One woman speaker

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Dude...I was just about to start a thread on the need for an openly gay relief society president...

It's about time!

Or at least someone who feels a same sex sexual attraction!

Man or woman. It doesn't matter to me.

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Alright, tell us what we needed to hear that wasn't said this past weekend.

Because I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that not many members fasted and prayed going into conference weekend with the hopes of seeing a 1:1 ratio of men and women speakers

edit to add:  you see how this quickly turns into what YOU want?

Apparently it's about what YOU want now.  Ah well.  yes, I'd like to see women speak and given more authority and more say in the Church overall.  So I guess if I ran through a topical list of things I think the Church would do well to do and speak about:

Women have the priesthood from now on.  Women can lead congregations as bishops and SPs.  They will be called to all positions  of Church leadership, as per we are directed. 

We support gay people.  it is not wrong for two people who love each other to share their lives with each other in marriage.  Oopsie on us.  LGBTQ people are fully welcome.

On both of those topics you can count it as if we were working with limited knowledge and made assumptions based on our best guesses being heavily influenced by the culture that often drives us.  It's kind of like we made the big mistake of the priesthood ban and stuck with it. 

Also, we should address the terrible practice of our Church, mostly thanks to centralized involvement and direction, of being very pharisaic.  We need to fix that.  We definitely need to be less about the letter of the law.  We need to be better at letting the people drive us.  Letting the spirit direct and giving voice to those whom we've often disregarded thinking our speaking at them gets the job done. 

We might as well retire most of the GAs.  Now we all know they don't live off of modest living stipends anymore.  Its time we retire them and let others get in here, mxing it up with people from various places and backgrounds and genders.  Sure, they're paid--and compared to the world as a whole, they are right near the top of the scale.  It wasn't modest.  We teased you all for too long.  Yes, we realize their compensation has come off the backs in some measure of people who barely are able to sustain themselves and their families in all parts of the world, and we should be better at being honest about that and providing support for everyone. 

I'm sure I could go on for hours.  Probably 10 hours. 

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Both were from South America, Brazil and...I forget. But I assume they both live in Utah now, though I don't really know. I think they prefer Utah people for these callings for logistical purposes, though in todays communication environment I don't know that Utah proximity is nearly as important as it would have been in the past. Still, it probably takes time to move into a global communication, Skype kind of mindset for having leaders serve in their diverse localities.

Speaking to a wife and daughter of a newly called GA from Colombia, I believe, a couple of years ago....they were helped to move to Utah when he was called.  memory might be a bit sketchy.  But I think that might be how it goes. 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Apparently it's about what YOU want now.  Ah well.  yes, I'd like to see women speak and given more authority and more say in the Church overall.  So I guess if I ran through a topical list of things I think the Church would do well to do and speak about:

Women have the priesthood from now on.  Women can lead congregations as bishops and SPs.  They will be called to all positions  of Church leadership, as per we are directed. 

We support gay people.  it is not wrong for two people who love each other to share their lives with each other in marriage.  Oopsie on us.  LGBTQ people are fully welcome.

On both of those topics you can count it as if we were working with limited knowledge and made assumptions based on our best guesses being heavily influenced by the culture that often drives us.  It's kind of like we made the big mistake of the priesthood ban and stuck with it. 

Also, we should address the terrible practice of our Church, mostly thanks to centralized involvement and direction, of being very pharisaic.  We need to fix that.  We definitely need to be less about the letter of the law.  We need to be better at letting the people drive us.  Letting the spirit direct and giving voice to those whom we've often disregarded thinking our speaking at them gets the job done. 

We might as well retire most of the GAs.  Now we all know they don't live off of modest living stipends anymore.  Its time we retire them and let others get in here, mxing it up with people from various places and backgrounds and genders.  Sure, they're paid--and compared to the world as a whole, they are right near the top of the scale.  It wasn't modest.  We teased you all for too long.  Yes, we realize their compensation has come off the backs in some measure of people who barely are able to sustain themselves and their families in all parts of the world, and we should be better at being honest about that and providing support for everyone. 

