Talk:Priesthood Correlation Program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

K - I'm making some major edits to this page today. Couple thoughts:

First - EVERY organization within the church from day one received priesthood governance or it was rolled into another organization, or it failed (either was told to cease, or jsut died off). If any one can think of an example otherwise, please let me know.

Second - "often led by women" is incorrect. Yes, the woman's and primary organizations often were, but for example, the Deseret Sunday School was led by David O McKay for quite some time, let alone the YMMIA program has always been led by men. That is a feminist response and not completely accurate, as the Auxilliaries were led by people who were appropriate. People familiar with the church between 1832 and 1918 should realize that people were put in positions that they could do well regardless of sex.

Third - Another allusion in the current article is that these programs were completely disengaged from the church aside from facilities. Again, untrue. They were largely under the direction of the stake until a general authority championed the cause and a general president was provided for the organization.

Fourth - the statement "took on a secondary role." Since when is Sunday School, primary, etc. considered a primary function or meeting of the Church? Point me to a revelation or policy showing this....

Fifth - Feminist critics is going to end up its own section - this should be addresses and right-sized.

Sixth - People forget that the Priesthood IS the organization of the Church. All other things are Auxilliary. If the priesthood quorum functioned properly, auxillilearies would not be needed. However, the priesthood is only properly organized when both women and men are properly organized, (see smith's statement about the relief society as an auxilliary) under the direction of the priesthood. -Visorstuff 18:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect falsities...[edit]

incorrect information, doctrines and other falsities

Sounds a tad POV, but I wasn't quite sure how to edit this. A direct quote might be good, if there's an official statement for the program's purpose. Or could we say non-canonical, or non-doctrinal, beliefs and practices, something like that? Alai 20:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried a fix. In general, I think the article has a lot of good history and answers some good questions. Good job. Tom Haws 02:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

This section needs to be documented. Deadsalmon 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]