Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avatar4321

Conference discussion

Recommended Posts

Just now, MustardSeed said:

Oh,no.  The article linked in this thread that suggested the man should be like the bishop and the wife a counselor,because  “can you imagine two bishops?” 

I was like, yeah.  I can.  :)

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Was it me or did a lot of these talks warn about the Adversary very directly? I don’t remember the devil being mentioned so much in conference

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if it's been mentioned before but one of the new Brethren was a former Muslim, Elder Peter Johnson

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So do you model the pattern in the article?  You are the bishop, and she is a counselor to you?

In some ways, yes. I can’t release her from her calling and I wouldn’t  kiss my counselors goodnight, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I so appreciate the article in last month's ensign that reminded everyone that in a family, there is no president and vice president (or bishop and counselor).  Both husband and wife are complete equal in every way.

Mothers can bestow the Melchizedek Priesthood on their sons and ordain them Elders before their missions?

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/6/2019 at 2:56 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s an upper age cap on choir membership and, if I remember correctly, a time limit. So it’s a good bet that some longtime members aren’t there anymore. 

I remember as a kid seeing this one guy in the Choir and he was there every time, year after year and he seem to never age. I would love to know who he was! hahahha!

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Mothers can bestow the Melchizedek Priesthood on their sons and ordain them Elders before their missions?

Doesn't have to be a father doing this even when fathers are worthy, so don't see it as a definite role tied to fatherhood.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Doesn't have to be a father doing this even when fathers are worthy, so don't see it as a definite role tied to fatherhood.

It is most certainly tied to the Fatherhood of God. 

We are speaking of being equal in every way. I have baptized each of our children and conferred the Priesthood and ordained each of our sons. Sister Gui did not. She gave birth to them all. I did not. In these and other ways we are not equal. Does this make me superior to her? Of course not. If I thought it did, amen to my authority. Does it make her superior to me? No. We have equally important roles, but we are not equal in every way.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is most certainly tied to the Fatherhood of God. 

We are speaking of being equal in every way. I have baptized each of our children and conferred the Priesthood and ordained each of our sons. Sister Gui did not. She gave birth to them all. I did not. In these and other ways we are not equal. Does this make me superior to her? Of course not. If I thought it did, amen to my authority. Does it make her superior to me? No. We have equally important roles, but we are not equal in every way.

You two could have adopted children or had another baptize or ordain them.  For example, my son baptized my daughter, not her father.  My father confirmed my son.  He baptized a couple of grandchildren as well, not their father.

Those were choices you two made and I don't doubt the choices magnified both of your roles as parents.  My husband is no less a father because he let his son baptize his daughter and let my father confirm my son; in fact both were wonderful, loving acts of fatherhood in my opinion.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Mothers can bestow the Melchizedek Priesthood on their sons and ordain them Elders before their missions?

 

A mother doesn't have to be able to bestow the priesthood to be completely equal to her husband.  That's something that some church leaders and a lot of members have often misunderstood but they are working on fixing it now, which I appreciate.

"Elder L. Tom Perry (1922–2015) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught: “Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. … Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity. Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/6/2019 at 1:56 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s an upper age cap on choir membership and, if I remember correctly, a time limit. So it’s a good bet that some longtime members aren’t there anymore. 

I don't remember the age cap but the time limit is 20 years.  One of my friends sings in the choir and it's been fun getting to learn more about how everything works behind the scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Mothers can bestow the Melchizedek Priesthood on their sons and ordain them Elders before their missions?

 

Why does the word equal need to mean “identical” in this context? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't remember the age cap but the time limit is 20 years.  One of my friends sings in the choir and it's been fun getting to learn more about how everything works behind the scenes.

Yeah, that sounds right. 

Members come and go, but I saw a black choir member in one of the Sunday sessions, so I don’t think there is any deliberate or even de facto discrimination other than trying to get the most vocally talented volunteers they can. 

One thing to bear in mind is that it is logistically unfeasible to have a geographic or regional cross section of the membership of Church represented in the choir. Because of the sheer frequency of rehearsals and performances, these volunteers must live within a certain radius of the choir’s home base so they can get there  quickly, conveniently and at minimal cost. That would hold true whether the choir was based in Salt Lake City, SanDiego, New York City or wherever. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, that sounds right. 

Members come and go, but I saw a black choir member in one of the Sunday sessions, so I don’t think there is any deliberate or even de facto discrimination other than trying to get the most vocally talented volunteers they can. 

One thing to bear in mind is that it is logistically unfeasible to have a geographic or regional cross section of the membership of Church represented in the choir. Because of the sheer frequency of rehearsals and performances, these volunteers must live within a certain radius of the choir’s home base so they can get there  quickly, conveniently and at minimal cost. That would hold true whether the choir was based in Salt Lake City, SanDiego, New York City or wherever. 

