Drip, drip, drip

[NewEliza]

They can be over other women and over children, but I believe there is a biological and psychological reason men tend to take the lead.

Because we are often prideful, pigheaded, and arrogant? That's my guess.

But I wouldn’t have expected any less of a comment from Eliza.

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

[NewEliza]

They can be over other women and over children, but I believe there is a biological and psychological reason men tend to take the lead.

Because we are often prideful, pigheaded, and arrogant? That's my guess.

Women are too I’ll tell you that much

[NewEliza]

Primary President is far and away the most demanding calling in the church. You have children ranging in age from toddlers who do not yet speak all the way up to youth who might as well be teenagers. You have to run classes, you have to arrange music, you have to have activites which are not only suitible for both boys and girls but for this big are range as well. You have to keep track of a whole bunch of teaching materials, toys, books, you name it. Some of the kids can read, others can't.

You need your most capable and most organized members running primary. Relief Society is simple in comparison.

Hmm no that isn’t really how I see it. Kids are tough but it’s less work in my opinion.

RS also has to make ministering assignments, do funerals, cook meals, knows everyone’s marriage faith and health problems, has activities during the week, has to find people to refer to the missionaries, and more, not including their Sunday duties.

That being said I’ve only been in the RS presidency, not the primary yet, so I am biased

[inho]

Primary President is far and away the most demanding calling in the church. You have children ranging in age from toddlers who do not yet speak all the way up to youth who might as well be teenagers. You have to run classes, you have to arrange music, you have to have activites which are not only suitible for both boys and girls but for this big are range as well. You have to keep track of a whole bunch of teaching materials, toys, books, you name it. Some of the kids can read, others can't.

You need your most capable and most organized members running primary. Relief Society is simple in comparison.

I agree.

It is also interesting, that primary president is the only female leader who presides over men. A high priest may be called to teach in Primary, but the president is a woman.

[Sarah]

All three Presidents are as tough as you want to make them, but I think YW/YM is the toughest, as you have activities every week, along with girls camp and other outings. Some people love that though. I am content teaching children on Sunday

[Sarah]

They can be over other women and over children, but I believe there is a biological and psychological reason men tend to take the lead.

Because we are often prideful, pigheaded, and arrogant? That's my guess.

But I wouldn’t have expected any less of a comment from Eliza.

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

This is the same principle BY was describing when he too did not want to talk about plural marriage until Joseph revealed it. It has to do with who has authority to reveal things, and is not simply a woman vs. man thing.

[investigator]

Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, babes subject them; women wield authority over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you, abolishing your traditional ways.

By using the covenant formula “my people . . . my people” (cf. Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Isaiah 51:16), Jehovah shows that he seeks to reclaim his people to the very last from their corrupt condition. While the parallel terms “babes” and “women” may be intended literally, they undoubtedly convey a caricature of men who are spiritually immature or less than men in their personal lives. Their oppressive leadership in “misleading” Jehovah’s people—“abolishing” well-proven principles and established guidelines—causes their society to disintegrate, leaving them vulnerable to disaster (Isaiah 9:16-19). Avraham Gileadi - Isaiah Explained

[Sarah]

This announcement gives me the impression that the leaders want to establish a more equal partnership with women when it comes to counseling and decision making within the church. It doesn't mean we all have equal jobs, but like in the family, we have our own jobs and stewardships, and we come together to council together about all of it and the responsibilities or decisions we share equally. Ultimately, it is woman's assignment to give physical birth and sustain those babies, and men's assignment to give spiritual birth, or at least offer the ordinances of rebirth to his family, and also sustain his family. So within the church, the men have authority to administer sacred ordinances, but as far as everything else goes, we can partner together to meet all the spiritual needs of the members, such as ministering. We're getting away from the simplistic idea that the men lead and women follow because men hold the priesthood. Obviously those who hold priesthood keys have the authority to receive the word of the Lord for whoever they preside over, but that doesn't mean that women shouldn't be an equal voice on the council. Those councils can help or even facilitate revelations. That is the ideal anyway that we are moving to, the idea that unity invites revelation. In that example I keep talking about with Heber J Grant, he sees in vision the discussion in heaven is that a mistake has been made, so the solution is to send a revelation. But the ideal is to have the spirit guide councils and individuals so that a stronger "thus sayeth the Lord" doesn't need to be sent. Because they are just doing up there what we are failing down here to do - holding an effective council. And that was what was shown to Pres. Grant.

