Encourage discussion

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for not blaming me..I truly thought that women were relatively unwelcome.  Does this include General Priesthood meetings?

Of course!  If you want to attend, absolutely no one will stop you.  It usually doesn't happen because who wants one more meeting?  8 hours of conference is not enough? 

I have attended women's meetings many times.

And of course they are published on line anyway.  Why would they care if you showed up?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

Checkmate.

Huh?  What church do you belong to?  The church of Imagining Mormonism in the Worst Possible Light if it is True or Not?

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for not blaming me..I truly thought that women were relatively unwelcome.  Does this include General Priesthood meetings?

Well years ago, perhaps 12 years ago is my guess, I was in a singles ward wherein a young lady was adamant that men need not meet separate from women, feeling a little slighted as a woman in the Church.  I didn't blame her.  So she dressed up and showed up to Priesthood session of conference at the stake gathering.  I got there a little late and sat in the back.  But as the meeting went on I noticed her sitting up ahead of me a few rows all by herself.  I moved forward when I had a chance and sat by her.  She said she was getting pointed at and made to feel like people were mocking her before the meeting began, and she felt pretty uncomfortable.  She said she saw a few of the gentleman from our ward look at her and not say hi or anything, which was odd for them.  She kind of teared up as she told me.  Anywho, I thought it was great of her to come.  She wanted to hear straight from the leader's mouths, as they say.  But she certainly did not feel welcome.  I will say when you already feel out of place in a certain setting it's often hard to feel welcome, unless people go out of their way to make it happen. 

[consiglieri]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course!  If you want to attend, absolutely no one will stop you.  It usually doesn't happen because who wants one more meeting?  8 hours of conference is not enough? 

I have attended women's meetings many times.

And of course they are published on line anyway.  Why would they care if you showed up?

A woman can "absolutely" attend Priesthood General Conference and "no one will stop you"?

Have you been sequestered in a Mexican jail with no news feed for the past three-years?

Seriously?

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course!  If you want to attend, absolutely no one will stop you.

I think they will still stop any women from entering, who actually try to attend the General Priesthood session in person.  Isn't that correct?  (I can't remember if this was an issue with this last one or not.)

Edited April 29, 2016 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for not blaming me..I truly thought that women were relatively unwelcome.  Does this include General Priesthood meetings?

My wife watched the priesthood session of the last general conference with me and our boys. I teased her a little about it (I don't watch the women's sessions), but she happily watched. However, I doubt she would try to attend a live session. I believe at the conference center, a ticket is required for admittance, which would probably not be issued to a woman in light of so many men wishing to attend. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by RevTestament

[bsjkki]

I found this message board because of the inability to discuss anything less than faith promoting at church.  I do not dare discuss concerns, questions or doubts with any leader of my ward or stake in fear of being label "less" faithful.  I am trying to maintain my testimony and I go to the temple, read my scriptures, pray and faithfully fulfill my callings.  I still have a percolating anger about events that have happened in my life at church and how my kids were treated.  I have a seen a disconnect between what is taught in church in our meetings and what actually happens in real life.  The inability to discuss these issues and ask questions at church is stifling.  

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I found this message board because of the inability to discuss anything less than faith promoting at church.  I do not dare discuss concerns, questions or doubts with any leader of my ward or stake in fear of being label "less" faithful.  I am trying to maintain my testimony and I go to the temple, read my scriptures, pray and faithfully fulfill my callings.  I still have a percolating anger about events that have happened in my life at church and how my kids were treated.  I have a seen a disconnect between what is taught in church in our meetings and what actually happens in real life.  The inability to discuss these issues and ask questions at church is stifling.  

Welcome aboard, matey!

You are not alone in your Church experience, I can guarantee you that.

Inasmuch as you are anonymous here, and there are a number of posters you will find sympathetic to your plight (such as I), would you mind sharing the events that have happened at church that have caused you to be so angry and end up in this little corner of the Mormon universe?

[smac97]

On 4/28/2016 at 1:12 PM, stemelbow said:

I get your comparison.  I just plain disagree with it, for the most part.  I don't see discussing issues, raising concerns, talking through life as setting a tenor of animosity, faultfinding, and resentment.  Not at all. 

