Centerpieced

So, I went to Relief Society on Sunday. And loved it. And not just because I’m single and I was surrounded by dozens of females. ~innocent smile~

I’m sure the burning question now is why on earth a wolf was in the chicken coop. Well, it was my ward conference, and I figured the stake presidency needed some good representation in Relief Society (I mean, the stake president was going to be there, but I couldn’t let him go in there alone — he definitely needed backup). So I went.

Why’d I love it? The varied color palette and the good news minute come to mind immediately. And girls are way more interesting than guys. I suppose the core reason, though, was that women are more sensitive. Emotion isn’t contraband in Relief Society. :) It’s easier to be in touch with humanity among the women, at least in my experience.

You know, I have nothing against the men, but I don’t want to go back to priesthood. :) Seriously, if I could figure out some Church-approved way to go to Relief Society each week for the rest of my life, I would. (And gender changes are not Church-approved, smart aleck. :P)

Get called as a bishop to a BYU singles ward. Seriously, my bishop was almost always in RS. Maybe not for the whole time, but usually for a good portion of it. There was usually at least one member of the bishopric there every sunday.

RS was the hightlight of my week all last year. Now I’m back in primary, so alas, no RS. But it really is the best.

I’m sure there are ways you can bring that feeling into priesthood. I mean, sure, it would be really hard to get a bunch of guys to be all sensitive and “girly,” but at least you can maybe find ways so that you yourself can get a good experience out of it, or inspire “brotherly love” amongst your fellow priesthood holders.

Really? I mean, really?

Sure, there’s more emotion. But I would argue that there is also a lot more fluff. My wife has repeatedly commented how she’d rather go to EQ than RS. In her experience (and mine, from when I would visit RS to make announcements and such), RS is not nearly as intellectually stimulating nor sincerely spiritually. There tends to a be a lot of surface-level feel-goodery.

This is not to say that all RS groups are like this, nor that EQ is inherently more spiritual and deep. But I’ve had far better gospel discussions in EQ than I’ve ever heard of taking place in RS.

Perhaps it’s an isolated occurence in the wards I’ve been in, but I think even as a woman, I’d prefer EQ.

Yeah, so I went to Relief Society too last Sunday, first because the Stake President was there, and second because my wife was there. The most interesting thing that I found was that the challenges young college age women face are vastly different than what we face as brethren, and very real to them. So, while it may be more colorful, more emotional, smell better, and even have more decorations, it seems like what is discussed in EQ is more pertinent to us, and there’s a good reason for that. ;)

[edit-comment]

nor sincerely spiritual*

[/edit-comment]

… Seriously? I can’t stand Relief Society! It’s so much FLUFF. I am in agreement with Conner. Also, in YSA wards I got so TIRED of the lessons on feeling good about being a woman. I’m sure some needed to hear it, but I often sat thinking, “But I DO like who I am. I HAVE self-worth! Can’t we please talk about the lesson in the manual now???”

The BEST RS lesson I EVER had was taught by a Priesthood Holder. The EQ teacher came in and gave us a lesson on Priesthood and it was the most stimulating RS discussion I had ever had - with no apologies for the teacher tearing up and being unable to speak.

Tell you what, you take my chair in RS and I’ll take yours in EQ.

I once heard of a man who was full of himself when he observed Elder Eyring taking notes during his talk. He was humbled shortly thereafter when Elder Eyring took notes during a child’s talk. When questioned about it, Elder Eyring indicated that any talk or lesson taught by the Spirit and received by the Spirit will be intellectually stimulating and spiritually deep regardless of where the lesson is taught or by whom it is taught.

Perhaps you receive what you bring to the occasion…

Some RS teachers are better than others. Some EQ teachers are better than others. *Shrug*.

I don’t really see what difference it makes. I agree with Janet. Sure, Relief Society can be sort of fluffy at times, but so can other meetings and conversations we have outside of church and…whatever. Every once in a while I need a bit of fluff because my world is too serious. Not all the time. But I’ve found that participating in lessons (fluffy and otherwise) can help set the tone and bring things back to a happy baseline.

