Then they aren’t real LDS leaders. Exercising control is listed as one of very few things that cause the withdrawal of the Holy Ghost and therefore the termination of an ability to function in the priesthood. Your assertion that men primarily want to maintain control doesn’t wash with my experience of _most_ priesthood leaders. A bishop who is controlling the members of his ward is a bishop who is hampering the function of the thing. He’s got to give up desire for control in order to get the revelation that is necessary to his calling.

Obviously, both men and women are controlling. We learn early in life how to control situations to get our way. Overcoming this tendency is one essential part of becoming like God. ~

A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Religiosity (p 213-231)
Jessica L. Collett, Omar Lizardo

Gender, Risk, and Religiousness: Can Power Control Provide the Theory? (p 232-240)
John P. Hoffmann

The Nature-Nurture Debate Is Over, and Both Sides Lost! Implications for Understanding Gender Differences in Religiosity (p 241-251)
Matt Bradshaw, Christopher G. Ellison

Reifying Sex Difference Isn’t the Answer: Gendering Processes, Risk, and Religiosity (p 252-255)
Marie Cornwall

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117996720/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

I remember you making a comment about how your ward has a tradition of standing for rest hymns. As I recall this tradition was started at your request by your husband while he was bishop because of your physical condition.

Minor correction: I did not make a request. He simply thought it would be a good idea.

And the fact that this is such a trivial matter does not strengthen the argument. What sane man would give up 20+ hours a week of time with the family in order to have that kind of payoff? Heck, the chorister could have made the same decision.

No doubt that a bishop has some control. He has no choice.

But is it a “payoff” as was previously asserted? I tend to agree with Dave in #17.

I think that story contradicts your assertion that control is only valuable if you want it.

suppose that my workplace put in place a policy of giving all women a free fishing license.

I think a better analogy would be, “Suppose that my workplace forced all women to go fishing, whether they want to or not.”

But regardless of whether I fish or not, the policy would still affect male co-workers broadly.

But does it have value to the women who aren’t interested in fishing? How can it be a “payoff” for them?

For instance, suppose that my workplace put in place a policy of giving all women a free fishing license.

I could say, “I don’t mind that I’m excluded, because I don’t fish. It doesn’t hurt me any.”

But regardless of whether I fish or not, the policy would still affect male co-workers broadly. There are men who do fish, and they would be being deprived of a benefit.

Not only was this said at the time of calling, but the bishop’s wives and high council wives have to see the stake president personally for their temple recommends, so that he can follow-up and ask how things are going, and if the impact on the family is too negative, etc.

My husband has served in multiple bishoprics and multiple high councils in two states and I have never had anything remotely like this said to me. I was always simply asked if I would support him. And my temple recommend process was no different during those times than at any other time.

For control to be valuable, you have to want it.

That’s nonsensical to me. It’s valuable if you USE it. I think your feelings on the matter are of little importance. If I give you a million dollars it’s valuable–whether you wanted it or not–depending on what you do with it.

#26 Naismith ~ If you like being accurate, then I’d suggest you learn more about the practices of other Christian traditions before you go around tooting Mormonism’s horn for letting women do things that every other Christian tradition lets them do, like be missionaries. You say you were raised Roman Catholic; did you not know that Catholics let women serve as missionaries when you made your statement in #19?

Are you claiming that they learn to like and value the control once they have it?

I’m claiming that control is one of the perks of their leadership callings; their feelings on the matter are fairly irrelevant to that fact. Control doesn’t stop being valuable just because a man really hates having it, and I wouldn’t believe for a second that all or even most LDS leaders hate having it.

Anyways, I have a ton of patristics homework and unpacking to see to this weekend, so this is probably the last time I’ll be able to check in on this thread. Thank you both TMD and Naismith for discussing this with me.

You seem eager to draw a hard line between your church and these other ones….

I like being accurate.

I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and I find the differences to be so marked and stark that I am not buying the statement that LDS “really isn’t much different from any other male headship tradition.”

…control is one of the perks of their leadership callings whether they initially wanted those callings or not.

Are you claiming that they learn to like and value the control once they have it? Again, I am not sure that is a widespread phenomenon in our tradition of servant leadership.