Jump to content
smac97

Trib Article Re: Women's Session

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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.

Yup, didn't think of that, but you're right. We are much bigger than in the earlier church, I speak before thinking quite often as you've been able to see on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do you think that it's the ideal that we hear from fewer women, fewer people of color, and more men?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

I wish I could elaborate eloquently, but I feel I shouldnt.   I am myself a public speaker.  I also know one of the highly appointed women personally and she talks much differently at the pulpit.  If I articulate my experience in detail it might set off something in another person that ruins it for them too.  But without details, it's the pronunciation, enunciation and delivery style that feels icky to me.  The words themselves are great. So I read the talks later. 

Share this post


Link to post

Also, I really wish for speakers to speak from the heart. It means everything to me, from church to politics to business.   I trust a speaker who is real. But I get the limitations. Not everyone called to serve is blessed with talent for public speaking.  I'm sure many are terrified.  I just wish.  

And also wish for prayers that don't sound rehearsed.  But again....that's just me. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Gray said:
Quote

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

Why do you think that it's the ideal that we hear from fewer women, fewer people of color, and more men?

I said nothing about this being "the ideal."

We may as well ask "Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?"

You seem to be approaching leadership positions in the Church as some sort of quasi-political exercise (as evidenced by your remarks about "representation").  I don't think that's correct.  Callings in the Church are not based on race (though, to some extent, there are gender- and age-based considerations).

I think we have been seeing substantial diversification of leadership as a natural outgrowth of the Church maturing throughout the world.  See the General Authorities and General Officers of the Church (here) and the Quorums of Seventy (here).

But in the end, there will pretty much always be an disparate number of men in the leadership of the Church.  That's a function of the priesthood being limited to men.  There will also be essentially a total disparity in terms of adults being in leadership positions.  

Again, there is no such thing as "equal representation" in the leadership of the Church, 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

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I said nothing about this being "the ideal."

So would it be positive or negative for women and minorities to see more people with similar experiences to them speaking in conference? How would it make you feel?

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

We may as well ask "Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?"

Because it was an early first century Jewish movement. Easy.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be approaching leadership positions in the Church as some sort of quasi-political exercise (as evidenced by your remarks about "representation").  I don't think that's correct.  Callings in the Church are not based on race (though, to some extent, there are gender- and age-based considerations).

Until very recently all LDS apostles have been exclusively white, so to some extent the callings must have been partially based on race.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we have been seeing substantial diversification of leadership as a natural outgrowth of the Church maturing throughout the world.  See the General Authorities and General Officers of the Church (here) and the Quorums of Seventy (here).

Indeed.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But in the end, there will pretty much always be an disparate number of men in the leadership of the Church.  That's a function of the priesthood being limited to men.

Yes, that's a problem. And an artifact of our weird conflation of priesthood with leadership.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, there is no such thing as "equal representation" in the leadership of the Church, 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

Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, katherine the great said:
Quote

I said nothing about this being "the ideal."

We may as well ask "Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?"

Because their society was both xenophobic and sexist. 

"Society" did not choose the Twelve Apostles.  Jesus Christ did.

So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was "xenophobic and sexist?"

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Society" did not choose the Twelve Apostles.  Jesus Christ did.

So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was "xenophobic and sexist?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you suggesting that the original apostles did not come out of that society?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Gray said:
Quote

I said nothing about this being "the ideal."

So would it be positive or negative for women and minorities to see more people with similar experiences to them speaking in conference? How would it make you feel?

Oh, so now we're talking about "experiences?"  Not race/gender?

I've never been comfortable with reducing people to their gender/race.

16 minutes ago, Gray said:
Quote

We may as well ask "Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?"

Because it was an early first century Jewish movement. Easy.

I think it's more complex than that.

I'll give you a hint: Who selected the Twelve Apostles?

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Until very recently all LDS apostles have been exclusively white,

"Until very recently..."

Gotta love it.

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

so to some extent the callings must have been partially based on race.

Well, no.  

16 minutes ago, Gray said:
Quote

I think we have been seeing substantial diversification of leadership as a natural outgrowth of the Church maturing throughout the world.  See the General Authorities and General Officers of the Church (here) and the Quorums of Seventy (here).

Indeed.

