I am sad to hear the comparisons between men and women.I have struggled in the past with similar feelings but realized I was the only person I could change and It has been hard for me to let go of pride and work together with my husband, being grateful for the differences between men and women, and grateful for opposition in all things.

I find many things to think about while reading comments made. We are not to be warm. We are to be hot or cold. I find much good among the discussions.

There is no way the church can change things so everyone can have a positive experience, because we have free agency and some one is going to use that free agency to choose to see or feel things negatively.

I don’t have the skills that I have seen displayed on this blog to debate or express myself so succinctly. I do see most of the conflict expressed within as part of the opposition in all things perspective.

Thanks Tom for something to laugh about.

Let me think of three men: Okay one BT, two, well, I don’t think the bishop should count, but he sure does. two, I’m still thinking, still thinking, I’m going down the neighborhood, I know everybody, Okay Two, CR, but he is in the stake presidency, but still. . .Three, well, there’s a few that come close, but no cigar.

I’m using the criteria for church work, those who do their callings and home teachings, who really honor their stewardship, and who also are the ones you can call at the last minute if somebody’s dying. The bishopric are all good guys.

cjdouglas, I have lived in this ward 29 years and some of the grown priesthood holders in this ward used to sleep over and play at my house. I do know them pretty darn well, not as well as God, but well enough to know that their wives work harder than they do. And most of the women in my ward have jobs, too, a whopping 70%, our visiting teaching percentages are at least 30% higher than the guys.

I don’t mean to be rude, but it is what it is. The women of my ward simply work harder than the guys and are under much more stress. Men let stuff roll off their backs that a woman will give herself an ulcer for.

For instance, the VT convention last year. We did interviews instead of a program. We made three handouts, one a magnet, for these women. WE, WE always do this, well the RS does, we make these ward phone books that everyone uses. We handed large and purse size of those out.

We decorated, we had food for them.

Home teaching? Once every couple of months somebody calls Bill and asks if he got his done over the past few months. No list, no magnet for the fridge, no monthly accountability. They don’t even do their home teaching most of the time. I worked under a ward clerk who simply refused to update the ward list which included many members who’d moved, until BT came in and did his job.

And while were doing this, three of the members of the RS presidency worked full time. And did their other callings. And kept their houses clean, their families fed, and the laundry. And probably fixed their hair and made love to their husbands.

Tom, I am simply not seeing that men are under more pressure than women. Not one bit.

My post focuses on the negative (another example of something that I am trying to highlight as a bad idea), but performing administrative duties probably has a net positive impact on spiritual growth. I think God wants those costs to be borne because there is important work to be done and it can’t be done without costs. I don’t know if or why God wants those particular costs to be borne exclusively by men.

(assuming that you do believe the current structure is what God intends…)

I don’t really know if the current structure is what God intends. But I do believe that the current structure is not incompatible with the notion that God loves and values men and women equally. That belief, combined with my trust in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, leads me to not be disturbed by differing assignments for men and women. But I can’t affirmatively state that I believe that everything in the Church is as God intends.

Particularly since the justification so often given for exclusively male priesthood is that women are “naturally” more spiritual, why would God set things up to deprive men of the opportunity to catch up?

I haven’t given that justification and I’m not sure I subscribe to it, so I’ll let it’s proponents defend it if they want.

Given that administrative responsibilities have such heavy costs to men’s spiritual growth, why do you suppose that God wants them to bear those costs? (assuming that you do believe the current structure is what God intends…)

Particularly since the justification so often given for exclusively male priesthood is that women are “naturally” more spiritual, why would God set things up to deprive men of the opportunity to catch up?

This isn’t meant to be a trick question; I’m genuinely curious how you reconcile this. So as not to be coy, I’ll say that my own belief is that the current structure is not what God intends as the final disposition of administrative and pastoral responsibilities in the Kingdom. It’s good enough for now, but I believe that “he will yet reveal many great and important things…”

I point out examples of inequality where men are affected
negatively: administrative duties, along with our assignment to
financially support our families, take us away from the most important and valuable work we do in this life, which is in the home with our children, while women are entrusted with that most important work; we face relentless pressure to serve missions, which causes many of us to not feel comfortable in the Church; we are guilt tripped about our failings more than women; we don’t have safeguards against domineering wives like women have against domineering husbands. From those examples I conclude that men are below women in the Church. But the conclusion is not warranted because all I have done is pointed out things that (arguably) negatively affect men more than women. I ignore things that affect women negatively and I make a lot of logical leaps to get from “Here are a lot of things that negatively affect men more than women,” to, “Men are not equal to women in the Church.” That conclusion is based on a lot of debatable assumptions and value judgments.

Point being, that this is the same kind of thing that I see being done by some people who conclude that women are lower, worse off, devalued, oppressed, etc., in the Church.

As a side note, regarding your (b) above, I don’t think that the power and visibility that come with administrative assignments are plusses that come with a price. I don’t think that they are plusses at all. They have no eternal value. The important benefit of serving in administrative positions is that stuff gets done that needs to get done. There also is, or should be, some real spiritual benefit to the person doing the service (increased charity or other divine attributes), but that’s incidental and can be had by performing any number of non-administrative tasks, like serving soup to the homeless or something. (Again, this isn’t meant to fully support the “therefore . . .” in your (c).)

Well, since you asked, I see the difference, I’m just still not sure what your position is. Based on this comment, and therefore assuming that you “disagree with the notion that men are above women in the Church” but also disagree that “everything is perfectly fine,” I can see several logical possibilities for your position:
(a) you believe men and women are treated “equally” in the Church; the problems you see in the Church either (1) do not relate to gender; or (2) you believe men and women should not be treated equally; (b) you believe women are above men in the Church and (1) this situation should be changed or (2) you believe men are inferior to women, so again, the problems you see in the Church do not relate to gender; or perhaps (c) we lack the ability to assess whether the situation is “fair” or not, so although we can reach the conclusion that men are not above women, we should defer making judgments based on this reasoning. (This is too fun!)

I don’t quite know where you get the idea that that’s my position. Where did I say that? You’re putting words in my mouth.

I really am sorry about that, Tom–I don’t mean to put words in your mouth; I hate it when people do that to me. :(

I do get that your post is a parody (meaning it makes its point indirectly rather than explicitly), but I confess I seem prone to mischaracterizing your position. I’ll try one more time (but expect me to fail, so apologies in advance):

(a) Men shoulder the brunt of the responsibility for running the Church.

(b) This power and visibilty come with a price: hard work and more rigorous expectations.

(c) Therefore, there’s no particular reason to object to the status quo on the issue of gender, since either side could point to negative aspects in their experience.

Am I getting warmer?

You really don’t see a difference between saying “I disagree with the notion that men are above women in the Church,” and saying, “Everything is perfectly fine the way it is”? Really?

Your position is clearer to me now–that men are treated unjustly but should accept as God’s will that they get the shaft rather than attempt to impose their own views of what’s right or wrong. (?)

I don’t quite know where you get the idea that that’s my position. Where did I say that? You’re putting words in my mouth.

I don’t believe that either men or women “get the shaft” in the Church. I believe that the Church is overall great for men and women. But there is positive and negative in everybody’s experience in the Church, and I don’t know how to change things so that everybody experiences positive and not negative. I also don’t think that should be our highest priority, nor should be our highest priority be to make sure that everyone experiences the same positives and negatives.