Avatar4321 Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 Any good wisdom? Should us priesthood brethren be trying to sneak in next time?
Raingirl Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 Any good wisdom? Should us priesthood brethren be trying to sneak in next time?If you're that curious, you could have watched it live online. Now sneaking necessary.
Rivers Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 I just watched Uchdorf's talk online. Mainly because I like Pres. Uchdorf. He made some good remarks about obedience being much more than checking things off a list. He got a lot of laughs with references to internet terms and phrases. I didn't think he was that funny.
rongo Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 From Orson Scott Card's "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary:" solemn assembly: what happens when you tell a joke in sacrament meeting loud laughter: what happens when a general authority makes a joke in conference 2
Freedom Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 I was going to demand access to view it but I stayed home and did housework and made supper instead. 1
Rain Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) I really enjoyed it. Like President Uchtdorf's jokes too, but you probably have to be a little more aware of pinterest etc. than most men would be. I don't know how much people outside of the USA will like the jokes since I'm not sure how aware people are of those things. Got a lot from the talk about the light within us and how truth shineth. There was a section in Elder Uchtdorf's talk that I would like to use in FHE about following Heavenly Father's plan. I'll post it later when it is up and I am on the computer. The Korean musical number from the primary children singing I love to see the temple was beautiful. It looked like it was filmed right outside of the temple, but I'm not sure. Edited September 29, 2014 by Rain
EllenMaksoud Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Any good wisdom? Should us priesthood brethren be trying to sneak in next time?It was mostly about the Temple and Baptisms. It was pointless. There were so many good things they could have taught on. Just saying.
Tacenda Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) My FB feed is full of quotes or video clips by Pres. Uchtdorf. Clearly he was a favorite speaker, why not video clips or sayings from any of the women speakers? I will have to watch it online, I wasn't able to on Saturday night. Edited September 29, 2014 by Tacenda
Rain Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) It was mostly about the Temple and Baptisms. It was pointless. There were so many good things they could have taught on. Just saying.Did you see the same conference that I did?Edit: Well, that was interesting. I could not remember baptism mentioned at all and very little mentioned about the temple, so I went back to listen. I listened to the first 2 talks because I had taken several notes on the last 2. I'm grateful I did because it just shows me how many different things different people will get out of the talks.I'm also glad I did because I gained more from them the second time around. It's going to sound odd, but I still didn't see them as temple or baptism talks, yet clearly they were. What I got out out of the first was what we do before going to the temple to prepare ourselves. I loved that she talked about living worthy consistently or drop by drop. That it is the living in our homes, our work, our play, our callings worthily that make us more celestial. It's not just the temple, but the companionship of our lives in and out that matters.The second talk was really cool to have after that. Because this time it turned it around. Where the first talked of living worthy gives us better experiences in the temple, the second talks about the covenants made there giving us better experiences outside of the temple. So I did not think of the temple in these talks because the majority was about life out of the temple even though you could not possibly separate from the temple. So I apologize for my sharp question and thank you for getting me to listen to what I missed before. Edited September 29, 2014 by Rain 1
Buckeye Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 I haven't watched it, but the women I've spoken with thought it was very very good. Also, perhaps this is nit-picky, but according to my wife, for the first time, the broadcast was introduced as being an official part of general conference, not just a "women's broadcast." So perhaps it would be more accurate to ask "how was the first session of general conference?" 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 If you're that curious, you could have watched it live online. Now sneaking necessary.Ooooooooooooooh, I watched it . Well about 4 seconds of it. Sneaky sneaky.
Raingirl Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 It was mostly about the Temple and Baptisms. It was pointless. There were so many good things they could have taught on. Just saying.You get out of it what you put into it.It's only "pointless" to those whose minds and hearts are closed to those things that Heavenly Father wants us to know. 3
juliann Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Any good wisdom? Should us priesthood brethren be trying to sneak in next time? I'm gonna go all heavy on you, Av. You know what is truly sad? They aren't interested or think it is important enough to want to. I actually can't think of a better support for claims that women are not equally valued than to joke about it.
juliann Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I haven't watched it, but the women I've spoken with thought it was very very good. Also, perhaps this is nit-picky, but according to my wife, for the first time, the broadcast was introduced as being an official part of general conference, not just a "women's broadcast." So perhaps it would be more accurate to ask "how was the first session of general conference?"That is really a good point! I'm going to do that and hope that they call Sat. am the second session.
