Conference isn't even over and I'm gonna cause problems already

[dahlia]

So, I see from FB that a new Primary presidency has been choses.

OK - 3 blond white women (even with similar hairdos), with limited or no work experience that I can ascertain from the publicity. Not exciting, not inclusive. There is one with a masters in teaching, but it doesn't mention that she ever taught anywhere or was a school administrator.

I can understand that if you are in a presidency at that level, it probably takes all of your time and it would be difficult to hold a job. But, no work history? What does that tell other women - that you can never reach the higher levels of Church administration if you have spent most of your adult life working? (unlike the men in leadership)  Also, do you have to be currently married to hold these positions?

I will be the first one to apologize if, in my ignorance of Church history, I have missed women who have reached these positions after a life outside of the home. 

 

[Guest]

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeth_G._Kapp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheri_L._Dew

These are two prominent, educated, professionally accomplished LDS women that come to mind.

But it doesn't matter. Educated =/= qualified. Accomplished =/= qualified.  Called = qualified. This is the Lord's work and really, none of us is qualified or experienced enough to do any of it. We all stand in need of His help and teaching. We're all given whatever resources we need to do what He asks of us. Obedience, humility, keeping covenants, and striving to do what's right are some of the primary credentials for filling any calling. 

[NeedleinA]

Not women in the latter days, but still a demonstration of called vs. already qualified in Church History...

[anatess2]

Who God calls, God qualifies.

God, of course, doesn't ask for work history or color of hair or even ask women to submit their resume to be called.  So, really... it's either one have faith in Divine Callings or one doesn't.

For what does it matter if the women are poster children for diversity if it is not God's will but that the Apostles simply wanted poster children for diversity?  That is surely not how the Lord organizes His Church.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, dahlia said:

OK - 3 blond white women (even with similar hairdos), with limited or no work experience that I can ascertain from the publicity. Not exciting, not inclusive. There is one with a masters in teaching, but it doesn't mention that she ever taught anywhere or was a school administrator.

I am confident that God is less concerned with their hairdos or "excitement" quotient than he is with their hearts and their gifts.

2 hours ago, dahlia said:

I can understand that if you are in a presidency at that level, it probably takes all of your time and it would be difficult to hold a job. But, no work history? What does that tell other women - that you can never reach the higher levels of Church administration if you have spent most of your adult life working? (unlike the men in leadership)

It is not a competition, dahlia. Holding a general leadership position in the Church doesn't mean you win, and not holding such a position doesn't mean you lose.

2 hours ago, dahlia said:

Also, do you have to be currently married to hold these positions?

I don't know if it's a requirement, but I suspect it is not. Sheri Dew, who was a counselor to the General Relief Society president around the year 2000, is a never-married businesswoman. In general, those called to such positions are married women. I believe that all men called to general leadership positions are called while currently married.

2 hours ago, dahlia said:

I will be the first one to apologize if, in my ignorance of Church history, I have missed women who have reached these positions after a life outside of the home. 

I don't know that you would have to apologize, nor do I see any reason the Church or its leaders would apologize for calling women to leadership positions even though they are white-skinned and blond-haired.

As the Church's demographics continue to widen, I expect we will just naturally see a wider demographic in leadership. That is currently happening, and has been for some time. We even have first-generation members (i.e. converts) in general leadership positions, demonstrating that a long, or even short, Church ancestry is not a requirement for such a calling. But we should be careful not to offer our hopes as expectation or instruction on how the Church should be run. I have never been, and almost certainly will never be, a man of great authority in the Church. That is not my calling. But I sustain my leaders and try to build the kingdom as I can. I assume that God will not judge me less worthy because of the fact that I was never called to a general leadership position.

[David13]

There was a specific message about whether the chruch was a "democrary" or not, in one of the two sessions today, was there not?. 

Who said that?  I can't even remember if it was morning or afternoon.

Does anyone else know of the comment I am posting of?

dc

[carlimac]

There was also a Sister Barbara Thompson in the RS presidency many years ago who had never been married. She was awesome! I loved her talks.

[Sunday21]

44 minutes ago, carlimac said:

There was also a Sister Barbara Thompson in the RS presidency many years ago who had never been married. She was awesome! I loved her talks.

I just loved Barbara Thompson. What a speaker!

[Ironhold]

Another thing to consider is that in this day and age, having stay-at-home moms front-and-center is a major development.

Why?

Being a stay-at-home mom is officially counter-culture now, especially if the woman chose of her own accord to remain at home. 