Well, I guess we'll have to defer to you then for further clarification.  Your first few posts seemingly painted a rather bleak picture of the tone and tenor of these meetings.  

You have characterized your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.

You are now saying that your wife's meetings are "{n}ot at all" having "a tenor of animosity, faultfinding, and resentment."

I am having difficulty reconciling these statements.  Can you help a brutha out?

Quote

I find the comparison of suggesting someone wanting to discuss the Church openly to complaining incessantly about a person to be silly. 

I guess we may have differing viewpoints on "wanting to discuss the Church openly."  Your first few points sounded an awful lot like "discussion = faultfinding, complaining, etc."  And again, you have not characterized these meetings as including prayers, hymns, scriptures, and the other hallmarks of seeking light and knowledge through revelation.  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

Quote

It came off to me as a weird comparison that seems to breed fear, more than anything, even if that was not your intent.  There's nothing to fear when you follow your heart, I figure, even though we often do proceed with fear. 

Again, I have said nothing about fear.  I have said nothing that could reasonably be construed as me operating on fear or encouraging others to do so.

Quote

Well, that was your creation.  The meetings I describe's purpose is to have an atmosphere where these ladies can get together and discuss the welfare of their souls, discuss that which is truly inside them.  It's a beautiful thing if you realize that should be the purpose of the Church. 

I can't speak to that, I guess.  You've only provided snippets of what these meetings are like.

Quote

I'm not silent.  I'm not in their meetings, but I get good reviews of them from my wife.  As far as I can tell they aren't quite what you describe. 

Well, I was going by your descriptions.  I guess they were incomplete.

Quote

But they are a place where people are free to explore ideas beyond the level they feel free to do at Church. 

The three-hour block is not the proper venue for slogging through doctrinal concerns.  There are certainly ways in which people can and should discuss the doctrines of the Church.  I construed your description of your wife's meetings as being principally focused on faultfinding, complaining, etc.  Judging from the comments of others in this thread, I am not the only one who understood the tone and tenor of these meetings to be so.  

Further, you did not mention that these meetings included the hallmarks of faithful Gospel study and scholarship (prayer, studying of the scriptures and "the best books," etc.).  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

Quote

Of course.  I dont' quite see things in the dichotomous way you describe.  God loves all and will be there for all.  When people share what's truly in their heart and in their mind, God is not necessarily condemning.  I think He's encouraged. 

I am not persuaded that God wants the Saints to get together and faultfind and complain about the Church.  

Quote

He wants people to follow their paths through. 

With respect, I disagree.  He wants His children to follow His Son's path.  I don't think that path includes getting together to complain and faultfind about His Son's Church, and to not resort to the tools He has given us to discern the truths of the Gospel (faith, prayer, study, etc.).  These tools appear to be absent from your wife's meetings.  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

Quote

If they are genuine, full of love, a desire to do good, He's there. 

Your previous descriptions of your wife's meetings do not seem congruent to being "full of love" or "a desire to do good."  You characterize your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.

I don't see much "love" in such descriptions, or much of a discussion about "do{ing} good."  Railing on the Church seems to be the order of the day.

Quote

You seem to suggest that because someone has a pretty harsh view of something a leader has said, or something the Church has done or messages, is so negative it drives all possibility for God.  But I disagree, completely.  God loves us to reason.  He wants us to use our capacities. 

I have repeatedly said that I think the Saints can and should study the Restored Gospel.  "{B}y study and also by faith."  Reason is an invaluable tool.  But so is faith.  So is prayer.  So are the scriptures and "the best books."  So is temple attendance.  So is humility.  So is patience.

I see none of these things in your description of your wife's meetings.  Yes, God wants us to reason.  But He does not want us to rail against His Church and His servants.  He does not want us to speak evil of the Lord's anointed (I would be happy to be corrected if this is not happening in your wife's meetings).  He wants us to seek revelatory guidance through humility, study, prayer, pondering, and so on.  You are describing meetings which sound principally like they are gripefests, apparently devoid of the things that facilitate revelation (and I note again, that several posters in this thread have also received this impression).  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

Quote

Sure, it takes some balance and control.  But that doesn't mean just pretend all is well in hopes we don't get out of line. 