EllenMaksoud Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 You get out of it what you put into it.It's only "pointless" to those whose minds and hearts are closed to those things that Heavenly Father wants us to know.You seem to call me out every time you talk to me. I have blocked you twice before because I did not wish to have a squabble. Contrary to what you might think, I am entitled to my own opinion, and have my own reasons for feeling the way I do about certain things. I would call your attention to the fact that no one else on this board has been as confrontive as you have been. Somehow, I seem to lack the ability to block you now. You are certainly as entitled to your opinion as I am mine but I feel no need to be confrontive with you. Is there something that you do not understand about free choice and personal dignity? 2
Avatar4321 Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) I can't speak for other brethren. I've always been interested about what goes on with the womens broadcasts. I have a wife and a daughter to raise right. Edited October 1, 2014 by Avatar4321 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I'm gonna go all heavy on you, Av. You know what is truly sad? They aren't interested or think it is important enough to want to. I actually can't think of a better support for claims that women are not equally valued than to joke about it. Or making a bigger deal about something that really is not a big deal.
juliann Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Or making a bigger deal about something that really is not a big deal. Yeah, the Women's Session isn't a big deal or the men would be all over themselves tracking it. Heaven forbid anything there might be a "big deal." Big deals only happen when all the men are involved, right?
juliann Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I am listening to all these big deal comments when something is said to and about women with my mouth open in shock. How could anyone claiming to be a disciple themselves be so dismissive of what is important to us. How insulting can you be?
USU78 Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 That is really a good point! I'm going to do that and hope that they call Sat. am the second session. I suspect it will still be the first session . . . but the first general session. Priesthood session is also not a general session. It is a special case.
Avatar4321 Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 If it's a big deal to you, live it.I tend to think everything the Lord says through His servants is important.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) I haven't watched it, but the women I've spoken with thought it was very very good. Also, perhaps this is nit-picky, but according to my wife, for the first time, the broadcast was introduced as being an official part of general conference, not just a "women's broadcast." So perhaps it would be more accurate to ask "how was the first session of general conference?"You have to distinguish general sessions, I suppose. The priesthood session is not a general session of the conference. Back when an early morning welfare session was conducted early on Sunday morning, it was not identified as a general session either. Edited October 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
juliann Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 You have to distinguish general sessions, I suppose. The priesthood session is not a general session of the conference. Back when an early morning welfare session was conducted early on Sunday morning, it was not identiefied as a general session either.So will Priesthood session be the second session? (or whatever they called the Women's meeting, I have lost track.) What do they usually announce when it begins?
Calm Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I think what will be significant if there is no official name change is to see how it is presented in the Ensign or on lds.org. Will the general sessions be grouped together and the Priesthood and Women's meeting at the end as has been done in the past with the Women's meeting or will it be in order of appearance with the Women's Meeting placed first? It would be another cosmetic move that had a lot of meaning for many (similar to having the women leaders front and center) since I know for many they see the women stuff as simply being tacked on and not really that important seeing as it comes after the General Conference stuff even though it occurred first while the Priesthood session is included.
Raingirl Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 You seem to call me out every time you talk to me. I have blocked you twice before because I did not wish to have a squabble. Contrary to what you might think, I am entitled to my own opinion, and have my own reasons for feeling the way I do about certain things. I would call your attention to the fact that no one else on this board has been as confrontive as you have been. Somehow, I seem to lack the ability to block you now. You are certainly as entitled to your opinion as I am mine but I feel no need to be confrontive with you. Is there something that you do not understand about free choice and personal dignity?I reacted to your words the same way I would have no matter who stated that the things our Heavenly Father would have us to learn are "pointless".I think your over- reaction to my post is due to the fact that you are upset by the fact that someone who knows you IRL is on the board and it unnerves you to know that someone here knows when you spin stories and tell untruths. Since when does "personal dignity" correlate with dishonesty?I don't care if you block me or not. I will still respond to whatever I choose. If you feel no need to be "confrontive" as you call it, why get riled up enough to have temper tantrums and block people?
Recommended Posts