The Church falls on its face with latest essay about women in the Church

[Dr. Shades]

The women do all the work and the men get to say how many people they baptized years later.

Are you sure about that? In my experience—as an actual missionary—male missionaries NEVER counted baptisms of people that the sisters taught among their own “total.”

[yellowstone123]

The women do all the work and the men get to say how many people they baptized years later.

Are you sure about that? In my experience—as an actual missionary—male missionaries NEVER counted baptisms of people that the sisters taught among their own “total.”

Thanks for clarifying the issue, Dr. Shades. I thought they did. I stand corrected.

[I Have Questions]

Those women can raise and nurture the children in the kitchen after Sunday dinner when they are doing the dishes, while the menfolk meander into the parlor for a bit of theologizing. Good thing these elders don't light up cigars while expounding on the will of the Almighty, or the parlor would get a bit stinky.

I know you are saying this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but I have to say, in our house it's the men that are responsible for clean up after a yummy Sunday dinner.

And if I didn't, I'd hear about it later!

Regards,
MG

Why aren’t the men responsible for making it?

[I Have Questions]

If women had more say in Mormonism the books would be open and the mall next to church headquarters would be a research hospital. Nothing more can be said. The problem with Mormonism is only men handle the money, meaning they are in charge.

There is no arguing that men seem to have an inborn need to be 'in charge'. It's in the physiology I'm afraid. Women, generally speaking, let the men play their little games and show that they can be 'in charge' but my experience has been that the women are very influential. Even if it is often not out in the spotlight.

Might have something to do with testosterone.

Regards,
MG

That’s an incredibly uneducated and outdated (and very Mormon male) view. It’s the view of an old man stuck 50 years in the past. I’d love to see your modern references that support it.

Let’s start with you. Do you feel an innate need to be in charge? Did that innate need lead you into senior leadership positions within your career and/or Church? If not (I don’t believe it did in your case) why didn’t it if it’s “in born”? If it’s in born, how come some women rise to leadership positions over men if men have an in built need to be in charge?

I know, I know, lot’s of questions. But that’s because you are putting forward the notion that you’ve got the answers. So answer them (if you can…).

I asked ChatGPT the question “Do men have a physiological driven need to be in charge?” and here’s the answer…

That's a great question, and the short answer is: **no, men do not have a biologically hardwired need to be in charge**—at least not in a universal or deterministic way.

However, let's break it down:

### 1. **Evolutionary psychology angle**
Some theories suggest that in ancestral environments, males often competed for status and dominance as a way to secure mates and resources. From this view, behaviors associated with leadership or being "in charge" may have offered evolutionary advantages, especially in male-male competition. But that doesn't mean all men today are wired to want to dominate—it’s more nuanced than that.

### 2. **Hormones like testosterone**
Testosterone is often linked with dominance behaviors, but that doesn’t equal leadership or being “in charge” in the modern sense. It can affect assertiveness and risk-taking, but environment, culture, and individual differences play huge roles.

### 3. **Cultural and social conditioning**
This is probably the *biggest* factor. Many societies historically favored male leadership, which can shape expectations and behavior from a young age. Boys are often encouraged to be assertive or take charge, while girls might be socialized differently. These norms influence how people see themselves and their roles—not because of biology, but because of culture.

### 4. **Modern research**
Psychological and leadership research shows that both men and women can be equally effective leaders, and desire for leadership is more linked to **personality traits** (like extraversion, confidence, and ambition) than to sex.

### TL;DR:
Men *might* have some biological tendencies that lean toward assertive behavior, but there’s no universal, physiological "need" to be in charge. A lot of what we see comes down to socialization, culture, and individual differences.

Please start researching stuff BEFORE you make (utterly incorrect) definitive statements about things that you clearly know nothing about. “Choosing to believe” something just doesn’t make it so…

[Moksha]

I know you are saying this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but I have to say, in our house it's the men that are responsible for clean up after a yummy Sunday dinner.

And if I didn't, I'd hear about it later!

Regards,
MG

Good on you, MG! Do you feel this is more normative LDS behavior than gospel speculating as a male after-Sunday-dinner activity, while the women are nurturing and raising the children?

[MG 2.0]

There is no arguing that men seem to have an inborn need to be 'in charge'. It's in the physiology I'm afraid. Women, generally speaking, let the men play their little games and show that they can be 'in charge' but my experience has been that the women are very influential. Even if it is often not out in the spotlight.

Might have something to do with testosterone.

Regards,
MG

That’s an incredibly uneducated and outdated (and very Mormon male) view. It’s the view of an old man stuck 50 years in the past. I’d love to see your modern references that support it.

Let’s start with you. Do you feel an innate need to be in charge? Did that innate need lead you into senior leadership positions within your career and/or Church? If not (I don’t believe it did in your case) why didn’t it if it’s “in born”? If it’s in born, how come some women rise to leadership positions over men if men have an in built need to be in charge?

I know, I know, lot’s of questions. But that’s because you are putting forward the notion that you’ve got the answers. So answer them (if you can…).

