2024 at 7:15 AM, bluebell said:

I wonder why it's considered a priesthood responsibility? I would love to hear an explanation on that. Same for family history and temple leader.

See my response above. I did my best to explain it (at least somewhat doctrinally).

Edited March 21, 2024 by Mystery Meat

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I have not posted in who knows how long and this is probably not the best first post back, but I have some thoughts on this.

I am currently serving as an Elders Quorum President (why they chose me is anyone's guess). But there actually is a reason why it can't be the RS. And I have felt it in my current ministry. It all comes down to priesthood keys. The keys for the work of salvation are Melchizedek Priesthood keys. The Stake President holds them for the Stake and the EQP holds them at the ward/quorum level. I report to our Stake Presidency (not the Bishop). This was made clear a couple of years ago when they made changes to the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums.

I genuinely feel those keys and the weight they carry. And forget the Stake President for a minute, I have felt the spirit whisper that the Lord will hold me accountable for the work in our ward (missionary, temple and family history, ministering). And I can't delegate that responsibility. As inadequate as I feel (and in actuality am) to hold keys at any level, I hold them. I can't deny it. And keys are associated with presiding, as uncomfortable as it makes me in my current capacity.

Our understanding of priesthood and keys does not contemplate women holding priesthood keys like the Stake President, Elders Quorum President or Bishop. I think that is what is at the root of some of the current consternation. I am not sure that can be changed doctrinally but I defer to those with keys to receive and enact that sort of change.

But there is always more we can do. For example, I am working to make sure that my counselors who are over Missionary Work and Temple and Family History Work, respectively, always ensure that they are counseling with the relief society counselors who have the same stewardship and I am counseling with the relief society president in these things as well with the goal being consensus and not I hold the keys therefore what I say goes. There are challenges to this, and I could do better I am sure. I will try starting today.

Just my two cents for whatever they are worth.

Thank you!  And so good to see you posting again.   

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you!  And so good to see you posting again.   

Don't get use to it! 🥷

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Don't get use to it! 🥷

We've had a few of you show up lately, and we like it, or I do, haha!

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We've had a few of you show up lately, and we like it, or I do, haha!

I do too!  There are so many more that I wish would stop by again.  I miss rhinomelon and ck salmon and magyar and mola and so many others.

[T-Shirt]

Authorize the Relief Society Presidency to conduct the sustaining of officers in Relief Society meetings rather than the bishopric. In addition, authorize the Relief Society Presidency to issue the callings (subject to the bishop's approval) and to perform the setting apart for those sustained.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Authorize the Relief Society Presidency to conduct the sustaining of officers in Relief Society meetings rather than the bishopric. In addition, authorize the Relief Society Presidency to issue the callings (subject to the bishop's approval) and to perform the setting apart for those sustained.

Authorize all women (RS, Primary, YW) leaders to bless those they call to serve as well. 😊

Edited March 21, 2024 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Authorize all women (RS, Primary, YW) leaders to bless those they call to serve as well. 😊

Indeed. Maybe we can’t use the official “priesthood” as we traditionally understand it, but why could we not call on the powers of Heaven to attend to an emergency (which we are often enough doing)? Instead we gotta wait for a man to show up . 

Edited March 21, 2024 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Indeed. Maybe we can’t use the official “priesthood” as we traditionally understand it, but why could we not call on the powers of Heaven to attend to an emergency (which we are often enough doing)? Instead we gotta wait for a man to show up . 

I mean, I should clarify. I already know that I can do that. What I want is for.* the men in charge* to articulate that right and responsibility publicly, and to encourage it so as to underscore this nebulous power that we hold as women., As they are often telling us, we have, but not really telling us what to do with it. 
 

IMO. 

Edited March 21, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

mean, I should clarify. I already know that I can do that. What I want is for.* the men in charge* to articulate that right and responsibility publicly, and to encourage it so as to underscore this nebulous power that we hold as women., As they are often telling us, we have, but not really telling us what to do with it. 
 

And not to only employ that right in emergencies, but whenever inspired to act.

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

And not to only employ that right in emergencies, but whenever inspired to act.

For sure. I think I identified the emergency because it is under those circumstances that men are most likely to trust the need that women have. Sometimes our inspiration can be questioned IMO, but somebody gushing blood needs action. 

[rpn]

3 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Authorize the Relief Society Presidency to conduct the sustaining of officers in Relief Society meetings rather than the bishopric. In addition, authorize the Relief Society Presidency to issue the callings (subject to the bishop's approval) and to perform the setting apart for those sustained.

RSP already do that in multiple wards I have been in, but as I think of it, not uniformly.

[Okrahomer]

11 minutes ago, rpn said:

RSP already do that in multiple wards I have been in, but as I think of it, not uniformly.

Wait!  What?  In some wards the Relief Society Presidents have been performing the setting apart? 

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

1 hour ago, rpn said:

 

Wait!  What?  In some wards the Relief Society Presidents have been performing the setting apart?

No, the sustaining of the RSP and counselors, secretaries, teachers, in RS meeting.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

RSP already do that in multiple wards I have been in, but as I think of it, not uniformly.

They did it for a while but the policy changed last August and now they are supposed to be done in sacrament meeting again.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2023/8/31/23853813/general-handbook-updates-new-condensed-selections/