I’ve received a few texts like these lately.
We are looking for two priesthood holders to be at the church during the RS activity tonight 6:30-8:30 pm. Please let me know ASAP if you can be there.
I joked that if women held the priesthood, there would be no need for the men to be there.
I decided to come. I sat in the foyer and did some stuff on my laptop (pay bills, organize, etc) while the activity was going. The RS pres remarked that she was sorry we had to be there–it didn’t used to be that way, and that this was a relatively new thing. I asked if she knew the reason. Another woman remarked that there *might* have been assaults at other RS activities, and the men were needed for “security”, not priesthood. Is this true? Have you heard of women being assaulted at RS activities where no men were present? Is this a man thing, or a priesthood thing?
Wheat & Tares 
In my experience, security has not been necessary*, but I have had the unfortunate experience of being in situations where the men were asked to come to RS activities as priesthood supervisors (as if stewardship rested in random priesthood holders rather than the RS pres). It strikes me as similar to the tone deaf thought process that decides that two young, male missionaries and a single female must be trouble, but adding an extra male (who is probably a stranger to the woman) will definitely make everything fine and not creep her out at all.
*I have been fortunate enough not to have that experience. Perhaps others can lend other perspectives. I do genuinely wonder, though, what one untrained man is supposed to do in that situation that wouldn’t also be accomplished by a group of a dozen or more women.
I guess this is what happens when that idea is taken to the n’th degree…
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/social/saudi-arabian-women-take-to-twitter-to-demand-independence-from-men-20160904-gr89cv.html?campaign_id=A100&campaign_type=Email
The instructions in this stake are to have the building doors locked during a RS activity. This is relatively new. I don’t know what prompted it, but it didn’t used to be the case.
I haven’t been to a Relief Society activity in years and it looks like I am right to avoid them. We have a pretty large RS and I don’t think that only two men (sorry, two priesthood holders) can keep us all safe if [unspecified danger] goes down.
I don’t know about daytime or evening activities, but Handbook 2 provides the following general guidance for overnight activities:
A sufficient number of adult priesthood leaders must be present at all times during overnight activities to provide support and protection. In the case of Young Women activities, priesthood leaders must stay in facilities separate from the young women.
I never felt unsafe during an activity, but did hate it qhen it was me and one tiny other female checking the building and locking up alone afterwards. In California there have been several times when vagrants have come in unseen during an activity amd camped out in one of the rooms. Would have appreciated that being someone else’s job.
I am sure there are some locations where this might be needs but I suspect the vast majority it is silly. I think the CHI should make it as a suggestion and be left up to the RS presidency to ask for it.
The more cynical side of me says it is a reflection of a 1950’s mentality. It is interesting that the RS president didn’t seem to think it was needed.
Now something that would be of more worth would be the men providing babysitting – either at the church or in homes.
Having lived mostly outside UT, there were times I was happy we had men for security reasons.
But, having grown up in UT I can also see why in some areas it seems unnecessary. However when the request is for “priesthood holders” it adds another dimension. Are “priesthood holders” requested/required because if something bad happens God will respond more to their prayers than those without the priesthood?
Fathers caring for their own children are not babysitters.It’s my pet peeve and I never fail to remind those who request brethren to make themselves available to their children on RS activity nights as ‘babysitters’ that they are fathers, not babysitters. Forgive my snarkiness, not personal HH.
It’s a local thing. Someone locally made the decision.
My brother and sister-in-law’s stake center is in a bad neighborhood — there have been burglaries from cars during the Sunday three-hour block and gunfire heard on Wednesday nights. Some members pack (scary, isn’t it). I wish the Church would sell the building and build a new one elsewhere. If someone locally wanted an adult male church member in good standing in the building during all activities, well, adult male church member in good standing is synonymous with priesthood holder.
