Ballard To Women: "don't Talk Too Much" -- A Joke?

[Calm]

But is he counseling women to be "economic" with their voices and not men?   

 

hard to tell for sure since this is a sisters' conference.

As someone said IIRC on the Times and Seasons thread that cinepro linked to, it is a counsel he has given to men as well.

 

Is it just me or does anyone else find the statement "just straighten the brethren out quickly" to be the most troublesome part of the quote?  

Yes, this bothered me as well but I think like the other it was framing counsel as humor (provide the brethren with the information they need to know to do their job right as opposed to tell the brethren how to do their callings).  Both were as Juliann pointed out "old patterns" of humor.

[juliann]

Hmmm, the straighten out the men fits nicely into the "we" vs "you women." It isn't an invitation to join but a way of limiting roles. It implies the women are only there to address what the men are doing, thus the need to straighten the men out.  Nowadays,of course,  this is considered patronizing and condescending.

 

I keep coming back to the "me and my church" and "you women out there can do some things for me and my church." That should be an easy fix just by making the "we" inclusive instead of exclusive. "The church needs everyone" would be more inclusive than "we need you."

[Jeanne]

Oh ladies, shut up already will ya?

[juliann]

Good one, Jeanne.

[CA Steve]

I'd like to thank the sisters participating in this thread for their considered input and let them know that we will seriously weigh what they have said when we make a decision on this issue.

[The Nehor]

Some people turn council meetings into a living hell because they want to comment and share their feelings on and about everything. I see no indication that women do this more then men but the counsel is as good for them as it would be for a meeting of all men. If good counsel told in a lighthearted way to avoid offense still causes offense then the only way to share the counsel is to offend. It also gets people to disseminate the quote. So the offense helps to spread the counsels of The Lord. Bonus......

[Storm Rider]

 

 

Or we could just try learning from the mistake so we don't step on the same land mine again.

 

Are  you saying that you learn best when the world advertises every little thing that is viewed as wrong by everyone else in the world?  I tend to learn best because I personally recognize my fault or when a trusted friend gives a helpful suggestion - not when everyone in my company, my church, my social organization stands up and shouts me down for being stupid and less than perfect.  You see the difference?  Of course you do.  You judge people by the same standard you want to be judged and will be judged.  

[Storm Rider]

Hmmm, the straighten out the men fits nicely into the "we" vs "you women." It isn't an invitation to join but a way of limiting roles. It implies the women are only there to address what the men are doing, thus the need to straighten the men out.  Nowadays,of course,  this is considered patronizing and condescending.

 

I keep coming back to the "me and my church" and "you women out there can do some things for me and my church." That should be an easy fix just by making the "we" inclusive instead of exclusive. "The church needs everyone" would be more inclusive than "we need you."

 

You confuse me.  First, it is stated that Elder Ballard has given the same advice to men.  Second, the same advice to men is given to women, but for women it is something detrimental and wrong.  Are you saying we need to treat everyone equally or that we need to treat them as different?  If it was said to both, where is the we vs. you dichotomy you like to talk about?  

Edited September 18, 2014 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

I think that Storm was spot on in his sarcasm. But his "More importantly, we should record every offense and advertise it....except for our own.  That we need to be kept hidden.  If someone leads they need to be perfect and if not perfect banned from leadership as soon as an error is discovered regardless how small and insignificant. " is the reality of what is going on. with all too many.

 

Criticism of church leaders has found a bully pulpit in the internet.

 

Glenn

 

Thank you. You understood the major point I was trying to make.  We want to accept our leaders as human, but still are so completely silly that we want them perfect.  

 

I continue to reject the desire by some to only see the world (i.e. all things said and done) through gender lenses. It is like going through the world with porcupine quills jutting out of every surface of their body and seeking to be offended.  If you seek for it, you will find it and be offended.  If you don't seek for it, you want.  Seek and ye shall find.  If you want to be happy yo will; if you don't, you won't.  

Edited September 18, 2014 by Storm Rider

[Yirgacheffe]

I've listened to it a few times, and I think it's obviously a "joke", but I think there's also a tint of truthful feeling to the joke.  I just really feel sorry for anyone that had to translate that comment into other languages, because whatever hint of a joke there might have been in his delivery was surely lost in translation.

 

One key point is that if you actually watch it here, you'll notice the audience does chuckle a little, so they at least understood at some level that what he said was "humorous".

 

Times and Seasons has a good look here.

