If a female tried to get into the priesthood session of GC...

[Jeff Lebowski]

OW movement launches new strategy:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...ssion.html.csp

So Ordain Women is striving instead to build grass-roots support within the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by creating small discussion groups to find more proponents among the vast majority of Mormons who say they are comfortable with the current gender roles and division of labor in the Utah-based faith.

Probably a better idea than trying to attend priesthood meeting. But Patriarchy Bingo? Seriously?

The first discussion topic is called "See the Symptoms" and includes an essay on patriarchy as well as a game of "Patriarchy Bingo." Its squares had statements such as these: "If you looked for spiritual guidance, it was usually from a man." "Most scripture stories were about men and their spiritual journeys." "The leaders whose names you memorized and whose words you read were men."

[Pheidippides]

OW movement launches new strategy:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...ssion.html.csp



Probably a better idea than trying to attend priesthood meeting. But Patriarchy Bingo? Seriously?

Somewhat related event from this AM. The stake exec sec emailed me last night and asked if the SP and the Area President could visit our family in a couple of weeks. When I told my wife about it she reflected that it was bad form for them not to ask her/copy her on the email since we reject the preside paradigm. I agree. The ex sec is a nice guy and I don't fault him, but he would have never looked at things like that. Which sort of indicates how ingrained the problem is.

I agree that Patriarchy Bingo isn't that appealing of an activity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Somewhat related event from this AM. The stake exec sec emailed me last night and asked if the SP and the Area President could visit our family in a couple of weeks. When I told my wife about it she reflected that it was bad form for them not to ask her/copy her on the email since we reject the preside paradigm. I agree. The ex sec is a nice guy and I don't fault him, but he would have never looked at things like that. Which sort of indicates how ingrained the problem is.

I agree that Patriarchy Bingo isn't that appealing of an activity.

Yeah, that whole "clear everything through the male head-of-household" thing needs to go.

So, did you agree to meet?

[The_Tick]

Somewhat related event from this AM. The stake exec sec emailed me last night and asked if the SP and the Area President could visit our family in a couple of weeks. When I told my wife about it she reflected that it was bad form for them not to ask her/copy her on the email since we reject the preside paradigm. I agree. The ex sec is a nice guy and I don't fault him, but he would have never looked at things like that. Which sort of indicates how ingrained the problem is.

I agree that Patriarchy Bingo isn't that appealing of an activity.

I don't really see it as poor form. My wife and I never get the same emails from anyone. Family, friends, church. They email one of us, and we discuss it with the other and respond.

I thought that was how 99.9% of everything worked.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't really see it as poor form. My wife and I never get the same emails from anyone. Family, friends, church. They email one of us, and we discuss it with the other and respond.

I thought that was how 99.9% of everything worked.

On a related topic, have you ever had someone ask your permission to give your wife a calling? I have. But nobody has ever asked my wife's permission to give me a calling.

Thankfully, I think that is becoming less common.

[beefytee]

I don't know that patriarchy has that much to do with it. I think part of it could be that males feel more comfortable interacting with males. If we had girls in leadership, it most likely be the other way around.

[Eddie]

Somewhat related event from this AM. The stake exec sec emailed me last night and asked if the SP and the Area President could visit our family in a couple of weeks. When I told my wife about it she reflected that it was bad form for them not to ask her/copy her on the email since we reject the preside paradigm. I agree. The ex sec is a nice guy and I don't fault him, but he would have never looked at things like that. Which sort of indicates how ingrained the problem is.

I agree that Patriarchy Bingo isn't that appealing of an activity.

Interesting.

When I'm emailing someone, I email the person I know best and/or the person who's email I have. When it comes to married couples, that means it is typically the man...because that's just who I have the most to do with. (Speaking in general terms here, not specifically emailing about church things.) I don't ever look for a second email - I figure most husbands and wives communicate with each other and will discuss it with each other before responding if my email is about plans that include both of them.

Frankly - if it is a church thing that I'm calling or emailing someone about (and really, just about anything except for work stuff - when I don't ever email spouses), if it is something that includes the couple and not one individual or another, I typically just call or email the man. This isn't to say that if I call and the wife answers I ask for the husband and won't talk to her. But if I'm calling a cell phone, I'm typically going to call the man's cell phone. I suppose I'm just a little old fashioned, but it doesn't seem right to be calling or emailing another man's wife when I can call/email him to communicate the information. And it seems redundant/unnecessary to email both of them. But that might be just me.

