Jump to content

juliann

Contributor
  • Content Count

    13,209
  • Joined

Community Reputation

14,286 Excellent

4 Followers

About juliann

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

4,996 profile views
  1. To fill the stands (like, with some women!) and seat the choir? There should be no reason the choir couldn’t sing by October. It makes sense to make it look like a “real” conference. The audience wouldn’t matter as much if nothing else was different.
  2. If they are really old (and have been living like COVID was around for the last two decades,) a fear of other churches was instilled. I guess some people never got over it. It qualifies as jerk behavior and always did. Right up there with not socializing with people or kids who aren’t LDS.
  3. 🙋🏻I can play! It raises the question, not begs the question. I appreciate the opening. 😉
  4. We did it on Saturday once and it was poorly attended.
  5. And it isn't just the Chinese doing it. That is the scary part.
  6. Yeah, cause we would have to have the priesthood to have a woman's meeting with women speakers. That has never happened before anywhere at any time in the history of the church.
  7. That is the problem with your positions, the logic will inevitably degenerate into badly done memes. No I didn't. And you know it, which makes this kind of response really, really disappointing. It is getting very close to lying. You attempted to trivialize and ridicule women's concerns with the dismissive "first world problem" tag, which certainly does imply that women's desires for equality is not a concern in and of itself and not worthy of discussion. You brought up the first world label, that brings up 3rd world...or more properly, under developed countries' problems. Are you now
  8. I think it fairly obvious that it was becoming very cumbersome to justify having a women's meeting with men where men are allowed in the room, and a men's meeting without any women anywhere....who have been stopped at the door. One can argue the merits of any position on that...but the optics are horrific. Even a church run by God has to care about what message they send to society at large and this one was inexplicable, especially when women could watch the very session they were blocked from on TV. It is one more indication that the current system isn't telegraphing a message of the w
  9. What makes this so telling is that at each and every change the church has made to give women more visibility, it has been preceded by the same stale speech. The only reason there are "gender wars" is because some men are resisting even a hint of more inclusion for girls and women. They obviously see it as a loss for themselves or what would be the objection? After all, they don't care who declares God's word. Until someone suggests it might come from women. I'm still scratching my head over how these two positions are reconciled in some other heads. But....the solution to any war is to
  10. I think it is obvious that it was for the male leadership to address the women or they wouldn't be taking over half the time. It has been a gradual change from the time when the RS planned and ran their own conference. But I think women would really appreciate the opportunity to plan their own conference with one male leader presiding, if necessary. It should be no different in structure or intent than the priesthood sessions, other than a woman doesn't speak in men's sessions.
  11. You didn't just say that. Life is ever so much more relevant in underdeveloped countries where women often have a status has been comfortably decided to be somewhere between a donkey and chattel.
×
×
  • Create New...