This is very true.  My friend lives in Layton and she typically has to leave the house around 5 on the mornings where they rehearse.  

Another thing to consider (not in regards to the racial make up but just being a member in general) is that being a member of the choir is considered serving a mission.  Choir members can't hold any callings (and they rarely get to attend their own ward on Sundays), and their spouses have to get permission from the choir directors before they can be called to any callings that are time intensive (such as bishop), especially if there are still children in the home.  And the choir requires 80% attendance to all practices and events (and they practice and perform multiple times a week).

And you don't just have to have a good voice, you have to be proficient in musical theory (my friend has a masters in it and she wasn't sure she had passed that part).  

There are probably a lot of people who would love to be in the choir who are great singers but who don't have the educational background necessary and/or aren't interested in the sacrifices the choir requires.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Why does the word equal need to mean “identical” in this context? 

Exactly.  I think a lot of people make that mistake.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Church sends mixed messages on equality between the sexes. The more recent, direct messages have championed equality, but this ambiguous nugget from the Proclamation always looms:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Although a careful reading shows that the mother is "obligated to help" in the father's "presiding," providing, and protecting, and the father is "obligated to help" in the mother's nurturing, the fact remains that according to the statement each have their primary responsibilities. And the father is to "preside over."

I've never been able to figure out with certainty what equality means between two persons where one "presides over" the other. L. Tom Perry's insistence that there isn't a president clashes with this, for course, because one who presides by definition is a president, right? One thing the "preside over" clause cannot mean is any sort of unrighteous dominion or tyranny (including the tie-breaking vote, where the husband's will prevails in case of marital disagreement). If the Church were to write the Proclamation today, I suspect it wouldn't use "preside over. Perhaps it should be construed to mean something like chief example-setter, presumptive meeting conductor, whip, and waker-upper. I don't know. But I do know that "preside over" clashes with "no president" and most commonsense notions of equality.

One more thing... any idea of polygamy, here or in the hereafter, strikes me as absolutely incongruent with "equal partners."

thechair (husband of one patient wife)
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, thechair said:

I think the Church sends mixed messages on equality between the sexes. The more recent, direct messages have championed equality, but this ambiguous nugget from the Proclamation always looms:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Although a careful reading shows that the mother is "obligated to help" in the father's "presiding," providing, and protecting, and the father is "obligated to help" in the mother's nurturing, the fact remains that according to the statement each have their primary responsibilities. And the father is to "preside over."

I've never been able to figure out with certainty what equality means between two persons where one "presides over" the other. L. Tom Perry's insistence that there isn't a president clashes with this, for course, because one who presides by definition is a president, right? One thing the "preside over" clause cannot mean is any sort of unrighteous dominion or tyranny (including the tie-breaking vote, where the husband's will prevails in case of marital disagreement). If the Church were to write the Proclamation today, I suspect it wouldn't use "preside over. Perhaps it should be construed to mean something like chief example-setter, presumptive meeting conductor, whip, and waker-upper. I don't know. But I do know that "preside over" clashes with "no president" and most commonsense notions of equality.

One more thing... any idea of polygamy, here or in the hereafter, strikes me as absolutely incongruent with "equal partners."

thechair (husband of one patient wife)
 

 

The mixed message in all religions imo has led to some people justifying the exertion of imbalanced  power over wives and has facilitated wives accepting powerlessness and small ness in their relationships.  I have no cfr but plenty of life experience to confidently say it is so. 

I just the other day had a domineering male explain to me that he feels like what’s wrong in the world is that we have reduced the Patriarchy as directed by God. His words.  As I look at his meek wife who suffers from anxiety (undiagnosed But painfully obvious) I think, here is a very wonderful man whom I love and admire who doesn’t recognize how on a daily basis he leaves very little room for his wife’s opinions.  Over time she has learned to keep her mouth shut....and thus they get along great.  She spends his money, he opens her doors, their home is warm and inviting, and she is quiet.  And he is happy. 

I am not meek.  I speak my mind.  I feel totally equal to my husband in regards to influence and power.  He takes out trash and i fold laundry.  We have discussed the divisions of labor.  I work and travel for work and people at church often tell him he’s wonderful to “let “ me travel.  

No one tells me I’m wonderful for “letting” him travel, and he travels more than I do. 

 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/7/2019 at 9:35 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Lots of scholars (including me and you) enjoy thinking and discussing theology, and we even do it occasionally here on this board.  But that is not what the Gospel or the LDS Church are all about.  "Mormon" culture is a way of life and a kind of ethnicity, not a form of systematic theology.  Praxis or orthopraxy versus orthodoxy.  That is the sociological or anthropological reality.  So, much as I like and admire Blake and his teacher David Paulsen, I think that Terryl Givens has a better, more realistic take on the question.