I have never suggested that we "just pretend all is well," nor have I hinted or implied anything remotely like that.  I don't appreciate misrepresentations of this sort.

Quote

He'll help us get back in line, even if He lets us run out in the wild sometimes. 

"He lets us run out the wild."  I'm not sure what to make of that.  He "lets us" in the sense that He has given us agency.  That He wants us to "run out in the wild" is an entirely different issue.  I am reminded here of 2 Nephi 28:8:

Quote

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

I fully agree that God will "help us get back in line."  But to laud and celebrate the calculated and deliberate decision to get out of line would be, I think, a bad idea.

You publicly asked for us to give you our "take" on these meetings.  Your wife's meetings, as described by you, strike me as being "out of line."  You characterize your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.  You have also not included any description of these meetings as including what we typically think of as the hallmarks of faith: prayer, study of the scriptures and of "the best books," attending the temple, and so on.  These are the things which typically invite the Spirit in.  Conversely, faultfinding, resentment, anger, etc. tend to drive the Spirit out.

That's my take.

Quote

Quote

You have repeatedly, and falsely, accused me of propagating or advocating the use of "fear" in discussions about the Restored Gospel.  I resent this.  Please stop it.

I'm giving my impression.  When I read your posts I hear a lot of fear.  I may be wrong.  But I should be free to give my impressions, no? 

I am the world's leading authority on what I think and what I mean.  I have repeatedly corrected your false characterizations of my remarks and my motivations, and you have continued to falsely characterize them.  It is remarkably arrogant and presumptuous to for Person A to dictate to Person B what Person B's thoughts and motivations are, particularly after Person B and repeatedly stated his thoughts and motivations and denied Person A's false characterizations thereof.

Quote

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  I do not mean to offend. 

You are wrong.  And repeated false characterizations of my remarks after I have repeatedly corrected those false characterizations is offensive.  Please stop it.

Quote

You've also characterized the meetings this group of ladies have as something that it might not be. 

I am open to correction.  You characterize your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.

What have I mischaracterized here?

Also, I have previously stated that these meetings do not appear to include what we typically think of as the hallmarks of faith: prayer, study of the scriptures and of "the best books," attending the temple, and so on.  You have neither included such things in your descriptions of your wife's meetings, nor have you addressed my repeated observation that these things are apparently absent from your wife's meetings.  What are we to make of this?  Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit?

Quote

Sure you've quoted me in some sense, but you've also drawn conclusions that I did not suggest.  You've added to it.  It's fine.  I get where your impressions come from. 

If and when I am incorrect about my impressions about the form and content of your wife's meetings, I am open to correction.

Quote

I get where you're coming from, Smac.  I just disagree. 

Yes, I get that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 29, 2016 by smac97

[consiglieri]

 

 

Gotta figger out a way to keep the young ones moral after school!

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

A woman can "absolutely" attend Priesthood General Conference and "no one will stop you"?

Have you been sequestered in a Mexican jail with no news feed for the past three-years?

Seriously?

I was talking about the broadcast.

That's all that exists here in the mission field which is every where in the universe besides Utah.

[CA Steve]

Someone help me here. What criticisms might be made of this group getting together to talk about the Church that do not also apply here?

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was talking about the broadcast.

That's all that exists here in the mission field which is every where in the universe besides Utah.

Well, I don't want just a broadcast..I liked to enjoy the real thing.  I will try to get to SLC in October.  Thank you so much!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

My wife watched the priesthood session of the last general conference with me and our boys. I teased her a little about it (I don't watch the women's sessions), but she happily watched. However, I doubt she would try to attend a live session. I believe at the conference center, a ticket is required for admittance, which would probably not be issued to a woman in light of so many men wishing to attend. 

Yes I think that is the policy. I do not pay attention to Utah local news stories.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well, I don't want just a broadcast..I liked to enjoy the real thing.  I will try to get to SLC in October.  Thank you so much!

So much for detente

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So much for detente

Oh...peace.  We both know that I would probably not be able to attend. 