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I’m aware of at least one instance where someone entered a church and most likely attempted to steal some items during an activity. I’m also aware of a chapel that had a stalker problem where a stalker came to activities to try to find an individual at the activity. So sometimes vigilance may be necessary.
And IF vigilance is necessary, you usually don’t know in advance (unless there is a pattern of behavior.) So having a general rule of security at a location of concern makes sense to me.
But how that security is provided could be different. For example, additional women could be designated to lock up the building together instead of two men.
I don’t like the notion that Priesthood has to be there for the activity as a policy for a few reasons:
1. It APPEARS to make the women subservient to the men. The appearance can become a reality as well.
2. It makes the women dependent on having men available. If they can’t find two men, do they cancel the activity?
3. They did not discuss security before the meeting. If security is a problem, the people providing security should know in advance.
4. Properly trained and equipped women can provide security as well as men. At a church function I wouldn’t expect armed security, but a vigilant woman with a can of wasp spray could do a better job of dealing with a problem than a guy paying bills with a laptop who has no idea that security is a concern. (Not your fault, Guy, if they didn’t tell you).
So in general I think it should be a local decision, that flexibility should be allowed to handle security in different, possibly creative ways, and that people handling security should be aware of any potential threats.
And I saved for last one comment: both the thief and the stalker that I mentioned above were female. Not that it matters, other than to say security and criminality are not gender specific.
Someone mentioned the ’50s above. Well, in the ’50s the church employed janitors and provided jobs to many members who needed those jobs. Then the church eliminated those all those jobs, so in addition to busy lives, personal obligations, and the tithing and offerings members made, they could also contribute their time and efforts doing all of those job. I’m of the mind that if janitorial or security services (or whatever job there may be) are needed by the church that their are trained and able people, both men and women, who are not only able but who need and want the work and the related benefits.
I have been in ward a ward where men provided a nursery at the church during relief society. Not for their own kids. There were only a couple of young women, busy tending their own siblings, and many of the fathers were (I assume) working or otherwise unavailable. So having men provide a nursery may have enabled mor women to attend. So I think happy hubby’s idea is a good one, and not inappropriately called baby sitting.
I wonder if priesthood holders were required to chaperone (or however you want to put it) the Relief Society activities back in the days when the Relief Society was an independent organization (chose their own leadership, handled money, etc). I wasn’t around then – does anyone know?
If it is about security, why didn’t they ask for able-bodied people with defense training? Is the assumption that any dude is a natural police officer and can better handle an emergency than the woman in the post image?
I think “security” is an attempt to find an acceptable excuse for a policy that is clearly intended to highlight male authority over women by having men supervise female activities.
Is my wife the only one who carries and gun and knows how to use it?
For a while I was the official security guy for our building– I’m not sure what the real title of my calling was, but I was the church locker-upper. I would show up around 915 and make sure sorts were locked and lights were off.
I’ve never heard of RS needing male chaperones, and I’ve lived both in deeply Utah Mormon culture and out of Utah. Makes me wonder what the backstory is.
“Is my wife the only one who carries and gun and knows how to use it?”
Doesn’t matter.
From church handbook 2:
21.2.4
Firearms
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.
The handbook doesn’t require this and I always refuse if they want a babysitter for adult women. If they want me there to provide “protection,” what can I do? I’m just another potential victim. Sometimes they guy they get is like 90 and uses a walker. One or two of the sisters have a black belt. If there’s really a security problem, then they need to hire a trained security officer. Don’t count on me or the guy with the walker.
The second counselor in my bishopric is a real Gun Nut. Someone asked him awhile ago why there was a baseball bat in the clerk’s office. He said it was in case someone came in to take the money while they were opening tithing envelopes. I’m guessing they wouldn’t let him have a gun, and being a Gun Nut, he can’t imagine not needing “protection.” But beating someone with a baseball bat in a Mormon Church can only end badly, very badly, disastrously, or tragically with never-ending consequences, for everyone concerned.
