Authority of LDS Women

[LocalFarms]

True, but how the world perceives the church can either help or hinder missionary work and the growth of the church. The fact is that many outside (and even some in) the church perceive it as a patriarchal organization lead by old men. Men have the priesthood and women don't, and even the leadership positions available to women are limited, and they still ultimately answer to a man.

I'd be more worried if the church were popular with the world

[pam]

MichaelCraig not to change the subject, but how is your missionary son doing these days down in Fiji? Haven't had an update in awhile.

[Snow]

We have no control over the perception of others.

You don't think?

I may not have complete control over how you perceive me but I bet I could successfully steer your perception of me just about anyway I wanted.

I could cause you to like me.

I could cause you to think I was funny.

I could cause you to think I was a jerk.

I could cause just about any reaction and perception from you that I chose.

[Snow]

If Plan 10 From Outer Space ever comes to fruition, it will be Mormon women running the show.

Has Plan 9 already failed, you stupid, stupid human?

[LocalFarms]

You don't think?

I may not have complete control over how you perceive me but I bet I could successfully steer your perception of me just about anyway I wanted.

I could cause you to like me.

I could cause you to think I was funny.

I could cause you to think I was a jerk.

I could cause just about any reaction and perception from you that I chose.

Influence does not equal control. You could influence me to like you but you have no control over my eventual choice to like you or not.

[Snow]

When you consider the highest echelons of Church authority, we see the Priesthood running only a portion of things. True, we have the First Presidency, Twelve and 70 to run around the world organizing stakes and witnessing of Christ.

However, the top echelons also include three presidencies of women, who manage the effort over all the women, young women, and children in the Church. That's a considerably large group of members.

A ward RS president holds (or should hold) a position of power in the ward. The bishop should not do anything concerning the women without first counseling with her, etc. And even more, should probably leave most of those decisions to her.

There will be a time when all righteous will share in the priesthood. But I feel the duties may still not be exactly the same in the next life. That should not be a problem. That all are working towards the same eternal goals should be the focus.

Er, the Relief Society used to be a semi-autonmous organization where women joined together (applied for membership and paid dues), elected their own officials, created their own agenda, mission and strategy, raised and controlled their own money, published their own periodicals, created their own curriculum and actually made decisions for themselves.

Today, one doesn't apply for membership or pay dues, they simply "age-in," their autonomous budget was taken away in 1971, they no longer select their own membership and leadership, men dictate who will be in charge, they lost their independent publications, they no longer create their own curriculum but rather teach was the men instruct them to teach, etc... Additionally women used to participate in the inner circles of the Church in the Quorum of the Anointed, but those days are past.

It's fine to say that the top echelons of Church management include women but in practice, they control nothing in the Church, they own nothing in the Church, they serve at the behest of men and do their bidding.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Snow

[Wingnut]

men dictate who will be in charge,

Interesting point. I'd never thought of that before.

[pam]

Even with Snows' comment. I guess I wouldn't make a very good active libber or feminist as I still don't mind how the Church' organization is set up.

[rameumptom]

While it used to be "semi-autonomous" (It could be argued that it still is, or never really was), changes occur in every organization.

Also, Joseph Smith set it up to emulate the priesthood. Today, we view it as a function within the priesthood power and authority, which is why it has been repositioned.

That women automatically are added when they become 18, and that they do not pay dues, has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand. That is more of an issue of the Church expanding to all the world and ensuring all women have the opportunity to be a member, regardless of wealth, poverty, etc.

We've done the same with no dues for Scouting, no penny by the pound donations from Primary, etc.

[Snow]

While it used to be "semi-autonomous" (It could be argued that it still is, or never really was), changes occur in every organization.

Also, Joseph Smith set it up to emulate the priesthood. Today, we view it as a function within the priesthood power and authority, which is why it has been repositioned.

That women automatically are added when they become 18, and that they do not pay dues, has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand. That is more of an issue of the Church expanding to all the world and ensuring all women have the opportunity to be a member, regardless of wealth, poverty, etc.