 

Agree. We don't have a systematic theology. And I don't even agree with all of Blake. It's because we don't that we can have a never-ending continual journey of study.  Bro Brigham's opinion was that we'll never cease to learn.

I have to say I get theological nourishment from Bro. Givens as well. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, thechair said:

I think the Church sends mixed messages on equality between the sexes. The more recent, direct messages have championed equality, but this ambiguous nugget from the Proclamation always looms:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Although a careful reading shows that the mother is "obligated to help" in the father's "presiding," providing, and protecting, and the father is "obligated to help" in the mother's nurturing, the fact remains that according to the statement each have their primary responsibilities. And the father is to "preside over."

I've never been able to figure out with certainty what equality means between two persons where one "presides over" the other. L. Tom Perry's insistence that there isn't a president clashes with this, for course, because one who presides by definition is a president, right? One thing the "preside over" clause cannot mean is any sort of unrighteous dominion or tyranny (including the tie-breaking vote, where the husband's will prevails in case of marital disagreement). If the Church were to write the Proclamation today, I suspect it wouldn't use "preside over. Perhaps it should be construed to mean something like chief example-setter, presumptive meeting conductor, whip, and waker-upper. I don't know. But I do know that "preside over" clashes with "no president" and most commonsense notions of equality.

One more thing... any idea of polygamy, here or in the hereafter, strikes me as absolutely incongruent with "equal partners."

thechair (husband of one patient wife)
 

 

I defintiely think the church has sent some mixed messages, and that's part of what we are dealing with now.  I like how the recent article in the ensign on "Connecting the Daughters of God with His Priesthood Power" deals with the issue:

Quote

 

Priesthood authority sometimes functions differently in the Church than in the family.

The Church organization is hierarchical; the family is patriarchal. President Oaks taught that there are “some differences in the way priesthood authority functions in the family and in the Church.”12 By divine design, the husband and wife may have some different responsibilities, yet they work together as “equal partners.”13 Elder L. Tom Perry (1922–2015) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught: “Remember, brethren, that in your role as leader in the family, your wife is your companion. … Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity. Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.”14

What happens then when a spouse dies? President Oaks taught: “When my father died, my mother presided over our family. She had no priesthood office, but as the surviving parent in her marriage she had become the governing officer in her family. At the same time, she was always totally respectful of the priesthood authority of our bishop and other Church leaders. She presided over her family, but they presided over the Church.”15

 

The author of that article also makes this point about how presiding works when both people involved have the same level of authority:

Quote

When teaching this concept to my students, I often ask, “If a stake is having a joint Young Men and Young Women presidency meeting, who presides?” Because both the stake Young Women president and the stake Young Men president were called and set apart by one holding priesthood keys (the stake president), with their callings, both have the same priesthood authority and therefore neither presides over the other. It would make sense for them to take turns in conducting meetings.

Perhaps that can help us understand presiding in families?  That the man has been assigned to preside doesn't necessarily mean that he has any more authority than the woman or that she is subordinate to him in the way we normally think of the term.  Maybe it's just his assignment to help in family organization?  Some things to ponder...

 

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When teaching this concept to my students, I often ask, “If a stake is having a joint Young Men and Young Women presidency meeting, who presides?” Because both the stake Young Women president and the stake Young Men president were called and set apart by one holding priesthood keys (the stake president), with their callings, both have the same priesthood authority and therefore neither presides over the other. It would make sense for them to take turns in conducting meetings.

Ahhh music to my ears 🎶

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Ahhh music to my ears 🎶

 I know!  For so long it was assumed that anyone who had been ordained to the priesthood automatically presided over those who hadn't.  It's amazing to be taught that nope, that's not how the priesthood works!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Still getting my error- tried posting my only word close to nasty one- a philosopher's name, "Gadamer" and no problem

DUH

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I defintiely think the church has sent some mixed messages, and that's part of what we are dealing with now.  I like how the recent article in the ensign on "Connecting the Daughters of God with His Priesthood Power" deals with the issue:

The author of that article also makes this point about how presiding works when both people involved have the same level of authority:

Perhaps that can help us understand presiding in families?  That the man has been assigned to preside doesn't necessarily mean that he has any more authority than the woman or that she is subordinate to him in the way we normally think of the term.  Maybe it's just his assignment to help in family organization?  Some things to ponder...

 

That's the way I have always seen it but then I have not be indoctrinated with Mormon "culture" as opposed to "Doctrine"

I think this view of tradition is why I get flak for posting virtually anything here about authority and women.

From the Proclamation

Quote

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Seems pretty clear

Equal partners

Father presides in families.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Father presides in families.

Unfortunately there is still a lot of what I will call misinterpretation of this statement and it’s implications.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Unfortunately there is still a lot of what I will call misinterpretation of this statement and it’s implications.

So it should be deleted because people misinterpret it?

I quoted it to show that men only preside in their families, and may or may not preside in church depending on the callings involved.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...