Continued discussion about gender inequality in LDS church

[Marcus]

Bypassing the troll, yet again!!...

The bond between a mother and her child is qualitatively different.

Regards,
MG

Said a man.

As per usual, your assertion is not based on facts.

From the marketplace to the workplace, it is mothers who are still perceived as having that “special bond” with their children. This is compounded by advertising and the widely held expectation that it will be mothers who take parental leave.

But in a rapidly changing society, is there really any reason to assume that mothers are any more suited to take care of their children than fathers? Some will argue that a superior “maternal instinct” is part of a woman’s biology. But do pregnancy, hormones or parenting experiences really create a stronger bond? Let’s take a look at the scientific evidence.

Some scholars argue that the relationship between parents and children can begin before birth. They claim that such “antenatal bonding” – feeling connected to the unborn baby – is an important predictor of the infant-mother relationship. However, the actual evidence linking feelings about the baby during pregnancy with postnatal behaviour is inconsistent, so it’s not clear how – or even if – such feelings influence later relationships.

But even if it is shown to be the case, another problem is that most of the research in this area has been conducted with mothers. We are now also starting to understand that fathers develop antenatal relationships too. It is also clear that not having the experience of pregnancy at all doesn’t mean that later relationships are compromised – as those who have adopted a child or started a family through surrogacy arrangements know.

This article reflects modern learning, not the male-world view that has dominated the past 75 years.

A huge problem when it comes to understanding the differences – and similarities – between fathers and mothers is that most research on bonding doesn’t directly compare the two. This is likely to be because mothers still stay home with the child more often than fathers, and researchers might have difficulties finding enough households where fathers are in the role of a primary caregiver. So we don’t really know whether fathers interacting with their babies differently to mothers is about their biological differences or about roles taken in relation to breadwinning and child rearing.

So your assertion is likely driven by your existing in a patriarchal societal bubble with “traditional” and old fashioned gender roles. Rather than it being an inescapable fact. In a society where fathers stayed at home and mothers went out to work, you’d see the qualitative difference in bonding in favour of fathers. It’s about quality time spent with your offspring, not a gender based differential.

Thanks for the link, and for the background on how methodology can effect results. (and you didn't link-and-run!! Someone could learn from that. : D )

[I Have Questions]

Interestingly on this topic, the disciplinary councils held in the Church are all-male, because Stake High Councillors are all-male. So when considering a member’s infractions, only a male view is considered. Even if the member being judged is female. Imagine that dynamic in a real world setting. Imagine a woman is on trial for killing her husband, and the judge and jury were all-male. Would that be considered a fair and balanced body?

High Council

A group of 12 men called to help oversee the work of the Church in a stake. These high councilors work under the direction of the stake president and help train and supervise stake personnel or programs. The high council also convenes as a disciplinary council in cases when serious sin may affect someone’s Church membership.

Women aren’t entrusted with sitting on Church disciplinary councils, simply on the basis that they are female.

[sock puppet]

Interestingly on this topic, the disciplinary councils held in the Church are all-male, because Stake High Councillors are all-male. So when considering a member’s infractions, only a male view is considered. Even if the member being judged is female. Imagine that dynamic in a real world setting. Imagine a woman is on trial for killing her husband, and the judge and jury were all-male. Would that be considered a fair and balanced body?

High Council

A group of 12 men called to help oversee the work of the Church in a stake. These high councilors work under the direction of the stake president and help train and supervise stake personnel or programs. The high council also convenes as a disciplinary council in cases when serious sin may affect someone’s Church membership.

Women aren’t entrusted with sitting on Church disciplinary councils, simply on the basis that they are female.

If you don't have a penis, how can you stick it to the member in a disciplinary council? (Geez.)

[MG 2.0]

Women aren’t entrusted with sitting on Church disciplinary councils, simply on the basis that they are female.

They don't have Priesthood Authority in this instance.

I think we've already been through this, to no avail.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Interestingly on this topic, the disciplinary councils held in the Church are all-male, because Stake High Councillors are all-male. So when considering a member’s infractions, only a male view is considered. Even if the member being judged is female. Imagine that dynamic in a real world setting. Imagine a woman is on trial for killing her husband, and the judge and jury were all-male. Would that be considered a fair and balanced body?

High Council

Women aren’t entrusted with sitting on Church disciplinary councils, simply on the basis that they are female.

If you don't have a penis, how can you stick it to the member in a disciplinary council? (Geez.)

Lol. Seriously, though, from what I've heard about these 'councils' there is no reason women couldn't be part of them. They are part of ward council meetings, right? It comes down to ihq's explanation, "simply on the basis that they are female." That's not a legitimate reason, but it is part of the inequality that persists.