Here in the United States, women are actually getting cussed out by so-called "feminists" for daring to list stay-at-home motherhood as a life goal. Society no longer places value on women who voluntarily remain at home to be the primary caretaker for their children, and in fact such women may even be viewed as "traitors" by the so-called "progressives" in society. So for the church to remind the world that it's OK to choose to stay at home is a pretty big deal. 

[Sunday21]

3 hours ago, dahlia said:

So, I see from FB that a new Primary presidency has been choses.

OK - 3 blond white women (even with similar hairdos), with limited or no work experience that I can ascertain from the publicity. Not exciting, not inclusive. There is one with a masters in teaching, but it doesn't mention that she ever taught anywhere or was a school administrator.

I can understand that if you are in a presidency at that level, it probably takes all of your time and it would be difficult to hold a job. But, no work history? What does that tell other women - that you can never reach the higher levels of Church administration if you have spent most of your adult life working? (unlike the men in leadership)  Also, do you have to be currently married to hold these positions?

I will be the first one to apologize if, in my ignorance of Church history, I have missed women who have reached these positions after a life outside of the home. 

 

When Jesus called the apostles was He looking for worldly experience? Lots of fishermen and a tax collector. But Dahlia, you are surely a Canadian at heart. Come on up and join us. We have an incredibly gender and ethnically diverse cabinet. The premier of my province is gay. Come on up here, you know you want to!

[jerome1232]

This almost strikes me as looking down on mothers who stayed at home. I'm sure that that is not the intent but...

Is this a thing? To scrutinize the work history/lack thereof of those who are called?

If anything, I would think it an admirable thing that these women who have never worked outside the home are leaders in God's church. How cool is that? Motherhood isn't frowned upon here!

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

As the Church's demographics continue to widen, I expect we will just naturally see a wider demographic in leadership. That is currently happening, and has been for some time. 

I agree with Vort.
Our family just had a discussion about this thread during dinner. We are a mixed race family from the USA. We talked about how we would feel if roles were reversed. What if the church was restored, and had primarily grown through it's history in another country, say Japan, Congo or Tonga instead. We would perhaps naturally see more Japanese or Congolese or Tongans in higher up leadership roles as a result of: proximity, language barriers, or even generational maturity in the gospel. We discussed the fact that there are wonderful, incredibly strong diverse members across the world, but perhaps right now they can "best" serve by building up the church in their own nations and languages first. Ultimately it is not our choice to pick and choose leaders, we are not in control despite any political landscape or personal desires. It can often be hard being in the minority of anything, political, religiously, or ethnically, but that fact alone doesn't make others wrong or open to criticism just because they aren't what we had hoped for.

[David13]

38 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

When Jesus called the apostles was He looking for worldly experience? Lots of fishermen and a tax collector. But Dahlia, you are surely a Canadian at heart. Come on up and join us. We have an incredibly gender and ethnically diverse cabinet. The premier of my province is gay. Come on up here, you know you want to!

Eh.  Then she could watch hockey with the eskimos.  That'd be some diversity, eh?

dc

[NeedleinA]

Also, I'll leave with one of my favorite Sisters of all time: Sister Okazaki. (Thanks LP)

Chieko Nishimura Okazaki (October 21, 1926 – August 1, 2011) was first counselor to Elaine L. Jack in the Relief Society general presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1990 to 1997. She was the first non-Caucasian woman to serve as a general presidency member of an LDS Church auxiliary organization.^[2]

Okazaki was born and raised in Hawaii as a Buddhist, the daughter of Hawaii-born parents of Japanese descent. At the age of fifteen she converted to the LDS Church. She later married Edward Y. Okazaki and they had two sons. Professionally she was an educator and taught in Hawaii, Utah, and Colorado, and was also an elementary school principal. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Guest]

I can't believe I didn't think of Sister Okazaki. She was so wonderful.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

5 hours ago, Eowyn said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheri_L._Dew

These are two prominent, educated, professionally accomplished LDS women that come to mind.

But it doesn't matter. Educated =/= qualified. Accomplished =/= qualified.  Called = qualified. This is the Lord's work and really, none of us is qualified or experienced enough to do any of it. We all stand in need of His help and teaching. We're all given whatever resources we need to do what He asks of us. Obedience, humility, keeping covenants, and striving to do what's right are some of the primary credentials for filling any calling. 

 Of course I totally agree with this. 
Just curious -are there any blue collar men in the church leadership? That's not pejorative in the least, just a question. 