[Robin Hood]

When I was on the stake high council, once a month we would meet for stake council. This is the stake equivalent of ward council, so the stake YW's, RS, and Primary presidents were in attendance.
I mean no disrespect when I say they were the most useless stake meetings I have ever attended. The three women completely dominated proceedings and just never shut up... and it's not as if they had anything helpful to say!

My experience in ward councils was very different. The women in attendance there were extremely helpful and had a lot of very good things to say.
I think the reason for this is that women tend to be very good when they are involved at the coal face, so to speak. They were intimately involved with those they served and clearly had a lot of invested time and effort in their callings. Their insights were based on real life situations and were relevant and effective.

I just think men are better at big picture stuff, and women are very good at detail.

I am the big picture person and my husband tends to only focus on detail. My guess is that you simply got stuck with a few loud, opinionated women whose personality was more dominating.

I got the feeling they were trying to impress the men.
I don't think many men find verbal diarrhea impressive.

[Sarah]

When I was on the stake high council, once a month we would meet for stake council. This is the stake equivalent of ward council, so the stake YW's, RS, and Primary presidents were in attendance.
I mean no disrespect when I say they were the most useless stake meetings I have ever attended. The three women completely dominated proceedings and just never shut up... and it's not as if they had anything helpful to say!

My experience in ward councils was very different. The women in attendance there were extremely helpful and had a lot of very good things to say.
I think the reason for this is that women tend to be very good when they are involved at the coal face, so to speak. They were intimately involved with those they served and clearly had a lot of invested time and effort in their callings. Their insights were based on real life situations and were relevant and effective.

I just think men are better at big picture stuff, and women are very good at detail.

I am the big picture person and my husband tends to only focus on detail. My guess is that you simply got stuck with a few loud, opinionated women whose personality was more dominating.

I got the feeling they were trying to impress the men.
I don't think many men find verbal diarrhea impressive.

They probably were. Maybe they hadn't learned that dominating behavior is unattractive.

[MMbelieve]

Or perhaps the stake didn't pick the more humble women for the position. Maybe they picked the ones who were loud in complaints to begin with hoping to settle a problem that only gets worse with power.

It’s often the ones called (men and women) that are being taught something. It’s rare to have the best qualified in 90%+ of the callings given.

[Luke]

This announcement gives me the impression that the leaders want to establish a more equal partnership with women when it comes to counseling and decision making within the church.

Maybe so, but the leaders are completely apostate, so to me their words don't mean jackshit.

Not to say that women should not be able to provide their insights, because they should - although they should in no wise be taking the reigns of leadership

[MMbelieve]

They can be over other women and over children, but I believe there is a biological and psychological reason men tend to take the lead.

Because we are often prideful, pigheaded, and arrogant? That's my guess.

But I wouldn’t have expected any less of a comment from Eliza.

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

It was a compliment, your amazingly stalwart in your beliefs.

If your viewing the not teaching men thing the way your describing it here then I have quite a different view of it....From where I come from that’s could be called pulling the woman card, haha.

If women keep themselves in a way -below men- or under the shelter of men, then they keep themselves from growing up, maturing in many ways, not increasing their strength or confidence in some crucial areas and best of all, get to hide.

If a woman gets sealed to another man without her husbands knowledge then she was swindled by a man not her spouse and no wonder she didn’t tell him, haha. Her husband was her Stewart, and only him. She didn’t want to be anything but a “woman” ie the weaker helpless sex. It’s a card played to my utter annoyance by women either to get out of trouble, blame stupid acts on a man or to beguile a man with her female tricks.