We've done the same with no dues for Scouting, no penny by the pound donations from Primary, etc.

The issue of dues speaks to autonomy. There used to have their own money and could spend it as they saw fit - just as they used to have their own curriculum and could teach what they saw fit.

I'm not making a moral judgement on whether that is good or bad, just pointing out that women have very little power in the Church... specifically none of their own, only what little is extended them by the benevolent dictatorship of real Church power.

[zippy_do46]

I thought that Jesus Christ was at the head of this Church. I do not see him as " benevolent dictatorship of real Church power".

[Just_A_Guy]

Additionally women used to participate in the inner circles of the Church in the Quorum of the Anointed, but those days are past.

I agree with your larger point, Snow. But as I understand it, the above basically means that a select group of church leaders and their wives (all of whom had been through the temple) used to meet regularly with other church leaders and their wives. I'm not aware of the Quorum of the Anointed ever acting as a sort of super-First Presidency or otherwise exercising any administrative power.

Moreover, it may be worth noting that some of us have been members of LDS.net for a longer period of time than the Anointed Quorum met regularly. (And then there's Pam . . . insert age joke here.)

[pam]

Moreover, it may be worth noting that some of us have been members of LDS.net for a longer period of time than the Anointed Quorum met regularly. (And then there's Pam . . . insert age joke here.)

And to think I really liked you. Please notice the use of past tense.

[Snow]

I thought that Jesus Christ was at the head of this Church. I do not see him as " benevolent dictatorship of real Church power".

Chuckle... if that is true, that Jesus is the head of the Church, how does he rule? As a democracy? Popular assent? Fascism? Collegial rule? Anarchy?

What is it then, if not a dictatorship?

[LocalFarms]

Chuckle... if that is true, that Jesus is the head of the Church, how does he rule? As a democracy? Popular assent? Fascism? Collegial rule? Anarchy?

What is it then, if not a dictatorship?

Try exmple

[Snow]

Try exmple

You mean Christ, who is hidden and invisible, leads by example without actually showing us the example to follow... He promulgates doctrine, conveys authority, blesses, rewards, punishes and judges by example.

Uh-huh.

[rameumptom]

A dictatorship denotes an organization where people have no choice but to belong, whether benevolent or not. Last time I looked, any member can request his/her name removed and is then no longer affiliated nor affected by the organization of the Church.

Personally, I find the concept of calling our leaders "dictators" a bit demeaning, even if you plaster the quaint term "benevolent" in front of it. Women should and can have power in the Church, inasmuch as Christ gives power to any person.

According to Wikipedia the term "dictator" means:

A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control) but without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch ....

Like the term "tyrant" (which was originally a respectable Ancient Greek title), and to a lesser degree "autocrat", "dictator" came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule....

In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly...

So, as I said, placing the term "benevolent" in front of it does not take away the demeaning connotation. Our prophets do not wield power like dictators. Prophets do not bring themselves up by force, and each must be sustained annually by the membership, including, I may add, by the sisters. They are not despotic, even in a benevolent manner, but push most decisions and actions down to the lowest levels. Our prophets have vocally encouraged bishops to listen more to their Relief Society Presidents and other women leaders.

What does power mean in the LDS Church? It means the ability to serve others. One of the most quoted modern revelations (D&C 121) tells us that those who let power go to their head lose their priesthood authority.

That they make decisions according to the Spirit of the Lord, and not by fiat (or are you among those that think they are?), also suggests that this is not a dictatorship.

So, tell me, where is this dictatorship that you have mentioned? It just does not hold by definition nor by their actions.

[rameumptom]

The issue of dues speaks to autonomy. There used to have their own money and could spend it as they saw fit - just as they used to have their own curriculum and could teach what they saw fit.

I'm not making a moral judgement on whether that is good or bad, just pointing out that women have very little power in the Church... specifically none of their own, only what little is extended them by the benevolent dictatorship of real Church power.

