Something I noticed about the 4 conference sessions


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks, but I don't need anyone speaking to how I must feel. I didn't notice and I thought it was a marvelous conference.

What did you think of Pres. Uchtdorf's talk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

In the sat and Sunday morning and afternoon sessions there was only 1 female speaker total. Why only 1? That can't make women in the church feel good.

Why is that? Do we go to conference to hear the Word of God through His chosen leaders, or do we go to only hear the Word of God through the eyes of a social agenda? Why is it that everything is so politicized these days? Oh my goodness there was only 1 female speaker!!!! The Horror!!! Oh, if only there were 2 that would make it better?  Not 2 what about 5?  Not 5, well then what exactly is the "right" number of female speakers? Is it that one can only hear God's will as spoken by His leadership if they are of the same gender?

I've seen exactly where this line of thinking leads-I've seen in it in business and in the government.  Where I used to work, rather than ensuring the absolute best person obtained the job it was an unwritten rule that there must be an equal number of male and female supervisors.  If there is an XO, then the XO and chief must be male and female (and it rotated-if the Chief was male- the next Chief would be female).  On every promotion board there is a "female advocate" and a "minority advocate".  All based on the premise that men and women are "equal", i.e. that they are the same and therefore if there isn't an equal amount of supervisors who are male/female it must mean there is discrimination.

But no one wants to consider the alternative-men and women are different and unique and as such have different strengths and weaknesses.  That might actually mean that men are more well-suited for supervisory roles.  So instead of focusing on the actual content that matters, what kind of a supervisor, how well will you do the job, etc. people focus on the fluff-making sure that an equal number of men and women get into supervisor roles, get promoted, etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, it actually does the opposite of promoting "equality"-people aren't stupid and they can very well see when individuals are more a "political" appointment vs. not.

Quite frankly? Who gives a rip and why in the world does it matter? Do we go to Conference to hear a political agenda or to hear the Word of God?

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There weren't any gay speakers either. That must make the gays feel bad.

Actually, for all you know, there might have been a gay speaker who, ". . . yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man. . ." sufficient to live a worthy life and be called to such a holy calling. :eek: Remember, the temptation of homosexual attraction in itself is not the sin. :)

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

Actually, for all you know, there might have been a gay speaker who, ". . . yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man. . ." sufficient to live a worthy life and be called to such a holy calling. :eek: Remember, the temptation of homosexual attraction in itself is not the sin. :)

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

Jeez sorry for caring about women's feelings.

Well, actually, you were kind of assigning feelings to them...

"That can't make women in the church feel good."

I don't know much about wimmin (despite being married to a wimming for 20 years), but I know it's rare to have them enjoy being told how they should be feeling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

In the sat and Sunday morning and afternoon sessions there was only 1 female speaker total. Why only 1? That can't make women in the church feel good.

I get where you're coming from.  Perhaps, though, this should be looked at by percentage.  There are 9 women in leadership positions but roughly 100 men who could be asked to speak (at least).  With roughly 7 speakers each session (not including women's or priesthood since they're shorter), it's not as unbalanced as it looks.

Can someone do the math on this or correct me if I'm mistaken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't know much about wimmin 

Most of the guys I've met that claim to know a lot about women are those who are desperately trying to appear sensitive so they can get companionship later in the evening. I'm being polite here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

This guy knows all.  Totally gotta get his book.

MV5BYTAwZDk5NzItM2U0MS00NDUxLTgwMDAtNzVm

It's like the guy you knew at college who carried Sylvia Plath books in his pocket and played acoustic guitar on the quad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't know much about wimmin (despite being married to a wimming for 20 years), but I know it's rare to have them enjoy being told how they should be feeling. 

How about "min"?  Do they like being told how they should be feeling?  (Just checkin'.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, zil said:

How about "min"?  Do they like being told how they should be feeling?  (Just checkin'.)

lol. I think the one thing men and women of all stripes can agree on is they don't like being told how "they" are supposed to think or feel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zil said:

How about "min"?  Do they like being told how they should be feeling?  (Just checkin'.)

Disagree with Good Sir MormonGator.  When in a boundary-sensitive crucial conversation about issues with my wife, I would be eternally grateful if I could go into that thing knowing how I should feel.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Disagree with Good Sir MormonGator.  When in a boundary-sensitive crucial conversation about issues with my wife, I would be eternally grateful if I could go into that thing knowing how I should feel. 

I know every person is different, but I would much rather have worked through things with my husband knowing his true feelings than with him claiming to feel what I thought he ought to feel.  (My husband was one of those people who refused to talk to anyone about anything more serious than his golf game.  It made things difficult sometimes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

In the sat and Sunday morning and afternoon sessions there was only 1 female speaker total. Why only 1? That can't make women in the church feel good.

I'm thinking it's an anti-female agenda on the part of the Brethren. Someone should notify Kate Kelly immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not tracking all the speakers and when they spoke – but it was during one of the Sunday sessions that a Lady from the primary presidency spoke.  I thought her words were very inspiring and prophetic (among one of the most inspirational talks for me) and should be considered as much scripture (given through the Holy Ghost) as any of the conference talks given.  BTW the talk was about preparing children to be able to resist evil - aka the stripling warriors.  

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that too @Zarahemla but it didn't bother me at all. Usually they do have one or two more sister speak but I think part of the reason they didn't this conference is because both the Relief Society and Primary presidency's were reorganized. My favorite talks are always from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

Jeez sorry for caring about women's feelings.

Please don't throw emotionally laden passive aggressiveness around.