In the unlikely event someone comes in and demands the tithing money, just give it to them, and let God, the Church, and the police sort it out later.
So what exactly am I supposed to do while I’m there protecting the sisters? Beat the intruder with sporting equipment? Or just call the cops? Because using a cell phone requires the priesthood.
We had some weekday women’s fitness classes that would be cancelled if “Priesthood” could not be found to sit in the foyer. “Priesthood” varied from an eighty year old man to a 12 year old deacon. A year or so ago someone finally convinced stake leadership to re-read that section of the handbook and now the “priesthood” can go back to doing whatever he was doing and the women can lock the door after themselves.
I used to contract for the Church in many major cities and remember many leaders telling me to not open the door of the building for anyone while I was working there. High, high crime areas abound.
Take your chances…
Bahahahahaha the blessing about concealed carry is that no one knows you have 😉
We do live in a low (nearly non-existent) crime neighborhood.
Something to think about.
If a family is in the house: father, mother and children and a killer is outside wanting to get in, who do the mother and the children typically look to for protection?
If killers walked into your house with a gun and wanted to rape your wife and daughter, wouldn’t you want to have a gun for protection?
Interesting questions, Ronk. My answers would be that for my house, a good deadbolt and if necessary, an alarm system would rank quite a bit higher than a gun or “any human with a penis.”
At church, I would rank a locked door and if necessary, a trained security guard of any gender quite a bit higher than a random Mormon with a gun or “any human with a penis.”
I am not sure where this idea of it being new came from. It has been going on for as long as I can remember. The Church sees it as security. Big, strong men to protect the helpless woman and also to preside. After all, men hold the priesthood.
My experiences may be different from others… but I have volunteered numerous times to serve in the nursery for RS activities. And there was one RS dinner where a sister had a severe allergic reaction to a food item. Another brother and I gave her a blessing before sending her to the hospital via ambulance. Thankfully, she recovered.
Our ward also had a situation where a divorced, non-custodial father was lurking around the church to take his kids away. So there are various health and safety concerns.
Could RS sisters pack heat and provide their own security? Probably so. How many are willing to? I dunno know.
Should RS sisters have the priesthood so that they can give one another blessings? Would be fine with me.
Serving in the nursery is a useful function. I can’t say the same about a made-up requirement to just “have a priesthood holder there” for purposes that are unclear.
There may be safety concerns, but no one, male or female, except officers of the law is supposed to be packing heat, per the handbook. And the priesthood members they’re getting to do this aren’t being told that they are there to face down armed intruders. They’re back in a classroom somewhere reading a book or paying bills online. Virtually none of them are qualified to provide security under those circumstances. Certainly not the 90-year-old guy with the walker, but not even the young and able-bodied. If armed intruders are a genuine risk, then sending in one more untrained, unprepared, and uninformed person is a woefully inadequate measure, whether the person has a Y chromosome or not.
I don’t believe that it’s general church policy that members have to remain within a 3-minute traveling distance of a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in case a blessing is needed. My home teacher doesn’t have to follow me around 24-7 in case I suddenly require a blessing. If I need a blessing, I’ll make a phone call. I might die before someone can get there, but I won’t attribute my demise to the fact that I don’t have an elder constantly at my elbow.
I like the idea that any member group can let themselves in the building for an activity, and if security is a concern the building stays locked during the activity.
What about someone with a vajayjay?
It’s a local thing. Someone locally made the decision. The Church does not require a man (or a priesthood holder) in the building for daytime or evening activities.
We have a woman in our ward who is well over 6 feet tall, played college basketball and could lick more than half the men in the ward. We have another woman about 6 feet tall who runs a martial arts studio and is a black belt in karate or something like that. She also has 4 larger and more athletic sons than average and they didn’t dare mess with mama. She could probably lick the other half of the men in the ward.
My daughter at 5’5 and 100 pounds put the fear in the hearts of the thugs bused in from the south side to her high school with a violin bow. (If I can play Mozart’s Requiem I can flick your eyeballs out.)