 

They point out that Elder Ballard also said this in this month's Ensign:

 

 

 

So he might have been joking, but also meant what he said.

Then he was not really joking at all.

[Rain]

I'd like to thank the sisters participating in this thread for their considered input and let them know that we will seriously weigh what they have said when we make a decision on this issue.

*laughing smilie* I can't find them on my screen right now.

-------

I felt it was a good joke and I can see myself in it and can laugh about it.

I am grateful to Elder Ballard and the respect I have always felt from him over the years in conference etc. His son was my high school counselor who was the advisor of a club I was in. I felt and saw in action the same respect in this son. It's obvious when I hear Elder Ballard's talks and think of my time spent with his son that he taught respect to his son by example.

I don't like that so many criticise these few words when he has done so much in the church to teach both men and women that women should be valued as well.

Really, how many of the general authorities have advocated for women as strongly as he has and we are going to zero in on one straggly, spindly tree and miss the majestic forest?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Rain

[Storm Rider]

*laughing smilie* I can't find them on my screen right now.

-------

I felt it was a good joke and I can see myself in it and can laugh about it.

I am grateful to Elder Ballard and the respect I have always felt from him over the years in conference etc. His son was my high school counselor who was the advisor of a club I was in. I felt and saw in action the same respect in this son. It's obvious when I hear Elder Ballard's talks and think of my time spent with his son that he taught respect to his son by example.

I don't like that so many criticise these few words when he has done so much in the church to teach both men and women that women should be valued as well.

Really, how many of the general authorities have advocated for women as strongly as he has and we are going to zero in on one straggly, spindly tree and miss the majestic forest?

 

That is one of the great weaknesses of the web and internet sites.  You get some twit taking a snippet of a talk, a passing conversation, or similar and then that is put into a context that meets their private agenda and they are off to the races with accusations of egregious harm to their gold calf.  There is no context; no understanding of the individual being quoted, nothing.  It can easily be a house of complain built completely on imaginary sand.  

 

These people seek to take offense or to further a specific agenda and nothing else.  We would not find this acceptable when it was held up to us personally, but some find it completely acceptable to do it to others.  I am just grateful that there is a judgment day and that they will be judged by the exact same standard they used to judge others.  I don't have to worry about it.

[Brian 2.0]

That is one of the great weaknesses of the web and internet sites. You get some twit taking a snippet of a talk, a passing conversation, or similar and then that is put into a context that meets their private agenda and they are off to the races with accusations of egregious harm to their gold calf. There is no context; no understanding of the individual being quoted, nothing. It can easily be a house of complain built completely on imaginary sand.

These people seek to take offense or to further a specific agenda and nothing else. We would not find this acceptable when it was held up to us personally, but some find it completely acceptable to do it to others. I am just grateful that there is a judgment day and that they will be judged by the exact same standard they used to judge others. I don't have to worry about it.

I love how you say you don't have to worry about it because you're not judgmental... and in the same post you call me a "twit." Edited September 18, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[HappyJackWagon]

"HappyJackWagon, on 17 Sept 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Or we could just try learning from the mistake so we don't step on the same land mine again."

StormRider said:

"Are you saying that you learn best when the world advertises every little thing that is viewed as wrong by everyone else in the world?"

Sometimes I don't notice my own mistakes. Sometimes I don't recognize that I've said something insensitive or that someone is upset because of a misunderstanding. I think this is normal. In such cases when I'm unaware it benefits me greatly to have an error pointed out. Are we advertising to the world? Maybe some are, but if Ballard is speaking to the world he is going to get feedback from the world.

Is there some other method to provide feedback to church authorities that I'm not aware of?

[Buckeye]

You confuse me.  First, it is stated that Elder Ballard has given the same advice to men.  Second, the same advice to men is given to women, but for women it is something detrimental and wrong.  Are you saying we need to treat everyone equally or that we need to treat them as different?  If it was said to both, where is the we vs. you dichotomy you like to talk about?  

 

Juliann is discussing Elder Ballard's counsel to women to "straigthen out the men."  I haven't seen any similar counsel given to men to "straighten out the women."  I'm sure if that counsel was given all heck would blow up on the bloggernacle. 

[Storm Rider]

I love how you say you don't have to worry about it because you're not judgmental... and in the same post you call me a "twit."

