Trib Article Re: Women's Session

[Nacho2dope]

I can understand where people are coming from; however, are we getting to caught up with who is presenting the message when maybe we should be more concerned with where the message is coming from? I never understood the point of conference was equal representation for everyone, but to hear the Word of God. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You stated "So Emily Jensen is just being speculative and gossippy here.  She is imputing questionable motives onto Pres. Nelson.  That's not cool. "  To me, it sounds like you are gossiping about Emily Jensen, hence my statement about you doing precisely what you are accusing her of doing. 

Nope.  I've said nothing about her "personal or private affairs."  Just her published-to-the-world statements.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I can understand where people are coming from; however, are we getting to caught up with who is presenting the message when maybe we should be more concerned with where the message is coming from? I never understood the point of conference was equal representation for everyone, but to hear the Word of God. 

Because human beings are not sock puppets for God, and all inspiration is filtered through human consciousness, it's still important to have equal representation in conference.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I've said nothing about her "personal or private affairs."  Just her published-to-the-world statements.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

"Gossip" = "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others."

Disagree.

IMO you are engaging in "idle talk" about this woman, as well as others quoted in the article. I'll note that in the definition you supplied, gossip is not limited only to "personal or private affairs of others". And just because someone share a personal thought, doesn't mean it is no longer personal. It may no longer be "private" but it can still be personal. Your definition of gossip doesn't require something be personal (however you choose to define "personal") AND private.

The fact is, you engaged in idle talk about the personal behavior/belief/thoughts/opinion of another person. That makes it gossipy. Perhaps you should find a definition that suits you better.

Edited October 19, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Because human beings are not sock puppets for God, and all inspiration is filtered through human consciousness, it's still important to have equal representation in conference.

With respect, I disagree.  There is no such thing as "equal representation," assuming "representation" means proportionality in terms of gender, race, age, nationality, education, etc.

The race/age/gender/nationality/etc. demographics of the upper echelons of the Church will never "equally represent" the demographics of the worldwide Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Peggy Fletcher Stack is a news reporter, is she not?

Sorry, the I will never shake the terrible impression she left me at President Nelson's first new conference.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Disagree.

IMO you are engaging in "idle talk" about this woman, as well as others quoted in the article.

"Idle talk" = "idle or foolish and irrelevant talk."

Nope, I'm not doing that.  My remarks were neither idle, nor foolish.  They were measured, on topic, and relevant.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll note that in the definition you supplied, gossip is not limited only to "personal or private affairs of others".

It usually is limited in that way.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The fact is, you engaged in idle talk about the personal behavior/belief/thoughts/opinion of another person.

That's not a fact.  And no, I didn't.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That makes it gossipy. Perhaps you should find a definition that suits you better.

Meh.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Idle talk" = "idle or foolish and irrelevant talk."

Nope, I'm not doing that.  My remarks were neither idle, nor foolish.  They were measured, on topic, and relevant.

It usually is limited in that way.

That's not a fact.  And no, I didn't.

Meh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Idle talk is talk that is idle. Good to know  

Saying gossip is on topic hardly makes it less gossipy, especially when you created the topic. It's a silly argument so I won't take it any further, but self-awareness is a good thing.

Gossip isn't the end of the world. Just own it.

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Idle talk is talk that is idle. Good to know  

Saying gossip is on topic hardly makes it less gossipy, especially when you created the topic. It's a silly argument so I won't take it any further, but self-awareness is a good thing.

Gossip isn't the end of the world. Just own it.

No, thanks.

Let's just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I can understand where people are coming from; however, are we getting to caught up with who is presenting the message when maybe we should be more concerned with where the message is coming from? I never understood the point of conference was equal representation for everyone, but to hear the Word of God. 

Welcome and amen!

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Had he not spoken, she could have turned on a dime and said something like "I find it highly ironic that President Nelson would say, 'We need your strength ... your wisdom,' and yet can't even be bothered to attend or speak at the Women's Session, as he does for the Priesthood Session."

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Had President Nelson addressed women who aren't mothers, Jensen could just pivot and say something like "I'm a woman and love to be told that that's important, but not addressing the importance of mothers in the lives of their children leaves out a big section of women."

It's interesting that you are criticizing Jensen for what she could have have said in response to what Nelson might have said.

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I can understand where people are coming from; however, are we getting to caught up with who is presenting the message when maybe we should be more concerned with where the message is coming from? I never understood the point of conference was equal representation for everyone, but to hear the Word of God. 

I can agree with you to a point...but...

We are taught in the church that revelation often flows from the questions that are asked. So it stands to reason, at least to me, that differences in perspective whether due to gender, race, nationality etc, could influence the way a person approaches a topic or even which topics are important. So it's not really about diversity for the sake of diversity. It's recognizing that different people will seek revelation on different subjects based on their worldview. Different people will be inspired to speak about different subjects and approach it from different angles. But if the group is fairly homogeneous there won't be differences in approach or in the revelation that is received, because it will all be based on the same homogeneous POV.

I believe that a woman's perspective is often very different than mine, not because it's better or worse, but because it comes from a different lived experience. Things that are important to me may not be as important to a woman, or a person of color, or a person of a nationality, and vice versa. We are not all the same. We have different, needs and desires, meaning that we approach God in different ways, and even ask different questions and seek different solutions, not because one is better than the other, but because we are different. If we can't recognize and even appreciate the differences by giving voice to a variety of individuals then we are really missing out, even when God supplies the revelation.

When all the revelation is given almost solely through white, North American, heterosexual males, we can expect uniformity. But the world and God are much bigger than that.