[Blackmarch]

16 hours ago, dahlia said:

So, I see from FB that a new Primary presidency has been choses.

OK - 3 blond white women (even with similar hairdos), with limited or no work experience that I can ascertain from the publicity. Not exciting, not inclusive. There is one with a masters in teaching, but it doesn't mention that she ever taught anywhere or was a school administrator.

I can understand that if you are in a presidency at that level, it probably takes all of your time and it would be difficult to hold a job. But, no work history? What does that tell other women - that you can never reach the higher levels of Church administration if you have spent most of your adult life working? (unlike the men in leadership)  Also, do you have to be currently married to hold these positions?

I will be the first one to apologize if, in my ignorance of Church history, I have missed women who have reached these positions after a life outside of the home. 

 

We had a missionary who wasn't really what most would have considered Missionary material (probably wouldn't had made it to the missionfield after the raising of the bar)... but he was able to connect with people in the ghettos in ways that the rest of us couldn't and was able to still be a tool in God's hands.

God has a use for everyone willing to work for him.... misfit or not.

[NightSG]

16 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

When Jesus called the apostles was He looking for worldly experience? Lots of fishermen and a tax collector.

Ideal experience; guys who reek of fish and one who goes door to door annoying people already.

"You will be despised by many."

"That's a big step up from being despised by all, Lord."

[tesuji]

All the apostles and prophets are old, white, men too, if you haven't noticed.

Which is totally fine.

The Lord can give revelation to anyone. He can use anyone who is humble and knows how to work.

How many college degrees and successful entrepreneurial ventures did Joseph Smith have before the Lord chose him to become a prophet and lead his church?

Edited April 8, 2016 by tesuji

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/3/2016 at 1:56 PM, dahlia said:

So, I see from FB that a new Primary presidency has been choses.

OK - 3 blond white women (even with similar hairdos), with limited or no work experience that I can ascertain from the publicity. Not exciting, not inclusive. There is one with a masters in teaching, but it doesn't mention that she ever taught anywhere or was a school administrator.

I can understand that if you are in a presidency at that level, it probably takes all of your time and it would be difficult to hold a job. But, no work history? What does that tell other women - that you can never reach the higher levels of Church administration if you have spent most of your adult life working? (unlike the men in leadership)  Also, do you have to be currently married to hold these positions?

I will be the first one to apologize if, in my ignorance of Church history, I have missed women who have reached these positions after a life outside of the home. 

 

You know, something that just occurred to me--and I haven't really thought through all the implications, but I thought it provocative:

If the general Primary Presidency is selected in the same way as the ward auxiliary presidencies I've seen, then the President was called first and was asked to identify potential counselors.  Let us assume that Sister Jones decided that Sisters Bingham and Cordon were the women she wanted serving with her, and notified the 1st Presidency/Q12 of her request.  Would it then be appropriate for the (all male) 1st Pres/Q12 to deny Sister Jones the most effective team she believes she can put together, in the name of fostering diversity of profession (or ethnicity, or any other sort of diversity) within that presidency?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[NeedleinA]

Came across this...

[David13]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You know, something that just occurred to me--and I haven't really thought through all the implications, but I thought it provocative:

If the general Primary Presidency is selected in the same way as the ward auxiliary presidencies I've seen, then the President was called first and was asked to identify potential counselors.  Let us assume that Sister Jones decided that Sisters Bingham and Cordon were the women she wanted serving with her, and notified the 1st Presidency/Q12 of her request.  Would it then be appropriate for the (all male) 1st Pres/Q12 to deny Sister Jones the most effective team she believes she can put together, in the name of fostering diversity of profession (or ethnicity, or any other sort of diversity) within that presidency?

No, I think it would be totally inappropriate.  I think that's the whole point here.

dc

[David13]

11 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Came across this...

Needle

Doesn't that border on mockery?

Maybe they do have a sense of humor or something, tho'.

I suppose they know all about kids, and all that power ninja warrior mutant stuff. 

dc

[NeedleinA]

11 minutes ago, David13 said:

Maybe they do have a sense of humor or something, tho'.

They thought it was cute apparently.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, David13 said:

Needle

Doesn't that border on mockery?

Maybe they do have a sense of humor or something, tho'.

I suppose they know all about kids, and all that power ninja warrior mutant stuff. 

dc

I don't think it's mockery at all. It's a playful little post. I think even the presidency has a good sense of humor.