Continued discussion about gender inequality in LDS church

[Marcus]

Let's try that again, without the trolling....

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.

i wanted to revisit your post, which has a legit link and some actual discussion, unlike the trolling A.I. posts. 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.

[Moksha]

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.

Regards,
MG

MG, do you really think God makes that many blunders?

[I Have Questions]

Let's try that again, without the trolling....

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.

i wanted to revisit your post, which has a legit link and some actual discussion, unlike the trolling A.I. posts. 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.

Here’s a description of a ward disciplinary council

The large majority of disciplinary councils occur at the ward, or local congregational level. For these councils, a bishop and his two counsellors invite the individual into a private meeting that begins with prayer. The person is invited to participate in a discussion where the bishop and the individual describe the behavior and any steps that have been taken to repent. There is opportunity for questions and discussion, and the individual may ask that others give testimony on his or her behalf.

Following that discussion, the bishop and his two counsellors meet privately to pray, deliberate, consider Church policies and doctrines and counsel together about the possible outcomes. They take into consideration many factors, including whether the member has broken marriage covenants; whether a position of responsibility or trust has been abused; the repetition or seriousness of the transgression; the age, maturity and understanding of the individual; the degree of the individual’s understanding and evidence of repentance; and the interests of victims or family members. As the conclusion of this discussion, the bishop proposes a course of action, which must be ratified by his counsellors.

At this point, the individual is invited back into the room, where the decision is presented and instructions are given about the timeframe, restrictions and conditions associated with the repentance process.

The 3 decision makers are all men. It continues

A similar process may be conducted at a stake level by a stake president, his counsellors and members of the stake high council. Stake disciplinary councils are required for men who hold the higher levels of the priesthood or Church leadership positions of significance and whose Church membership may possibly be ended through the proceedings.

All males.

At no point in the explanation (written in 2022) does it suggest that a female can be involved in the decision making process.

In terms of the optional involvement of a relief society president that comes as a result of a request from the member being disciplined, not from the all-male decision making group, which is a significant distinction

The bishop or stake president gives a member written notice of a membership council that will be held in his or her behalf. He signs the letter. It includes the following information:

“The [bishopric or stake presidency] is holding a membership council in your behalf. The council will be held on [date and time] at [place].

“This council will consider [summarize the misconduct in general terms, but do not give details or evidence].

“You are invited to attend the council to give your response. You may provide written statements from persons who could provide relevant information. You may invite such persons to speak to the council in your behalf if approved in advance by the stake president or bishop. You may also invite [the ward Relief Society president or the elders quorum president] to be present and provide support.

It is not the all-male group of decision makers inviting the relief society president to be part of their process.

It should be noted that I’ve used the Church’s own website as my source for these quotes.

[MG 2.0]

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.

Regards,
MG

MG, do you really think God makes that many blunders?

I don't think God makes "blunders". I mean, think about it.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Let's try that again, without the trolling....i wanted to revisit your post, which has a legit link and some actual discussion, unlike the trolling A.I. posts. 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.

Here’s a description of a ward disciplinary council

The large majority of disciplinary councils occur at the ward, or local congregational level. For these councils, a bishop and his two counsellors invite the individual into a private meeting that begins with prayer. The person is invited to participate in a discussion where the bishop and the individual describe the behavior and any steps that have been taken to repent. There is opportunity for questions and discussion, and the individual may ask that others give testimony on his or her behalf.

Following that discussion, the bishop and his two counsellors meet privately to pray, deliberate, consider Church policies and doctrines and counsel together about the possible outcomes. They take into consideration many factors, including whether the member has broken marriage covenants; whether a position of responsibility or trust has been abused; the repetition or seriousness of the transgression; the age, maturity and understanding of the individual; the degree of the individual’s understanding and evidence of repentance; and the interests of victims or family members. As the conclusion of this discussion, the bishop proposes a course of action, which must be ratified by his counsellors.

At this point, the individual is invited back into the room, where the decision is presented and instructions are given about the timeframe, restrictions and conditions associated with the repentance process.

The 3 decision makers are all men. It continues

A similar process may be conducted at a stake level by a stake president, his counsellors and members of the stake high council. Stake disciplinary councils are required for men who hold the higher levels of the priesthood or Church leadership positions of significance and whose Church membership may possibly be ended through the proceedings.

All males.

