Calm

I agree. That you put on it additional meanings, that it is “facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced” about how women and men should is inappropriate, imo.

Since you aren’t open to considering a different interpretation than the emotional one you have put in it, there is no point to me repeating my plain and direct and logical interpretation.

But this doesn’t mean assuming women will react the same way as you will in such a situation. For example, in a situation where a man will no longer trust another, it’s more likely a woman will. Therefore there typically needs to be more reasons or stronger ones for a woman to step back and reconsider and recognize untrustworthiness. Men need to make the effort to recognize the variety and strengths of the influences women have on them that push them to be accepting of unsafe situations.

Since you are comfortable with using AI for information, here’s an AI summary about why too many women choose politeness over personal safety even these days…. And you appear to be insisting politeness and consideration of men’s feelings is still the better way to go.

Not really. I am only including additional info because you and others have insisted it means something else than it does. Because you are ignoring the real life experience of women being told for eons to ignore or suppress their negative and natural responses towards men, uncomfortable warnings in favour of being kind, accepting, even flattering rather than cautious and neutral. Even being cautious has been framed as be sure to be courteous and smiling so as not to trigger anger or rejection. We also have biological programming in that regard to overcome as awareness of greater strength can too often lead to submissiveness rather than distancing. We are even more likely to trust than men even when it’s been shown that’s not wise.** It’s easier to overcome that programming if we start at a distance. We (girls) were taught in my youth all the situational awareness stuff you have mentioned with pretty much the way you have described it. Every school district I was in and college I have encountered taught it. And yet date rape was not uncommon. Engaging strong emotion can be effective way to change behaviour. **https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103114001437

If we were already programmed to see Muslims as safe and we should just go along with anything they do without questioning, that would be different. It’s a slander because of all the stuff that’s already attached to it, especially by those who promote such comments. While there is a small segment of women who openly and strongly misanthropic, the vast majority of women are quite pro men as a starting point. This idea is often discussed in the context of behaviors during dating and other interactions that are seen as positive as well, so the surrounding context is quite different than what is typically being discussed when comments about Muslims being terrorists gets thrown out.

And how many times do I need to repeat why… Do you not believe there is strong programming, both biological and cultural for women to be passive and submissive to men? Do you not believe women have been telling their daughters for eons to be cautious around men? Do you not see how the first could negate the second if it’s not taught in a way that really gets imprinted?

Yep. So why are you and others adding so much nuance to it? Honestly, this reads to me like I am encouraging using a defensive driving course that points out other drivers might be dangerous, so it is wise to be prepared and being told that is going to make me and other women afraid of driving and hating cars and drivers in general rather than better drivers who are quicker to spot a car moving the wrong way and better prepared to react to it.

That’s a beautiful way of putting what is a fundamental need for so many.

That is as effective in getting them to reconsider natural and programmed impulses to be passive and accepting before it’s wise to be.

It does need to be about you because it’s you who are choosing to interpret a factual observation about the unknown internal state of people into something that is ugly and prejudicial instead of taking into account how it can also be used without all the emotion you are attaching to it.

And adding information that leads us to not jump to conclusions, but to take more time to assess both makes sense to me. And given that assessment reaction is on the instinctual level, it needs to be a strong piece of data to push us into spending more time assessing imo, especially when so much of our culture pushes us to go with impulse and emotion rather than discipline and reason.

But you don’t understand what that means to them, only how you interpret it, even after it’s been explained to you (it includes also seeing you as a potential good guy, it’s a position more of neutrality, more withholding judgment than accusation).

Right, that’s pretty much is the only info I can think of we believe is revealed and I see that as pretty vague. Was the Father also persecuted, was his life threatened, or were those of his world more receptive? Was he born in a time where there was little tech or higher tech so he himself was able to bring the Gospel to his world at that time. Did he die young or old? Married or not?Given the details of the Father’s life not only depended on his choices, but the choices of those around him which we have no information on, I don’t believe we can extrapolate much beyond what you have said. Did Jesus do everything he saw the Father do or only those things his circumstances allowed?