Actually, you ARE making a moral judgment. When you state that the sisters have lost autonomy, that they have little or no power of their own except what is dribbled out to them by the "benevolent dictatorship", you are making a moral judgment.

[Guest]

Sorry, Snow, I think you are completely off-base here.

My husband, for example, is the head of my family. There is no way you can assign the word "dictator" to him. It is a partnership. He has his duties, I have mine. He defers to me in all decisions that surrounds my duties. If you ask my small children, they will tell you I'm the CEO of my family, but of course, my husband holds that position. I'm CFO, CIO, and COO among others.

Take the case of a CEO and a CFO. There is no way a CEO can run a dictatorship and be successful when the financial expertise resides with the CFO. A successful CEO defers matters of financial decision-making to the CFO. The CEO has the "power" to drive the organization (that's the CEO's job), therefore, using the expertise provided by the CFO, he gives "power" behind the expertise and enacts the decision for the whole organization.

A dictatorship would be when the CEO tells the CFO how to run the financials as part of his "authoritative power".

This is not the case in the church. The RS presidency tells the First Presidency what is expedient for the women of the church and the First Presidency gives the "power" behind this expertise and enacts it for the entire Church.

Since the entire Church is one organization, the RS cannot be autonomous and still remain in the organization. For the RS to be a part of the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it must fall under the First Presidency. This does not mean that they are now "dictated" to. It only means that any RS decision has to take into consideration the workings of the entire organization. This includes financial decisions. The Church cannot function with 2 CEOs at the helm.

Now, you're a guy, I'm a girl. I think my opinion on this matter holds some weight over yours. Anyone who knows me can tell you I'm not a subscriber of the "subservient women club".

[Vanhin]

Does a queen and a priestess unto the most high God count?

[pam]

You mean Christ, who is hidden and invisible, leads by example without actually showing us the example to follow... He promulgates doctrine, conveys authority, blesses, rewards, punishes and judges by example.

Uh-huh.

Maybe we don't physically see him to see the example, but many during his lifetime did. We have the words in the New Testament that teach us and that we can use as an example. Even if we can't physically see him he can still lead by example.

Edited June 28, 2010 by pam

[Maureen]

Chuckle... if that is true, that Jesus is the head of the Church, how does he rule? As a democracy? Popular assent? Fascism? Collegial rule? Anarchy?

What is it then, if not a dictatorship?

A Theocracy.

M.

[Moksha]

Has Plan 9 already failed, you stupid, stupid human?

Think of it as a kind of progression, shifting from the Woodlawn Cemetery to the avenues of Salt Lake - with a little bit of Deseret Alphabet thrown in for good measure. :)

Besides, the Mormon Women would probably be benevolent and bring back full service KFC restaurants.

[Snow]

A dictatorship denotes an organization where people have no choice but to belong, whether benevolent or not. Last time I looked, any member can request his/her name removed and is then no longer affiliated nor affected by the organization of the Church.

That's untrue rameumpton and I suspect that you know it is untrue - because you read the wiki page. There is no rule that a dictatorship mandates that people belong to the it. That principle that makes a dictatorship a dictatorship is that total power belongs to an individual or small group of individuals. Though dictatorships often abuse their power there is no requirement that they do so. A dictator could make any rule - even good ones.

Personally, I find the concept of calling our leaders "dictators" a bit demeaning, even if you plaster the quaint term "benevolent" in front of it.

It really doesn't matter what you find. Your dislike of the word doesn't change it's meaning.

Women should and can have power in the Church, inasmuch as Christ gives power to any person.

Not the power to select their leaders, choose their curriculum, control their budget, nor the power of the priesthood, nor any independence from men's dictates in Church matters, but okay, they have some power.

According to Wikipedia the term "dictator" means:

Don't you think it just a bit too convenient that you left out the Wikipedia definition?

"A government controlled by one person or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests with one person. Such power is often obtained forcibly. A dictator usually takes away much of people's freedom."

One will take note that a dictator USUALLY takes away much freedom - word which indicates that there are instance when much freedom is not taken away.

