All Women General Conference Meeting?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm mostly underwhelmed. If you're going to go to all the trouble to demonstrate that you aren't bound to the status quo, you might as well do something worthwhile. Let the young men meet in March and the young women meet in September the week before General Conference. Then have a relief society session of General Conference in April and a Melchizidek Priesthood session of General Conference in October. This solves three problems. First, it addresses gender equity with men and women being treated the same. Second, it eliminates the perpetual "tonight I'd like to address the young men of the church who bear the Aaronic Priesthood; you dads can listen in if you want" talks. Third, and probably most important, it frees us men up to watch the Final Four.

I'm not sure anybody sees this change and walks away thinking that a concern which they had previously held has now been addressed.

The attend priesthood movement is a sideshow to the main issue and was probably a poor decision given the animosity it generated. Suppose they are eventually allowed to attend. Big deal. Nothing significant has changed other than a dumb policy.

[Moliere]

As much of a skeptic as I am, I still can't think of a better model the church currently has for retention and division of responsibilities. By "better" I don't mean "equal" or "sensible" but simply if the goal of the church is to retain members and grow the base then it works very well. Women are subjected to male rule at an early age and they learn their place quickly, which helps them accept it. Men are typically more prone to wandering away or just shirking spiritual/emotional things, but the church puts them in positions of power, which stokes the male ego a bit and gives them a sense of control. You are left with a church where the men are empowered and the women make sure the men stay in line all while not daring to usurp the PH power because (1) they have been taught they don't need it and (2) they are generally less inclined to seek positions of power (I know some will scoff at #2 but to deny the fact our agrarian society from which we've evolved hasn't led to innate differences between men and women is to deny the theory of evolution).

Maybe this church is inspired after all...

[Northwestcoug]

As much of a skeptic as I am, I still can't think of a better model the church currently has for retention and division of responsibilities. By "better" I don't mean "equal" or "sensible" but simply if the goal of the church is to retain members and grow the base then it works very well. Women are subjected to male rule at an early age and they learn their place quickly, which helps them accept it. Men are typically more prone to wandering away or just shirking spiritual/emotional things, but the church puts them in positions of power, which stokes the male ego a bit and gives them a sense of control. You are left with a church where the men are empowered and the women make sure the men stay in line all while not daring to usurp the PH power because (1) they have been taught they don't need it and (2) they are generally less inclined to seek positions of power (I know some will scoff at #2 but to deny the fact our agrarian society from which we've evolved hasn't led to innate differences between men and women is to deny the theory of evolution).

Maybe this church is inspired after all...

If indoctrinating girls to accept non-leadership positions is inspiration, that is really depressing...

[Eddie]

I kind of wonder if this wouldn't have all just blown over if they had just let the women in the meeting. Obviously, it wouldn't have placated the OW folks. So maybe the church just decided that they have to draw a line somewhere - and wherever they draw it the OW folks will be angry, so it might as well be at attending the meeting. At some point I'm sure we would've heard about how patronizing it is that the women are "allowed to" attend the priesthood meeting but won't be given the priesthood.

Along Moliere's point - I have an active LDS co-worker who is gay and had some insight on this. Interestingly enough, he is pro gay marriage and gay rights, but doesn't think that women should get the priesthood. His belief is also based on evolution and sociology to a degree. And while he describes it somewhat different than Moliere, he essentially says the same thing - that he thinks giving women the priesthood would let men off the hook and we'd see even less male participation in the church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This "men have the priesthood because they are lazy slackers" theory sounds like something Randy Bott came up with. Insulting to both men and women at the same time.

[Sleeping in EQ]

This "men have the priesthood because they are lazy slackers" theory sounds like something Randy Bott came up with. Insulting to both men and women at the same time.

Agreed.

[TripletDaddy]

This "men have the priesthood because they are lazy slackers" theory sounds like something Randy Bott came up with. Insulting to both men and women at the same time.

I have always found it to be silly and completely unfounded from a doctrinal standpoint. it is the unintended sexist counterpoint to the equally sexist and unfounded "women are angels/almost perfect/cant set up their own damned chairs" social doctrine that is rampant in Mo culture.