As part of my camping gear I have a 16 oz can of pepper spray designed to stop a 1000 pound charging grizzly bear. I have often contemplated what it might do to a bunch of misbehaving scouts… but so far have resisted testing it out.
And then there is my friend Chrissy, a little bitty thing, who drives a wicked, jacked-up black jeep and carries a 9 mm glock with a pink handle and 15 rounds in the magazine in her purse at all times. She has a fascination with owning and shooting borderline legal semiautomatic weapons. Her husband went to Iraq 4 times as a US soldier. They go to the shooting range twice a week for date night. Too bad she moved to another southern state.
Me thinks this latest concern for the security of our women is not exactly about physical security. Not at all.
If we are really concerned about the security of our women, arm and train them. Have the RS president request that 5 or 10 women come to meetings armed with hand guns in their purses. Don’t publish who they are, just make sure it is widely known that several of the women are armed. Regular training is more important than just being armed and that could also be encouraged.
For those so inclined, I challenge you to approach your RS presidents and quietly inform them that they have nothing to fear, you will be “packing heat” in your purse as long as the threat is great enough to justify the docile Mormon men snoozing in the lounge.
In this state and in Utah there are no laws that forbid you from carrying a weapon in church. I recall a cartoon of a couple of members arguing theology in church and opening their suit coats to show who had the biggest gun. As long as it is concealed it is hard to enforce any silly rules against having a gun with you. (Chrissy has one with her every week in church, right next to her lipstick and such.)
If 3 or 4 of the gay men in that lounge in Orlando had been carrying hand guns, the number of deaths would likely have been closer to about 10% of what they were. This is what happens when we designate gun safe areas, they become ripe targets for massacres.
I say, if women can bear children, they can bear fire arms.
Antiquated and sexist, straight up. It’s enraging to most of the women I know who see it as demeaning, particularly those in church leadership roles whose activities are being overseen and potentially canceled if a man isn’t available to supervise/protect them.
I used to wonder if the men were there to fight terrorists in hand-to-hand combat or to prevent spontaneous lesbian orgies. Back when I was working for Amex, we used to joke that the requirement to be a security guard was either over 300 pounds or over 80 years old. This is similar to the types of “security” requirements I’ve seen for men in the church. There’s a guy who stands outside the early morning seminary building, ostensibly to perform this function (it’s not in our stake so I’m basing that on what my son told me).
I haven’t seen this “requirement” enforced generally on RS activities at the ward building in my stake, but it has been done for overnight YW trips and girls camp. To me, that seems silly. Adult women leaders can do as much as random priesthood holders can. At the ward building, anyone with a key can open & close the building, and there’s an effort to ensure many people are in the building at a time whenever possible, mostly for carpool efficiency.
In order to follow the example of the Brethren, perhaps W&T could implement a similar policy to protect the Sisteren who frequent this blog. Specifically:
1. Have a male moderate all comments. This way, our poor fragile women will not accidentally see references to male anatomy, as apparently happened in the comments above. (I can’t believe that hasn’t been removed yet!)
2. When the OP is written by a woman, a man should make the first comment, in order to make the male presence known to any trolls or feminists that intend to comment. This would have the added benefit of adding priesthood credibility to the OP.
3. If the above comments make the blog too manly, the Sisteren could add pictures of floral arrangements to their posts.
No need to thank me. It is my pleasure to offer my advice.
It’s just a handbook. It has no legal force. Ignore it.
Anon: “It’s just a handbook. It has no legal force. Ignore it.”
That’s fine for you or people individually, maybe. I think there are a lot of silly things in the handbook that we could ignore. Like using King James style language in prayers, for example. And telling children of gay parents to disavow the relationship. And using funerals to teach a missionary style lesson about the plan of salvation rather than talk about the life of the deceased. I don’t think the statement about guns in church is off base. In fact, it seems to me to be one of the most sensible things in the manual. So I can respectfully disagree.
