Sign in to follow this  
carlimac

Did Face to Face answer questions?

Recommended Posts

Hasn’t it been, like, 30 years since the YM/YW were doing a lot of fundraisers?  I thought policy now limits them to one per year, and at least in my ward they’ve done it jointly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dprh said:

From the three wards I've been in that I had some access or knowledge of budgets, the Young Women had between 2/3 to 1/2 the funds budgeted that the Young Men did.  The Young Men's fund raisers were also given more attention.

That probably had a lot to do with what activities each organization was doing.

It had to do primarily with paying the BSA dues.

I'm stunned at all of the bitching and moaning I have heard over the years about how "favored" the boys were. Bull crap. (I could speak more plainly, if you like.) As the father of sons, I say that if the boys needed BSA to become the men they needed to become, then we pay whatever price is necessary. My boys are priceless. And as the father of a girl, I say exactly the same thing. Who do you think my daughter will marry, spend her life with, and bear my grandchildren with? Spending money on the boys benefits her as much as it does them.

If it were the girls whom the leadership had decided needed more money, you would never have heard a peep, much less endured the interminable hand-wringing we have seen through the years. Witness the girls' and women's restrooms vs. the boys' and men's. Witness how the Relief Society in any given ward has typically been given three times the budget of the elders and high priests combined.

Guess it's okay if the girls and women appear to be favored. It's only when vulnerable teenage boys seem favored that the fangs are bared.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

In fairness, I can see how a woman would have a problem with that. 

It is a fair point, until you remember that the Church also pays for dozens (hundreds?) of camp facilities that the YW are free to use but that the YM are largely banned from.  

I have a dim recollection of the Church owning something like 130 camps.  Assume each camp costs an average of $250,000 per year to own and maintain.  Assume 30% of members-of-record are active, and 25% of those are YW-age (and that’s probably WAY too high).  That’s $32.5 million divvied up amongst 1.1 million girls, or $29.50 per girl.  Assume 30 YW in your average ward, and that’s almost $900 extra value that the YW program gets and that the AP program doesn’t.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It is a fair point, until you remember that the Church also pays for dozens (hundreds?) of camp facilities that the YW are free to use but that the YM are largely banned from.  

:: snickers:: doesn't mean much, since girls aren't allowed to go camping. 😉

(playing!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vort said:

It had to do primarily with paying the BSA dues.

I'm stunned at all of the bitching and moaning I have heard over the years about how "favored" the boys were. Bull crap. (I could speak more plainly, if you like.) As the father of sons, I say that if the boys needed BSA to become the men they needed to become, then we pay whatever price is necessary. My boys are priceless. And as the father of a girl, I say exactly the same thing. Who do you think my daughter will marry, spend her life with, and bear my grandchildren with? Spending money on the boys benefits her as much as it does them.

If it were the girls whom the leadership had decided needed more money, you would never have heard a peep, much less endured the interminable hand-wringing we have seen through the years. Witness the girls' and women's restrooms vs. the boys' and men's. Witness how the Relief Society in any given ward has typically been given three times the budget of the elders and high priests combined.

Guess it's okay if the girls and women appear to be favored. It's only when vulnerable teenage boys seem favored that the fangs are bared.

And in fairness to @Vort, I hear a lot of speeches at GC telling men to be better husbands/fathers, etc. I don't hear many speeches telling women to be better wives/mothers, etc. 

 I only saw one thing that really troubled me in regards to gender relations, but it might be a "my stake thing". At a "stake dance" announcement on Facebook I saw a note saying "If a boy asks you to dance, just say yes. It took him a lot of courage to ask and one dance isn't too long!" I found that incredibly disturbing. Boys need to be told "No", and girls need to be told to say it.

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I only saw one thing that really troubled me in regards to gender relations, but it might be a "my stake thing". At a "stake dance" announcement on Facebook I saw a note saying "If a boy asks you to dance, just say yes. It took him a lot of courage to ask and one dance isn't too long!" I found that incredibly disturbing. Boys need to be told "No", and girls need to be told to say it.

This betrays a fundamental, very deep misunderstanding of what it means to ask someone to dance, and in fact of what a dance is (or is supposed to be).

