One woman speaker

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, Duncan said:

... if "man can send someone to the moon then God can shoot someone back"...

What a great attitude! And true, too!

[Guest]

8 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? 

Of course they care, as General Conference now beings a week before with women's conference, the opening prayer in at least one session was given by Sister Marriot. Is this what conference has become, members keeping score? Not to mention the number of talks and comments about the need, importance and value of all our sisters in the Church. I think this type of score keeping and judgements speaks more of the score keepers, than of the Church. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I don't think it is in God's hand.  He has taught and trusted us to be fair and just...this is an organizational thing that makes important and seemingly superior men feel important and superior.

If you honestly believe that the apostles are that corrupt so that God cannot or will not talk to them then giving women the Priesthood is pointless. Their authority would have long since been taken away. Better look for a new Restoration instead.

 

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

They already hold the priesthood.  They are just not ordained to an office of the priesthood. And that is as it should be since the priesthood is after the order of the SON of God and they are WOMEN!

And since the SON of God saved us then clearly men are saved and women are damned because they are WOMEN and not SONS! Makes as much sense as what you said.

 

 

[omni]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You mean like this Stem? 

 

This will not change until the women in the Church start voting with their feet.  

It's a mystery to me why women continue to disproportionally support the Church and those policies / doctrines that are blatantly sexist (imho).  

I can't thing of one LDS woman I know who would support a secular organization / company (with equal numbers of men and women) that did not allow women leaders.  Yet, when it comes to religion, it's all the sudden ok?  

If the women of this Church don't seem to care (outside of a fringe minority) about lack of representation at the highest levels, should I or any other male care?

Tradition can be a powerful motivator, there will be no change until faithful LDS women demand it.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And since the SON of God saved us then clearly men are saved and women are damned because they are WOMEN and not SONS! Makes as much sense as what you said.

Our Lord's order of priesthood is a culmination of HIS priesthood powers and responsibilities. Which he then delegates to others who are also men. To do MAN stuff. Rather than WOMAN stuff.

A corollary would be an order of priesthood after the order of a daughter of God, which would be the same as the Mother of God.  WOMAN stuff. Rather than MAN stuff.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, omni said:

This will not change until the women in the Church start voting with their feet.  

It's a mystery to me why women continue to disproportionally support the Church and those policies / doctrines that are blatantly sexist (imho).  

I can't thing of one LDS woman I know who would support a secular organization / company (with equal numbers of men and women) that did not allow women leaders.  Yet, when it comes to religion, it's all the sudden ok?  

If the women of this Church don't seem to care (outside of a fringe minority) about lack of representation at the highest levels, should I or any other male care?

Tradition can be a powerful motivator, there will be no change until faithful LDS women demand it.

Couldn't be because we believe it is the one true and living church in which God is well pleased; nope, just tradition

[Gray]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

In a religious context, the popular choice is always to be more fundamentalist and less inclusive. That's what keeps bums in pews each Sunday.

 

Quote

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).

 

 

Do you think that's enough information to really conclude the COC has lost its vitality?

Edited April 4, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly, and that is the whole point:  Everyone is opting to do the right thing* -- whatever that is.  Moreover, that means that the 2 Timothy quote is not in fact contrary to anyone's high-minded principles.  Anyone can use it as cover for whatever policy they wish to implement.  The real question is at base epistemological -- how can we know anything for certain, or even with a high degree of likelihood?  The typical Mormon missionary has always maintained that truth can only be known via the witness of the Holy Spirit, but that is not a method accepted everywhere.  So naturally, there will be disagreements among well-intentioned people, and continued expansion of denominational splintering.

The point I was trying to make was the COC made a hard choice that they believed to be right, even if it cost them popularity with "the world". Was it the right choice? As you say, depends on your views.

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And one man's prophet is just another man's carnival barker.  So the Mormon appeal to authority is likewise not going to be acceptable to some people, as is the case also for Roman Catholic appeal to the Pope's authority.

