Women in Church Leadership: The Gap

[Anonymous]

Quote:

May I point out something obvious? Life rarely goes exactly according to plan for anyone, and we are very aware that not all women are experiencing what the proclamation describes. It is still important to understand and teach the Lord’s pattern and strive for the realization of that pattern the best we can.

Each of us has a part to play in the plan, and each of us is equally valued in the eyes of the Lord. We should remember that a loving Heavenly Father is aware of our righteous desires and will honor His promises that nothing will be withheld from those who faithfully keep their covenants. Heavenly Father has a mission and plan for each of us, but He also has His own timetable. One of the hardest challenges in this life is to have faith in the Lord’s timing. It’s a good idea to have an alternative plan in mind, which helps us to be covenant-keeping, charitable, and righteous women who build the kingdom of God no matter which way our lives go. We need to teach our daughters to aim for the ideal but plan for contingencies.

This from Sis. Oscarson’s talk and I think it’s the best example of what left me so uninspired, the insistence that there is An Ideal. Setting something up as ideal makes everything else non-ideal. Feels like a definite winners/losers, girls who luck out and “snag” a big breadwinner/everyone else. It’s really stuck in that mindset and isn’t even addressing the issue of people who are approaching marriage and careers with different sensibilities. Are two-career couples not “understanding the Lord’s pattern?” I just picture the Lord being concerned with each of us as individuals much, much more than he cares about us plugging in to roles.

[Anonymous]

When I first moved to Scottsdale, all 4 members of our RSP were divorced women. They were from various walks of life and in different situations. The RSP was a very accomplished business owner. Probably 70% of the RS in my (very wealthy) ward (at that time) had careers of one sort or another. Even if they didn’t, they were educated and accomplished in their own right with more going on than just being Mormon.

I believe it was Barbara Thomson who was the counselor in the general presidency – I really liked her.

When my daughter (12) said another family in the ward was “more Mormon” than we are, I asked what she meant, and it boiled down to that family never talking about anything but the church. The dad said in a talk that if someone could read your status updates on FB and not know within 30 seconds that you are a Mormon, you weren’t doing your duty. All I can say to that is “unfriend.” What kind of boring drivel is that? I want to connect with people on a personal level, not just on the superficial level of belonging to the same church.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

aim for the ideal

I guess that means the next time the Olympics come around we should tell non-gold medal contenders to stay home.

[Anonymous]

On one hand it makes sense for the independently wealthy to take on volunteer positions. They have the time, and they have the talent. I have a feeling that my Leader From Hell stories would be even worse if my mission president was a person who didn’t have a certain amount of proven leadership experience. With that often comes a certain amount of wealth.

One of my favorite authors on leadership, Max Dupree, said that the “accretion of layers” takes time when it comes to leadership and management. I tend to agree with him — and it takes experience to make those layers. You have to get kicked around, make mistakes, recover from humiliating feedback, etcetera. Those that recover and keep learning often become strong leaders and do generate wealth and passive income that allows them to be mission presidents of full-time church leaders.

I do see empathy as a big problem though, with their wives.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Quote:

aim for the ideal

I guess that means the next time the Olympics come around we should tell non-gold medal contenders to stay home.

if/maybe/when i have a daughter, i’ll be teaching her to aim for her ideal. whatever that looks like

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I believe it was Barbara Thomson who was the counselor in the general presidency – I really liked her.

BINGO! That was her. I think anybody that hung around her left happier.

DarkJedi wrote:

They’re out there folks, I wish there were more of them in top leadership positions.

We need a few more Bryndis Roberts in positions. She is a RSP in Georgia. http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/03/19/african-american-mormon-convert-lds-church-needs-make-amends-past-racism/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/03/19/african-american-mormon-convert-lds-church-needs-make-amends-past-racism/

I work in a mega-corporation. I recently got a new boss that came from the outside. He has already made a name for himself of not being patient. You know what? I LOVE IT! It is so refreshing to get stuff DONE and have stupid processes and procedures knocked out of the way or permission to side-step them. I sure hope he stays.

