Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avatar4321

Thoughts on conference

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's probably coming.  Last spring Colorado lawmakers voted to mandate LGBTQ curriculum for K-12 public school students.  I'm not sure if the governor actually signed the bill into law or not.

They did and he signed it.  And, to the best of my knowledge, our school district is still declining the funding that would require us to follow that law.  We have at least one member of our stake running for the school board with the intent of keeping it that way.  We'll see.

Just as we don't want the school district to determine when and what our children learn regarding adult topics, my wife would prefer not to have a church conference session force our hand regarding timing of when we have those discussions with our elementary school aged daughters.  My wife will think twice before bringing them to the women's session next year -- which is unfortunate.

And, with our school, we can meet with the principal and/or teachers at any time.  They are available to us by phone, email, and in person.  This is true with the school board as well.  I don't have any ability to communicate directly with President Oaks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Welcome to the real world.

 

When the world forces me to discuss an adult topic with my 9 year old daughter, I blame the world.

When Dallin Oaks forces me to discuss an adult topic with my 9 year old daughter, I blame Dallin Oaks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They did and he signed it.  And, to the best of my knowledge, our school district is still declining the funding that would require us to follow that law.  We have at least one member of our stake running for the school board with the intent of keeping it that way.  We'll see.

Just as we don't want the school district to determine when and what our children learn regarding adult topics, my wife would prefer not to have a church conference session force our hand regarding timing of when we have those discussions with our elementary school aged daughters.  My wife will think twice before bringing them to the women's session next year -- which is unfortunate.

And, with our school, we can meet with the principal and/or teachers at any time.  They are available to us by phone, email, and in person.  This is true with the school board as well.  I don't have any ability to communicate directly with President Oaks.

Yes, every parent needs to decide for themselves and do what they believe is best. 

My good friend has a nine year old daughter and she was really glad for his talk. She texted me that night saying it fit perfectly with what she has always taught her kids. 

It goes to show that good parents can disagree about what ages certain topics are appropriate and what topics should be for adults only. 😊

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think the part people found funny was

I find audiences laugh when they are uncomfortable. Also, the gen conf crowd seems to be waiting for any opportunity to laugh. Just like a comedy show- 

laughter has become part of the program.  Congregation must do it’s part. 

Edited by MustardSeed

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When the world forces me to discuss an adult topic with my 9 year old daughter, I blame the world.

When Dallin Oaks forces me to discuss an adult topic with my 9 year old daughter, I blame Dallin Oaks.

Or perhaps you can simply acknowledge that you are different than most and prefer to withhold conversation on this topic until after she has likely been exposed to it in other places? 

No need to find yet another reason to be upset with poor pres Oaks. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I find audiences laugh when they are uncomfortable. Also, the gen conf crowd seems to be waiting for any opportunity to laugh. Just like a comedy show- 

laughter has become part of the program.  Congregation must do it’s part. 

i'm sure it was more a chuckle than a wide open stand up knee slapping laughing session.  And I found it humorous, as well.  The idea that a woman would worry about having to live with her husband's other wife in the same house in the celestial kingdom is just too humorous not to at least smile a little bit.  Like, come on, if you don't think you would get along with them while in the celestial kingdom then maybe you're not ready to live in the celestial kingdom,  yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

Or perhaps you can simply acknowledge that you are different than most and prefer to withhold conversation on this topic until after she has likely been exposed to it in other places? 

I don't know that I am "different than most".  I don't know how many people were happy to have this topic discussed in front of their young daughters and how many weren't.  As I said, I wasn't there, this was my wife's feedback when she returned home from the meeting.  She felt uncomfortable and disappointed.

 

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

No need to find yet another reason to be upset with poor pres Oaks. 

Now he is "poor Pres. Oaks"?  Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not so new- this goes back to at least 2014 but it seems no one noticed this talk unless you were there

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/womans-church

Older than that. Besides mentions in talks, Heavenly Parents is used in the gospel principles manual which is 15 years old maybe?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

And shame on you for even insinuating when women want to be offended that you would offer any conflicting info on being offended! We have raised a generation that has being offended as their first and foremost priority. Let me be offended and let me worry over it as much as I want. 

Considering how some posters have to howl about how oversensitive people are now every time some concern is mentioned relating to a woman, I am in agreement many are taking offense rather frequently.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

i'm sure it was more a chuckle than a wide open stand up knee slapping laughing session.  And I found it humorous, as well.  The idea that a woman would worry about having to live with her husband's other wife in the same house in the celestial kingdom is just too humorous not to at least smile a little bit.  Like, come on, if you don't think you would get along with them while in the celestial kingdom then maybe you're not ready to live in the celestial kingdom,  yourself.

Easy for any man to say. 😕

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

i'm sure it was more a chuckle than a wide open stand up knee slapping laughing session.  And I found it humorous, as well.  The idea that a woman would worry about having to live with her husband's other wife in the same house in the celestial kingdom is just too humorous not to at least smile a little bit.  Like, come on, if you don't think you would get along with them while in the celestial kingdom then maybe you're not ready to live in the celestial kingdom,  yourself.