I'm sure I could go on for hours.  Probably 10 hours. 

You could start a new church to get your message out, if you want. You could call it "The Church of Stemelbow" too, since that name is still available as a church name.

Just what the world needs. Your own church.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 a topical list of things I think the Church would do well to do and speak about:

Women have the priesthood from now on.  Women can lead congregations as bishops and SPs.  They will be called to all positions  of Church leadership, as per we are directed. 

Except they can't.  It's not Church policy decides such a thing.

We support gay people.  it is not wrong for two people who love each other to share their lives with each other in marriage.  Oopsie on us.  LGBTQ people are fully welcome.

Except that it IS wrong.  Again, it's not Church policy that decides such things.

Also, we should address the terrible practice of our Church, mostly thanks to centralized involvement and direction, of being very pharisaic.  We need to fix that.  We definitely need to be less about the letter of the law.  We need to be better at letting the people drive us.  Letting the spirit direct and giving voice to those whom we've often disregarded thinking our speaking at them gets the job done.

Absolutely not!  The minute the Church changes to please the people instead of the people changing to follow God's revelations is the minute the Church is in full apostasy.

We might as well retire most of the GAs. 
Its time we retire them and let others get in here, mxing it up with people from various places and backgrounds and genders.

That's not how priesthood works.  It may be how a calling in the Church works, but it is not how priesthood authority operates.  And priesthood trumps Church and always will.

I'm sure I could go on for hours.  Probably 10 hours. 

Might I suggest http://www.cofchrist.org/ for the goals you have here.

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

Why tae two steps forward and three steps back?  The church and leaders tell women that they, too, hold the priesthood jointly with their husbands through temple covenants and yet they seem to hold a lesser value...they keep blowing their chances of having women who feel qualified and valued enough to even be listened to.  I didn't hear this woman's talk, but like men, their are different perceptions of the gospel to women...all should have a voice.  For heaven's sakes, they are daughters of God..can't they have a voice...anyone can pray and yet women are so.o.o. grateful to be allowed even that..how do the women really feel on this board.  Just need to ask.

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Apparently it's about what YOU want now.  Ah well.  yes, I'd like to see women speak and given more authority and more say in the Church overall.  So I guess if I ran through a topical list of things I think the Church would do well to do and speak about:

often drives us.  It's kind of like we made the big mistake of the priesthood ban and stuck with it. 

about that and providing support for everyone. 

I'm sure I could go on for hours.  Probably 10 hou

No it's really not.  When I go into conference, it's usually with the attitude of where I can make improvements in my own life.  Usually it's not stuff I like hearing, much less admitting.  

For example, I dislike and disagreed with the emphasis on service in the area concerning the refugees.  I previously thought that it needed to be curbed based on what was being reported from Europe.  But I also had to ask myself if I trust the counsel from church leadership.  I also had to recognize that the counsel squared with the teachings of Christ and other scripture...in the end, I realized that my attitude needed to change, not the church, and that I needed to have some humility and realize that I was in the wrong.  

Stuff like that.  Maybe have some humility and quit worrying about what others are doing?  You point out the "pharisaic" practices of the church...ironically your post is just a bunch of self righteous finger pointing and criticism 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It rubbed me the wrong way. Interestingly Pres. Uchtdorf's talk afterwards almost sounded like a rebuke of Sister Jones' message. 

I had a similar impression. I wouldn't call it a rebuke since I'm not sure Pres. Uchtdorf knew what she would say when he was writing his talk. But his remarks certainly conflict with the overall tone of many speakers - including Sis. Jones - who are decrying these days as more troubling than others. 

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

a topical list of things I think the Church would do well to do and speak about:

Women have the priesthood from now on.  Women can lead congregations as bishops and SPs.  They will be called to all positions  of Church leadership, as per we are directed. 

Except they can't.  It's not Church policy decides such a thing.

 

Disagree, of course. 

 

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

We support gay people.  it is not wrong for two people who love each other to share their lives with each other in marriage.  Oopsie on us.  LGBTQ people are fully welcome.

