KevinG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I prefer my wife without makeup. However she feels prettier with it on when we go out on dates, or special occasions. It is not my business to tell her to wear it, or not wear it. Yet Elder Ballard's jest in context was so benign I can only see complaints about it as fodder for the terminally aggrieved than a real insult towards women. 3
KevinG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I have been told that there is an evolutionary reason why men like red lips. That comes from the book "The Naked Ape" and you don't want to start a discussion on that. Trust me. 1
Tacenda Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 I did watch the whole thing; in fact I watched the entire talk before it was scrubbed from the Internet. I never said Elder Ballard's talk was nefarious. I do not think it was. What I do think--having also been and older single sister once--is that faithful singles hang on to every word of church leaders in this kind of setting. The comment may have been an attempt at humor, but it was humor at their expense. It was saying that they should not look like men, they should use lipstick to achieve that, it's not so hard to do--all with the implication that maybe that's the thing they are missing. Some singles take firesides, conference, and other opportunities to hear from the prophets very seriously. It just can feel like yet another cutting comment they didn't sign up for. Minor, but over time they add up. From family and friends asking incessantly when they're going to get married, wondering if something's wrong with them, seating them at the kids' table for Thanksgiving, setting them up with anyone who happens to also be single, etc.President Hinckley said something similar to young single men a decade or more ago: "You're not much to look at, but you're all the Lord has to work with," or something like that. When our young adults sacrifice so much to be chaste, worthy, and obedient only to hear digs about their appearance, it's not very supportive.What Elder Ballard said reminded me of this very quote by Pres Hinckley, and I tried to find it the other day to post, thank you! There's something else Elder Ballard said that may or may not need a thread and that is something to the tune of following the apostles and not leading us astray. Should not the foremost person be Jesus Christ first and not the apostles or is he not available or do we not have the direct line like the apostles?
Bobbieaware Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) What Elder Ballard said reminded me of this very quote by Pres Hinckley, and I tried to find it the other day to post, thank you! There's something else Elder Ballard said that may or may not need a thread and that is something to the tune of following the apostles and not leading us astray. Should not the foremost person be Jesus Christ first and not the apostles or is he not available or do we not have the direct line like the apostles?So does this mean you believe New Testament era Christians could have have rejected the Apostolic leadership of Peter, James, John, Paul -- and all the rest -- and still been considered faithful followers of Christ? And do you also believe the ancient Israelites at the time of the Exodus could have rejected the commandments and council given by the prophet Moses and still have been considered true followers of Jehovah? In ancient times, being faithful to the Lord necessarily entailed having both personal communication with God and also sustaining and following the Lord's chosen leaders. Why should things be any different today? The only way one can come up with the unbiblical notion that there is no longer a need for living apostles and prophets is to disregard the plain teachings of the Bible. Edited October 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware
Tacenda Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/suicide-some-things-we-know-and-some-we-do-not?lang=engLooking over some of Elder Ballard's talks, this one caught my eye. I related somewhat to a story of someone with a Thyroid disease. But before it, I saw many talks by Elder Ballard that were very uplifting. Feeling kind of bad for judging a snippet or two, in his recent talk. He's a very personable guy, he could be an uncle or grandpa in many of our families, doesn't put on airs from what I can see and cares a great deal about the members. Edited October 30, 2015 by Tacenda 2
ERayR Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Isn't it amazing the lengths some will go to to find something to be offended by? 1
stemelbow Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Isn't it amazing the lengths some will go to to find something to be offended by? No. But it's cute how the word amazing is overused for dramatic effect like this.(-; 1
Meadowchik Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/suicide-some-things-we-know-and-some-we-do-not?lang=engLooking over some of Elder Ballard's talks, this one caught my eye. I related somewhat to a story of someone with a Thyroid disease.But before it, I saw many talks by Elder Ballard that were very uplifting. Feeling kind of bad for judging a snippet or two, in his recent talk.He's a very personable guy, he could be an uncle or grandpa in many of our families, doesn't put on airs from what I can see and cares a great deal about the members. That is a very good talk, thanks! I'm pretty thrilled to read it as that's a subject I've contemplated quite a bit because of others' experiences.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Isn't it amazing the lengths some will go to to find something to be offended by? Yep, some people seem awfully offended that another person might find a particular joke unfunny. Amazing, indeed. 1
ERayR Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Yep, some people seem awfully offended that another person might find a particular joke unfunny. Amazing, indeed. Not me. A little puzzled but not offended. Also puzzled at the hostility my little observation generated. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Not me. A little puzzled but not offended. Also puzzled at the hostility my little observation generated.Hostility? From whom?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Hostility? From whom?stemelbow. And jkwilliams. Edited October 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 stemelbow. and jkwilliams. No hostility from me. If it came across that way, I'm sorry.
cynth Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) No hostility from me. If it came across that way, I'm sorry.No hostility felt, jkw, it's unfortunate you have to keep explaining that because someone else jumps to label your opinions. I especially appreciated your measured comments about hearing from your daughter and being willing to take a second look at the overall situation. I agree that one explanation is to define something as simply an off the cuff, one-off statement; however it seems that enough people heard it as indicative of a prevalent state of mind, and as such neither side should be dismissed. Both explanations certainly can be explored-arbitrarily eliminating one or the other pretty much guarantees name-calling and labeling. Edited October 30, 2015 by cynth
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 No hostility felt, jkw, it's unfortunate you have to keep explaining that because someone else jumps to label your opinions. I especially appreciated your measured comments about hearing from your daughter and being willing to take a second look at the overall situation.I agree that one explanation is to define something as simply an off the cuff, one-off statement; however it seems that enough people heard it as indicative of a prevalent state of mind, and as such neither side should be dismissed. Both explanations certainly can be explored-arbitrarily eliminating one or the other pretty much guarantees name-calling and labeling.Translation: If the torches-and-pitchforks crowd is large enough, it justifies the mob mentality. By the way, "cynth," what screen name did you use before? I'm going to guess it was "tonie."