So if the idea of never being a counselor, president or teacher or anything to men is this....I wholeheartedly reject the swindling notion.

Possible these changes in the church are a huge test for men but more so for women. The temple changes, come follow me at home, women being asked to discover their role in the priesthood any new supposed leadership roles etc are getting women out of the safe covering of their husbands and leaders. To some this will bring out a new respectful maturity and opportunity to make a difference and to others they will ride the women’s equal rights card to their misunderstood demise.

[Robin Hood]

This announcement gives me the impression that the leaders want to establish a more equal partnership with women when it comes to counseling and decision making within the church.

Maybe so, but the leaders are completely apostate, so to me their words don't mean jackshit.

Not to say that women should not be able to provide their insights, because they should - although they should in no wise be taking the reigns of leadership

I think that to say the leaders are "completely apostate" is very unwise. Individual apostasy is not really something you or I can judge.
It is true that the corporate entity we call the Church appears to be heading in a direction which, without correction, would result in wholesale apostasy at that level (but we know the D&C tells us the OMS will put that right). But the church is actually the people. The people we call leaders are, like us, at various points on the apostasy/righteousness scale. It is impossible for us to declare a person apostate without knowing their heart.
I am content to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[MMbelieve]

This announcement gives me the impression that the leaders want to establish a more equal partnership with women when it comes to counseling and decision making within the church.

Maybe so, but the leaders are completely apostate, so to me their words don't mean jackshit.

Not to say that women should not be able to provide their insights, because they should - although they should in no wise be taking the reigns of leadership

In direct response to your implications...then maybe women should take over the leadership because the current one (all male) is so apostate their words are like tinkling brass.

Think about it

[Luke]

In direct response to your implications...then maybe women should take over the leadership because the current one (all male) is so apostate their words are like tinkling brass.

Think about it

Or is it because they are too effeminate?

Think about it

Don't quit the day job, friend

[MMbelieve]

In direct response to your implications...then maybe women should take over the leadership because the current one (all male) is so apostate their words are like tinkling brass.

Think about it

Or is it because they are too effeminate?

Think about it

Don't quit the day job, friend

Doesn’t the gospel turn men “effeminate”?

The gospel traits of the Savior are considered female traits. Love, compassion, long suffering, forgiveness, love enemies....etc

This is not a pumped up male.

I do not see mature men who have developed sincere care and love as trying to be females.

[Luke]

Doesn’t the gospel turn men “effeminate”?

No... this is what Babylon does... it inverts the order

This is why transgenderism is a thing

[MMbelieve]

Doesn’t the gospel turn men “effeminate”?

No... this is what Babylon does... it inverts the order

This is why transgenderism is a thing

What of the Savior then? By the your standards he was.

If you think the 15 are akin to transgenders by acting like women then I suggest you may get the beam out of your eye first, you are not seeing right.

Or are you saying they are feminine because they value women and seek to elevate them a little?

[Luke]

Doesn’t the gospel turn men “effeminate”?

No... this is what Babylon does... it inverts the order

This is why transgenderism is a thing

What of the Savior then? By the your standards he was.

Lol, this conversation is ridiculous

You actually think the Saviour was effeminate? And that by my standards He was transgender? Get a grip

If you think the 15 are akin to transgenders by acting like women then I suggest you may get the beam out of your eye first, you are not seeing right.

Never said they were akin to transgenders

Or are you saying they are feminine because they value women and seek to elevate them a little?

Once again, never said anything like this

I have continually said in these threads that the wisdom of women should be valued and listened to

I have however also said that women should not be taking the reigns of leadership though - which seems to set the resident feminists off

[NewEliza]

Because we are often prideful, pigheaded, and arrogant? That's my guess.