Good.  Then we can dispose of the "partially based on race" claim (except for blacks, I suppose, since they were subject to a race-based restriction on holding the priesthood).

16 minutes ago, Gray said:
Quote

But in the end, there will pretty much always be an disparate number of men in the leadership of the Church.  That's a function of the priesthood being limited to men.

Yes, that's a problem.

Unless, of course, that is how God operates.

I won't pretend to understand the mind of God as to why the priesthood is limited to men.  But I'm not inclined to accuse Him of wrongdoing ("that's a problem," as you put it).

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

And an artifact of our weird conflation of priesthood with leadership.

Nothing weird in the slightest.  Priesthood authority is inherently tied to "leadership."  See here:

Quote

1. The word "priesthood" has several meanings for Latter-day Saints: 1. Priesthood is power, the power of God, a vital source of eternal strength and energy delegated to men to act in all things for the well-being of mankind, both in the world and out of it (DS 3:80; Romney, p. 43).

2. Priesthood is authority, the exclusive right to act in the name of God as his authorized agents and to perform ordinances for the purpose of opening certain spiritual blessings to all individuals.

3. Priesthood is the right and responsibility to preside within the organizational structure of the Church, but only in a manner consistent with the agency of others.

4. Sometimes the word priesthood is used to refer to the men of the Church in general (as in "the priesthood will meet in the chapel").

"Priesthood is authority."  Nothing weird about conflating leadership and authority.

16 minutes ago, Gray said:
Quote

Again, there is no such thing as "equal representation" in the leadership of the Church, 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.

Why is that?

A number of reasons.

First, children will never be general authorities.  

Second, General Authorities must hold the priesthood.  At present, priesthood is limited to men.  Consequently, there are no female general authorities.  I don't undertand why this is so, but again, I'll not accuse God of misconduct about it.

Third, there is no reason or need for "equal representation" based on "gender, race, age, nationality, education, etc."  General Authorities are not elected officials.  To the extent they function in a "representative" capacity, they represent God, not a gender/race/age/nationality/education demographic.

Fourth, I think there is undoubtedly significant value in some diversity of experience and thought and background amongst the leaders of the Church.  But that diversity needs to arise organically.  Through revelation.  Not through "affirmative action"-style nose-counting.

I do not sustain Pres. Nelson because he's a white male.  I sustain him because of who called him, and the position of authority he holds.  I don't care about the gender/race/age/nationality/education of such things.  Whether they are called of God is what matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, katherine the great said:
Quote

"Society" did not choose the Twelve Apostles.  Jesus Christ did.

So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was "xenophobic and sexist?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you suggesting that the original apostles did not come out of that society?

No, they certainly did.

Again, are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was "xenophobic and sexist?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, they certainly did.

Again, are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was "xenophobic and sexist?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course not. Jesus was perfect. But his apostles most certainly were not. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Because their society was both xenophobic and sexist. 

At first but then Peter had a vision about eating bacon and ham and chilled out a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, so now we're talking about "experiences?"  Not race/gender?

Some experiences are unique to one's race, gender, nationality, etc

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never been comfortable with reducing people to their gender/race.

Then feel at ease, because I wouldn't be comfortable doing that either.

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll give you a hint: Who selected the Twelve Apostles?

A first century Jewish person.

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Until very recently..."

Gotta love it.

Well, no.  

Good.  Then we can dispose of the "partially based on race" claim (except for blacks, I suppose, since they were subject to a race-based restriction on holding the priesthood).

Was it just a coincidence that they were all white? That doesn't seem very likely. Somewhere along the line some preference must have been given to white candidates.

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Unless, of course, that is how God operates.

I'm not comfortable imputing on God the vices of men.

 

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing weird in the slightest.  Priesthood authority is inherently tied to "leadership."  See here:

Not Biblically. The priesthood was tied to ordinances, not leadership.

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, General Authorities must hold the priesthood.  At present, priesthood is limited to men.  Consequently, there are no female general authorities.  I don't understand why this is so, but again, I'll not accuse God of misconduct about it.

I'll not accuse God of being sexist. 'Tis the vice of mortal men.

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, there is no reason or need for "equal representation" based on "gender, race, age, nationality, education, etc." 

Easy for you to say, right? You're already over-represented.