A dance request is not a marriage proposal or an invitation to retire to anyone's boudoir and remove clothing. A dance request is fundamentally a request for social interaction, not much different from trying to strike up conversation.

In former times, women never asked men to dance; such would have been seen as desperate. So the man assumed all the responsibility for initiating a dance request. The woman's part in this arrangement was to graciously accept. A woman did not have to accept a dance invitation, of course; but refusing a man would be equivalent of turning on her heel and walking away when the man was engaging in polite conversation. Only a boor would do such a thing; such gracelessness would never have been considered acceptable behavior in any kind of polite society. If a woman was simply not dancing that evening, then of course she could refuse a potential dance partner; but in that case, she had better not dance with anyone else, either. Which would lead to the question of why she's at a dance if she's not dancing...

If young women were being instructed never to turn down a dance offer, then good for them and their leaders. They were being instructed on very basic and (what should have been) very obvious etiquette. For a woman to turn down a man's dance request is utterly churlish and almost certainly inexcusable.

But then, today's so-called dances are ridiculous affairs, even or perhaps especially at Church. "Loud" and "vulgar" are the operative terms at dances today. Perhaps such behavior as a young woman bluntly turning down a young man's dance request is acceptable, as presumably would be a young man pointing mockingly and laughing at some hapless young woman. If so, we must question whether the Church ought to have anything to do with such "dances", and almost certainly arrive at a negative answer.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

If so, we must question whether the Church ought to have anything to do with such "dances", and almost certainly arrive at a negative answer.

Yet another thing you think that kids today shouldn't be allowed to do, huh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Yet another thing you think that kids today shouldn't be allowed to do, huh? 

I assume you're kidding me, but I don't get it. Sorry. I guess you'll have to explain using short, simple words.

I don't think children should be encouraged to treat each other badly (such as a young woman refusing a young man's dance invitation), and I don't think the Church should be involved in staging vulgar and improper activities such as many so-called dances tend to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I assume you're kidding me, but I don't get it. Sorry. I guess you'll have to explain using short, simple words.

No worries. When you explain jokes, they lose their humor. I was half playing, half being serious. 

Based on prior posts, you seem to think kids shouldn't play video games, watch movies, go to the beach, play sports, watch tv, listen to music, go to Disney, read books, own pets, compete in soap box derbies etc. Well, at one point they had stake dances to go to, but I guess you have a problem with that too. 

(again, playing)

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It is a fair point, until you remember that the Church also pays for dozens (hundreds?) of camp facilities that the YW are free to use but that the YM are largely banned from.  

I have a dim recollection of the Church owning something like 130 camps.  Assume each camp costs an average of $250,000 per year to own and maintain.  Assume 30% of members-of-record are active, and 25% of those are YW-age (and that’s probably WAY too high).  That’s $32.5 million divvied up amongst 1.1 million girls, or $29.50 per girl.  Assume 30 YW in your average ward, and that’s almost $900 extra value that the YW program gets and that the AP program doesn’t.

Dang it.  I wanted to look up the camps, I've been on the site before.  But it doesn't look like my account has access to it anymore, since I was ex'ed.

There is a property the Church owns in Southern Nevada called Warm Springs.  It used to be owned by Howard Hughes (I almost wrote Hugh Hefner.......oops).  It's open for reservation from any member, but there are costs.  I think $250/night for half the location.  It has two naturally warm pools and two fields for camping.  I'm just curious for my own edification about how many locations are camps and exclusive to YW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here were items that were new to me:

1) The medallions, rings, and oil container (my children thought the rings were awesome)

2) Campouts only being 3-6 times per year instead of encouraging monthly camp outs.

Other than that nothing was really new, at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Assume 30% of members-of-record are active, and 25% of those are YW-age (and that’s probably WAY too high).  That’s $32.5 million divvied up amongst 1.1 million girls, or $29.50 per girl.  Assume 30 YW in your average ward, and that’s almost $900 extra value that the YW program gets and that the AP program doesn’t.

Assuming a somewhat more realistic 10% of membership being of YW age and sex, we're closer to $75 per YW. I would guess 15 to be a more realistic average YW population per ward, which still figures at well over $1000 "extra value" for the young women.