If you read the rest of my post, it explains.

Would love to get some feedback from Danzo and Smac so I know if I am on the right track or not. I have no doubt this subject is going to come up again and I hate the idea we might have to start from square one again and therefore never come to a clear understanding of what the other is actually thinking.

So good to hear.

No, I don’t believe that. Given what I see in manuals in the last 25 years, I think they try to use scripture as much as possible to support teachings and if an belief is not fleshed out in scripture, it may not get discussed in detail. Speculation is much less present in manuals as well now than it was in the past….which I very much approve of. And God the Father as a mortal is not detailed in scripture or imo official sources for labeled revelation. I also think with the misrepresentations that have been done by antis, they are more careful in how this is taught in official publications, including conference. I don’t think it’s about looking more mainstream, but an overall approach to keep to the better supported basics when teaching. Functionally it may often end up looking the same, but the purpose is quite different imo….just as me cleaning my house because I love order is not anywhere close to me cleaning my house so I won’t be embarrassed when others come over, but it looks identical with a very clean house.

Except it has with local church leaders in mine and others’ experience according to their reports. It would be best to avoid misunderstanding to specify when you are talking about official church publications including conference talks. I am assuming you mean general authorities and officers. I suspect most here would understand if you used “general church leaders” where they won’t with just “church leaders”, since common usage includes local church leaders in that category….though it might be best given meanings of general to be precise and say “general authorities and officers” if that is what you actually mean. For example, Elder Nelson appears to be describing a local leader who only later became a mission president under the section in his talk headed “Church Leaders” here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1991/04/listen-to-learn?lang=eng My guess is if you don’t specify you are not talking about local leadership, you will get pushback and many will see you as intentionally misrepresenting reality on this topic. If your point is to be persuasive, avoiding that is pretty easy and straightforward, imo.

I expect most people would interpret it that way, some nitpickers like myself would point out nuances that debate is about discussion, thinking is about what goes on internally, but since I do a lot of my thinking verbally in discussions, that can often amount to the same thing for me functionally speaking and I wouldn’t be surprised if others are like that…so even a more nuanced view might be pretty much the same thing in personal interpretations or practice, imo. I don’t take that teaching in isolation though, so I suspect most would see me as ignoring it, lol. It is for me because too many in my experience take it as instruction to diminish the purpose of personal revelation when it comes to church doctrine to only confirm what comes from the pulpit at conference or even locally (they hear leaders quoting the prophet and assume whatever goes along with the quote is in the same league). It can even get extrapolated in my experience to a belief that they shouldn’t be exploring ideas themselves because all that should come from authority.

Dont forget the shoes if decent quality.

Same problem here.

And the style of the two songs are very different, one slow, the other very upbeat, so got to wonder why they got connected in Brother McKay’s head.

There is a problem with using Old Folks at Home as an African American heritage song. It was written by Steven Foster who had never been to Florida it seems and was just looking for a two syllable name to fit the melody according to Goggle. Worse, it was written to be performed by a blackface minstrel group. At least his intention was positive, but delivery was not respectful since it looks like he just made stuff up about the dialect used. https://pages.stolaf.edu/americanmusic/2021/12/08/stephen-fosters-intent-and-impact-with-old-folks-at-home/ Layers of wrong here by not checking actual history before making the joke (the song is presented as being sung by a slave). Also wonder if Brother McKay knows the lyrics given the first verse includes the lovely longing for de old plantation line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Folks_at_Home

In how he sang it? More than likely. It is not just Black choirs that sing it that way. Pretty sure we sang it as kids, must have been in school as it wouldn’t have been played on the radio stations I listened to back then, lol, and I learned it somewhere. It’s a great song to sing along to. I think this is the version from the Church that was released when it was announced as a new hymn. This is sung with power and heart.