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

General Authorities are not elected officials.  To the extent they function in a "representative" capacity, they represent God, not a gender/race/age/nationality/education demographic.

Are they preaching to God or preaching to members of the church? Can someone from Pocatello really understand what it's like to grow up in the Philippines?

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I think there is undoubtedly significant value in some diversity of experience and thought and background amongst the leaders of the Church.  But that diversity needs to arise organically.  Through revelation.  Not through "affirmative action"-style nose-counting.

There has already been significant affirmative action style nose counting in favor of white apostles. Was that wrong?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, katherine the great said:
Quote

No, they certainly did.

Again, are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was "xenophobic and sexist?"

Of course not. Jesus was perfect. But his apostles most certainly were not. 

I'm confused, then.

I said: "We may as well ask 'Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?'"

You responded: "Because their society was both xenophobic and sexist."

I then said: "'Society' did not choose the Twelve Apostles.  Jesus Christ did.  So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was 'xenophobic and sexist?'"

You then responded: "Of course not.  Jesus was perfect."

But Jesus Christ - whom you say "was perfect" - called the Twelve Apostles.  You have attributed those apostles being "exclusively Jewish men" to xenophobia and sexism.

Can you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

I concur that the Savior's apostles were not perfect.  But I do not attribute Jesus Christ calling them as apostles to xenophobia and sexism.  Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm confused, then.

I said: "We may as well ask 'Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?'"

You responded: "Because their society was both xenophobic and sexist."

I then said: "'Society' did not choose the Twelve Apostles.  Jesus Christ did.  So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was 'xenophobic and sexist?'"

You then responded: "Of course not.  Jesus was perfect."

But Jesus Christ - whom you say "was perfect" - called the Twelve Apostles.  You have attributed those apostles being "exclusively Jewish men" to xenophobia and sexism.

Can you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

I concur that the Savior's apostles were not perfect.  But I do not attribute Jesus Christ calling them as apostles to xenophobia and sexism.  Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac- You're smarter than this. I've gotta conclude you're being purposely obtuse.

If the apostles and Jesus all lived in a society that was largely sexist and xenophobic, wouldn't it reason that the people Jesus had to choose from would be largely sexist and xenophobic? That says nothing about Jesus but it says everything about this pool of potential apostles who were products of their time and culture.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm confused, then.

Are you really? Jesus was perfect. His apostles had to be Jewish (using that term loosely) because Jewish people did not associate with Gentiles (xenophobia). They were also very patriarchal (sexist). That was their culture. Therefore he selected his apostles from that pool of individuals. I don't understand why that is so confusing. I also like to think that we have progressed a bit socially since then.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

I'm confused, then.

I said: "We may as well ask 'Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?'"

You responded: "Because their society was both xenophobic and sexist."

I then said: "'Society' did not choose the Twelve Apostles.  Jesus Christ did.  So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was 'xenophobic and sexist?'"

You then responded: "Of course not.  Jesus was perfect."

But Jesus Christ - whom you say "was perfect" - called the Twelve Apostles.  You have attributed those apostles being "exclusively Jewish men" to xenophobia and sexism.

Can you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

I concur that the Savior's apostles were not perfect.  But I do not attribute Jesus Christ calling them as apostles to xenophobia and sexism.  Do you?

Smac- You're smarter than this. I've gotta conclude you're being purposely obtuse.

No, I'm not.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the apostles and Jesus all lived in a society that was largely sexist and xenophobic, wouldn't it reason that the people Jesus had to choose from would be largely sexist and xenophobic?

That was not my question.  I do not dispute that Jewish society was, by modern standards "largely sexist and xenophobic."

My original question was: "Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?"

The response I received was "Because their society was both xenophobic and sexist."

I was not asking about the society in which they were found.  I asked why they were called.  And the answer was, it seems, because of xenophobia and sexism.

Except that Jesus Christ selected these men.  And since we all agree He was perfect, we can't attribute their calling to xenophobia and sexism.

So again, why were the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That says nothing about Jesus but it says everything about this pool of potential apostles who were products of their time and culture.

Not relevant to my question, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Are you really? Jesus was perfect. His apostles had to be Jewish (using that term loosely) because Jewish people did not associate with Gentiles (xenophobia).