I get the feeling that Sister Roberts has a bit of impatience when stupid things are preventing the right thing from happening. I heard that when she found that many of her single sisters couldn’t get to church due to transportation she asked the bishop, “Why don’t we get a church bus?” Good question! I comprehend some of the legal issues, but you could find a company that drives busses and could cover the legal liability issues. Yes it costs a few bucks, but why not look into that? Her bishop told her that was out of what he was approved to do.

[Anonymous]

Metalrain wrote-

Quote:

f/maybe/when i have a daughter, i’ll be teaching her to aim for her idea

When I was a teen, in the church, we talked a lot about Personal Missions. About developing your unique gifts, style, talents. Our Bishop went so far that every Sacrament Meeting during the announcements he would highlight various youth achievements – non-church related. Whether it was sports or beauty pageants or band competitions – your name and what you did was announced to the ward. He also had the youth who played instruments do rest hymns. These weren’t various version of hymns, but classical pieces. Really tough melodious stuff. We had a group of guys that created a jug band, they always played for our ward dinner. Our Bishops motto was “God didn’t make losers.” We really believed him. He (and the other leaders) taught us to aim for our ideal.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think that’s quite a bit different than a 35-year-old with multiple kids and a mortgage, Nibbler.

For sure, I was supporting your point in a round about way. Some think they can relate due to having that experience but once you hit six figures you forget about those hardships almost immediately.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I think that’s quite a bit different than a 35-year-old with multiple kids and a mortgage, Nibbler.

For sure, I was supporting your point in a round about way. Some think they can relate due to having that experience but once you hit six figures you forget about those hardships almost immediately.

I don’t know that this is an absolute. If someone grew up in poverty (or “very tight finances”) that can stay with them even once they get money. I have a friend that is a financial planner and he says he has clients that are approaching being millionaires and they come in outfits they got from Wal-Mart. They don’t even own a pair of Nike’s as that is splurging and you are paying for a name brand.

Not trying to contradict as for this thread I would say that once you are very comfortably set financially, it is VERY EASY to forget about the hardships. I also think that many honestly believe that they are where they are due to their righteousness and they are preaching, “follow the same path and you will get the same (general) results.” So I can see a case where they have empathy (or would that by sympathy – need to go look at that youtube again ) but they feel the best way is to “bind the Lord to bless you.”

I think that is why Chieko Okazaki was such a breath of fresh air. I also get the feeling that Uchtdorf tries to be a bit in touch with the common man even though it has been years since he has had to worry about the size of his wallet (but then again to my point – he grew up in post-war poverty).

[Anonymous]

This is such a difficult issue. It really isn’t simple.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, LH, that at least some in the church believe their financial success is due to their righteousness or “the windows of heaven” and that this applies to GAs as well as more average members. Not to be argumentative, but many of our current top leadership were born or were young when there was a lower standard of living (pre WWII and in the rebuilding time after WWII and the Great Depression). If you have what every other average family has you’re at least middle class. For example, one car in the 50s was not unusual, two was. Dad took the car to work and Mom stayed home and maybe didn’t drive at all – that was OK because that was the norm, it was not being poor. Now we can’t seem to survive without at least two cars, etc. Nice clothes and Nikes are a must for the upper lower class and middle class. Newer and nicer cars are musts for the upper middle class and above. What I’m getting at here is that just because some of these guys grew up in a time of lower standard of living does not mean that they understand what it is to be poor or struggle – and those guys are quickly dwindling in number anyway. I’ll give you that Uchtdorf is an exception to the rule, and maybe that’s why he needs to be there and why he can speak as he does. The truth is the vast majority of the US and Canadian born GAs were born into privilege, at least upper middle class. As that group becomes more diverse I think we will see a difference, but that process is very slow. The process of getting there, though, is conducive to favoring the more wealthy.

And I agree, Ray, it’s really not simple.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

And I agree, Ray, it’s really not simple.

At least this is the only thing that isn’t simple and everything else is black and white.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I don’t see this directly as a wealth issue, really. I look at the Bios and and can’t find a single woman who I think shouldn’t be there. It’s just that collectively, they only represent a fringe of Mormonism. The nine women who constitute the General Officers of RS/YW/Pr are so un-diverse that they make the FP/Q12/Q70 look like the United Nations.