Except that it IS wrong.  Again, it's not Church policy that decides such things.

 

Disagree again of course.  I

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Also, we should address the terrible practice of our Church, mostly thanks to centralized involvement and direction, of being very pharisaic.  We need to fix that.  We definitely need to be less about the letter of the law.  We need to be better at letting the people drive us.  Letting the spirit direct and giving voice to those whom we've often disregarded thinking our speaking at them gets the job done.

Absolutely not!  The minute the Church changes to please the people instead of the people changing to follow God's revelations is the minute the Church is in full apostasy.

 

 

Then all I can wonder is why don't you consider the Church in full apostasy now? 

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

We might as well retire most of the GAs. 
Its time we retire them and let others get in here, mxing it up with people from various places and backgrounds and genders.

That's not how priesthood works.  It may be how a calling in the Church works, but it is not how priesthood authority operates.  And priesthood trumps Church and always will.

 

You can always change these policies.  Then the priesthood works in a different way. 

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

I'm sure I could go on for hours.  Probably 10 hours. 

Might I suggest http://www.cofchrist.org/ for the goals you have here.

By all means.  Suggest away...

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, SteveO said:

No it's really not.  When I go into conference, it's usually with the attitude of where I can make improvements in my own life.  Usually it's not stuff I like hearing, much less admitting.  

So you like the challenging of your own personal righteousness or not?  It seems like that's how you like it.  But you are saying here you don't like Conference because of how it is, complaining that I too don't really appreciate conference.  Which is it?

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Dude...I was just about to start a thread on the need for an openly gay relief society president...

Maybe you should take a good deep look into the history of Primary.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps what the church needed to hear was not what was found at conference at all.  

I know how the church works and I'm up for questioning that.  

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently women don't have anything to say...OR...God doesn't trust them to say it. Missed opportunity.

I did take heart that 2 women from other countries were called into the RS and Primary Presidency. I believe that is a preparatory move before calling a non-white Q12 member from another country. When there were three open positions to be filled everyone hoped for some diversity. There were public calls for it so naturally, to avoid appearing to give in to public sentiment, the church didn't respond. Now, at some future date they'll be able to call non-white foreign Q12 members because "the time is right". Although they'll also note that it's really not all that important, after all we do have these foreign women serving in top leadership already. See, it's always been diverse  

Rather cynical, guys, and the source of denominationalism generally.  We can always opt for infinite diversity, because that brings with it infinite fairness.  The RLDS Church opted to include women in their priesthood ranks and to accept gay members in full fellowship and priesthood.  They no longer restrict the presidency of their church exclusively to male descendants of Joseph Smith.  They even renamed their church The Community of Christ.  All of these things are laudable from a purely human perspective, and many mainstream churches have implemented such broadly accepting principles.  I have no problem with that at all, but it is worth observing that it is just such mainstreaming which has led to sharply diminishing growth and influence, as well as to further denominational church creation (ever more splinter groups).  They all had the best of intentions and have interpreted their religious origins in the broadest possible sense.  Is there anything wrong with that?  How could there be?

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

[SteveO]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you like the challenging of your own personal righteousness or not?  It seems like that's how you like it.  But you are saying here you don't like Conference because of how it is, complaining that I too don't really appreciate conference.  Which is it?

You're trying too hard to catch me contradicting myself...

Usually the things we most NEED to hear, aren't things we WANT to hear.  

The fact you're concerned with gender quotas at conference tells me the attitude you're going into conference with.

For example, and you don't have to be specific here, was there anything that was said where you thought, "you know what, I need to change my attitude on this and actively work on changing it even though it goes against what I had previously thought"?

