Rain

It's interesting because we often talk about the emotional aspect of empathy (I definitely have, especially with Steven Covey's empathic listening), but when I think about applying it, and when I hear of others applying it then I think of it more similar to "understanding" which is probably close to what you are thinking of as cognitive empathy. Even in Covey's descriptions, he very clearly talks about how each side feels, but when you really look at it then it is more understanding as to how the other side got to the place where they are. One of the dictionary definitions I found of it is "The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another." That really opens up to why people feel very differently about empathy - if you think empathy is just "experiencing feelings," you will have very different feelings/thoughts about where the word is used than if you think it is "being sensitive to...the experience of another".

Empathy?

Got it! I agree. Also, until you said historian in your last post I didn't catch somehow that he was one.

What concerns are you talking about? The new presidency? I don't have any concerns there. It doesn't matter to me who was put in or why.

I really hate to reply. I just feel kind of broken with so many conversations recently (politics) and I did not want to come across as an agumentative anti, but I love you and I didn't want you to think I was just dropping what you said. I think you are right that it could be superfluous especially if the guy doesn't have actual knowledge of what went through President Oaks mind. Did President Oaks say more than "after an extended process of fasting and prayer I have been inspired to call"? Because if that's all he said then some of what the guy said could be part of that process and that wouldn't be superfluous - if the guy actually has any real knowledge that it was part of the process. I'm assuming he doesn't because I would think he would havesaid something like 'when President Oaks told me, "___"' if he did have it. I've heard so many people say "I fasted and prayed about it" and they ignored the study it out part or they used their answer to manipulate others. (Definitely NOT saying that is what President Oaks is doing!) Just hoping that it will help people reading what I wrote to study it out and to see that how people study it out and how people get answers may be a little different than the next person, but it is not necessarily wrong. I realize this is important to me because I'm a little sensitive about how others see my own answers to prayers. Edit: I apologize for the font problems. I had to get on my computer to fix them, but they still won't change.

Arizona here and it was (not now) incredibly slow for a few days. Only this site, both wifi and 5G.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive not that you said mutually exclusive, just the idea of whether they are relevant. Many church members feel that "study it out" is a big part of receiving revelation. Everything I heard him say could be part of that process. I can see President Oakes really studying it out first. Also, I don't think that God always has one answer - like the one conference talk that says something about God trusting you to make the right choice I think often God would trust his prophet to make the right choice for who would work well with him, but that God would trust him if he chose someone else instead. I would agree there. Really, none of us who had no real relationship with President Nelson could possibly know why.

Working with refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented workers I would say it doesn't so much support illegal immigration, but more so it supports people who have immigrated illegally. I know that is a fine line. Lol. I don't think that is the church's style and they do have to be concerned about the safety of their employees/volunteers, but I'm mostly right there with you!

I think it is probaby because mentioning it would limit the viewers - people would tend to see it as a pro or anti mormon video verses a movie about someone who fought against the nazis.

Yes. Most often when I click on the star or circle to the left of the topic. It still loads slow, but much faster, if I click on the number for the last page of a topic.

I think a lot of us think we will be the exception, but so often the numbers say we won't be. Does the book tell how to be the exception?

I read a book about Helmuth Hübener 15-20 years ago and yes, what the bishop was like really bothered me. Through the years though I have seen that so many people get blinded by many biases. Really good people and people you think should be good. And of course I am one who is also blinded by bad biases and I make bad choices from them too. I think it is especially easy when we think we have knowedge that other people don't have. That is not to say that I think everyone would be a nazi sympathizer, just that we really need to take a step back to help us not be blindly biased and hurting people.

The number of women staying at home hovers around 25-30% from the websites I'm looking at. Of those parents who stay at home about 18% are dads. So yes, there are quite a few more women, but still not the majority. Even in 1967 it was only about 50%. Or grandma. This is true, though with millenials more dads got more involved. Here is the thing. Parents get to make the choices here. They get to decide if mom or dad will stay home. They get to decide if they will be a child care giver (though fewer will trust male child care givers.) They get to decide how involved they will be with their children. While I was a stay at home mom my husband had just as much or more involvement in raising them when he was home. So you can say that women had more power over the raising of children, but most of that is choice of the parents at this point. That's very different than in a church that never allows a woman to be bishop, stake president or seventy. That's a different power level.

