Wear Pants to Church Day

[Harry Tic]

That's a pretty powerful argument for. I would agree with your last two sentences even without the background.

However, and not to undermine my own position, there are consequences to think through. Mixed gender presidencies and bishoprics, for example. Pregnant stake presidents. Things like that. Are the members or the church willing to accept that much of a shift? Many would I'm sure. But many would struggle. My wife thinks that the men in the church would do fine but some women would struggle. I disagree - I think some men will have a hard time too.

And what does that do to "presiding in the home" rhetoric? And temple ceremony procedures? All of these things can and have changed, but they are not small things.

I think the announcement allowing sisters to go at a younger age - for all the inequality in the missionary expectations that remains - is the start of something big. When missions are close to 50% female, how long are the sisters going to tolerate being led exclusively by the elders?

I think that there are a lot of little things that could be done. Why, for example, must Sunday School Presidencies, per CHOI, be composed exclusively of priesthood holders? I suppose one could make a case that gospel instruction must be overseen by "the Priesthood," but of course this could be said of any auxiliary. No priesthood ordinances are administered in the organization and it is ultimately supervised by a (male) counselor in the bishopric. I can't see any reason why women couldn't be given callings such as this, without any changes in doctrine and only a minor change in policy. This seems like a no-brainer to me.

[byu71]

I think the announcement allowing sisters to go at a younger age - for all the inequality in the missionary expectations that remains - is the start of something big. When missions are close to 50% female, how long are the sisters going to tolerate being led exclusively by the elders?

Led? Heck, I was on my mission during a period where the brethern basically espoused the doctrine of inequality when it comes to leadership.

I remember my first Zone Leaders, back then there were two and they traveled all over which was different at the end of my mission. Anyway, I remember one of them saying how the Sisters were a pain in the fanny. They didn't think they had to do what he told them. They were always telling him where he was full of crap.

I remembered that when I became a ZL and was mindful never to "tell" the sisters what to do. I always started with what I was thinking, but wanted to know what they thought. It was a good method. I think I only got shot down 50% of the time.

[Indy Coug]

I think that there are a lot of little things that could be done. Why, for example, must Sunday School Presidencies, per CHOI, be composed exclusively of priesthood holders? I suppose one could make a case that gospel instruction must be overseen by "the Priesthood," but of course this could be said of any auxiliary. No priesthood ordinances are administered in the organization and it is ultimately supervised by a (male) counselor in the bishopric. I can't see any reason why women couldn't be given callings such as this, without any changes in doctrine and only a minor change in policy. This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Everyone knows SS President is a crap job. If women were allowed to hold it, it would be viewed as a patronizing "concession", later if not sooner.

[RC Vikings]

I remembered that when I became a ZL

Shouldn't this be in that boastful thread.

[Surfah]

Everyone knows SS President is a crap job. If women were allowed to hold it, it would be viewed as a patronizing "concession", later if not sooner.

I agree with this. SS 2nd counselor was the best calling I have ever had.

[Indy Coug]

I agree with this. SS 2nd counselor was the best calling I have ever had.

I had it for 3 months and moved 2,000 miles to be rid of it.

[Pheidippides]

Everyone knows SS President is a crap job. If women were allowed to hold it, it would be viewed as a patronizing "concession", later if not sooner.

I agree - I think if that were the only thing it would be worse than nothing.

[Harry Tic]

I agree with this. SS 2nd counselor was the best calling I have ever had.

2nd counselor? I totally agree. But having just been called to be SS pres, I can say that, this year at least, it's more time-intensive than I would have imagined (Cf: new youth curriculum). But even if a lazy SS pres is basically a bell ringer, I still think that there is real symbolic significance in giving sisters leadership responsibilities over gospel instruction. And even symbolic steps are important.

[byu71]

Shouldn't this be in that boastful thread.

Perhaps, but I haven't mentioned it for quite a while. I used to do so daily in the early years of CB.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

That's a pretty powerful argument for. I would agree with your last two sentences even without the background.

However, and not to undermine my own position, there are consequences to think through. Mixed gender presidencies and bishoprics, for example. Pregnant stake presidents. Things like that. Are the members or the church willing to accept that much of a shift? Many would I'm sure. But many would struggle. My wife thinks that the men in the church would do fine but some women would struggle. I disagree - I think some men will have a hard time too.