At no point in the explanation (written in 2022) does it suggest that a female can be involved in the decision making process.

In terms of the optional involvement of a relief society president that comes as a result of a request from the member being disciplined, not from the all-male decision making group, which is a significant distinction

The bishop or stake president gives a member written notice of a membership council that will be held in his or her behalf. He signs the letter. It includes the following information:

“The [bishopric or stake presidency] is holding a membership council in your behalf. The council will be held on [date and time] at [place].

“This council will consider [summarize the misconduct in general terms, but do not give details or evidence].

“You are invited to attend the council to give your response. You may provide written statements from persons who could provide relevant information. You may invite such persons to speak to the council in your behalf if approved in advance by the stake president or bishop. You may also invite [the ward Relief Society president or the elders quorum president] to be present and provide support.

It is not the all-male group of decision makers inviting the relief society president to be part of their process.

It should be noted that I’ve used the Church’s own website as my source for these quotes.

Wow. It's even worse than I thought.

[Moksha]

MG, would argue that total male dominance in decision making is what God told the men in the Church he wants, rather than the men in the Church making this up because it suits their needs.

God liked the cut of Joseph Smith's jib and that he could communicate with seer stones, so he wants all the leaders of the Restored Church to be men. Women have not shown sufficient translation abilities with seer stones, nor have they unearthed their own golden plates. I hope I identified all MG's points correctly.

If women want these things, they must make up restore their own Church.

[MG 2.0]

MG, would argue that total male dominance in decision making is what God told the men in the Church he wants, rather than the men in the Church making this up because it suits their needs.

God liked the cut of Joseph Smith's jib and that he could communicate with seer stones, so he wants all the leaders of the Restored Church to be men. Women have not shown sufficient translation abilities with seer stones, nor have they unearthed their own golden plates. I hope I identified all MG's points correctly.

If women want these things, they must make up restore their own Church.

Prompt: A critic of Mormonism said this on a message board: "MG, would argue that total male dominance in decision making is what God told the men in the Church he wants, rather than the men in the Church making this up because it suits their needs.

God liked the cut of Joseph Smith's jib and that he could communicate with seer stones, so he wants all the leaders of the Restored Church to be men. Women have not shown sufficient translation abilities with seer stones, nor have they unearthed their own golden plates. I hope I identified all MG's points correctly.

If women want these things, they must make up restore their own Church."
Is this a reasonable position to take when all things are taken into account?

Evaluating the Critic's Position on Gender, Seer Stones, and Leadership in Mormonism:

The critic's statement is a satirical summary of arguments sometimes made to justify male-only leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), referencing Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones and the origins of church authority. To assess whether this is a reasonable position, it’s important to examine the historical, doctrinal, and cultural context.

Historical Use of Seer Stones and Gender

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, did use seer stones as part of his translation of the Book of Mormon and for other revelatory purposes

. However, the use of seer stones was not presented as a prerequisite for church leadership or priesthood authority. Brigham Young, Smith's successor, stated he never desired a seer stone and did not consider them essential to being a seer. After Smith, there is no evidence that subsequent church presidents used seer stones in their roles as "prophet, seer, and revelator"

.

Women played significant roles in the early church, including as witnesses to the physical golden plates and as supporters in the translation process. For example, Emma Smith, Joseph’s wife, was instrumental in the retrieval of the plates and acted as a scribe during translation

. However, there is no record of women using seer stones for translation or revelation in the early church.

Doctrine and Priesthood Authority

The LDS Church has maintained since its founding that priesthood ordination is reserved for men. This is not directly tied to seer stone use but is rooted in the church’s interpretation of divine revelation and scriptural precedent

.

Official church manuals and statements reinforce that only male members are eligible for priesthood offices, beginning at age 12
. The rationale given by church leaders is that this is a doctrinal matter, not merely a cultural or historical artifact

.

Polling shows that while support for women’s ordination has increased among members, the overwhelming majority of Latter-day Saints historically defer to church leadership and doctrine, believing that only a revelation from God could change this policy

.

Cultural and Institutional Dynamics

The church’s structure prioritizes male leadership, and criticism or dissent regarding this policy is often discouraged or marginalized

. Women’s roles, while significant, are institutionally limited compared to those of men, especially in decision-making and leadership at the highest levels.

The critic’s suggestion that women must "make up [or] restore their own Church" if they want equal authority is a rhetorical device, highlighting the institutional barriers within the LDS Church to female leadership and ordination.

