A female bishop...

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I was never chewed out by the Mission President. I was a couple of time by his wife.

Particularly for using the phone greeting "Top of the temple, Moroni speaking!"

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Particularly for using the phone greeting "Top of the temple, Moroni speaking!"

One of the chewing outs came as a result of a prank played on me. I had a companion who was quite feminine. Believe it or not, I didn't know what a gay was until after my mission, otherwise I would have been very nervous about this guy.

Anyhow he said I ought to darken my hair a bit. What the heck, I decided to. He told me to put peroxide (sp) on it. I did washed it out and it did look dark and shiny. When we got back from tracting it was blond. Zone conference the following week the Mission Presidents wife called me out in front of the whole Zone.

She especially got upset when I explained it was my f'en companions fault.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Mike, why do you think Church leadership positions are so desirable?

Being a bishop merely means you're burdened by every problem in the ward. It means you work an additional 30 or 40 hours a week, unpaid. It means your hair turns gray at age 32.

Ditto for stake president.

There are no perks unless you're a megalomaniac, and if you are, you're the wrong person for the calling.

Are you really fighting for women to deal with all of this?

So is your argument here that you're trying to protect all women from having to deal with the burdens of leadership?

It is my understanding that being bishop (just for example here) is also filled with amazing blessings. In fact, I shall speak anecdotally here, since this appears to be a popular method of advancing your point around here: a friend of mine said she never felt that bad about not being able to hold the priesthood until she watched her husband perform the calling and found it had transforming effects on his life and spirituality.

But really the point here is one that resurfaces every time a similar issue comes up: separate but equal is NOT equal, and it's not ultimately better for the church and/or the church culture.

[JohnnyLingo]

a friend of mine said she never felt that bad about not being able to hold the priesthood until she watched her husband perform the calling and found it had transforming effects on his life and spirituality.

I believe people can experiencing transforming effects on their life and spirituality without serving in Church leadership. If I'm never a bishop I will be forever grateful, and I don't worry that never serving as one will somehow affect my standing in the hereafter.

Are you saying you want to be a bishop, then? An Elder's Quorum President? Stake President?

[Tex]

I'm not sure "protecting the women from the burdens of leadership" is the direction I'd go with it. Even sans the priesthood, there are women of great capability carrying great burdens of leadership.

I'm more prone to walk down the logical path of role separation, the fundamental differences between men and women. Cf, Proclamation on the Family. I once wrote a Mother's Day talk outlining how motherhood and priesthood were roughly equivalent roles in their own spheres. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I believe people can experiencing transforming effects on their life and spirituality without serving in Church leadership. If I'm never a bishop I will be forever grateful, and I don't worry that never serving as one will somehow affect my standing in the hereafter.

Are you saying you want to be a bishop, then? An Elder's Quorum President? Stake President?

They just won't buy the "women are so good they don't need the Priesthood", "we are saving you from the burdens", etc. Some women Johnny won't accept the realization that the womens place is in the home as a support to the men.

The Muslims and the FLDS tell it like it is, but they too someday will probably have to cave in. The end can't be far off.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure "protecting the women from the burdens of leadership" is the direction I'd go with it. Even sans the priesthood, there are women of great capability carrying great burdens of leadership.

I'm more prone to walk down the logical path of role separation, the fundamental differences between men and women. Cf, Proclamation on the Family. I once wrote a Mother's Day talk outlining how motherhood and priesthood were roughly equivalent roles in their own spheres. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

Honestly, I think we have already heard your kind of argument a million times. So if you can't find it, I won't get too upset.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Honestly, I think we have already heard your kind of argument a million times. So if you can't find it, I won't get too upset.

It wouldn't have been for your benefit anyway.

[K-dog]

I'm pretty certain that there is a legitimate argument that the sisters hold the priesthood through their husband. I'm not sure exactly what that means but the temple seems to indicate that there is a value in it and sisters do perform some ordinances there.

Based on the history of the Church, there is a good argument that the Black/Priesthood relationship and the Woman/Priesthood relationship could have similar causes and tracks. There are early incidences that priesthood was not exclusively male. I'm curious to see where it plays out.

In my home, my wife is pleased not to have the callings that come with the priesthood. The opportunity to make some decisions should not be aspired to but rather avoided by selling your house and moving.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

It wouldn't have been for your benefit anyway.

I'd like to read it.