*  You may have noticed that the choir at one point during Conference sang the old standard, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow . . . ."  Are they self-deluded to even think that way?

No, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" is a sound moral teaching. You just have to be sure you understand what is right.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Our Lord's order of priesthood is a culmination of HIS priesthood powers and responsibilities. Which he then delegates to others who are also men. To do MAN stuff. Rather than WOMAN stuff.

A corollary would be an order of priesthood after the order of a daughter of God, which would be the same as the Mother of God.  WOMAN stuff. Rather than MAN stuff.

The 1950s called and asked if the time travel experiment was a success.

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

The point I was trying to make was the COC made a hard choice that they believed to be right, even if it cost them popularity with "the world". Was it the right choice? As you say, depends on your views.

I spent seven years in Independence, Mo, studying the RLDS Church as it was engaged in that transition, and it was not done despite what might be popular with the world.  Indeed, it could be said that the COC is a POV imposed by the new leadership of that church based on the popularity of mainstream Protestant theology, along with embarrassment with traditional Restoration distinctives.  Many of those leaders were trained at nearby St Paul School of Theology (Methodist) after World War II, and slowly gained control of the RLDS Church -- much to the dismay of traditional members, who found themselves being "silenced" if they objected.

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" is a sound moral teaching. You just have to be sure you understand what is right.

Right on, good buddy.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours 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. 

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

Popular with whom?  With those in the Great and Spacious Bldg, or with the Saints of the Lord?

It is certainly true that many Protestant congregations are filled with great vitality and engage in meaningful work. My granddad was a Methodist minister and he was no slouch.  Needless to say, he did not believe that Christianity was apostate, nor that a Restoration was needed.  Otherwise, Methodism shares a lot in common with the LDS Church, and Joseph Smith was once even a Methodist exhorter.  There is a good deal of room for mutual respect and interfaith cooperation with other religious groups, which is why the LDS Church engages in that without hesitation.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Our Lord's order of priesthood is a culmination of HIS priesthood powers and responsibilities. Which he then delegates to others who are also men. To do MAN stuff. Rather than WOMAN stuff.

A corollary would be an order of priesthood after the order of a daughter of God, which would be the same as the Mother of God.  WOMAN stuff. Rather than MAN stuff.

And by MAN stuff I assume you mean rugged and manly occupations like this:

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

This is not a huge issue for me although I would have liked to have heard more from the women leaders, but can you answer this question with your honest reaction?

What if you learned there would be 26 female speakers and only 1 male speaker at the next general conference?

Would you feel different about conference or the same with this change?

(If as it has been expressed here, it's "nitpicky" to care whether God speaks through a man or a woman, I'm just curious how men...or anyone... would actually feel about nearly all the speakers being women.)

Ooh, ooh!  Let me answer!

NO.  I wouldn't feel different about conference!  I'd possibly wonder why they did it that way, but I think it would be an interesting change.

I don't think it's a necessary change, though.  I'm perfectly happy hearing from prophets, seers and revelators, and also others that the those prophets, seers and revelators choose to have on the stand.

And I think all this bloviating about how many women were asked to speak is so eye-rollingly bogus I hardly know what to think about you quota-seekers.  

[probablyHagoth7]

:::Deeply offended that no cats and only two marsupials were invited to speak during conference:::

 

 

With that burning ember off my chest, my morning is now complete.

Edited April 4, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Of course they care, as General Conference now beings a week before with women's conference, the opening prayer in at least one session was given by Sister Marriot. Is this what conference has become, members keeping score? Not to mention the number of talks and comments about the need, importance and value of all our sisters in the Church. I think this type of score keeping and judgements speaks more of the score keepers, than of the Church. 

I think that the feelings of women bothered by this is a whole lot more complicated than keeping score. 

I was bothered by this, but then I am also bothered by those who talk about only one woman as if the women's session didn't mean anything. By my count 4 women spoke in conference. It seems some are quick to count only 1 woman,  but at the same time the women didn't mean enough to them to consider the women's session.