And sorry, Ben. I’m glad you like us, but the answer is no.

So, I’m one of those girls who likes to have a lot of fellows around to talk to. I love talking to boys because it seems to me that men have more of a natural capacity for analyzing certain topics rigorously, and I enjoy it immensely. I would like to emphasize, however, that there are _certain_ topics men generally have a capacity to analyze rigorously. There are other topics that a lot of men struggle with, such as understanding emotions, communicating effectively, and building relationships. I’ve realized recently that those kinds of skills are not only vital but require just as much of an aptitude for rigorous analysis and logical thinking as do topics that men seem to favor. And, to be honest, I think it’s just as important, and I find it just as stimulating. Our society tends to downgrade the importance of certain kinds of knowledge, which I think is unfortunate. Which is why comments about “fluff” in Relief Society kind of make me cringe. I hear just as much “fluff,” so to speak, in discussions of doctrine that men have as I do in the doctrinal discussions that women have. The focus is just a bit different.

Ben, I don’t think you could have a higher compliment to your blog than to have all this thoughtful feedback.

My two cents (this is not a claim about which one is better but just some thoughts): sometimes people consider emotion to be synonymous with spirituality because the Holy Ghost does bring feelings. However, it is possible to feel emotional without feeling the spirit, and sometimes teachers, students, and speakers emphasize emotion because they’re not sure how to access or invoke the spirit in a group setting. What I find brings the spirit most powerfully to me is when I am gaining understanding of Christ’s doctrines, and so it’s doctrine-focused, usually scripture-based discussion that edifies me. As far as emotion and relationships, I have never felt or expressed more love and concern for the people around me - men and women - than when I feel edified as a result of better understanding the gospel through a talk or discussion.

I’ve never attended relief society, so I wouldn’t know how to compare the two, but I know that, as much as I love Elders Quorum and my brothers, we still have room for improvement in the quality of our discussions. I’ll bet the sisters do too.

Sunday School has always been my favorite, because I can show off how smart, funny, and spiritual I am to both the Brothers and the Sisters.

Ben never said that the fact–and it is a fact, at least generally–that women are more outwardly sensitive and emotional than men, automatically means they’re more spiritual. I’m sure Ben has been uplifted spiritually many times in Priesthood meetings.

Mary: Hmm, not a bad idea. Except…wait…do I really want to be a bishop? ;) It’s one of those callings where you’d be foolish to aspire to it, but if you do get called, you make it some of the best years of your life. Frankly, I’d just love to be ward organist for the rest of my days. :)

Janssen: Glad to hear it. :)

Haley: I wouldn’t call it “girly,” per se. :P Sensitive, yes. More in touch with humanity, yes. But not girly. I’m not a girly man. Not even close. :)

Connor: I don’t know that we can say men have better gospel discussions than women. :) Perhaps it’s just that there are different styles — gender differences in discourse — and some people prefer the “male” style, and others prefer the “female” style? I don’t know.

James: True. :) But even so, it felt very cathartic to see how the other half lives, so to speak. I mean, I already know about the challenges I face; it’s nice to get a clearer view of what it’s like for the girls.

Sally: I can see your point, but again, I don’t think every Relief Society is like that. I wonder if there’s a difference between RSes in family wards and RSes in student wards…

Janet: A very good point. :)

Joni: Agreed on both counts, except for the negative at the end. We’ll have to talk. :P

Katherine: I agree completely — well said.

Keith: It was admittedly a bit of a surprise, to be honest. I had no idea it would get this many comments. But it’s good — it’s opened my eyes. And the bit about emotions and spirituality I’ll reply to in the next paragraph. :)

Jeff: You nailed it. I didn’t say that Relief Society was more spiritual, I said it “it’s easier to be in touch with humanity.” Which isn’t quite the same thing. :) I think the level of spirituality in both priesthood and Relief Society is probably about the same, really. Above and beyond that, there’s more emotion in Relief Society. And I like that. Oh, and Sunday School’s great. :)