And what does that do to "presiding in the home" rhetoric? And temple ceremony procedures? All of these things can and have changed, but they are not small things.

I think the announcement allowing sisters to go at a younger age - for all the inequality in the missionary expectations that remains - is the start of something big. When missions are close to 50% female, how long are the sisters going to tolerate being led exclusively by the elders?

Just reading the commentary on cougarboard this morning leaves me to think that many men would have a serious challenge of their testimonies when being presided over by a woman.

Sort of reminds me of a cartoon that I saw of two sister missionaries (older, more mature, better put together) standing next to two elders (young, sloppy, and undignified) with one of the elders saying, "Sisters, respect my priesthood authority." (Which of course can't be read without using a South Park voice.)

[Pheidippides]

Just reading the commentary on cougarboard this morning leaves me to think that many men would have a serious challenge of their testimonies when being presided over by a woman.

Sort of reminds me of a cartoon that I saw of two sister missionaries (older, more mature, better put together) standing next to two elders (young, sloppy, and undignified) with one of the elders saying, "Sisters, respect my priesthood authority." (Which of course can't be read without using a South Park voice.)

I haven't read CB but it doesn't surprise me. There are decent folks over there but they are largely silent.

[byu71]

Just reading the commentary on cougarboard this morning leaves me to think that many men would have a serious challenge of their testimonies when being presided over by a woman.

Sort of reminds me of a cartoon that I saw of two sister missionaries (older, more mature, better put together) standing next to two elders (young, sloppy, and undignified) with one of the elders saying, "Sisters, respect my priesthood authority." (Which of course can't be read without using a South Park voice.)

The membership of the church, at least those I know from my ward, golfing buddies, work, and relatives is "SO" not like a number of posters on CB.

I have two brothers who would back whatever the brethern said about who gets the Priesthood without hesitation and so would their wives.

That being said, both wives function in the families in every way shape or from as equals. Some women may feel slighted on Sunday, but I doubt many see it carried into their homes. How many men on here use the Priesthood thing to claim authority over your wives. I thought so.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I remembered that when I became a ZL and was mindful never to "tell" the sisters what to do. I always started with what I was thinking, but wanted to know what they thought. It was a good method. I think I only got shot down 50% of the time.

My first companion in the mission field (who I was with for a whopping 3 1/2 weeks) looked at me one day and said with a straight face, "Elder, can I give you some advice for when you're a district leader like me? If you want your sisters to work hard for you, treat them like your girlfriend."



This was the same guy that asked me if I thought my prayers offended God. Great guy.

[byu71]

My first companion in the mission field (who I was with for a whopping 3 1/2 weeks) looked at me one day and said with a straight face, "Elder, can I give you some advice for when you're a district leader like me? If you want your sisters to work hard for you, treat them like your girlfriend."



This was the same guy that asked me if I thought my prayers offended God. Great guy.

My first DL was a beauty and I had thoughts of if I didn't like the mission field after a month, I would head off, join the Army and go to Viet Nam. I figured if I was over there my parents couldn't be too pissed at me.

First DL would have had me doing that if my senior companion hadn't been so awesome. The DL told me I had to give him all the pictures of my GF and he would let me look at them on diversion day. Then all he would talk about on diversion day was playing with women's boobs and how great it would be.

6 day fundamentalist, 1 day titty grabber, mentally. I really didn't like the guy.

[SteelBlue]

When missions are close to 50% female, how long are the sisters going to tolerate being led exclusively by the elders?

We had a sister in my mission who had just finished her undergrad at Cornell and was smarter than and more capable than any elder in the mission. As a young DL, I was tasked with calling and getting her numbers each week and though she was very kind, she intimidated the hell out of me because I just knew I had no business being any kind of leader over her. She confided in me, at the end of her service, her main frustration with mission life. It wasn't only being led by younger, less capable men, just because they were men. It was that she felt she had many leadership and teaching skills that had not been used.

At the time, I completely understood but didn't think much about it. Looking back as an adult, we in many ways wasted an amazing missionary. I can't recall a single meeting where she was asked to teach us how to tract, how to teach, or how to perform any of the missionary skills she was so good at. She could have been an AP for most of her mission and she'd have been the best we ever had. It's a shame. She was very humble throughout it all.