Yes, treating others with kindness is not the same as being equal. You can be on 2 vastly different power levels and have the lowest treated with kindness from the highest.

This was in 2017 and it has got better, but I can tell you that not all leaders counsel with women. I specifically saw a difference in the stake presidency over my area now and the prior one. The prior one didn't have intervews with women leaders. It did not have stake council. Some of the women leaders were very frustrated because they were not listened to. The current one welcomes and listens to the women with open arms. They aren't perfect at it, but they welcome council from their women leaders and coumcil from their men leaders when they are missing something from the women. I've also seen a big difference from bishops as to counciling with their women leaders. One thing that is important is the idea of counciling with wives. Some leaders seem to think that if they council with their wives they are doing what they need to. Counciling with their wives is a good thing, but when running a church organization the more important thing is to council with the women leaders who are actually put to lead. When some leaders council with wives they seem to believe they counciled with women so they don't need to council with the female leaders. Even if you assumed that male leaders have the required meetings with women (you can't as I have experienced) you have to assume they know how to listen and take council from women leaders, which you definitely can't. Some leaders don't even know how to take or get council from their male leaders. It's getting better, but you can't just assume all male leaders council with women or women's leaders.

I think she said this was in 2017. I was curious to know if that continued or not, but she didn't say.

I get that. For many women who have felt like their input didn't matter in the church this is a huge thing, especially after they have read about how the Proclamation on the Family came about.

The big part of it was that he asked for the women leader's perspective and used their suggestions on his talk. That may not sound like a big thing, but from everything I've read it was just not a thing done at all - at least for many, many years.

"Bednar has served in the LDS Church as a bishop (Fayetteville Ward, 1987), twice as stake president (Fort Smith Arkansas Stake, 1987–1991 and Rogers Arkansas Stake, 1991–1995), regional representative (1994–95), and area seventy (1997–2004)." Wikipedia

Why do you not feel the same about fatherhood? My husband and I worked along together in raising our children. As a stay at home mom I obviously spent far more time with or children, but the bond I felt between my husband and our children and what I saw of them together is beauriful, and is not less than I had with them.

There is a wide space between God's approbation and craving the honors of men. I don't think needing a lift of acknowledgement from our fellow men necessarily means the person is lacking holiness. Afterall, President Kimball even said sometimes God gives us help through other people. So tecnically, that is still God, but who is to be the decider of when that acknowledgement is not from God?

How cool that would be! The first apostle with a number name!

There is definitely animosity. I just don't think that LGBT+ protests was a part of this. It's just not a football thing. It's been a long time since I was going regularly to college football games as a student. Not quite as long as a parent to high school games so I may not know what happens currently, but given what I've heard it doesn't sound like it has changed so much. There is a big tradition at many colleges to have tailgate parties. The parties start hours before. Different school groups will even sponsor barbecues or other things. Then you have students bringing their own drinks. Big time party atmosphere (with or without drinking) before the game even starts. And all the cheers and chants getting everyone "psyched" for the game. This continues on into the stadium. When you sit in the student section cheers sometimes seem to spontaneously start going. It used to be that word was one you didn't hear often. Now I feel I hear it more often than I ever hear heard other words (even 80s movies). It's like the doors were flung right open for it except in some specific places and groups. So it doesn't surprise me that a spirited, possibly drinking, football student section would break out into the chant using a word that they quite possibly already use often, with the sense that this chant will be shocking, to members of the church. Honestly, I think it pretty much just comes down to modern group football party behavior. I'm not excusing the behavior. I just don't think much thought went into it, which is obviously a problem as well.

Elder Dube as apostle. Why? He just came to mind.

I hope things go well for her. I currently have a cold with a nasty cough so obviously you don't want me around, but if you want information about the area I can do my best to help you. I'll message you my email.