Edited April 3, 2017 by SteveO

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Rather cynical, guys, and the source of denominationalism generally.  We can always opt for infinite diversity, because that brings with it infinite fairness.  The RLDS Church opted to include women in their priesthood ranks and to accept gay members in full fellowship and priesthood.  They no longer restrict the presidency of their church exclusively to male descendants of Joseph Smith.  They even renamed their church The Community of Christ.  All of these things are laudable from a purely human perspective, and many mainstream churches have implemented such broadly accepting principles.  I have no problem with that at all, but it is worth observing that it is just such mainstreaming which has led to sharply diminishing growth and influence, as well as to further denominational church creation (ever more splinter groups).  They all had the best of intentions and have interpreted their religious origins in the broadest possible sense.  Is there anything wrong with that?  How could there be?

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Contrary to your 2 Timothy quote, it seems that the COC has decided that it's more important to do the right thing than to do the popular thing. 

 

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Contrary to your 2 Timothy quote, it seems that the COC has decided that it's more important to do the right thing than to do the popular thing. 

They did the popular thing, leading to a vast loss of membership and vitality. Not the other way around. 

The people who do most of the things in the Church --- the energized and committed --- would have their vitality sucked out if the Church went the way of secular trends. And the Church would have a similar outcome to CoC.

Even if our numbers decline, we will retain the vitality and commitment from the dedicated members. That's the big difference between us and CoC.

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Contrary to your 2 Timothy quote, it seems that the COC has decided that it's more important to do the right thing than to do the popular thing. 

 

 

Rich...

Coming from one of the posters most "concerned" with the declining numbers of the church...

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

They did the popular thing, leading to a vast loss of membership and vitality. Not the other way around. 

If it was popular, they would have increased their membership. You've got it exactly backwards. They did the unpopular thing, but the right thing. 

 

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

The people who do most of the things in the Church --- the energized and committed --- would have their vitality sucked out if the Church went the way of secular trends. And the Church would have a similar outcome to CoC.

Even if our numbers decline, we will retain the vitality and commitment from the dedicated members. That's the big difference between us and CoC.

What makes you think the CoC doesn't have vitality or commitment? How much time have you spent in CoC congregations? 

[Gray]

Just now, SteveO said:

Rich...

Coming from one of the posters most "concerned" with the declining numbers of the church...

Nope, not me. Are you thinking of Stemelbow?

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why?  just why?  Hasn't the Church tried to show that it's wanting to improve on getting a woman's voice involved?  Now this? 

 

Come on. 

 

Did the Church just reveal its cards by not really caring what women have to say and whether they contribute? 

I agree that this is disheartening to only have one woman speaker, and, unfortunately, a woman's voice really doesn't matter in the church because:

Ephesians 5:

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/5.23?lang=eng

At the end of the day, it only matters what the men (with the priesthood) have to say, because the women are subject to the men.   

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even if our numbers decline, we will retain the vitality and commitment from the dedicated members. That's the big difference between us and CoC.

I don't know about that.

The issue here on this thread and others is a much more deeply entrenched one.
Somewhere in recent history religion shifted its focus from the source to the recipient.  That's not just in Mormonism either.

At some point people started asking "What is in it for me?  Does my religion check all my boxes and make me happy?  Does it fulfill ME?"
And inevitably when a Church doesn't provide that for people they leave.

The problem is, that's not what religion is for.  Religion is about us doing God's will, not God making us feel good.
Or at least, it used to be.

Ask not what your God can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your God.

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently women don't have anything to say...OR...God doesn't trust them to say it. Missed opportunity.

I did take heart that 2 women from other countries were called into the RS and Primary Presidency. I believe that is a preparatory move before calling a non-white Q12 member from another country. When there were three open positions to be filled everyone hoped for some diversity. There were public calls for it so naturally, to avoid appearing to give in to public sentiment, the church didn't respond. Now, at some future date they'll be able to call non-white foreign Q12 members because "the time is right". Although they'll also note that it's really not all that important, after all we do have these foreign women serving in top leadership already. See, it's always been diverse  

RS and Primary are General Officers.  They have a number of nonwhite General Officers already as well as General Authorities.