None of this has anything to do with patriarchy or presiding for me. But I suppose there could be people out there interpreting it that way. Oh well...

Also - I don't think I'd purposefully go to a party where they are playing Patriarchy Bingo.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

On a related topic, have you ever had someone ask your permission to give your wife a calling? I have. But nobody has ever asked my wife's permission to give me a calling.

Thankfully, I think that is becoming less common.

When I was called into the EQP, the high councilman asked my wife if they could extend the calling to me.

[Pheidippides]

Yeah, that whole "clear everything through the male head-of-household" thing needs to go.

So, did you agree to meet?

Haven't responded yet, but I am going to politely decline. We will be out of town that weekend, but more importantly I can't see anything good coming from that kind of conversation. For however caustic I may be online or on podcasts, I have tried to be very circumspect in my personal life and with friends. But in my own home with people pressing? I don't have doubts or concerns to resolve anymore as I'm way past that, my marriage is doing better than it ever has, my kids and I spend tons of time together, my wife feels huge burdens lifted, we have a sense of direction, and we are happier than we've been in as long as we can remember. I don't see the point in messing with a pretty good thing, and I'd never want to actively attack a friend's beliefs to them (again, podcasts and online stuff notwithstanding).

[byu71]

Interesting.

When I'm emailing someone, I email the person I know best and/or the person who's email I have.

Agree. I think a husband and wife have a right to be sensitive to this kind of thing, but also should take responsibility to go to the Bishop and tell him they would like it known that they are a modern couple and all communication should be to both of them. If the Bishop balks, you have a Bishop who is back in the dark ages.

Same thing happens in the business world. Most all of my e-mail to clients with joint accounts go to the male. That is how the clients prefer it. I have a couple of cases where the woman gets the e-mail because she basically handles the finances.

[Jeff Lebowski]

When I was called into the EQP, the high councilman asked my wife if they could extend the calling to me.

Interesting.

Reminds me of something. I was talking to my brother last week and he said there is a couple in his neighborhood that everyone had been gently fellowshipping and trying to activate over the years. Just as they started attending church, one of the bishopric members came asked the husband's permission to extend a calling to the wife. He responded, "Why are you asking me? You should be asking her. She is an adult, she can make her own decisions." The call was then extended to the wife and she politely declined. Bishopric member returned to the husband and told him that as the head of his household, it was his duty to call his wife to repentance and convince her to accept the calling. He told the guy to bug off and they are no longer interested in church. Neighbors now want to strangle bishopric member.

[smokymountainrain]

Haven't responded yet, but I am going to politely decline. We will be out of town that weekend, but more importantly I can't see anything good coming from that kind of conversation. For however caustic I may be online or on podcasts, I have tried to be very circumspect in my personal life and with friends. But in my own home with people pressing? I don't have doubts or concerns to resolve anymore as I'm way past that, my marriage is doing better than it ever has, my kids and I spend tons of time together, my wife feels huge burdens lifted, we have a sense of direction, and we are happier than we've been in as long as we can remember. I don't see the point in messing with a pretty good thing, and I'd never want to actively attack a friend's beliefs to them (again, podcasts and online stuff notwithstanding).

Area President? What does that mean. Isn't the Area President - at least as I understand it - generally a member of the 1st Quorum of the 70? Or is it just a lowly Area Authority? If it is the Area President, you need to accept that meeting and report back.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Area President? What does that mean. Isn't the Area President - at least as I understand it - generally a member of the 1st Quorum of the 70? Or is it just a lowly Area Authority? If it is the Area President, you need to accept that meeting and report back.

Wow. That's messed up.

[Eddie]

Area President? What does that mean. Isn't the Area President - at least as I understand it - generally a member of the 1st Quorum of the 70? Or is it just a lowly Area Authority? If it is the Area President, you need to accept that meeting and report back.

Seems like this is becoming a trend. When there is a stake conference coming up with a visiting authority, they pick some people from the stake to visit. Usually some combination of people who have wavered from attending or have some difficult circumstance they're dealing with. From what I've heard, they can be pretty low key - typically a "We love you and miss you" kind of visit. But it wouldn't surprise me to hear of some being more frank in making an invitation for someone to return.

I agree with you that it would be interesting to hear how the visit goes and what they have to say. But I can see P-diddy's point in feeling like things are going well and not wanting to shake it up.

[Pheidippides]

When I was called into the EQP, the high councilman asked my wife if they could extend the calling to me.

This was relatively common in my experience. They'd ask both for either calling. This was one change a lot of wards made some time ago, and it was for the better.