Now I'm really confused.  You disclaim the notion that Jesus was xenophobic, but then you state that His apostles "had to be Jewish" because of . . . xenophobia.

Quote

They were also very patriarchal (sexist).

Again, I'm confused.  We're not speaking of the Twelve Apostles being "sexist."  My question was why Jesus Christ called Jewish men, and only Jewis men, to be His apostles.

Whether they came from a patriarchal/sexist society is neither here nor there.  Why did Jesus Christ call exclusively Jewish men to be His apostles?

Quote

That was their culture. Therefore he selected his apostles from that pool of individuals.

I don't understand.  I get that Jesus selected exclusively Jewish men to be His apostles.  My question is why.

Quote

I don't understand why that is so confusing. I also like to think that we have progressed a bit socially since then.

"We have progressed a bit socially since then?"  So the Savior's selection of His apostles was bad?  Wrong?  Inappropriate?

I am really not understanding this.  Let's clear the air a bit:

1. Jesus Christ called twelve Jewish men to be His apostles.

2. Jesus Christ did not call those twelve men because He was xenophobic and sexist.

Can we agree on these two points?  If so, let's proceed to:

3. Jesus Christ called His twelve apostles - who were exclusivly Jewish men - because _________________________ [please fill in the blank].

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Now I'm really confused.  You disclaim the notion that Jesus was xenophobic, but then you state that His apostles "had to be Jewish" because of . . . xenophobia.

Again, I'm confused.  We're not speaking of the Twelve Apostles being "sexist."  My question was why Jesus Christ called Jewish men, and only Jewis men, to be His apostles.

Whether they came from a patriarchal/sexist society is neither here nor there.  Why did Jesus Christ call exclusively Jewish men to be His apostles?

I don't understand.  I get that Jesus selected exclusively Jewish men to be His apostles.  My question is why.

"We have progressed a bit socially since then?"  So the Savior's selection of His apostles was bad?  Wrong?  Inappropriate?

I am really not understanding this.  Let's clear the air a bit:

1. Jesus Christ called twelve Jewish men to be His apostles.

2. Jesus Christ did not call those twelve men because He was xenophobic and sexist.

Can we agree on these two points?  If so, let's proceed to:

3. Jesus Christ called His twelve apostles - who were exclusivly Jewish men - because _________________________ [please fill in the blank].

Thanks,

-Smac

because...

1- they were the acceptable demographic available in the area

                 a. choosing a woman wouldn't have been accepted by society that was sexist

                 b. choosing a foreigner wouldn't have been accepted by society that was xenophobic.

The choices of apostles fit the milieu of Jesus' time and culture. It made sense for the time and culture. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have done things differently in a different time and culture. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

3. Jesus Christ called His twelve apostles - who were exclusivly Jewish men - because _________________________ [please fill in the blank].

because...

1- they were the acceptable demographic available in the area

                 a. choosing a woman wouldn't have been accepted by society that was sexist

                 b. choosing a foreigner wouldn't have been accepted by society that was xenophobic.

Interesting.  CFR, please.  Or are you just making this stuff up out of thin air?

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The choices of apostles fit the milieu of Jesus' time and culture.

That sounds like a nice way of saying "Jesus was xenophobic and sexist."

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It made sense for the time and culture. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have done things differently in a different time and culture. 

Again, where are you getting this?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

You know you're being ridiculous Smac. Think out a little and put this discussion in the context of this discussion. Your opinion seems to be that Women's conference does not need to give more time to female speakers because we are not a representative organization and because God only calls men as general authorities and not women. Then you bring up the fact that the original apostles were all Jewish males. I didn't make that comparison, you did.  I stated that culture from which the original apostles came was xenophobic and sexist (which it was). Therefore, I would not expect that the original apostles would really ask women to speak in their meetings, much less to allow them to have their own women's conference. We are now a worldwide church--not xenophobic. Women have more rights than our predecessors. We can divorce our husbands if we want to. We can inherit and hold property. We can vote in most countries. We are people. Therefore it seems logical that since we make up more than 50% of the population of the church, when we gather together as an entire body of the church that we should hear more from the female perspective. If you're still confused then I can't help you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Smac- You're smarter than this. I've gotta conclude you're being purposely obtuse.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.

😁

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

You know you're being ridiculous Smac.