[MG 2.0]

If you don't have a penis, how can you stick it to the member in a disciplinary council? (Geez.)

Lol. Seriously, though, from what I've heard about these 'councils' there is no reason women couldn't be part of them. They are part of ward council meetings, right? It comes down to ihq's explanation, "simply on the basis that they are female." That's not a legitimate reason, but it is part of the inequality that persists.

Well, yes and no to your question. It depends.

Prompt: What are the main differences between a ward membership council and a stake membership council?
Here are the key differences between ward and stake membership councils in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
Jurisdiction

Ward Council: Handles non-endowed members, youth, women (unless endowed), and Aaronic Priesthood holders

.

Stake Council: Required for endowed members, Melchizedek Priesthood holders, and cases involving family members of local leaders

.

Participants

Ward Council:

Bishop, two counselors, and clerk (mandatory).

Optional: Relief Society president (for women) or elders quorum president (for men)

.

Stake Council:

Stake president, two counselors, and clerk (mandatory).

High councilors participate only if facts are contested, requested by the member, or if a stake presidency member’s family is involved

.

Optional: Member’s bishop or relevant auxiliary leaders

.

Decision-Making Authority

Ward Council:

Bishop makes decisions but requires stake president approval for membership withdrawal

.

Cannot withdraw membership of endowed members-must refer to the stake

.

Stake Council:

Stake president has final authority without requiring higher approval

.

Handles appeals from ward decisions and high-profile cases

.

Outcomes

Ward Council:

Recommends membership withdrawal for non-endowed members (pending stake approval)

.

May impose informal restrictions (e.g., limited participation in ordinances)

.

Stake Council:

Directly withdraws membership for endowed members or Melchizedek Priesthood holders

.

Oversees complex cases, including apostasy or leadership-related misconduct

.

Procedural Differences

Appeals: Ward decisions are appealed to the stake council

.

High Council Involvement: Unique to stake councils when facts are disputed or member requests it

.

Family Conflicts: Ward councils cannot address cases involving a bishop’s family-stake must intervene

.

These distinctions ensure alignment with church policies while emphasizing repentance and spiritual welfare

Prompt: What are the main differences between a ward membership council and a stake membership council?
Here are the key differences between ward and stake membership councils in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
Jurisdiction

Ward Council: Handles non-endowed members, youth, women (unless endowed), and Aaronic Priesthood holders

.

Stake Council: Required for endowed members, Melchizedek Priesthood holders, and cases involving family members of local leaders

.

Participants

Ward Council:

Bishop, two counselors, and clerk (mandatory).

Optional: Relief Society president (for women) or elders quorum president (for men)

.

Stake Council:

Stake president, two counselors, and clerk (mandatory).

High councilors participate only if facts are contested, requested by the member, or if a stake presidency member’s family is involved

.

Optional: Member’s bishop or relevant auxiliary leaders

.

Decision-Making Authority

Ward Council:

Bishop makes decisions but requires stake president approval for membership withdrawal

.

Cannot withdraw membership of endowed members-must refer to the stake

.

Stake Council:

Stake president has final authority without requiring higher approval

.

Handles appeals from ward decisions and high-profile cases

.

Outcomes

Ward Council:

Recommends membership withdrawal for non-endowed members (pending stake approval)

.

May impose informal restrictions (e.g., limited participation in ordinances)

.

Stake Council:

Directly withdraws membership for endowed members or Melchizedek Priesthood holders

.

Oversees complex cases, including apostasy or leadership-related misconduct

.

Procedural Differences

Appeals: Ward decisions are appealed to the stake council

.

High Council Involvement: Unique to stake councils when facts are disputed or member requests it

.

Family Conflicts: Ward councils cannot address cases involving a bishop’s family-stake must intervene

.

These distinctions ensure alignment with church policies while emphasizing repentance and spiritual welfare

Prompt: are women part of the ward disciplinary councils?
Relief Society President (Optional Attendee):

The ward Relief Society president may attend when the member involved is a woman, providing insight into the member’s spiritual needs or circumstances

.

She does not vote or formally decide outcomes but may offer counsel if invited by the bishop

.

Young Women Leaders:

For youth cases involving young women (ages 12–17), the Young Women president is not mentioned in disciplinary council procedures. These cases are handled by the bishopric, though the bishop may consult youth leaders informally

Perplexity A.I.

Hope this helps!

Regards.
MG

[Marcus]

Bypassing the meaningless meanderings of the A.I. troll:

Interestingly on this topic, the disciplinary councils held in the Church are all-male, because Stake High Councillors are all-male. So when considering a member’s infractions, only a male view is considered. Even if the member being judged is female. Imagine that dynamic in a real world setting. Imagine a woman is on trial for killing her husband, and the judge and jury were all-male. Would that be considered a fair and balanced body?