And I have no problem with that. At all. But I have a big problem with criticism of the supposedly unfair spending, leveled by ignoramuses who are neither aware of their own ignorance nor care about it when it's pointed out to them. 

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vort said:

And I have no problem with that at all. But I have a big problem with criticizing the supposedly unfair spending from ignoramuses who are neither aware of their own ignorance nor care about it when it's pointed out to them. 

Obviously, the church, and it's members need to do a better job of explaining that to people.

And if you really want to point something out to people, calling them "ignoramuses" won't do much good. In fact, if you are unable to not call them names,  then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut and let someone else do the explaining. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Obviously, the church, and it's members need to do a better job of explaining that to people.

Why should the Church assume responsibility to disabuse people of their own prejudices? Isn't that the responsibility of the person himself?

Seems to me like faulting the Church for not explaining these things clearly enough is blaming the victim.

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And if you really want to point something out to people, calling them "ignoramuses" won't do much good. In fact, if you are unable to not call them names,  then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut and let someone else do the explaining. 

Really, MG? You're taking me to task for generally (i.e.non-personally) pointing out people's bigoted ignorance? It's okay for me to put up with people's crap for my entire life, but I have no business mentioning it out loud?

Does the same apply to the whiners who complain in ignorance and refuse to listen to correction? If so, do you call them out for their stupidity, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Really, MG? You're taking me to task for generally (i.e.non-personally) pointing out people's bigoted ignorance? 

I'm not thinking of you personally because you know I like and respect you, more so than you do me I bet- though it's not my problem if the shoe fits. You are, of course, free to use whatever methods you'd like to convey your point. If that includes name calling and insulting people you are free to do so. 

But I see this again and again in life. People who might be factually correct (and I might agree with them) but their delivery is so terrible that the point is largely missed. I feel sorry for them, and for the argument (especially if I agree with it!) because it makes them, and their side look bad. They win a grand total of zero converts, and it usually hurts them, and more importantly, their side in the end. 

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

 If so, do you call them out for their stupidity, too?

I don't call anyone out for their stupidity. That, my friend, would be grave hypocrisy.   😉

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

...As the father of sons, I say that if the boys needed BSA to become the men they needed to become, then we pay whatever price is necessary. My boys are priceless. And as the father of a girl, I say exactly the same thing. Who do you think my daughter will marry, spend her life with, and bear my grandchildren with? Spending money on the boys benefits her as much as it does them....

This is how I interpret what you have written.

Your sons are priceless therefore they deserve whatever can be taught them whatever the cost and your daughter will benefit because her identity is based on what kind of "priceless" husband she will marry.

Do you ever consider that your future daughters-in-law might have some qualitities in them that might benefit your sons? If so, how do you think these young women will learn to possess these qualitites?

M.

Edited by Maureen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maureen said:

This is how I interpret what you have written.

Your sons are priceless therefore they deserve whatever can be taught them whatever the cost and your daughter will benefit because her identity is based on what kind of "priceless" husband she will marry.

Do you ever consider that your future daughters-in-laws might have some qualitities in them that might benefit your sons? If so, how do you think these young women will learn to possess these qualitites?

M.

I have it on the very highest authority that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Obviously, the church, and it's members need to do a better job of explaining that to people.

And if you really want to point something out to people, calling them "ignoramuses" won't do much good. In fact, if you are unable to not call them names,  then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut and let someone else do the explaining. 

OR, heaven forbid, people actually follow the Prophet and stop murmuring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have it on the very highest authority that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. ;) 

I had a college professor who used to idolize Gloria Steinem. She agreed with Gloria 1000% of the time-just like how you agree with Trump JAG 😝

Eventually, this professor, who said marriage is a "tool of the patriarchy" got married. To a man. And changed her name. We were all stunned. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

This is how I interpret what you have written.

Your sons are priceless therefore they deserve whatever can be taught them whatever the cost and your daughter will benefit because her identity is based on what kind of "priceless" husband she will marry.

I can control only what I write. I cannot control how you interpret things. Since I manifestly did not write what you have interpreted, I'm pretty much helpless in the face of your determined misconstruing of my meaning.