It really bothers me when many will read over and over talks by men, but don't even touch the talks by women, especially using the excuse that most of those talks were FOR women. Years ago I began to read the talks in priesthood session because I have a husband and sons and wanted to know if there was anything in those talks that i could use to help them.  I've met many women who have done this,  but very few who do the opposite.  My husband and I have discovered that me reading the priesthood talks and him reading the women's talks have also been a benefit to ourselves as well as for our family.

I did not want to rush into this thread.  I support my church leaders so I didn't want to come out critcizing. I know there is often much behind the scenes that may explain this and how God is behind it. At the same time I wanted to be able to share my disappointment without people automatically think I am keeping score. I am not keeping score, but I am disappointed and to be honest, a little hurt (which surprises me), since it seems we don't matter as much.

I won't be holding on to that hurt. Again, I recognize that there may have been much more to the story than we saw, but it doesn't help to have some shouting that there was only one and others shouting about keeping score. Both of those positions ignore the women in the church. 

 

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think that the feelings of women bothered by this is a whole lot more complicated than keeping score. 

I was bothered by this, but then I am also bothered by those who talk about only one woman as if the women's session didn't mean anything. By my count 4 women spoke in conference. It seems some are quick to count only 1 woman,  but at the same time the women didn't mean enough to them to consider the women's session.

It really bothers me when many will read over and over talks by men, but don't even touch the talks by women, especially using the excuse that most of those talks were FOR women. Years ago I began to read the talks in priesthood session because I have a husband and sons and wanted to know if there was anything in those talks that i could use to help them.  I've met many women who have done this,  but very few who do the opposite.  My husband and I have discovered that me reading the priesthood talks and him reading the women's talks have also been a benefit to ourselves as well as for our family.

I did not want to rush into this thread.  I support my church leaders so I didn't want to come out critcizing. I know there is often much behind the scenes that may explain this and how God is behind it. At the same time I wanted to be able to share my disappointment without people automatically think I am keeping score. I am not keeping score, but I am disappointed and to be honest, a little hurt (which surprises me), since it seems we don't matter as much.

I won't be holding on to that hurt. Again, I recognize that there may have been much more to the story than we saw, but it doesn't help to have some shouting that there was only one and others shouting about keeping score. Both of those positions ignore the women in the church. 

 

Rain, one woman spoke on conference weekend.  That's the issue.  How is it a problem to point that out?  

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Rain, one woman spoke on conference weekend.  That's the issue.  How is it a problem to point that out?  

Because the women's session is part of conference even if it isn't in the same weekend. It completely ignores the contribution of the women in those sessions to not count them. If you look in the gospel library app their talks are listed there under "general conference".

Edited April 4, 2017 by Rain

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

Because the women's session is part of conference even if it isn't in the same weekend. It completely ignores the contribution of the women in those sessions to not count them. If you look in the gospel library app their talks are listed there under "general conference".

I agree with that.  But the fact remains one woman spoke on conference weekend.  While I appreciate that men should pay attention to women's conference and women, that is not what I started this thread for.  

Edited April 4, 2017 by stemelbow

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

You might think it's a problem that there are not more women leaders, but it describes the immediate reason why more don't speak. They are not chosen solely based on gender but on what is needed at the time. 

So obviously the church doesn't need any female voices right now.

What a crock.

Quote

Strappinglad- Did anyone else find the OP just a bit ironic? The  OP decried the lack of female speakers, and in the next sentence complained about what the one and only female speaker said. Can't win for losing I guess !

Do you understand irony? I think not. There's no irony in the OP.

Bemoaning the lack of female participation doesn't mean that one must agree with the sole female speaker's perspective. In fact, perhaps why that's why we need more than one female voice.

Quote

Calm- Generally I think those who have an issue with diversity probably don't see women as that significant of an authority and so won't be affected that much by having nonwhite women.