High Council

Women aren’t entrusted with sitting on Church disciplinary councils, simply on the basis that they are female.

If you don't have a penis, how can you stick it to the member in a disciplinary council? (Geez.)

Lol. Seriously, though, from what I've heard about these 'councils' there is no reason women couldn't be part of them. They are part of ward council meetings, right? It comes down to ihq's explanation, "simply on the basis that they are female." That's not a legitimate reason, but it is part of the inequality that persists.

[MG 2.0]

Bypassing the meaningless meanderings of the A.I. troll:

If you don't have a penis, how can you stick it to the member in a disciplinary council? (Geez.)

Lol. Seriously, though, from what I've heard about these 'councils' there is no reason women couldn't be part of them. They are part of ward council meetings, right? It comes down to ihq's explanation, "simply on the basis that they are female." That's not a legitimate reason, but it is part of the inequality that persists.

Your concerns have been addressed. I'm not sure that anyone will be able to add to the information that has already been handed to you on a silver platter.

But I suppose you can bypass the previous post and this one and to the whole 'troll thing' again. It's become rather meaningless.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Interestingly on this topic, the disciplinary councils held in the Church are all-male, because Stake High Councillors are all-male. So when considering a member’s infractions, only a male view is considered. Even if the member being judged is female. Imagine that dynamic in a real world setting. Imagine a woman is on trial for killing her husband, and the judge and jury were all-male. Would that be considered a fair and balanced body?

High Council

A group of 12 men called to help oversee the work of the Church in a stake. These high councilors work under the direction of the stake president and help train and supervise stake personnel or programs. The high council also convenes as a disciplinary council in cases when serious sin may affect someone’s Church membership.

Women aren’t entrusted with sitting on Church disciplinary councils, simply on the basis that they are female.

Our troll is still cluttering up space with A.I. offerings that are not in any way reliable and just end up derailing a thread, mostly due to his apparent inability to exercise intellectual honesty. Thankfully, blocking helps, but you'd think the troll would learn. (Although it is still my opinion he just does it so he can troll with less effort.)

Given that, i wanted to revisit your post, which has a legit link and some actual discussion. Your point was that only men "sit on" a council, which implies having the formalized power to take action. At your link, i found a related link that says a Relief Society president may be invited, but not as a decision-making member, which still makes the point about gender inequality. If anything, it reinforces the inequity.

[MG 2.0]

Interestingly on this topic, the disciplinary councils held in the Church are all-male, because Stake High Councillors are all-male. So when considering a member’s infractions, only a male view is considered. Even if the member being judged is female. Imagine that dynamic in a real world setting. Imagine a woman is on trial for killing her husband, and the judge and jury were all-male. Would that be considered a fair and balanced body?

High Council

Women aren’t entrusted with sitting on Church disciplinary councils, simply on the basis that they are female.

Our troll is still cluttering up space with A.I. offerings that are not in any way reliable...

Can you give proof of that?

...and just end up derailing a thread

How can helping you to answer concerns and questions that you have be a derail?

...mostly due to his apparent inability to exercise intellectual honesty.

I think folks are going to want you to explain what you mean in this case?

Thankfully, blocking helps...

An ostrich with its head in the sand comes to mind.

...but you'd think the troll would learn. (Although it is still my opinion he just does it so he can troll with less effort.)

Marcus, the evidence points otherwise. You follow me around with the intent of derailing conversations rather than adding to them.

That's trolling.

Given that...

I think you just set yourself up for a fall.

i wanted to revisit your post, which has a legit link and some actual discussion. Your point was that only men "sit on" a council, which implies having the formalized power to take action. At your link, i found a related link that says a Relief Society president may be invited, but not as a decision-making member, which still makes the point about gender inequality. If anything, it reinforces the inequity.

We already know that there is a division of responsibility in the church. Men have priesthood authority and both men and women share priesthood power.

I'm not sure exactly what your driving argument here? I think at the end of the day it comes back to the thing that you don't believe in God so you think that whatever a religious institution does ought to be 'open game'. If you take God out of the picture you can toss this around all day long.

Which is what you're doing.

The CofJCofLDS believes that God is at the helm and that His will is being accomplished in His church in the manner that He has instructed.

We're just not on the same page. There is no compromise between the ways of man and the ways of God...unless God says otherwise. Apparently He has not done so. I would also hazard a guess that you have very little influence on what He says or does.

But I guess you can keep talking about it as though there is some kind of equitable solution that critics and apostates can come to in order to change the order of the church.

Regards,
MG