Conclusion: Is the Critic’s Position Reasonable?

The critic’s position, while satirical, does not accurately reflect official LDS doctrine, which does not claim that seer stone use or the discovery of golden plates is a requirement for church leadership or priesthood. Rather, the male-only priesthood is justified by appeals to revelation and tradition, not by translation abilities or artifact discovery

.

The historical record shows women were involved in significant ways in the early church, but not in the roles of seer or priesthood holder

.

The institutional reality is that male dominance in decision-making is enforced by doctrine and tradition, not by the specific supernatural experiences of Joseph Smith or other early leaders

.

In summary: The critic’s argument is a caricature of LDS justifications for male-only leadership, exaggerating the importance of seer stones and artifact discovery. The actual rationale for male-only priesthood in Mormonism is rooted in claims of divine revelation and longstanding tradition, not in the supernatural accomplishments of Joseph Smith or the absence of similar experiences among women. The critic’s position is therefore not a reasonable or accurate summary of official LDS teaching, though it does highlight the gendered nature of church authority and the barriers to change within the institution.
Perplexity A.I.

I'm MG, and I approve this message. Fairly well balanced.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

The critic’s position is therefore not a reasonable or accurate summary of official LDS teaching, though it does highlight the gendered nature of church authority and the barriers to change within the institution.
Perplexity A.I.

I'm MG, and I approve this message. Fairly well balanced.

Regards,
MG

MG, you are right that I was not trying to be accurate, but to display the folly of not accepting women fully into the religious fold.

When I was young, I visited other faith traditions led by religious leaders such as Carolyn Irish, Ginger Gryzwana, and Rabbi Laura Geller, and I was struck by how much more competent they seemed than any of the local bishops who had been my LDS leaders. I had several one-on-one discussions with Rabbi Geller, who boosted my outlook on life, and I was grateful.

It made me realize how much the LDS were missing the boat in terms of grossly relegating women to the sidelines. The fact that they never self-corrected with the changes in society seems sufficient reason for LDS women to walk away. If you think of oppression as a sin, then the chain forged by the LDS patriarchy is indeed ponderous.

[MG 2.0]

The critic’s position is therefore not a reasonable or accurate summary of official LDS teaching, though it does highlight the gendered nature of church authority and the barriers to change within the institution.
Perplexity A.I.

I'm MG, and I approve this message. Fairly well balanced.

Regards,
MG

MG, you are right that I was not trying to be accurate, but to display the folly of not accepting women fully into the religious fold.

When I was young, I visited other faith traditions led by religious leaders such as Carolyn Irish, Ginger Gryzwana, and Rabbi Laura Geller, and I was struck by how much more competent they seemed than any of the local bishops who had been my LDS leaders. I had several one-on-one discussions with Rabbi Geller, who boosted my outlook on life, and I was grateful.

It made me realize how much the LDS were missing the boat in terms of grossly relegating women to the sidelines. The fact that they never self-corrected with the changes in society seems sufficient reason for LDS women to walk away. If you think of oppression as a sin, then the chain forged by the LDS patriarchy is indeed ponderous.

It's not rocket science, although some have made it out to be and made a lot of money out of selling books. Men are different than women. They have different talents and responsibilities. This is, of course, a generalization. But on the whole, men like to do 'men things' and women like to do 'women things'. Neither being better than the other. Just different.

This afternoon I went over to the Stake Center to help set up all the chairs for an adult meeting tonight and the Sunday conference tomorrow. I wouldn't have even considered telling my wife she needed to go over with me and help set up. For one thing, she's with our youngest daughter today helping take care of a baby while our daughter and her husband are preparing for a move. For another, she is just not built for it nowadays.

Division of responsibility works. Men and women generally have God given talents and responsibilities. Men can become elementary school teachers and nurses. Women can become doctors and battalion commanders. Sure. But on the whole, men are men and women are women.

The Priesthood authority has been given to men. Why? I think to keep them in line and pure and clean enough to be good husbands to their wives who are spiritually superior. More empathetic. More loving. More insightful. More caring. More knowledgeable about many things.

Men need an assignment to get things done. And then, two thirds of them will fail at doing so.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

More empathetic. More loving. More insightful. More caring. More knowledgeable about many things.

Regards,
MG

Those are certainly qualities that I would treasure in a religious leader.