Not sure where this came from.

Quote

Think out a little and put this discussion in the context of this discussion.

Not sure what this means.

Quote

Your opinion seems to be that Women's conference does not need to give more time to female speakers because we are not a representative organization and because God only calls men as general authorities and not women.

No, that's not my opinion.

Quote

Then you bring up the fact that the original apostles were all Jewish males.

In response to an assertion about there needing to be "equal representation" amongst those speaking in General Conference (again, assuming "representation" means proportionality in terms of gender, race, age, nationality, education, etc.).  That is not self-evident.  At all.

Quote

I didn't make that comparison, you did.  

Yes.  But you provided xenophobia and sexism as the explanation for the fact that the original apostles were all Jewish men.

And yet you deny that Jesus Christ - who selected those twelve Jewish men - was xenophobic and sexist.

Hence my request for clarification: Jesus Christ called His twelve apostles - who were exclusivly Jewish men - because _________________________ [please fill in the blank].

Quote

I stated that culture from which the original apostles came was xenophobic and sexist (which it was). Therefore, I would not expect that the original apostles would really ask women to speak in their meetings, much less to allow them to have their own women's conference.

But I wasn't asking about whether "he original apostles would really ask women to speak in their meetings, much less to allow them to have their own women's conference."

Instead, I said: "We may as well ask 'Why do you think that the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament were exclusively Jewish men?'"

You responded: "Because their society was both xenophobic and sexist."

I then said: "'Society' did not choose the Twelve Apostles.  Jesus Christ did.  So are you suggesting that Jesus Christ was 'xenophobic and sexist?'"

You then responded: "Of course not.  Jesus was perfect."

But Jesus Christ - whom you say "was perfect" - called the Twelve Apostles. 

You apparently are not attributing the calling of the ancient apostles (who were "exclusively Jewish men") to xenophobia and sexism.  I'm glad to hear that.  But to what do you attribute it, then?

Quote

We are now a worldwide church--not xenophobic.

I agree.

Quote

Women have more rights than our predecessors.

I agree.

Quote

We can divorce our husbands if we want to. We can inherit and hold property. We can vote in most countries. We are people.

I agree.

Quote

Therefore it seems logical that since we make up more than 50% of the population of the church, when we gather together as an entire body of the church that we should hear more from the female perspective. If you're still confused then I can't help you.

This is where I get confused.  General Conference has never been intended to be a venue wherein an cross-section of the demographics of the Church are asked to speak to the "entire body of the Church."  That is not its purpose.  Never has been.

Instead, the purpose of General Conference has been for the leaders of the Church to address the "entire body of the Church."

As for the notion that the members of the First Presidency were interloping/trespassing in the Women's Session, that's just very strange.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

1st, we don't know who Jesus called as apostles and general authorities except for the names men from a patriarchal society have passed on.  We don't know how many there were or their gender.   We do know that women played a huge role providing finances and support and there is the snippets of the gospel of Mary Magdalene which suggest there were women leaders.  We also know that Jesus was radical for the time and overturned conventions.  Jesus would not be sexist, but the men who wrote and passed on the scriptures may have been. 

2nd, there is nothing wrong in wanting to hear from those who mirror your own experiences.   Wanting to do that does not detract from others or mean that the words of all the leaders are not appreciated when they are delivered.  People tend to find it easier to identify with and listen to those like them.   It can be hard work to keep interpreting messages through a different lens.  Personally, I'd like a few more talks that focus on single adults and are by single adults! 

3rd,  looking back over past, recent conferences,  in each individual ones, 4-6 women spoke. In the women's conference,  only one member of the First Presidency spoke,  so having all 3 speak this time is a positive.   However,  because there is only one women's session now, there are 3 fewer opportunities to hear from women.   For me and others it's a shame to lose that diversity and those voices.  It's really not a radical position.   It's not saying the voices that were heard are less in some way or that I don't want to hear from the First Presidency or that I want or expect equal time by gender. The leadership is predominantly male as that is how it was ordered by the Lord so the talks will be predominantly male. It's possible to accept that and still want to hear a few more women and to miss them.  After all, men are likely to miss the extra talks they had when there were 2 priesthood sessions.  And missing the women does not equate to suggesting the First Presidency were interlopers. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×