NOM

I live in the Bay Area and went (virtually) to a ward recently where the announcements were given by a female leader who is a "Bishopric advisor." She and another female member of the ward are in all senior leadership meetings at the ward level. There is no "Bishopric only" meeting discussing ward business. The Bishop who pushed for this had to advocate for a while with regional leaders, but they relented.

And, if I followed correctly, the stake then followed suit because I am 95% sure a woman from the Stake was referred to as "President" after giving what was clearly the monthly high council talk.

It was...amazing. A church I could raise a daughter in. I know that the Bay Area is far to the left of Provo but man, gives you hope. No priesthood, so still "separate but equal" but actually a solid step toward equal that every ward or stake could take now if they were committed to empowering women in the church.

I think this is the new initiative that was announced recently that women will be 'advisors' to the Bishopric - they can't make any decisions or hold any authority, but they're allowed to be in the meetings to give advice.

It's something of progress, but it's also nothing depending on the perspective of the person looking at it... which is probably why they decided to do it.

I don't remember hearing about this, and I don't see anything in the handbook. When/where was this announced?

jfro18 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:54 am I think this is the new initiative that was announced recently that women will be 'advisors' to the Bishopric - they can't make any decisions or hold any authority, but they're allowed to be in the meetings to give advice.

It's something of progress, but it's also nothing depending on the perspective of the person looking at it... which is probably why they decided to do it.

The thing is, all of the authority is made up. Whether the women have power or not depends on how they are viewed by the other people. Do the women get to sit on the stand and let their husbands wrangle kids?

jfro18 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:54 am I think this is the new initiative that was announced recently that women will be 'advisors' to the Bishopric - they can't make any decisions or hold any authority, but they're allowed to be in the meetings to give advice.

It's something of progress, but it's also nothing depending on the perspective of the person looking at it... which is probably why they decided to do it.

I hadn't heard of this but would be funny if done churchwide only because I briefly spoke with the bishop and it required a big fight a few years ago. I'm sure those who were opposed then haven't apologized or in any way owned that they, not God, were holding things up.

Funny in the "disgustingly arrogant but predictable" kind of way.

Sounds great on the surface.

Underneath the veil of renaming, it just seems that the primary president, the YW president; and the RS president would just be labeled bishopric advisors? Then they can be referred to president and still maintain their mantle of authority.

Baby steps until women are priesthood holders and Bishops, SP’s, and apostles.

Progress nonetheless.

As a woman, I find it to be salt rubbed in an open wound. It's not progress, it's a mask. It's frosting on dog poo. Maybe I should be open to it being effort toward inclusion, but, sugar coated at best, it's still exclusion. It's wearing the veil in a prayer circle. You're there, but not fully. Huh, think I'm still bitter . Some day, I'll be able to leave it all behind.