Edited October 19, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Veggie juicer]

I personally was glad for less female speakers.   My misophonia goes nuts and I often walk away during those talks and just read them later.

In many ways I'm an equalist but not with this issue.  I love me some female speakers but not in conference. 

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think they may speak for many (not just "opinions of a very few people").  I know of several sisters who were disappointed that there was only one woman speaker for general conference this time.  Also many would have liked to have heard from more of the sisters in leadership positions for the women's session.  That does not mean that they don't enjoy hearing from the First Presidency, but there are few opportunities to hear from the sisters who serve in general presidencies and also many parents want their daughters to hear from these sisters as well.

The article is at least food for thought and does represent more than just a few from what I have heard regarding feedback from members of my ward and family.  

I can completely see where those women are coming from.  At the same time, there are also few opportunities to hear from the First Presidency as they speak specifically to the women of the church though.  I don't know how to solve that conundrum.  

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can completely see where those women are coming from.  At the same time, there are also few opportunities to hear from the First Presidency as they speak specifically to the women of the church though.  I don't know how to solve that conundrum.  

I can certainly see your point as well.  I think that maybe the First Presidency could together discuss the message they want to express to the women/youth and then one of them present it in the Women's Session.  This way, there is more time to hear from the sisters serving in the general presidencies.  I know there's really no definite solution, but this is a possible suggestion.

Edited October 20, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I can certainly see your point as well.  I think that maybe the First Presidency could together discuss the message they want to express to the women/youth and then one of them present it in the Women's Session.  This way, there is more time to hear from the sisters serving in the general presidencies.  I know there's really no definite solution, but this is a possible suggestion.

They could (and it’s a good compromise) but it would still lead to less time for the first presidency to speak directly and specifically to women and girls. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/19/2018 at 1:21 PM, katherine the great said:

I know. I just threw that in there for fun. 

It seems creepy to even appear to impute Warren Jeffs stuff to leaders or members of the Church of Jesus Christ. I wish you wouldn’t do that. 

[Tacenda]

On 10/19/2018 at 10:18 AM, Jeanne said:

There should be a rebuttal IMO..   When one places commitments, tithes and their whole lives and said eternity...they have that right.  Maybe if prophecies were  not poured out like members are children...but...it is all of you who say that a prophet cannot be perfect...!

Spot on!

[Jeanne]

On 10/20/2018 at 9:12 AM, bluebell said:

I can completely see where those women are coming from.  At the same time, there are also few opportunities to hear from the First Presidency as they speak specifically to the women of the church though.  I don't know how to solve that conundrum.  

It is difficult I imagine...but I also wonder if women  taught  in principles...could see how wonderful all organizations, families...etc..would be should women in their wise knowledge and their own covenants...be able to govern themselves.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It is difficult I imagine...but I also wonder if women  taught  in principles...could see how wonderful all organizations, families...etc..would be should women in their wise knowledge and their own covenants...be able to govern themselves.

From my perspective, this is not about government. Prophets are special witnesses of Christ, and they are also watchmen on the tower, with the unique roll of seeing things coming from a far off and providing guidance, direction, and warning for things the rest of us don’t see yet. 

As wonderful, authoritative, wise, and knowledgeable as our women leaders are, they do not have the same abilities (through their calling) as our prophets have (through theirs).  They cannot replace them. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, this is not about government. Prophets are special witnesses of Christ, and they are also watchmen on the tower, with the unique roll of seeing things coming from a far off and providing guidance, direction, and warning for things the rest of us don’t see yet. 

As wonderful, authoritative, wise, and knowledgeable as our women leaders are, they do not have the same abilities (through their calling) as our prophets have (through theirs).  They cannot replace them. 

Thank you for sharing your perspective.  I always learn more about women members from you than anyone.

[Gray]

On 10/19/2018 at 3:13 PM, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  There is no such thing as "equal representation," assuming "representation" means proportionality in terms of gender, race, age, nationality, education, etc.

The race/age/gender/nationality/etc. demographics of the upper echelons of the Church will never "equally represent" the demographics of the worldwide Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

There should be. That's the problem.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Quote

With respect, I disagree.  There is no such thing as "equal representation," assuming "representation" means proportionality in terms of gender, race, age, nationality, education, etc.

The race/age/gender/nationality/etc. demographics of the upper echelons of the Church will never "equally represent" the demographics of the worldwide Church.  

There should be. That's the problem.

With respect, I disagree that "there should be" "equal representation," or that this is a "problem."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

On 10/20/2018 at 6:42 AM, Veggie juicer said:

I personally was glad for less female speakers.   My misophonia goes nuts and I often walk away during those talks and just read them later.

In many ways I'm an equalist but not with this issue.  I love me some female speakers but not in conference. 

Can you elaborate more on this? I'm thinking it's the Primary voice that does it? Which BTW, is getting a lot better from what I've seen, thank goodness. I can't wait for speakers that just speak from the heart, maybe look at some notes for help, but not word for word. The old days. And for women to not worry about speaking a certain way, but tell it from their hearts as well. Not trying to look perfect either. Or maybe I just should shut up unless, I'm the one asked to speak in front of millions. 

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can't wait for speakers that just speak from the heart, maybe look at some notes for help, but not word for word.

The problem with this is that conference is being broadcast in 93 different languages.   In order to do this the translator must have a translated copy of the talk beforehand.  To do otherwise would eventually lead to mistakes, confusion, and a poor conference experience for non English speakers.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/general-conference-interpretation-fact-sheet

A speaker can speak from the heart and still have what they want to say written out beforehand.