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 No hostility from me. If it came across that way, I'm sorry.Apology accepted. Sorry for misreading you.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Translation: If the torches-and-pitchforks crowd is large enough, it justifies the mob mentality. By the way, "cynth," what screen name did you use before? I'm going to guess it was "tonie."If you think I went after Elder Ballard with a torch and pitchfork, I do not know what to say.
cynth Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Translation: If the torches-and-pitchforks crowd is large enough, it justifies the mob mentality.By the way, "cynth," what screen name did you use before? I'm going to guess it was "tonie."STOP IT, SCOTT OR I WILL REPORT YOU AGAIN. I have never used any other name here.YOU ARE BREAKING MULTIPLE RULES. you are derailing another thread, you are trolling for personal information, you are stalking me and you are exercising a personal vendetta in a thread. STOP. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 If you think I went after Elder Ballard with a torch and pitchfork, I do not know what to say.No, I don't believe you did. See my apology for misreading you. I do believe cynth is endeavoring to rationalize the social media piling on, saying in effect that a lot of people are engaging in it, so it must be justified. I know Elder Ballard personally. He is a good and kind man who doesn't deserve this.
cynth Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 No, I don't believe you did. See my apology for misreading you.I do believe cynth is endeavoring to rationalize the social media piling on, saying in effect that a lot of people are engaging in it, so it must be justified.I know Elder Ballard personally. He is a good and kind man who doesn't deserve this.No, SL completely missed the point of my post, but I'm not the first person today to note that he has a habit of changing what people say, apparently just to pick a fight. It is so bizarre that he got out of my post that the number of people engaging leads to justification! Thankfully, I don't even need to refute it because everyone else can read. 1
Ginger Snaps Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Yeah, they laughed. But it was more of an uncomfortable, "I can't believe he just said that" kind of laugh. Look at the facial reactions of the people right behind him. They seem more shocked than amused.It really stood out to me that the men in the room were laughing hard but several of the women visible were just sort of looking at their laps with an uncomfortable smile. I know that stance and smile because I've used them myself. I'm curious what the overall topic of the talk was (sounds like it can't be seen anymore) and how much this clip came out of context. I really hope it came more from a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "I know you've heard this before" place. But I can't tell.
saemo Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 It really stood out to me that the men in the room were laughing hard but several of the women visible were just sort of looking at their laps with an uncomfortable smile. I know that stance and smile because I've used them myself. I'm curious what the overall topic of the talk was (sounds like it can't be seen anymore) and how much this clip came out of context. I really hope it came more from a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "I know you've heard this before" place. But I can't tell.I just get the idea he's showing his age, and the era he lived in while dating. Dames and dolls. My mom is of the same era and wouldn't be caught in public without lipstick. She wears no other makeup, at all. Just lipstick, to this day, and she is quite elderly. The comment dates him, in a room full of young people, he's the square.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) I just get the idea he's showing his age, and the era he lived in while dating. Dames and dolls. My mom is of the same era and wouldn't be caught in public without lipstick. She wears no other makeup, at all. Just lipstick, to this day, and she is quite elderly. The comment dates him, in a room full of young people, he's the square.I guess the world has passed me by in that respect. I had never really thought much about it, but I was still under the general impression that many, if not most, women do wear lipstick in public. But I have to say that as I was on the train riding home last night and looked around, I could spot few if any lipstick wearers, even among what might be deemed the professional or business class. A fair and charitable way to view Elder Ballard's lipstick comment is as code for "make yourself presentable; put your best image forward," which is good advice to anyone in any age, time or circumstance."But piling on someone for innocently making a comment partly in jest and for using allusions and references from his own cultural and generational background is quite literally making a man an offender for a word. And that is despicable behavior. Edited October 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 4
sunstoned Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) I was offended, just because he is suppose to know better. But I'd be offended if my own dad said it. Women are not chattel. Or a trophy. This isn't what he meant, but it might come off that way to women. My husband hates lipstick on women, so that's good for me I guess. It just wasn't appropriate, but my husband saying he doesn't like lipstick is almost as bad. Women can and should appear as they want, not to just to please others. We're more than a shell. Also, I hate how some of the leaders start out their talks saying how good looking the crowd is or something to that affect. They need to see beyond that. No wonder Utah has so many women getting plastic surgery.I agree that he meant his remarks as kind of a joke, and that they reflect a very outdated way of thinking. One of the issues I see is because of the culture of the church, he, like any of the GAs receive little or no constructive feedback, so these outdated ideas persist. Edited October 31, 2015 by sunstoned
sunstoned Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Does anyone seriously question the wisdom of making oneself as presentable as possible so as to optimize the pool from which one eventually selects a mate? The principle goes for men as well as for women. What is ridiculous is the furor over Elder Ballard's grandfatherly advice made to a friendly audience whom he loves and who love him and are not apt to make him an offender for a word as some obviously are in the social and mass media. I say, let them rage. He was not talking to them.Why is an apostle talking about this? Did he run out of real gospel topics to discuss? Why is it that church leaders feel it is needful to advise and admonish members in most aspects of their personal lives? White shirts, facial hair, lipstick, style of jeans, number of earrings, body ink, when to marry, how to date, when to start a family, etc. This minutiae was not the focus of Christ's ministry. 3
Recommended Posts