[smac97]

On 4/29/2016 at 8:29 AM, bsjkki said:

I found this message board because of the inability to discuss anything less than faith promoting at church.  

I think the three-hour block is not intended to be the venue for people to work on doctrinal questions and concerns.  I think it is principally the venue for A) the administration of the ordinance of the Sacrament, B) giving and receiving instruction about the Restored Gospel, and C) develop and strengthen interpersonal relationships between ward members.  Put another way, the three-hour block of meetings is undoubtedly intended to be "faith promoting."  The Saints are faced with a huge array of faith demoting messages and influences in their lives.  So I think we oughtn't begrudge them a brief respite on Sundays.

The three-hour block is also not the appropriate venue to talk sports, or politics, or family troubles, or any other number of topics.  That is not to say any of these things are bad, or that they should not be discussed ever.  They are just not appropriate for the three-hour block.

So what would be the appropriate venue for "discuss anything less than faith promoting" (by which I suppose you mean doctrinal/historical questions/concerns)?  Well, here's my top three:

1) Self-Study: I think the Saints err when they encounter a doctrinal question/concern and then make little or no effort to research and study it out on their own.  We have been taught: "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."  We are living in The Information Age.  We have easy access to unbelievable quantities of information.  The quality of that information is of varying degrees, so we must use our wits and the Spirit to sort things out.  When studying the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, faith is important.  So is patience.  Humility.  Prayer.  Temple attendance.  Effort.  Real effort.  Reading the Scriptures and "the best books" (and, I think we can reasonably extrapolate, "the best websites").

2. Family and Priesthood Leaders: Talk to your family and priesthood leaders who are trustworthy, who will not betray confidences, who can provide insights and assistance, who can share their testimonies as a way to strengthen yours.

3. Institutes of Religion: Where feasible, enroll in courses offered by the Church's Seminaries & Institutes program.  There are a lot of benefits which can accrue from a formal, structured approach to studying the Gospel.  I think that institute teachers can often have a lot of helpful information about difficult topics (though they will generally be wary about crossing over into "pastoral care," which is the province of priesthood leaders).

Quote

I do not dare discuss concerns, questions or doubts with any leader of my ward or stake in fear of being label "less" faithful.  

I think you are making a serious mistake here.  Bishops are generally not in the habit of meeting with people and then afterward betraying sacred confidences by "labeling" them.

Please reconsider meeting with your bishop.

Quote

I am trying to maintain my testimony and I go to the temple, read my scriptures, pray and faithfully fulfill my callings.  I still have a percolating anger about events that have happened in my life at church and how my kids were treated.  

I grew up in the Church.  My childhood experience in the Church was often negative and unpleasant.  However, I stuck with it.  I read The Book of Mormon and prayed about it and, over time, developed something of a testimony.  At 17 I joined the Army, which really tested my faith, but overall in a very positive way.

Growing up, Church meetings were for me essentially a chore to be endured.  But then I went to Basic Training, and that changed.  Attending a 45-minute Sacrament Meeting each Sunday was, for me, a joy.  It was a refuge of calm and peace and The Spirit.  

Growing up, reading the Scriptures was an obligation.  But during Basic Training it became an opportunity.  To feel peace.  To become closer to God.  Reading in the barracks rooms was generally not an option since the conversations going on around me were often quite profane.  So I developed a habit of reading in one of the bathroom stalls.  Word got around that I was doing this, and a few of the guys took to banging on the stall door, ridiculing me for reading The Bible while sitting on the toilet, etc.  But then one night one of the bigger, scarier guys in our platoon came by and put a stop to it.  With force.  He had never given me more than a glance, but I overheard him instruct the others to leave me alone while I was reading "The Book" and "getting closer to Jesus."  I appreciated him.

I have found the Restored Gospel to be a beautiful, beautiful thing.  I think the Saints are generally good people, but we clearly have many ways to improve.  I have come to realize that the Gospel is what it claims to be, irrespective of the Saints' far-from-perfect adherence to it.

Childhood social difficulties in the Church can be a real challenge.  I have needed to forgive a lot of people.  But then, I have needed a lot of forgiveness for myself, so there's a rather nice bit of symmetry there.

