Handbook Change-Women SS Presidents

[malkie]

Why would a woman as President of SS, with men as counselors, result in an issue with 'he said, she said'? Surely the men would counsel the president who would make the decision. The men would then accept the decision as made. That's what presiding means. Or, for the past 50+ years, have I had an incorrect idea about how presidencies work?

[MG 2.0]

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.

Your expectations may be too high. If you have lower expectations you're never disappointed. Or at least not to the point of rejecting leaders because you find out they are human.

Putting them on a pedestal of infallibility, for any reason, ends up in disappointment.

How many times in the scriptures have we read something to the effect that God chooses the weak things of the world to do His work and confound "the mighty".

What might that mean? Ever thought about it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Why would a woman as President of SS, with men as counselors, result in an issue with 'he said, she said'? Surely the men would counsel the president who would make the decision. The men would then accept the decision as made. That's what presiding means. Or, for the past 50+ years, have I had an incorrect idea about how presidencies work?

Presidencies can work. No doubt. Dynamics of human behavior and gender roles along with sexuality play a part too. I'm sure you can recognize that.

Or not?

Please don't call me sexist. Men are men and women are women. In the church there might be some three person presidencies that could work together successfully with mixed sexes. More often, however, there might be conflict for various reasons. The church would just as well, I expect, stay separate/free from those possible conflicts.

In a perfect world with the "natural man" not playing a part there might not be a conflict. But we don't live in that world.

Larger groups, not a real problem. Smaller presidency groups with three people. More likely. Especially when spread across thousands of units.

You do know, I expect, that the only ones that are going to complain or find fault with this handbook change are the critics of the church, right?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Why would a woman as President of SS, with men as counselors, result in an issue with 'he said, she said'? Surely the men would counsel the president who would make the decision. The men would then accept the decision as made. That's what presiding means. Or, for the past 50+ years, have I had an incorrect idea about how presidencies work?

Lol. No, you're just not a sexist like mentalgymnast is.

[Morley]

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.

Your expectations may be too high. If you have lower expectations you're never disappointed. Or at least not to the point of rejecting leaders because you find out they are human.

Putting them on a pedestal of infallibility, for any reason, ends up in disappointment.

How many times in the scriptures have we read something to the effect that God chooses the weak things of the world to do His work and confound "the mighty".

What might that mean? Ever thought about it?

Regards,
MG

You’re right MG, we should never have high expectations of the Church or its leaders, because, as you suggest, they will always disappoint. Like me, I’m sure that, by now, you’re to the point of expecting almost nothing from them.

I’m a little surprised with your insinuation that the LDS leadership is among (as you call them) “the weak things of the world,” but I will take your word for it. However, i do wonder who are ‘the mighty’ you think they’re set to confound?

[Marcus]

Why would a woman as President of SS, with men as counselors, result in an issue with 'he said, she said'? Surely the men would counsel the president who would make the decision. The men would then accept the decision as made. That's what presiding means. Or, for the past 50+ years, have I had an incorrect idea about how presidencies work?

Presidencies can work. No doubt. Dynamics of human behavior and gender roles along with sexuality play a part too. I'm sure you can recognize that.

Or not?

Please don't call me sexist. Men are men and women are women. In the church there might be some three person presidencies that could work together successfully with mixed sexes. More often, however, there might be conflict for various reasons. The church would just as well, I expect, stay separate/free from those possible conflicts.

In a perfect world with the "natural man" not playing a part there might not be a conflict. But we don't live in that world.

Larger groups, not a real problem. Smaller presidency groups with three people. More likely. Especially when spread across thousands of units...

Mentalgymnast would like to not be called a sexist, but then he follows up his request by posting additional paragraphs of sexism. You'd think he would learn.

[MG 2.0]

Heavens to Betsy, the troll and follower in chief sets a new record response time!

Three or four in a row, no less!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Your expectations may be too high. If you have lower expectations you're never disappointed. Or at least not to the point of rejecting leaders because you find out they are human.

Putting them on a pedestal of infallibility, for any reason, ends up in disappointment.

How many times in the scriptures have we read something to the effect that God chooses the weak things of the world to do His work and confound "the mighty".

What might that mean? Ever thought about it?

Regards,
MG

You’re right MG, we should never have high expectations of the Church or its leaders, because, as you suggest, they will always disappoint. Like me, I’m sure that, by now, you’re to the point of expecting almost nothing from them.

I’m a little surprised with your insinuation that the LDS leadership is among (as you call them) “the weak things of the world,” but I will take your word for it. However, i do wonder who are ‘the mighty’ you think they’re set to confound?

That is an awfully good question! Who might you think?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

You’re right MG, we should never have high expectations of the Church or its leaders, because, as you suggest, they will always disappoint. Like me, I’m sure that, by now, you’re to the point of expecting almost nothing from them.

I’m a little surprised with your insinuation that the LDS leadership is among (as you call them) “the weak things of the world,” but I will take your word for it. However, i do wonder who are ‘the mighty’ you think they’re set to confound?

That is an awfully good question! Who might you think?

Regards,
MG

It’s your supposition, not mine. I don’t even agree with the premise. You have to be the one to complete it.


Your Church leaders are what you call “the weak things of the world.” What are these strong things that, any second now, they’re going to confound?

[Morley]

Heavens to Betsy, the troll and follower in chief sets a new record response time!

Three or four in a row, no less!

Regards,
MG

Who are you calling names? And why?