I asked ChatGPT the question “Do men have a physiological driven need to be in charge?” and here’s the answer…

That's a great question, and the short answer is: **no, men do not have a biologically hardwired need to be in charge**—at least not in a universal or deterministic way.

However, let's break it down:

### 1. **Evolutionary psychology angle**
Some theories suggest that in ancestral environments, males often competed for status and dominance as a way to secure mates and resources. From this view, behaviors associated with leadership or being "in charge" may have offered evolutionary advantages, especially in male-male competition. But that doesn't mean all men today are wired to want to dominate—it’s more nuanced than that.

### 2. **Hormones like testosterone**
Testosterone is often linked with dominance behaviors, but that doesn’t equal leadership or being “in charge” in the modern sense. It can affect assertiveness and risk-taking, but environment, culture, and individual differences play huge roles.

### 3. **Cultural and social conditioning**
This is probably the *biggest* factor. Many societies historically favored male leadership, which can shape expectations and behavior from a young age. Boys are often encouraged to be assertive or take charge, while girls might be socialized differently. These norms influence how people see themselves and their roles—not because of biology, but because of culture.

### 4. **Modern research**
Psychological and leadership research shows that both men and women can be equally effective leaders, and desire for leadership is more linked to **personality traits** (like extraversion, confidence, and ambition) than to sex.

### TL;DR:
Men *might* have some biological tendencies that lean toward assertive behavior, but there’s no universal, physiological "need" to be in charge. A lot of what we see comes down to socialization, culture, and individual differences.

Please start researching stuff BEFORE you make (utterly incorrect) definitive statements about things that you clearly know nothing about. “Choosing to believe” something just doesn’t make it so…

I'll stick with what I've said.

Regards
MG

[MG 2.0]

I know you are saying this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but I have to say, in our house it's the men that are responsible for clean up after a yummy Sunday dinner.

And if I didn't, I'd hear about it later!

Regards,
MG

Why aren’t the men responsible for making it?

I think they could be. Different strokes for different folks.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I know you are saying this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but I have to say, in our house it's the men that are responsible for clean up after a yummy Sunday dinner.

And if I didn't, I'd hear about it later!

Regards,
MG

Good on you, MG! Do you feel this is more normative LDS behavior than gospel speculating as a male after-Sunday-dinner activity, while the women are nurturing and raising the children?

It's not all or nothing.

Regards
MG

[Marcus]

There is no arguing that men seem to have an inborn need to be 'in charge'. It's in the physiology I'm afraid. Women, generally speaking, let the men play their little games and show that they can be 'in charge' but my experience has been that the women are very influential. Even if it is often not out in the spotlight.

Might have something to do with testosterone. ...

That’s an incredibly uneducated and outdated (and very Mormon male) view. It’s the view of an old man stuck 50 years in the past....

Which brings us full circle back to the essay, with its similarly uneducated and outdated views about men and women. You'd think a church with that much money and so much concern for its image would be able to find a better PR firm to help them lie write these things.

[MG 2.0]

That’s an incredibly uneducated and outdated (and very Mormon male) view. It’s the view of an old man stuck 50 years in the past....

Which brings us full circle back to the essay, with its similarly uneducated and outdated views about men and women. You'd think a church with that much money and so much concern for its image would be able to find a better PR firm to help them lie write these things.

I don't think the church has any need to do what you suggest. As it is, the church has been in the forefront and progressive in listening to the women of the church. It's been that way since the early days of the church. And as I've already said and I will repeat;

Women in the church that believe in its teachings and are participants in the day to day, week to week, comings and goings of those that attend church and serve within wards and in their families know that they play an integral...if not the most important part...in the plan of life and salvation for God's children. In my experience growing up and then as an adult with my own family it is my firm belief that the women are 'the boss', the ones for whom most if not all decisions end up 'wrapping around' in the sense that they, the women, are the primary focus of lifting and helping so that they can then in turn do the most important work.

Raising and nurturing children and youth in whatever capacity they are able to do so.

The women and men that go back and forth on whether or not women in the church are looked upon with reverence and are respected are typically those that have some kind of ax to grind or ulterior motive of some kind that involves 'dinging' the church organization or its leaders in some way.

Again, the women in my life and those that I have observed over the years are not into the same kinds of so called issues that the critics and uber feminists are concerned with.

My two cents.

Honestly (and I know it's been said before), I think that certain permissions of authority and positions have been given to men in the church in order to keep them facing forward and in line. They have a tendency to wander and go off track much more than their counterparts. But at the end of the day, it's the women that run the show. Their voice matters a WHOLE lot.

The women at the general level of church leadership play a huge roll.

It is the critics and those that have placed themselves as so called "authorities" that have a problem with this essay or the place of women in the church organization.

One might refer to or remember the old Virginia Slims cigarette jingle, "You've come a long way, baby!"

And yet there will be those that are never satisfied and/or willing to recognize the special place of women and the deference in which they are respected and treated by men.

Is there room for improvement (thinking of the R.S. sisters booted from the stand in California)? Sure. But it should also be recognize that women have been given more places...by men that have ego's (testosterone speaking again)...in the church administration and organization.

A bit of humility all the way around might be in order. But humans will be humans.

Regards,
MG