 

I was actually talking about the web in general; not you specifically.  However, seek and ye shall find. You are going to find exactly what you look for in life.  Can you say projection?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I love how you say you don't have to worry about it because you're not judgmental... and in the same post you call me a "twit."

 

I think StormRider was referring to Greg Smith's piece on John Dehlin.

[smac97]

A few thoughts:
 
1. I have no problem with sisters attending the Priesthood Session to listen.  I do have a problem with sisters (or anyone else, for that matter) attending in order to protest, to disrupt and distract from the meeting.  It's a low-grade protest, but it's a protest nonetheless, and hence disruptive and offensive to the Spirit.  If a group of men made a corollary announcement regarding their intent to insist on attending the Women's Session as a form of protest, I would find that inappropriate as well.
 
2. Kate Kelly and the OW group has openly defied the Church and have encouraged their followers to "raise hell" in the Church.  I am concerned that low-grade protests such as this are but opening salvos.  Today we have folks planning to disrupt the Priesthood Session of General Conference.  There are all sorts of ways this sort of thing can expand.

• Wards in our stake have PEC meetings (Priesthood Executive Committee) every other week.  Are these meetings going to be crashed?  
• What about stake priesthood meetings?  Are the OW folks going to invite themselves to attend High Council meetings?  Ward- or stake-level disciplinary councils (where they are not the subject of the council, but are there to demonstrate/protest)?  
• What about priesthood meetings during the three-hour block?  Are we going to start hearing about women attending the Elders Quorum or High Priests Group, designating themselves as "prospective / potential elders" or "prospective / potential high priests?"  
• Are adherents to the OW movement going to have sister missionaries change their name tags from "Sister Johnson" to "Elder Johnson" (using the same "we're not protesting, we're demonstrating our faith" rationale the OW group has used to defy the Church vis-à-vis protesting on Temple Square)?
• What about unauthorized ordinations and unauthorized priesthood ordinances?  This has happened before in the Church.  When I was a missionary in Taiwan I encountered an apostate fellow who was traveling the island as a self-appointed missionary, evangelizing and baptizing (although I think he only succeeded in baptizing his wife and children).  Douglas Wallace is another example of this (he ordained a black man to the priesthood in 1976).  In fact, I would not be surprised to see Douglas Wallace used as an example/justification for OW folks engaging in unauthorized ordinations and unauthorized priesthood ordinances.
• What about disrupting temple worship?  I know that sounds way out of bounds, but then so did the idea of Latter-day Saints trespassing and protesting on Temple Square just a year ago.

From the Trib article on this subject: "After all, a year ago, officials in the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter to all its local leaders, saying that if women came to a stake center and asked to be admitted, the male leaders were 'to inform them that the meeting is for men and that men are invited to attend.'  However, Mormon meetinghouses 'should be places of peace, not contention,' the letter went on, so if women 'become insistent' about entering the priesthood session 'to the point that their presence would be disruptive, please allow them to enter and view the conference.'"  So I think we can anticipate some "insistence" in terms of attending the Priesthood Session.  The question now is how strong and how pervasive and expansive these notions of "insistence" will become in other church venues.

 

3. I find it ironic that the very people who are demanding to be ordained to priesthood authority are the same people who have openly defied and disrespected that authority when it suits them.  For example, what a singularly poor priesthood leader Kate Kelly would be.  Who on earth would sustain a priesthood leader who has publicly denigrated her own priesthood leaders, calling them "cowardly" and "unchristlike," threatening to sue her stake president, etc.?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Brian 2.0]

I think StormRider was referring to Greg Smith's piece on John Dehlin.

Ha!

[Brian 2.0]

A few thoughts:

1. I have no problem with sisters attending the Priesthood Session to listen. I do have a problem with sisters (or anyone else, for that matter) attending in order to protest, to disrupt and distract from the meeting. It's a low-grade protest, but it's a protest nonetheless, and hence disruptive and offensive to the Spirit. If a group of men made a corollary announcement regarding their intent to insist on attending the Women's Session as a form of protest, I would find that inappropriate as well.

2. Kate Kelly and the OW group has openly defied the Church and have encouraged their followers to "raise hell" in the Church. I am concerned that low-grade protests such as this are but opening salvos. Today we have folks planning to disrupt the Priesthood Session of General Conference. There are all sorts of ways this sort of thing can expand.