Quote

I have a seen a disconnect between what is taught in church in our meetings and what actually happens in real life.  The inability to discuss these issues and ask questions at church is stifling.  

I recommend that you look take the three-hour block and use it for its intended purpose, and then proceed to use other means and venues to sort out "these issues and {to} ask questions."  Be patient with your fellow Saints, as some of them probably need to be patient with you.  We're all sinners in one way or another.  We are all working on difficult things during difficult times.  The Spirit will help.  The Saints will rise up and improve.  I will close with one of my favorite quotes (from an episode of M*A*S*H, spoken by Father Mulcahy): "It doesn't matter whether you feel useful or not when you're moving from one disaster to another. The trick, I guess, is to just keep moving."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 29, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

On 4/29/2016 at 9:01 AM, mfbukowski said:

I was talking about the broadcast.

That's all that exists here in the mission field which is every where in the universe besides Utah.

My mother-in-law lives in Washington State.  References to "the mission field" are a pet peeve of hers, to the extent this phrase is used as a synonym for - as you put it - "everywhere in the universe besides Utah."

I have therefore made it a point of helping her out by eliminating "the mission field" from my communications with her, and instead referring to Utah as "The Bosom of Abraham" and everywhere else as "Babylon."  This works much better.

-Smac

[smac97]

On 4/29/2016 at 9:08 AM, CA Steve said:

Someone help me here. What criticisms might be made of this group getting together to talk about the Church that do not also apply here?

Well, there is very much a mixed bag of words and motivations on this board.  Some people come here to complain and rail against the Church and its doctrines / practices / leaders / members.  Others here defend and explain the Church's doctrines / practices / leaders / members.

The scriptures are quoted here.  A lot.  So are various online/paper resources (the "best books" from which we should seek "words of wisdom").

Study "by faith", pondering, prayer, church and temple attendance, and so on are all encouraged here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 4/29/2016 at 9:08 AM, Jeanne said:

Well, I don't want just a broadcast..I liked to enjoy the real thing.  I will try to get to SLC in October.  Thank you so much!

As I understand it, men (with the exception of General Authorities on the stand) are generally not invited to attend the Women's Session of General Conference.  This despite the fact that girls as young as eight are allowed and encouraged to attend.

Please do not disrupt our sacred convocations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 4/29/2016 at 9:22 AM, Jeanne said:

Oh...peace.  We both know that I would probably not be able to attend. 

Oh.  So you were intending to provoke, then.

-Smac

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, men (with the exception of General Authorities on the stand) are generally not invited to attend the Women's Session of General Conference.  This despite the fact that girls as young as eight are allowed and encouraged to attend.

Please do not disrupt our sacred convocations.

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn't mean to disrupt anything!  

[smac97]

On 4/29/2016 at 10:05 AM, Jeanne said:

I didn't mean to disrupt anything!  

As I understand it, men (with the exception of General Authorities on the stand) are generally not invited to attend the Women's Session of General Conference.  This despite the fact that girls as young as eight are allowed and encouraged to attend.  Men, of course, are at liberty to watch or listen to the broadcast.

If, when discussing the Women's Session of General Conference, and notwithstanding the foregoing information, I were to say something like "Well, I don't want just a broadcast..I liked to enjoy the real thing.  I will try to get to SLC in October.  Thank you so much!", I think I would be giving the impression that I intended to attempt to attend the Women's Session, to disrupt it like Kate Kelly and her ilk have tried in years past to disrupt the Priesthood Session.  Either that, or I would be giving the impression that I was taunting the Latter-day Saints on this board with the prospect of such a disruption of their sacred convocation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 29, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I guess we'll have to defer to you then for further clarification.  Your first few posts seemingly painted a rather bleak picture of the tone and tenor of these meetings.  

You have characterized your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.

You are now saying that your wife's meetings are "{n}ot at all" having "a tenor of animosity, faultfinding, and resentment."

I am having difficulty reconciling these statements.  Can you help a brutha out?

