Wednesday’s announcement reflects a belief that Sunday School is one area where women and men can work together in meaningful ways to expand the growth and development of members of the church.
“I see it as a beautiful orientation to continually expand and improve the quality of teaching of the gospel in the church,” she said. “I think it’s beautiful to draw upon the gifts that women have in that teaching.”
The church’s beginnings and history include both a cultural context for the roles of men women in ecclesiastical positions and Joseph Smith’s then-radical teachings about women and men as partners in eternal families, she said.
“Joseph came to know that eternity is grounded in men and women working together and bound together in deep family relationships,” Erickson said. “We know the church’s hierarchical structure won’t exist in eternity. That is an eternity of fathers and mothers working together.”
She said that was a radical idea at the time, that Latter-day Saint temple and other ordinances endowed both men and women with priesthood power.
It's interesting what the OP quote from the Deseret news leaves out. First, note that the main quote left out the source of the opinion:
[BYU religion professor Jenet Erickson] said Wednesday’s announcement reflects a belief that Sunday School is one area where women and men can work together in meaningful ways to expand the growth and development of members of the church....
In actuality, this new policy will not lead to "women and men [working] together" because, as is stated earlier in the linked Deseret article:
...“If a man is called as Sunday School president,” the letter stated, “he must hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, and his counselors and secretary must be male members of the ward. If a woman is called as Sunday School president, her counselors and secretary must be female members of the ward.”...
Can you imagine the absolute chaos if men were serving under a woman? Cats and dogs living together - mass hysteria!
Even though said in jest (I assume) I would hazard a guess that some people might think that remark was somehow "sexist". A word, by the way, often misapplied around here. Albeit by only two or three posters.
I think you make a good point though. Whether male or female I think that having the opposite gender as councilor(s) would probably not be a good idea.
There's enough 'he said, she said' going on in the world. I don't think the church would want to play any part feeding into that.
But isn't that a good thing...women in another leadership position? I would think that critics would, at the very least, see that as a positive move.
LDS women do. At least that's my guess. There will always be those, however, that will rain on any party/parade.
Can you imagine the absolute chaos if men were serving under a woman? Cats and dogs living together - mass hysteria!
Even though said in jest (I assume) I would hazard a guess that some people might think that remark was somehow "sexist". A word, by the way, often misapplied around here. Albeit by only two or three posters.
I think you make a good point though. Whether male or female I think that having the opposite gender as councilor(s) would probably not be a good idea.
There's enough 'he said, she said' going on in the world. I don't think the church would want to play any part feeding into that.
So, keep women and men separate? Please. This is where I again have to conclude mentalgymnast is just trolling. Who else would make such an obviously sexist remark?
To repeat, isn't that a good thing...women in another leadership position? I would think that critics would, at the very least, see that as a positive move.
LDS women do. At least that's my guess. There will always be those, however, that will rain on any party/parade.
To repeat, isn't that a good thing...women in another leadership position? I would think that critics would, at the very least, see that as a positive move.
LDS women do. At least that's my guess. There will always be those, however, that will rain on any party/parade.
Regards,
MG
PS told ya' so. Sexism everywhere you look.
And more sexism from mg, who's having a hard time keeping his word.
...After a long period of time I’ve decided that my preference is to ‘channel in’ or talk with those people who are not so focused on ad hominem and/or personal insults as the primary modus operandi. I realize that we all fail at times to be understanding and show grace towards others. When it becomes the norm with some individuals, however, I’m not as into that. It simply devolves into a slug fest. I’ve been subject to failure at times in showing empathy and grace to others.
I’ve been consciously trying to move away from that for a while now even though it’s not too difficult to get sucked into the ‘drama’ that some individuals seem eager to create by throwing out words and insults that aren’t true....
Can you imagine the absolute chaos if men were serving under a woman? Cats and dogs living together - mass hysteria!
Even though said in jest (I assume) I would hazard a guess that some people might think that remark was somehow "sexist". A word, by the way, often misapplied around here. Albeit by only two or three posters.
I think you make a good point though. Whether male or female I think that having the opposite gender as councilor(s) would probably not be a good idea.
There's enough 'he said, she said' going on in the world. I don't think the church would want to play any part feeding into that.
But isn't that a good thing...women in another leadership position? I would think that critics would, at the very least, see that as a positive move.
LDS women do. At least that's my guess. There will always be those, however, that will rain on any party/parade.
Regards,
MG
The only sexism is the Mormon dogma that women are fundamentally subservient to men. Which looks increasingly archaic and out of touch as mankind progresses past such outdated bigoted ideas.
The Mormon leaders have begrudgingly been dragged into accepting this reality, one small step at a time. Most posters here are old enough to have lived in a Mormon church where women were not allowed to pray in sacrament meeting. Where they were not allowed to pray in general conference. Where they pledged to obey their husband in the temple.
Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husbands and abide by his counsel in righteousness of your husband. Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."
As with the church being decades behind the civil rights movement, it’s hard to applaud them being decades behind the women’s rights movement even to this very day.
Even though said in jest (I assume) I would hazard a guess that some people might think that remark was somehow "sexist". A word, by the way, often misapplied around here. Albeit by only two or three posters.
I think you make a good point though. Whether male or female I think that having the opposite gender as councilor(s) would probably not be a good idea.
There's enough 'he said, she said' going on in the world. I don't think the church would want to play any part feeding into that.
But isn't that a good thing...women in another leadership position? I would think that critics would, at the very least, see that as a positive move.
LDS women do. At least that's my guess. There will always be those, however, that will rain on any party/parade.
Regards,
MG
The only sexism is the Mormon dogma that women are fundamentally subservient to men. Which looks increasingly archaic and out of touch as mankind progresses past such outdated bigoted ideas.
The Mormon leaders have begrudgingly been dragged into accepting this reality, one small step at a time. Most posters here are old enough to have lived in a Mormon church where women were not allowed to pray in sacrament meeting. Where they were not allowed to pray in general conference. Where they pledged to obey their husband in the temple.
Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husbands and abide by his counsel in righteousness of your husband. Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."
As with the church being decades behind the civil rights movement, it’s hard to applaud them being decades behind the women’s rights movement even to this very day.
The only sexism is the Mormon dogma that women are fundamentally subservient to men. Which looks increasingly archaic and out of touch as mankind progresses past such outdated bigoted ideas.
The Mormon leaders have begrudgingly been dragged into accepting this reality, one small step at a time. Most posters here are old enough to have lived in a Mormon church where women were not allowed to pray in sacrament meeting. Where they were not allowed to pray in general conference. Where they pledged to obey their husband in the temple.
As with the church being decades behind the civil rights movement, it’s hard to applaud them being decades behind the women’s rights movement even to this very day.
Learning curve. Evolution. Maturity.
Regards,
MG
Or exactly what you’d expect from a man-made religion with leaders who have no supernatural prescient abilities.
Rather than anticipate the future, they lag decades behind the secular world.
Please. This is where I again have to conclude mentalgymnast is just trolling. Who else would make such an obviously sexist remark?