I'm sure you care plenty about women's feelings; I guarantee as a husband I care plenty about women's feelings, I'm sure the GA's and prophets care plenty about woman's feelings (they are 50% of the population and without whom we won't be here!).

It's not that at all; it is the explicit idea that the only way to show that we "care" about woman's feelings is to ensure that more than 1 (what the right number needs to be, I don't know) of the speakers is a woman.  In other words, simply by the virtue of a speaker being a woman conveys that the Church cares about women. She could stand up and say nothing inspiring, but b/c she is female, the Church now "cares".

My guess is that if one actually does a study of General Conference talks one will find a plethora of talks given to, given about, and giving direction to women. The idea espoused is this perverse idea that only by having someone who is a physiological representative can show that someone truly cares. It boils down to the idea that because I'm not a woman I don't have the right to give advice to women, because I'm not a cripple I can't give advice to cripples, because I'm not homosexual I can't give advice to homosexuals, because I didn't grow up in the ghetto, etc. etc. In other words, if I haven't gone through exactly what you have gone through, I have no right and my advice is considered dross, b/c "I don't know how you feel".  The idea is perverse and immature.

My advice might be better because I have gone through a very similar trial . . .but it might also be much, much worse. I have found in my life to learn to take good advice and consent from wherever it may come from.  I have learned someone doesn't have to be a man to give me advice (in fact some of the best advice comes from people who are completely different than me)

I have learned the best way to get advice and counsel in all things, spiritual or temporal is to find people who have succeeded, who I respect, who have wisdom, who have the Spirit of God-regardless of whether they have been through something similar.

I find GC one of the best times to find counsel and advice from men and women who have succeeded-especially in the realm of the Spiritual. If GC had 10 women speakers, great if it had none great-it doesn't matter. What matters is whether the individuals speaking have the wisdom and are spiritual ready to give counsel and advice to the General Body of the Church. 

Part of giving that counsel and guidance is the Power and Authority of the Priesthood-it is one of the rights and duties of the Priesthood-it is an obligation.  Rather than lagging the woman-men are called to be the Spiritual leader of their household.  

It is a shame that as a Mormon culture we have to many degrees we denigrate (not sure if that is the right word . .. maybe scoff at??) the sacred responsibility of Husbands to be the spiritual leader in the home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Please don't throw emotionally laden passive aggressiveness around.

I'm sure you care plenty about women's feelings; I guarantee as a husband I care plenty about women's feelings, I'm sure the GA's and prophets care plenty about woman's feelings (they are 50% of the population and without whom we won't be here!).

It's not that at all; it is the explicit idea that the only way to show that we "care" about woman's feelings is to ensure that more than 1 (what the right number needs to be, I don't know) of the speakers is a woman.  In other words, simply by the virtue of a speaker being a woman conveys that the Church cares about women. She could stand up and say nothing inspiring, but b/c she is female, the Church now "cares".

My guess is that if one actually does a study of General Conference talks one will find a plethora of talks given to, given about, and giving direction to women. The idea espoused is this perverse idea that only by having someone who is a physiological representative can show that someone truly cares. It boils down to the idea that because I'm not a woman I don't have the right to give advice to women, because I'm not a cripple I can't give advice to cripples, because I'm not homosexual I can't give advice to homosexuals, because I didn't grow up in the ghetto, etc. etc. In other words, if I haven't gone through exactly what you have gone through, I have no right and my advice is considered dross, b/c "I don't know how you feel".  The idea is perverse and immature.

My advice might be better because I have gone through a very similar trial . . .but it might also be much, much worse. I have found in my life to learn to take good advice and consent from wherever it may come from.  I have learned someone doesn't have to be a man to give me advice (in fact some of the best advice comes from people who are completely different than me)

I have learned the best way to get advice and counsel in all things, spiritual or temporal is to find people who have succeeded, who I respect, who have wisdom, who have the Spirit of God-regardless of whether they have been through something similar.

I find GC one of the best times to find counsel and advice from men and women who have succeeded-especially in the realm of the Spiritual. If GC had 10 women speakers, great if it had none great-it doesn't matter. What matters is whether the individuals speaking have the wisdom and are spiritual ready to give counsel and advice to the General Body of the Church. 

Part of giving that counsel and guidance is the Power and Authority of the Priesthood-it is one of the rights and duties of the Priesthood-it is an obligation.  Rather than lagging the woman-men are called to be the Spiritual leader of their household.  

It is a shame that as a Mormon culture we have to many degrees we denigrate (not sure if that is the right word . .. maybe scoff at??) the sacred responsibility of Husbands to be the spiritual leader in the home. 

I think the problem is that there's only 9 female leaders in the church so you don't have much to work with in the first place. Maybe we need more female leadership in the church. I have several female relatives who by their facebook posts were hurt by only 1 female speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

I think the problem is that there's only 9 female leaders in the church so you don't have much to work with in the first place. Maybe we need more female leadership in the church. I have several female relatives who by their facebook posts were hurt by only 1 female speaker.

(Answering this as an LDS female) It didn't bother me at all.  And with both the RS and Primary being reorganized-- new people and new position to learn, I could see the benefit to each individual not having to add "write Conference talk" on top of it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

I think the problem is that there's only 9 female leaders in the church so you don't have much to work with in the first place. Maybe we need more female leadership in the church. I have several female relatives who by their facebook posts were hurt by only 1 female speaker.

I'm thinking you should get in touch with President Monson and lecture him on his duties to be more inclusive. The Brethren clearly aren't doing it right. Set them straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share