But I wouldn’t have expected any less of a comment from Eliza.

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

It was a compliment, your amazingly stalwart in your beliefs.

If your viewing the not teaching men thing the way your describing it here then I have quite a different view of it....From where I come from that’s could be called pulling the woman card, haha.

If women keep themselves in a way -below men- or under the shelter of men, then they keep themselves from growing up, maturing in many ways, not increasing their strength or confidence in some crucial areas and best of all, get to hide.

If a woman gets sealed to another man without her husbands knowledge then she was swindled by a man not her spouse and no wonder she didn’t tell him, haha. Her husband was her Stewart, and only him. She didn’t want to be anything but a “woman” ie the weaker helpless sex. It’s a card played to my utter annoyance by women either to get out of trouble, blame stupid acts on a man or to beguile a man with her female tricks.

So if the idea of never being a counselor, president or teacher or anything to men is this....I wholeheartedly reject the swindling notion.

Possible these changes in the church are a huge test for men but more so for women. The temple changes, come follow me at home, women being asked to discover their role in the priesthood any new supposed leadership roles etc are getting women out of the safe covering of their husbands and leaders. To some this will bring out a new respectful maturity and opportunity to make a difference and to others they will ride the women’s equal rights card to their misunderstood demise.

I just believe very highly the what I think is the natural order of things, for humans that’s a “patriarchal order”.

I think woman certainly have the ability to lead and are probably more suited or better choices in many instances. But I think men should learn from their “fathers” and women rule over their children.

Like in the old temple endowment

[NewEliza]

Because we are often prideful, pigheaded, and arrogant? That's my guess.

But I wouldn’t have expected any less of a comment from Eliza.

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

This is the same principle BY was describing when he too did not want to talk about plural marriage until Joseph revealed it. It has to do with who has authority to reveal things, and is not simply a woman vs. man thing.

Right, I agree.

But I would say that men are the ones who should/do retain authority

[MMbelieve]

But I wouldn’t have expected any less of a comment from Eliza.

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

It was a compliment, your amazingly stalwart in your beliefs.

If your viewing the not teaching men thing the way your describing it here then I have quite a different view of it....From where I come from that’s could be called pulling the woman card, haha.

If women keep themselves in a way -below men- or under the shelter of men, then they keep themselves from growing up, maturing in many ways, not increasing their strength or confidence in some crucial areas and best of all, get to hide.

If a woman gets sealed to another man without her husbands knowledge then she was swindled by a man not her spouse and no wonder she didn’t tell him, haha. Her husband was her Stewart, and only him. She didn’t want to be anything but a “woman” ie the weaker helpless sex. It’s a card played to my utter annoyance by women either to get out of trouble, blame stupid acts on a man or to beguile a man with her female tricks.

So if the idea of never being a counselor, president or teacher or anything to men is this....I wholeheartedly reject the swindling notion.

Possible these changes in the church are a huge test for men but more so for women. The temple changes, come follow me at home, women being asked to discover their role in the priesthood any new supposed leadership roles etc are getting women out of the safe covering of their husbands and leaders. To some this will bring out a new respectful maturity and opportunity to make a difference and to others they will ride the women’s equal rights card to their misunderstood demise.

I just believe very highly the what I think is the natural order of things, for humans that’s a “patriarchal order”.

I think woman certainly have the ability to lead and are probably more suited or better choices in many instances. But I think men should learn from their “fathers” and women rule over their children.

Like in the old temple endowment

Yes, men should learn from their fathers and boys learn from their mothers. I agree 100%.

But not telling your husband something and asking someone else to seems weird to me. It’s not teaching your husband at that point, it’s informing him.

[NewEliza]

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

It was a compliment, your amazingly stalwart in your beliefs.

If your viewing the not teaching men thing the way your describing it here then I have quite a different view of it....From where I come from that’s could be called pulling the woman card, haha.