It is significant for the women, I don't see it as the least preparatory for the men and their callings.  That has been done already a number of years ago with the General Authority calls.  I am not saying "it has always been diverse".  It hasn't, though diversity is rising both in numbers and in levels.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I agree that this is disheartening to only have one woman speaker, and, unfortunately, a woman's voice really doesn't matter in the church because:

Ephesians 5:

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/5.23?lang=eng

At the end of the day, it only matters what the men (with the priesthood) have to say, because the women are subject to the men.   

Oh I agree. 

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

If it was popular, they would have increased their membership. You've got it exactly backwards. They did the unpopular thing, but the right thing. 

I guess we both need to specify "popular and unpopular according to whom?" Popular in the eyes of secular liberal society translates to losses among traditional, conservative members. The changes they made were popular among secular, liberal society, and unpopular among traditional, conservative members.

Quote

What makes you think the CoC doesn't have vitality or commitment? How much time have you spent in CoC congregations?

I have taught some members of Restorationist branches who left CoC. They don't like the downgrading of the Book of Mormon and some of the social changes. When CoC threw the Book of Mormon completely under the bus, and then kept backing the bus up so they could run over it again, they lost a lot of their "vital" members. For a church that stems from Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, that is going to suck a lot of the air out of your most committed members.

We also visited and talked with an RLDS bishop in Braunschweig, Germany in my last area. He was also saddened by the course his church was taking (which only worsened in the intervening decade).

 

Quote

“While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use” (Spencer M. Veazey, 2007, dismissing a proposal that the Book of Mormon's divinity should be reaffirmed. Andrew M. Shields, “Official Minutes of Business Session, Wednesday March 28, 2007,” in 2007 World Conference Thursday Bulletin, March 29, 2007. Community of Christ, 2007.).

“The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity” (W. Grant McMurray, 2001, “They Shall Blossom as the Rose: Native Americans and the Dream of Zion”).

“With other Christians, we affirm the Bible as the foundational scripture for the church. In addition, Community of Christ uses the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture. We do not use these sacred writings to replace the witness of the Bible or improve upon it, but because they confirm its message that Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God” (Community of Christ web site).

----    ----    ----    ----

The middle one gives a preview as to what would happen to our church if we go down the "erase racist BoM passages" rabbit hole --- or go whole hog and downplay the Book of Mormon altogether, like CoC did. That would be the popular choice (outside of the Church), but not inside the Church. And we would have similar results. 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

RS and Primary are General Officers.  They have a number of nonwhite General Officers already as well as General Authorities.

It is significant for the women, I don't see it as the least preparatory for the men and their callings.  That has been done already a number of years ago with the General Authority calls.  I am not saying "it has always been diverse".  It hasn't, though diversity is rising both in numbers and in levels.

That's fair. I still think it's a little preparatory because 2 general officers in those presidencies is more noticeable than the multitudes of other GA's.

[Calm]

When the bullied underdog changes his odd look for one more popular, more mainstream, chances are some, maybe all of the bullying stops, but usually they don't get more friends hanging around in my experience.

Much of the RLDS changes, imo, were in line with the more traditional Protestant or Evangelical trends, moving away from a Restorationist stance.  There were others that were more liberal in a political sense.  The first might bring higher number of converts in international areas, but seems unlikely to have much positive impact in the States.

From what I saw and have heard from others with family long in the RLDS tradition, they lost a large percentage of those whose heritage was in the Restoration, at times completely separating, at others acknowledging oversight from the CoC but having different doctrines...a difficult way to keep bonds strong.

This does not mean the ones who stayed were any less "vital", but having a sense of heritage in a faith can keep ties strong even when other pressures push one away, thus the person is more likely to stay long enough to develop enough personal reasons to stay committed.  ''Turnover' rates would be interesting to compare between the before and after as well as the two groups, those of a Restorationist slant, whether connected still or completely separated and those of the more mainstream liberal congregations.

from wiki:

"These changes were controversial among the membership, and they led to the formation of breakaway churches such as the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; in 1994, former church historian Richard P. Howard estimated that 25,000 members had left to join such groups.[15] Between the mid-1960s and the late 1990s, there was a one-third decline in new baptisms in the United States along with a 50 percent drop in contributions in the decade before 1998.[16]"