Sure none of the quote items in your paragraph suggest animosity, faultfinding and resentment.  At least not necessarily.  You'd have to read those characteristics into it. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I guess we may have differing viewpoints on "wanting to discuss the Church openly."  Your first few points sounded an awful lot like "discussion = faultfinding, complaining, etc."  And again, you have not characterized these meetings as including prayers, hymns, scriptures, and the other hallmarks of seeking light and knowledge through revelation.  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

I don't know.  My wife typically carries a prayer in her heart, no matter her circumstance.  So it's pretty presumptuous to think without someone stating prayer or other such things means they are "faultfinding, complaining". 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, I have said nothing about fear.  I have said nothing that could reasonably be construed as me operating on fear or encouraging others to do so.

I can't speak to that, I guess.  You've only provided snippets of what these meetings are like.

Well, I was going by your descriptions.  I guess they were incomplete.

Seeing as I'm not in the meetings, of course they are incomplete.  And the nature of me briefly summarizing purpose as I understand can't seriously be taken as anything but incomplete renditions of the meetings. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The three-hour block is not the proper venue for slogging through doctrinal concerns.  There are certainly ways in which people can and should discuss the doctrines of the Church.  I construed your description of your wife's meetings as being principally focused on faultfinding, complaining, etc.  Judging from the comments of others in this thread, I am not the only one who understood the tone and tenor of these meetings to be so.  

Further, you did not mention that these meetings included the hallmarks of faithful Gospel study and scholarship (prayer, studying of the scriptures and "the best books," etc.).  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

Of course you are.  As I understand it the ladies are all pretty well read, each quite experienced with the Church. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am not persuaded that God wants the Saints to get together and faultfind and complain about the Church.  

With respect, I disagree.  He wants His children to follow His Son's path.  I don't think that path includes getting together to complain and faultfind about His Son's Church, and to not resort to the tools He has given us to discern the truths of the Gospel (faith, prayer, study, etc.).  These tools appear to be absent from your wife's meetings.  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

Your previous descriptions of your wife's meetings do not seem congruent to being "full of love" or "a desire to do good."  You characterize your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.

You've created a dichotomy where none exists.  One can be bored with Church and still be full of love and a desire to do good.  One can have negative ideas about the Church and still be full of love and a desire to do good.  One can even have desires to leave the Church and still be full of love and a desire to do good.  I think it apparent you've read into this. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't see much "love" in such descriptions, or much of a discussion about "do{ing} good."  Railing on the Church seems to be the order of the day.

Well, again, you'd have to read "railing on the Church" into it. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have repeatedly said that I think the Saints can and should study the Restored Gospel.  "{B}y study and also by faith."  Reason is an invaluable tool.  But so is faith.  So is prayer.  So are the scriptures and "the best books."  So is temple attendance.  So is humility.  So is patience.

I see none of these things in your description of your wife's meetings.  Yes, God wants us to reason.  But He does not want us to rail against His Church and His servants.  He does not want us to speak evil of the Lord's anointed (I would be happy to be corrected if this is not happening in your wife's meetings).  He wants us to seek revelatory guidance through humility, study, prayer, pondering, and so on.  You are describing meetings which sound principally like they are gripefests, apparently devoid of the things that facilitate revelation (and I note again, that several posters in this thread have also received this impression).  Am I mistaken as to the omission of these things?

I have never suggested that we "just pretend all is well," nor have I hinted or implied anything remotely like that.  I don't appreciate misrepresentations of this sort.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to these meetings.  You are free to add to what I've said, all you want, in order to continue with your conclusions and judgments, but it really just comes off as fear, as pretending all is well in zion to me.  You could exhibit fear, while not thinking it fear.  You could have fear without realizing it.  You could be pretending all is well in zion while not realizing it as well. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"He lets us run out the wild."  I'm not sure what to make of that.  He "lets us" in the sense that He has given us agency.  That He wants us to "run out in the wild" is an entirely different issue.  I am reminded here of 2 Nephi 28:8:

I fully agree that God will "help us get back in line."  But to laud and celebrate the calculated and deliberate decision to get out of line would be, I think, a bad idea.