Why did you leave out the one definition than made my point and contradicted yours?

So, as I said, placing the term "benevolent" in front of it does not take away the demeaning connotation. Our prophets do not wield power like dictators. Prophets do not bring themselves up by force, and each must be sustained annually by the membership, including, I may add, by the sisters. They are not despotic, even in a benevolent manner, but push most decisions and actions down to the lowest levels. Our prophets have vocally encouraged bishops to listen more to their Relief Society Presidents and other women leaders.

Well they do - wield power like dictators - your misunderstanding notwithstanding. They don't allow voting on doctrine or appointments or budget setting. They decide and they act. They are indeed benevolent and as far as I am concerned, inspired - philosopher kings as it were. Were the Church not a dictatorship, or a shogunate as it were, then the Church would be subject to the same winds of doctrine that steer the ships of Protestantism, tossing the ship to and fro.

To be a bit more clear, as a governing body or sets of bodies - The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve operate collegially. They, specifically the President, typically, does not dictate rules and doctrine to the other Brethren. They function as colleagues, dialoging and seeking the spirit until there is general or rough consensus. President Kimball didn't decide to lift the ban on Blacks and the Priesthood overnight and then announce. He has been working on it for decades, dialoguing, praying, and likely selecting the right candidates for promotion to GA and the Twelve until they shared a similar understanding and vision, and then, with consultation, he announced.... but once the Brethren announce, they don't call for a vote. They dictate. They are a dictatorship.

You could sustain or oppose but that doesn't change anything one bit. The ban was lifted no matter what anybody else in the Church thought about it.

What does power mean in the LDS Church? It means the ability to serve others. One of the most quoted modern revelations (D&C 121) tells us that those who let power go to their head lose their priesthood authority.

Ugh. We aren't talking about the ability to serve others. We are talking about Church governance - setting ciriculum, controlling the budget, managing, appointing, leading. Don't confuse the topic - we aren't talking about service.

That they make decisions according to the Spirit of the Lord, and not by fiat (or are you among those that think they are?), also suggests that this is not a dictatorship.

The most certainly rule by fiat. [ official sanction; authoritative permissio, an arbitrary order or decree, Chiefly literary any command, decision, or act of will that brings something about]. That doesn't mean that their dictates aren't good or inspired - it just means their power is absolute. You, rameumpton, don't get a say.

So, tell me, where is this dictatorship that you have mentioned? It just does not hold by definition nor by their actions.

Go re-read your wiki page: "A government controlled by one person or a small group of people."

I called it a "benevolent dictatorship." In everyday parlance that means Church governance is the rule of a small group of people characterized by doing good... and you have a problem with that. Go figure.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Snow

[crazypotato]

Hell's Bells!

Whoever posted this original question is purposely opening a can of worms.

Women and men are not the same. We have different jobs. Who cares? Feminists. They think that unless we have the exact same responsiblities and jobs as men, that we are downtrodden. And they think that women should act like men in the home - wear the pants in the family, boss and nag the crap out of their husband, emasculate other men. It's so misguided. I have been LDS my entire life and didn't realize until a few years ago how feminist LDS women are. Too feminist. They want their husband to act like a woman at home, cook, clean, change diapers, have long talks, bring them roses. I'll take my stinky, burping, aggressive, bossy, gun-toting, money-earning, messy husband over any of the emasculated girly-men.

Who wants to be a man? Not me. I love being a feminine woman. I love being a mom and a primary teacher and in YW and RS. I like wearing dresses and makeup and curling my hair. I like not having a job and hauling my kids off to daycare or having my husband be a stay at home dad. I like knowing that truth about gender and marriage is not relative and up to our own whims, but determined by God, and that he made me so that I would be better at a woman and my husband better at being a man. I don't want my husband to vacuum and whine with me about our periods and do his nails with me.

Also, go to the temple and watch the movie in the endowment session. If you really believe the LDS church, you will know how much God loves his son and daughters equally. He sent his son to die for us all.