I’ve been asked to post the results from the Survey for Men Regarding Women’s Councils:
Thank you to all the men who participated in the survey about the Women’s Council. We appreciate your time, perspective, and insight. Below, we’ll share the results for those who are interested. These results are not intended to end discussion or establish any definitive “truth.” They simply represent another set of data — a viewpoint that has not often been considered — which may add helpful context to the ongoing conversations among the women.
An interesting observation: In the open-ended questions, many men shared thoughtful ideas, suggestions, and concerns. Some felt the survey was biased against new movement-wide guidelines for women’s councils, while others felt it was biased in favor of them. This range of feedback suggests that the survey was likely reasonably (though not perfectly) balanced.
If you’re frustrated that this survey exists, please know that no ill will was intended toward any person or group. The purpose was simply to gather honest input and broaden understanding. There was considerable backlash to the survey, which led the creators to seriously question whether to release the results. However, it felt disingenuous to request participation and collect responses from 70+ men without sharing the findings.
No interpretations or conclusions will be offered. The results will be posted exactly as collected, for you to read and interpret yourself in the following graphics. Click any of these to enlarge them.
I took the survey, but found it difficult to actually answer the questions. For example, the first question asked: "Are you comfortable with the protections and instructions God has explicitly laid out in scripture about how women's councils ought to be conducted, or do you feel the women ought to add additional movement-wide guidelines or instructions?" This presents a question I could not answer with a "yes" or a "no". I'm comfortable with what has been laid out in scripture. So, "yes". But what does "add additional" mean? If it is discussing terms to make sure all the women are on the same page, that's one thing. The way it is worded it is implying that there is some effort to change/ignore or revise/edit what the Lord explicitly told us. Even the word "explicitly" implies that everyone thinks the same thing. Try as I might to keep my head down and avoid getting any information about this lively ongoing discussion among the women, word has leaked out that satisfies me that there are strong, differing opinions about what is "explicit". I would absolutely encourage the women to talk that through so that something is understood the same, accepted and applied uniformly, and the result of a consensus among the women. That hasn't happened as far as I can tell. So if the question is asking me if the women ought to reach a movement-wide consistent understanding leading to a uniform application of the instructions, then I'm part of the red pie sliver. But I'm not certain of that because the question needs some discussion before I could answer. When I took the survey, I didn't answer that one. That is why, I think, some questions got as many as 74 answers and some as few as 66. I guess I'm not alone in being perplexed about a question that is not clear enough for me to be able to answer.
ReplyDeleteDenver,
DeleteMy most pressing feeling when I took this interview was serious and PTSD inducing Deja vu regarding the SoP voting. These questions are biased and confusing and the spirit under the words whispers “Heads I win, tails you lose”. Every time. I answered as best I could in the spirit of participation and trying to contribute as an equal. I was in the majority on every question (not that I think that means anything substantive), but I strongly dislike these questions and the whole survey if I’m honest. They present a “side”. It’s clear as day. So what if I was in the majority on this one? What’s the point of this? Now what do I do? Now I can go brag I’m in the majority and claim the moral high ground? Now I can be certain it’s OTHERS who are choosing to dispute and not me?
A great deal of effort was made in this blog post to make sure it’s clear there is no bias here. “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Does the presence of that explanation make it so? If there was no bias, would there be a need to so strongly point it out? I feel decidedly unpersuaded…
I had precisely the same thought regarding the use of the word “explicitly” in question one as I was reading these results and even commented on that specifically to my wife. Then I saw your comment. We clearly aren’t alone in those confusions.
This is simply me being honest. You expressed deep feelings I share. I’d rather publicly provide a counterpoint to your feelings here, but I can’t this time. The bus has a flat.
Jay Todd
Part 1:
DeleteDenver, can I ask some clarifying questions? I ask these here because I know I'm not the only one with these questions, and maybe others would benefit from reading the answers. There is definitely a lot of discussion among the women regarding the June 20th revelation as it pertains to women's councils and conferences. So, I'm assuming when you say "Try as I might to keep my head down and avoid getting any information about this lively ongoing discussion among the women, word has leaked out that satisfies me that there are strong, differing opinions about what is "explicit"." That you are referring to those discussions about the instruction in June 20th revelation and how to apply them. Which prompts some clarifying questions from me to you:
1. What women are you referring to with your encouragement below? Interested women? The whole body of women?
Kara’s question:
"Are you comfortable with the protections and instructions God has explicitly laid out in scripture about how women's councils ought to be conducted, or do you feel the women ought to add additional movement-wide guidelines or instructions?"
“word has leaked out that satisfies me that there are strong, differing opinions about what is "explicit". I would absolutely encourage the women to talk that through so that something is understood the same, accepted and applied uniformly, and the result of a consensus among the women. That hasn't happened as far as I can tell. So if the question is asking me if the women ought to reach a movement-wide consistent understanding leading to a uniform application of the instructions, then I'm part of the red pie sliver..”
2. Based on your encouragement in your statement, which women get to decide movement-wide consistent understanding leading to uniform application of instructions? All women? Just "interested" women? Does being led by the spirit and self-governance have anything to do with this? Do “the people,” including men and women, need to be involved in "movement-wide understanding", since this application of instruction affects all?
3. Are you of the opinion that this revelation is calling women to come to movement-wide understanding and application of terms, or is it instruction to hold conferences to help specific disputes get resolved in an effort to settle the matter?
4. Can each conference called to help settle a dispute come to different resolutions based on the unique circumstances that the council is facing, even if it’s a similar issue to another council that may arrive at a different resolution for that unique situation?
5. Do we need to define terms and agree on a narrow definition when the Lord himself has not done so?
Part 2:
Delete6. Are we to embrace this principle you’ve espoused for over a decade (probably longer.. that's just how long I've been trying to learn from your teachings)?
“There are two great principles this history has proven. First, a body of believers who are equal are not easily governed. If the only tools to employ are persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned and pure knowledge, it will require the wisdom of God to keep believers together. As soon as they are allowed “to govern themselves” there will be ill-defined margins and straying believers in need of teaching, preaching, persuading and long-suffering. Second, it is easy to aggregate power, wealth, influence and authority if religion is used to control people…. If Zion is to have people of one heart and one mind, who live in righteousness with one another (Moses 7:18) then however cumbersome, inefficient, difficult or daunting it may prove, only the first principle can be chosen.”
7. If we are, then how does having a small body of "interested" women come to a consensus on behalf of the whole body not set up a hierarchy?
I understand that you're commenting on the survey, and I agree with your sentiments about having some base understanding in agreement so that you can have a profitable discussion. However, I personally wonder if we as women have grossly misunderstood and applied the June 20th revelation as a whole. I personally think that we have. I'm also wondering if when you say "word has leaked out" if what you've heard is representative of the whole discussion around this or just coming from a few that may only be telling one viewpoint?
Teryn