I suppose, Smac, my great concern with your line of reasoning is to think people getting together to discuss the welfare of their souls, freely and openly, is being concluded by you as getting out of line.  It very well might be, from the Church's perspective, but then again, I'd say that's the Church's problem, not these ladies'. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You publicly asked for us to give you our "take" on these meetings.  Your wife's meetings, as described by you, strike me as being "out of line."  You characterize your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.  You have also not included any description of these meetings as including what we typically think of as the hallmarks of faith: prayer, study of the scriptures and of "the best books," attending the temple, and so on.  These are the things which typically invite the Spirit in.  Conversely, faultfinding, resentment, anger, etc. tend to drive the Spirit out.

That's my take.

And I appreciate your take.  I appreciate it so much I wanted to be sure to comment on it, as clearly as possible.  I think I see where our disagreements lie. However we characterize it, it seems obvious I'd rather see some dips, lessons learned, mistakes, and problems as repercussions of open and forthright dialogue.  While it seems you'd rather see order, by the book, authority as the first of consideration before openness of thought, in hopes to avoid the repercussions as I described.  To me I read that as you fearing that people will lead themselves out of the Church somehow, because they aren't following the methods outlined for them.  I reject that you fear anything.  But I don't know how to see it differently. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am the world's leading authority on what I think and what I mean.  I have repeatedly corrected your false characterizations of my remarks and my motivations, and you have continued to falsely characterize them.  It is remarkably arrogant and presumptuous to for Person A to dictate to Person B what Person B's thoughts and motivations are, particularly after Person B and repeatedly stated his thoughts and motivations and denied Person A's false characterizations thereof.

You are wrong.  And repeated false characterizations of my remarks after I have repeatedly corrected those false characterizations is offensive.  Please stop it.

I'll be happy to stop, but to be fair you haven't stopped characterizing the meetings as something they've never been described to you as being.  My conclusion of fear was in response to you making up things about the meetings in order to conclude things that may or may not be.   

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am open to correction.  You characterize your wife as having "negative ideas about" and being "bored with" the Church, as a person who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who is inviting likeminded persons to attend meetings with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church," meetings which to date have yielded "pretty harsh" feelings about the Church.

What have I mischaracterized here?

I've already explained that, Smac.  These things do not mean someone can't be full of love, for instance.  these things don't mean faultfinding, animosity nor resentment. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Also, I have previously stated that these meetings do not appear to include what we typically think of as the hallmarks of faith: prayer, study of the scriptures and of "the best books," attending the temple, and so on.  You have neither included such things in your descriptions of your wife's meetings, nor have you addressed my repeated observation that these things are apparently absent from your wife's meetings.  What are we to make of this?  Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit?

If and when I am incorrect about my impressions about the form and content of your wife's meetings, I am open to correction.

Yes, I get that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, in spite of the disagreements we had, I appreciate you chimed in.  I think it describes nicely the problems I think are prevalent among us in church.  We seem to fear (even if you don't) openness.  We seem to prefer law abiding and creating to openness because we fear.  I find that rather Pharisaic and problematic, in the long run.  I believe my wife does to. 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, men (with the exception of General Authorities on the stand) are generally not invited to attend the Women's Session of General Conference.  This despite the fact that girls as young as eight are allowed and encouraged to attend.  Men, of course, are at liberty to watch or listen to the broadcast.

If, when discussing the Women's Session of General Conference, and notwithstanding the foregoing information, I were to say something like "Well, I don't want just a broadcast..I liked to enjoy the real thing.  I will try to get to SLC in October.  Thank you so much!", I think I would be giving the impression that I intended to attempt to attend the Women's Session, to disrupt it like Kate Kelly and her ilk have tried in years past to disrupt the Priesthood Session.  Either that, or I would be giving the impression that I was taunting the Latter-day Saints on this board with the prospect of such a disruption of their sacred convocation.

Thanks,

-Smac

You said I could attend.  Now I can't.  Isn't this a silly thing in any church?  I don't plan on disrupting anything in the church.  For heaven's sakes..I have better things to do.  But at the time, I appreciated you assurance that I could.  You just kinda forgot about General Conference and Kate Kelly.  That is not my fault.  For what it is worth..in my POV, it is unnecessary to have any Priesthood presence in the Women's Conference until the women can attend the General Priesthood Session.