I think this is right, and it's a shame. IMO the structure is set up to discount the female voice. The one woman speaking is a token and the signal from leaders is that she's not that important. I hear the harshest criticisms of female speakers from other women. Why? Because they've been taught that women don't offer the same value in their speaking as the men do. 1 speaker. 1 prayer. It sends a message that the voices of women aren't very important. People pick up on that message and over time it becomes part of the cultural expectation. Again, it's a shame.

The lack of female participation is either a result of thoughtless scheduling or a conscious decision that women's voices aren't as important.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

:::Deeply offended that no cats and only two marsupials were invited to speak during conference:::

 

 

With that burning ember off my chest, my morning is now complete.

Are you suggesting that the voices of cats and marsupials are just as valued in the church as the voices of women? Interesting. You may be on to something  

Question for all- Just out of curiosity... if the same ratio of male/female participation in speaking and prayers occurred in sacrament meetings, would you be satisfied with that?

Edited April 4, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Rain]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I agree with that.  But the fact remains one woman spoke on conference weekend.  While I appreciate that men should pay attention to women's conference, that is not what I started this thread for.  

So what? Why does it matter that only one woman spoke THIS weekend? Would it be better then that the women's session was on Friday night so it can be in the same weekend? Or maybe we should switch the women's session for the priesthood session? I can see a lot if young moms who would have a problem with that,  but if it would legitimize the session to some maybe it is worth it. Confining it to this weekend is an excuse to ignore the women who did speak.

[stemelbow]

Just now, Rain said:

So what? Why does it matter that only one woman spoke THIS weekend? Would it be better then that the women's session was on Friday night so it can be in the same weekend? Or maybe we should switch the women's session for the priesthood session? I can see a lot if young moms who would have a problem with that,  but if it would legitimize the session to some maybe it is worth it. Confining it to this weekend is an excuse to ignore the women who did speak.

I didn't confine it to one weekend. Conference weekend is a thing.   It just so happens that on Conference weekend one woman was allowed to speak...in all ten hours of people talking at us.  I can't help that women's conference, which I grant is part of conference, is not on conference weekend.  It should be sure.  But it isn't.  With that said, I'm happy you pointed out Women's Conference.  I think it's largely ignored by men and women in the Church. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that the voices of cats and marsupials are just as valued in the church as the voices of women? Interesting. You may be on to something  

Question for all- Just out of curiosity... if the same ratio of male/female participation in speaking and prayers occurred in sacrament meetings, would you be satisfied with that?

That wouldn't make sense to me.

There is a reason that there are less women speakers than male speakers at GC (it's a simple numbers game, there are more available male leaders than there are female leaders).  In a sacrament meeting, for most wards, there would be no relevant excuse.  

Sure, you could make it about how, if women held the priesthood the numbers for GC could be equal, but to me, that's a completely separate topic.  Women don't hold the priesthood, so from that angle, there is no valid way to be upset at the church for not having women leaders who don't currently exist speak at last weekend's conference.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't confine it to one weekend. Conference weekend is a thing.   It just so happens that on Conference weekend one woman was allowed to speak...in all ten hours of people talking at us.  I can't help that women's conference, which I grant is part of conference, is not on conference weekend.  It should be sure.  But it isn't.  With that said, I'm happy you pointed out Women's Conference.  I think it's largely ignored by men and women in the Church. 

Why is conference weekend a thing?  Yes, i know that logistically it's a thing but why does it matter if they were all on the same weekend?  I think that's what rain is getting at. 

Setting up a standard where you only count female speakers on two specific days while ignoring speakers that happened on different days but were still a part of the same meeting seems arbitrary.

Finally, i've never known the women's session of conference to be largely ignored by women.  Can you clarify why you think it is?

[probablyHagoth7]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that the voices of cats and marsupials are just as valued in the church as the voices of women?

No.

Would prefer to hear more women.

I simply choose not to get offended over it.

(Too busy licking my wounds from being uninvited to speak at the women's session.) ;0)

Edited April 4, 2017 by probablyHagoth7