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Do you ever consider that your future daughters-in-law might have some qualitities in them that might benefit your sons? If so, how do you think these young women will learn to possess these qualitites?

Not only my future, but my present, daughters-in-law. Yes, I've considered it. They learn those qualities the same way my boys learn them. But since the leadership of the Church had not determined that they (my future daughters-in-law) would be best served by affiliating with a national program that costs each ward several thousand dollars a year, that's not a consideration. Had it been, I of course would have supported it just like I supported the boys. Because the girls are just as important as the boys, and if they need some "extra" help to enable them to become the women my sons will need and want to marry, then I'm super-happy to help supply that help, financial or otherwise, and have little patience for those who gripe about it.

But here's the part you're missing, Maureen: The boys are just as important as the girls, and if the boys need any such "extra" help, I'm.100% on board with that and have the same lack of patience for the anti-boy naysayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Maureen said:

This is how I interpret what you have written.

Your sons are priceless therefore they deserve whatever can be taught them whatever the cost and your daughter will benefit because her identity is based on what kind of "priceless" husband she will marry.

Do you ever consider that your future daughters-in-law might have some qualitities in them that might benefit your sons? If so, how do you think these young women will learn to possess these qualitites?

M.

@MormonGator, just curious what you think of @Maureen's deliberate misconstruing of what I wrote. Is that on her for refusing to read and understand what's actually written, or is that on me because I didn't pander enough to her tender sensibilities and prejudices? Sincere question (more or less).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Obviously, the church, and it's members need to do a better job of explaining that to people.

And if you really want to point something out to people, calling them "ignoramuses" won't do much good. In fact, if you are unable to not call them names,  then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut and let someone else do the explaining. 

There is, naturally, a difference between willful ignorance versus simply not having been fully informed.

My point about the cost of maintaining girls’ camps is not the result of my having any specialized information; just extrapolating off of publicly-available facts (other than, maybe, the list of LDS camps; which I thought was public but may be members-only—haven’t checked lately).  I heard the proggie talking point, thought “gee, I wonder what other sides there are to this story”, chewed on it for a while, searched out a bit of data, and stumbled on this huge unsung investment that the Church makes on behalf of its young women.

I’ve made that point before in other discussions about disparate funding between YM and YW, and as near as I can tell the number of people whose minds it has changed is . . . zero.  

I still believe/hope that there’s an open-minded middle for whom facts and data may actually change their mind.  But mostly, people who hate the Church don’t need a reason; and people who support it already have their reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I can control only what I write. I cannot control how you interpret things. Since I manifestly did not write what you have interpreted, I'm pretty much helpless in the face of your determined misconstruing of my meaning.

Not only my future, but my present, daughters-in-law. Yes, I've considered it. They learn those qualities the same way my boys learn them. But since the leadership of the Church had not determined that they (my future daughters-in-law) would be best served by affiliating with a national program that costs each ward several thousand dollars a year, that's not a consideration. Had it been, I of course would have supported it just like I supported the boys. Because the girls are just as important as the boys, and if they need some "extra" help to enable them to become the women my sons will need and want to marry, then I'm super-happy to help supply that help, financial or otherwise, and have little patience for those who gripe about it.

But here's the part you're missing, Maureen: The boys are just as important as the girls, and if the boys need any such "extra" help, I'm.100% on board with that and have the same lack of patience for the anti-boy naysayers.

A proposition:

In a church with an outsized proportion of male breadwinners and unemployed, stay-at-home mothers, a disproportionate share of tithing funds come from males; and equity demands that a disproportionate share of tithing funds be allocated to programs benefiting males. 

Flame away.  :satanflame:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A proposition:

In a church with an outsized proportion of male breadwinners and unemployed, stay-at-home mothers, a disproportionate share of tithing funds come from males; and equity demands that a disproportionate share of tithing funds be allocated to programs benefiting males. 

Flame away.  :satanflame:

It's Only Fair®.

I suppose that, going forward, we'll be seeing a huge increase in the Elders Quorum's yearly budget allocation vis-à-vis the Relief Society's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this