• Wards in our stake have PEC meetings (Priesthood Executive Committee) every other week. Are these meetings going to be crashed?
• What about stake priesthood meetings? Are the OW folks going to invite themselves to attend High Council meetings? Ward- or stake-level disciplinary councils (where they are not the subject of the council, but are there to demonstrate/protest)?
• What about priesthood meetings during the three-hour block? Are we going to start hearing about women attending the Elders Quorum or High Priests Group, designating themselves as "prospective / potential elders" or "prospective / potential high priests?"
• Are adherents to the OW movement going to have sister missionaries change their name tags from "Sister Johnson" to "Elder Johnson" (using the same "we're not protesting, we're demonstrating our faith" rationale the OW group has used to defy the Church vis-à-vis protesting on Temple Square)?
• What about unauthorized ordinations and unauthorized priesthood ordinances? This has happened before in the Church. When I was a missionary in Taiwan I encountered an apostate fellow who was traveling the island as a self-appointed missionary, evangelizing and baptizing (although I think he only succeeded in baptizing his wife and children). Douglas Wallace is another example of this (he ordained a black man to the priesthood in 1976). In fact, I would not be surprised to see Douglas Wallace used as an example/justification for OW folks engaging in unauthorized ordinations and unauthorized priesthood ordinances.
• What about disrupting temple worship? I know that sounds way out of bounds, but then so did the idea of Latter-day Saints trespassing and protesting on Temple Square just a year ago.

From the Trib article on this subject: "After all, a year ago, officials in the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter to all its local leaders, saying that if women came to a stake center and asked to be admitted, the male leaders were 'to inform them that the meeting is for men and that men are invited to attend.' However, Mormon meetinghouses 'should be places of peace, not contention,' the letter went on, so if women 'become insistent' about entering the priesthood session 'to the point that their presence would be disruptive, please allow them to enter and view the conference.'" So I think we can anticipate some "insistence" in terms of attending the Priesthood Session. The question now is how strong and how pervasive and expansive these notions of "insistence" will become in other church venues.

3. I find it ironic that the very people who are demanding to be ordained to priesthood authority are the same people who have openly defied and disrespected that authority when it suits them. For example, what a singularly poor priesthood leader Kate Kelly would be. Who on earth would sustain a priesthood leader who has publicly denigrated her own priesthood leaders, calling them "cowardly" and "unchristlike," threatening to sue her stake president, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you meant to put this in the other thread on OW.

[smac97]

I think you meant to put this in the other thread on OW.

 

Ah.  I did.  I'll move it.

 

Thanks!

[DBMormon]

I've only seen evil speaking (actually, mostly questioning) of the statement, not the speaker.  I'm pretty sure we are allowed to speak against wrongful statements, regardless of who they come from. 

oooohhhhh, not with this bunch

[jana at jade house]

Huh. I as a person who was in the audience of European women, to whom he was specifically speaking, understand totally what he meant.  The Dutch can talk a topic to absolute death.  We also have really spotty leadership.   So yeah, straighten out the men but keep it short.  But SPEAK.  That's the message.  It was not to Americans, it was not to men, it was to the long suffering, ever faithful overworked women of 39 European countries.  We did not take offense. The entire conference was supportive, enlightening, invigorating and most of all VALIDATING for EUROPEAN women.  The church here is very very different than the church in the US and hardly the same as in SLC.  For once I felt like we had leaders who really knew and understood what it is like to be a female Saint in Europe.  It was totally worth the long trip to see it in person.

[bluebell]

Huh. I as a person who was in the audience of European women, to whom he was specifically speaking, understand totally what he meant.  The Dutch can talk a topic to absolute death.  We also have really spotty leadership.   So yeah, straighten out the men but keep it short.  But SPEAK.  That's the message.  It was not to Americans, it was not to men, it was to the long suffering, ever faithful overworked women of 39 European countries.  We did not take offense. The entire conference was supportive, enlightening, invigorating and most of all VALIDATING for EUROPEAN women.  The church here is very very different than the church in the US and hardly the same as in SLC.  For once I felt like we had leaders who really knew and understood what it is like to be a female Saint in Europe.  It was totally worth the long trip to see it in person.

 

Thanks for the reminder that not every word that comes out of an Apostle's mouth is meant for the masses.  It seems like an obvious thing but in this world where everyone has access to everything all the time, i think we forget that it's not about 'us' and our feelings and world view all the time.

 

It sounds like Ballard is way more in touch with the reality of things than most of us on this thread.  

[6EQUJ5]

I absolutley think this was a Joke.  Not a very funny one.  But a joke.