[Eddie]

This "men have the priesthood because they are lazy slackers" theory sounds like something Randy Bott came up with. Insulting to both men and women at the same time.

Not to rain on your parade, but it wasn't necessarily a "lazy slacker" theory that my co-worker proposed.

It had more to do with the foundations of society. He describes it better than I, so I won't do it justice and I'm sure I'll mess it up somehow. But his theory had to do with in the beginning men weren't monogamous. They were wanderers who moved from one place to the next. On the other hand, women weren't as mobile because they were caring for the children that the wanderers sired while roaming. Ultimately the women learned that if they worked together in groups or clans it helped them all. And then somehow the women figured out how to convince the men (to a degree) that if you want the milk you have to buy the cow and help support it. Which led to men ultimately joining the clan. He theorizes that men have wandering built into their DNA and it is against their nature to come together in groups, like churches. I would need him to finish making the connection - but it relates to the church organization needing men, which keeps them from wandering.

Again - not my theory. Just trying to share it.

And I found it interesting that the guy fighting for gay rights would also be the guy against rights for women.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not to rain on your parade, but it wasn't necessarily a "lazy slacker" theory that my co-worker proposed.

It had more to do with the foundations of society. He describes it better than I, so I won't do it justice and I'm sure I'll mess it up somehow. But his theory had to do with in the beginning men weren't monogamous. They were wanderers who moved from one place to the next. On the other hand, women weren't as mobile because they were caring for the children that the wanderers sired while roaming. Ultimately the women learned that if they worked together in groups or clans it helped them all. And then somehow the women figured out how to convince the men (to a degree) that if you want the milk you have to buy the cow and help support it. Which led to men ultimately joining the clan. He theorizes that men have wandering built into their DNA and it is against their nature to come together in groups, like churches. I would need him to finish making the connection - but it relates to the church organization needing men, which keeps them from wandering.

Again - not my theory. Just trying to share it.

And I found it interesting that the guy fighting for gay rights would also be the guy against rights for women.

This theory is not at all unique to your friend. I hear it stated all the time.

[All-American]

The attend priesthood movement is a sideshow to the main issue and was probably a poor decision given the animosity it generated. Suppose they are eventually allowed to attend. Big deal. Nothing significant has changed other than a dumb policy.

I actually disagree on the merits of the policy, at least when it comes to attending in person. I think it is just fine to reserve space in the building for those for whom the messages shared in the meeting are intended. I wouldn't keep anybody out of a stake center, though.

[All-American]

This "men have the priesthood because they are lazy slackers" theory sounds like something Randy Bott came up with. Insulting to both men and women at the same time.

And it would suggest that leadership positions naturally flow to the lazier and more inept elements of society. And Jeff couldn't possibly stomach that idea. Not here, anyway.

[Jeff Lebowski]

And it would suggest that leadership positions naturally flow to the lazier and more inept elements of society. And Jeff couldn't possibly stomach that idea. Not here, anyway.

lol. Nice one.

[Moliere]

This "men have the priesthood because they are lazy slackers" theory sounds like something Randy Bott came up with. Insulting to both men and women at the same time.

Yes, it's insulting and I didn't want to intend men are lazy slackers in general. But for the most part they are lazy slackers when it comes to church, at least in my experience. We just aren't wired to really care much about it, for the most part, but we are wired to hold power and authority...and dominion.

It's just a thought, but in my experience the majority of single people attending wards have been women. I've rarely seen a single man or a guy in a part-member family that attends regularly. It always seems to be the women.

[Sullyute]

Yes, it's insulting and I didn't want to intend men are lazy slackers in general. But for the most part they are lazy slackers when it comes to church, at least in my experience. We just aren't wired to really care much about it, for the most part, but we are wired to hold power and authority...and dominion.

It's just a thought, but in my experience the majority of single people attending wards have been women. I've rarely seen a single man or a guy in a part-member family that attends regularly. It always seems to be the women.

There are at least 5 guys (single, divorced, getting divorced, or with a inactive wife, and all 30+ years of age) that attend our EQ. In fact the EQP is single. We have a pretty diverse (marriage wise) ward. There are a couple widowers in HPG too.