But the question here is why are (unarmed) men asked to sit around at church while (presumably unarmed) women have their meetings. If the leadership has concerns about security (in this case it seems like they really don’t) they are not going to ask nor rely on members to bring weapons, against the guidance of the manual. Well, a few leaders might, but most will follow the manual.
In spite of the two cases I originally mentioned, it seems like in this case that security was a weak post-hoc explanation for a questionable policy. And if security was the original concern it was addressed very poorly indeed. Either way, members are not going to be asked to bring weapons to church. Ever.
Now for the side topic of guns for self defense or vigilantism. To those who choose to pack heat at church or otherwise, that is your decision. Outside of church, do what you please (within the law, of course). At church, I wouldn’t endorse or approve packing 99% of the time, but no one is going to pat you down at church or put you through a metal detector. Even if they did, they can only ask you to take your weapon home. I can’t speak to your individual cases, but in my opinion, many people are not safer with a weapon. Many people are more likely to shoot their own foot than stop a mass shooting. Many people are more likely to unnecessarily brandish a weapon and escalate violence than they are to use a weapon in self defense. I think a gun in the home is more likely to be used against someone in the family than an intruder. If we increased the prevalence of guns enough to have a credible deterrent against mass shootings we would also see thousands more accidental deaths. This is mainly because the opportunity to use a weapon in self defense is so rare, and the opportunity to misuse a weapon is so frequent. In short, I think guns are great for hunting and recreational target practice, but usually not for safety or self defense (unless there is a known threat, such as a stalker, abusive ex, etc.). Can this be proven with stats? I don’t know. This is just how I feel.
So while I’m sure all here are responsible gun owners (or non-gun owners), I hope you will excuse me when I say it doesn’t make me feel safer that people are willing to bring guns to church.
None of this means I’m opposed to gun ownership. I’m not. But I think people underestimate the probability of misuse of guns and overestimate their value for self defense.
It’s a local thing. Someone locally made the decision. The Church’s handbook does not require a man (or a priesthood holder) in the building for daytime or evening activities.
Wasn’t talking about guns. I meant ignore the handbook requirement for priesthood holders. In the very rare case that actual protection is required, hire one off-duty policeman or policewoman for security. Otherwise, take the same sensible precautions that men and women take when holding meetings in any church or school. Nobody that I know of requires “priesthood holders” for cheerleading, robotics club, choir practice, or any other after hours activities. Never heard of it, and it’s ridiculous. Nobody can make you do it, so ignore this stupid policy.
@ji
Then problem solved. Just provide your own security or take commonsense measures. Nobody is forcing you to do otherwise.
My bad. I guess my comment should have been replying to the others above who were talking specifically about packing at church.
Description. Prescription. Proscription.
I am describing observations- how various women protect themselves.
I am not prescribing what they do. (Threatening a leader that you want to carry a gun is perhaps confusing on this point. I meant it as more of a rhetorical bluff.) I am also not proscribing packing, obviously, as long as plenty of training is also done reducing accidental mishaps. I am mostly in agreement with Rockwell.
The stats on guns and safety are all over the place because of difficulty controlling variables. The county with the highest gun ownership has the lowest crime in my state. But there are many other factors driving the crime rates.
One of my friends was packing when he saw a goon trying to jimmy open the door to his corvette. He asked the goon what he thought he was doing and was told to go (not repeatable here). My friend pulled out his gun and the goon immediately ran away. A crime prevented but it will not show up in the stats. Works as well with women as men.
The real question (which I have done more than my share to obfuscate) is how do we treat women in this church? Yet again I shake my head in disgust. Hawkgrrrl’s last post is right on the money. Why do we continue to put up with it?
What can we do to knock some sense into the bretheren driving this insanity? It isn’t just this one issue, it seems like a never ending rinse and spin cycle.