If women keep themselves in a way -below men- or under the shelter of men, then they keep themselves from growing up, maturing in many ways, not increasing their strength or confidence in some crucial areas and best of all, get to hide.

If a woman gets sealed to another man without her husbands knowledge then she was swindled by a man not her spouse and no wonder she didn’t tell him, haha. Her husband was her Stewart, and only him. She didn’t want to be anything but a “woman” ie the weaker helpless sex. It’s a card played to my utter annoyance by women either to get out of trouble, blame stupid acts on a man or to beguile a man with her female tricks.

So if the idea of never being a counselor, president or teacher or anything to men is this....I wholeheartedly reject the swindling notion.

Possible these changes in the church are a huge test for men but more so for women. The temple changes, come follow me at home, women being asked to discover their role in the priesthood any new supposed leadership roles etc are getting women out of the safe covering of their husbands and leaders. To some this will bring out a new respectful maturity and opportunity to make a difference and to others they will ride the women’s equal rights card to their misunderstood demise.

I just believe very highly the what I think is the natural order of things, for humans that’s a “patriarchal order”.

I think woman certainly have the ability to lead and are probably more suited or better choices in many instances. But I think men should learn from their “fathers” and women rule over their children.

Like in the old temple endowment

Yes, men should learn from their fathers and boys learn from their mothers. I agree 100%.

But not telling your husband something and asking someone else to seems weird to me. It’s not teaching your husband at that point, it’s informing him.

Eh yeah I agree that’s different. Couples work together.

I’m glad we can all remain friends here haha

[Sarah]

But I wouldn’t have expected any less of a comment from Eliza.

I take that as a compliment

There is an interesting story about Eliza R snow, her brother returned home from overseas and could tell that she was keeping something from him. (It was her plural marriage to Joseph) he was practically begging her to tell him about it, but she felt it was not her place to teach him,even though she wanted to tell him everything. So she told him to go ask joseph.

There is a similar aprocyphal story about Mary and the Savior. The disciples wanted information from her, but she was unwilling to teach them because although she had knowledge, it was not her role to teach them.

It was a compliment, your amazingly stalwart in your beliefs.

If your viewing the not teaching men thing the way your describing it here then I have quite a different view of it....From where I come from that’s could be called pulling the woman card, haha.

If women keep themselves in a way -below men- or under the shelter of men, then they keep themselves from growing up, maturing in many ways, not increasing their strength or confidence in some crucial areas and best of all, get to hide.

If a woman gets sealed to another man without her husbands knowledge then she was swindled by a man not her spouse and no wonder she didn’t tell him, haha. Her husband was her Stewart, and only him. She didn’t want to be anything but a “woman” ie the weaker helpless sex. It’s a card played to my utter annoyance by women either to get out of trouble, blame stupid acts on a man or to beguile a man with her female tricks.

So if the idea of never being a counselor, president or teacher or anything to men is this....I wholeheartedly reject the swindling notion.

Possible these changes in the church are a huge test for men but more so for women. The temple changes, come follow me at home, women being asked to discover their role in the priesthood any new supposed leadership roles etc are getting women out of the safe covering of their husbands and leaders. To some this will bring out a new respectful maturity and opportunity to make a difference and to others they will ride the women’s equal rights card to their misunderstood demise.

I just believe very highly the what I think is the natural order of things, for humans that’s a “patriarchal order”.

I think woman certainly have the ability to lead and are probably more suited or better choices in many instances. But I think men should learn from their “fathers” and women rule over their children.

Like in the old temple endowment

One of the problems is that all these early brethren in the 1800's used this phrase "patriarchal order" to mean a husband has the right to rule over his wife because of his priesthood. It's a complete misunderstanding of the order of the priesthood we enter into when we go through the temple and are sealed as husband and wife. It is an order of the priesthood, priests and priestesses. It is the order of parents. It is truly a matriarchal and patriarchal order. The term "patriarchal order" isn't even used in scripture. It is simply the priesthood authority of a covenant parent.