I don't find that worry humorous at all.  I did think it was funny that anyone would think that an apostle would be able to answer a question as specific as that (which is why the story made me chuckle) but concerns about how polygamy will work in the celestial kingdom, for those who are dealing with that, are valid.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Considering how some posters have to howl about how oversensitive people are now every time some concern is mentioned relating to a woman, I am in agreement many are taking offense rather frequently.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Now he is "poor Pres. Oaks"?  Why is that?

I might be exaggerating his pain lol- but clearly he is the least likely to be picked first for the team.  Uchtdorf (sp) on the other hand? Coolest guy at recess.  

IMO from observing discussion of course. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

i'm sure it was more a chuckle than a wide open stand up knee slapping laughing session.  And I found it humorous, as well.  The idea that a woman would worry about having to live with her husband's other wife in the same house in the celestial kingdom is just too humorous not to at least smile a little bit.  Like, come on, if you don't think you would get along with them while in the celestial kingdom then maybe you're not ready to live in the celestial kingdom,  yourself.

I doubt it was about getting along. More likely about having her own space with her husband or her and her relationship with her husband being subservient to the first wife and that relationship of her husband’s.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Just as we don't want the school district to determine when and what our children learn regarding adult topics, my wife would prefer not to have a church conference session force our hand regarding timing of when we have those discussions with our elementary school aged daughters.  My wife will think twice before bringing them to the women's session next year -- which is unfortunate.

Why unfortunate?  If they're still in elementary school they're not even technically young women yet so it shouldn't surprise you that they wouldn't be ready to hear some of the things they would hear in the women's session.  I mean, if you hadn't already told them about the kinds of things they would likely hear there.  These days it might be a good idea to tell them about LGBTQ issues even when they are in elementary school, though, just to make sure they get taught correctly rather than just from some of the things they might hear from their classmates.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

I might be exaggerating his pain lol- but clearly he is the least likely to be picked first for the team.

A funny comment about the man who was picked to be first counselor in the first presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Ahab, 8 year old and older girls are included in the Women’s Session.  If the First Presidency want them to be there, they should be ensuring nothing is inappropriate for them that is said. 

Given the Church has made a big deal in the past about parents being active in protecting their children from worldly influences, including exposure to sexual topics too early, I can see why some parents might be disappointed. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Ahab said:

Why unfortunate?  If they're still in elementary school they're not even technically young women yet so it shouldn't surprise you that they wouldn't be ready to hear some of the things they would hear in the women's session.

My wife brought my daughters because the session was announced as being for all women and girls 8 years old and up.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I might be exaggerating his pain lol- but clearly he is the least likely to be picked first for the team.  Uchtdorf (sp) on the other hand? Coolest guy at recess.  

IMO from observing discussion of course. 

He does seem like everyone's favorite apostle to be mad at these days.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why unfortunate?  If they're still in elementary school they're not even technically young women yet so it shouldn't surprise you that they wouldn't be ready to hear some of the things they would hear in the women's session.  I mean, if you hadn't already told them about the kinds of things they would likely hear there.  These days it might be a good idea to tell them about LGBTQ issues even when they are in elementary school, though, just to make sure they get taught correctly rather than just from some of the things they might hear from their classmates.

The Women's Session is for all girls ages 8 and up.  That change happened a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ahab, 8 year old and older girls are included in the Women’s Session.  If the First Presidency want them to be there, they should be ensuring nothing is inappropriate for them that is said. 

I agree, but what's inappropriate for one won't be for another.  It's subjective.  I know latter-day saint parents that I'm sure are mad that Elder Uchtdorf spoke favorably of Harry Potter and LOTR.  They believe that Harry Potter (and anything that mentions magic) is very inappropriate for kids.  :) 

(and I'm not saying that rockpond's concerns are equal to parents that don't want their kids having anything to do with Harry Potter.  I'm only saying that parents disagree about what is appropriate for what age group all the time.  It's difficult to charge anyone speaking to millions of people in many different cultures to ensure they don't say anything any parent anywhere in the world won't agree is appropriate)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Easy for any man to say. 😕

Should be easy for any woman to understand what kind of relationship she would need to be okay with if she is married to or about to get married to a man who has already been married to another woman and is sealed to her for time and eternity, too.

It's like, what, did she not realize that the other wife would be reunited to her husband, too?  Or does she think that she won't be able to get along with another woman of celestial glory in heaven?

In the Church we all talk about how our goal is to return to our Father in heaven to live with him, whether we are single or married, and if all who are heirs of celestial glory can live in his house I would think we would be able to get along in any house we live in as long as it is in the celestial realm of heaven.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A funny comment about the man who was picked to be first counselor in the first presidency.

Lol ! Indeed. But apparently, not the peoples choice

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The Women's Session is for all girls ages 8 and up.  That change happened a few years ago.

Oh, okay, didn't know that.  So I suppose it is a good idea to talk to them about those issues even if they are only 8 years old.

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
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...