These women are all white, American, and mothers of large families, by today’s standards. The average number of children among the nine: 7.3; how many women do you know that have 7+ kids and don’t work AND are not on welfare or near it? Among all of the LDS women I know, I can think of just two that fit that criteria, and, you guessed it, they are both married to highly-successful men. As far as I can tell, few of the nine have EVER worked, and none of them have ever HAD to work, with the exception of Sister Esplin, who taught school for two years after her husband was drafted during the Vietnam era. But, even in that case, that was only two years. My wife and I have worked two long years, just since April of 2013.

To me, the issue boils down to opportunity to live the lifestyle of “the Lord’s pattern.” Girls marrying in First World countries in 2015 and embarking on the life that will define them can be stay-at-home moms to a large number of children and remain above poverty ONLY if they A) were born into money, married into money, or C) married a man whose career will garner a well-above-average income. For the vast majority, even if they want to live “the Lord’s pattern”, they would have to sacrifice financial security, stay-at-home-ness, or the number of children. I think that creates a massive divide between people like these nine women, who claim to be the Vestal Virgins of the one true way on the one side and the rest of the women in the Church on the other; women who will be told (with a perplexed, but trying-to-be-compassionate look) from now ’til the end of time, that the Lord understands why it is so difficult for them to live up to His ideal, but that they should keep trying to do exactly that, anyway.

Meanwhile, girls of the Millenial Generation are well-educated and career-minded. They struggle to see why being a 50’s-style stay-at-homer with 7+ kids is more clearly “the Lord’s pattern” than the life that they envision for themselves. When the young men of the Church embark on careers and work hard, they are praised; people start thinking “future-bishop”… but when the young women of the Church do exactly the same thing, they are met with judgment and advice to simmer down, and realize the true nature of their “place and role in the Church” (quoted from April 2015 General Women’s Session).

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

And I agree, Ray, it’s really not simple.

At least this is the only thing that isn’t simple and everything else is black and white.

Well this and the reason people leave the church….

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

Actually, I don’t see this directly as a wealth issue, really. I look at the Bios and and can’t find a single woman who I think shouldn’t be there. It’s just that collectively, they only represent a fringe of Mormonism. The nine women who constitute the General Officers of RS/YW/Pr are so un-diverse that they make the FP/Q12/Q70 look like the United Nations.

These women are all white, American, and mothers of large families, by today’s standards. The average number of children among the nine: 7.3; how many women do you know that have 7+ kids and don’t work AND are not on welfare or near it? Among all of the LDS women I know, I can think of just two that fit that criteria, and, you guessed it, they are both married to highly-successful men. As far as I can tell, few of the nine have EVER worked, and none of them have ever HAD to work, with the exception of Sister Esplin, who taught school for two years after her husband was drafted during the Vietnam era. But, even in that case, that was only two years. My wife and I have worked two long years, just since April of 2013.

To me, the issue boils down to opportunity to live the lifestyle of “the Lord’s pattern.” Girls marrying in First World countries in 2015 and embarking on the life that will define them can be stay-at-home moms to a large number of children and remain above poverty ONLY if they A) were born into money, married into money, or C) married a man whose career will garner a well-above-average income. For the vast majority, even if they want to live “the Lord’s pattern”, they would have to sacrifice financial security, stay-at-home-ness, or the number of children. I think that creates a massive divide between people like these nine women, who claim to be the Vestal Virgins of the one true way on the one side and the rest of the women in the Church on the other; women who will be told (with a perplexed, but trying-to-be-compassionate look) from now ’til the end of time, that the Lord understands why it is so difficult for them to live up to His ideal, but that they should keep trying to do exactly that, anyway.

Meanwhile, girls of the Millenial Generation are well-educated and career-minded. They struggle to see why being a 50’s-style stay-at-homer with 7+ kids is more clearly “the Lord’s pattern” than the life that they envision for themselves. When the young men of the Church embark on careers and work hard, they are praised; people start thinking “future-bishop”… but when the young women of the Church do exactly the same thing, they are met with judgment and advice to simmer down, and realize the true nature of their “place and role in the Church” (quoted from April 2015 General Women’s Session).

I agree, OON, wealth is only a part of the issue, albeit key. There is hope, though. The recent change in requiring some board members to be from outside the corridor is positive and does add diversity. It looks like there’s a change in the Primary presidency coming Saturday, perhaps there will be someone outside the current mold.

[Author]

Posts