One woman speaker

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure, are you disagreeing with anything I said?  If someone states a truth does it matter what gender of human is speaking?  Why does the gender matter?  Also, are you telling me that only a single gender may speak a truth for that gender?  Do you get how silly that is or have I misread you?

I also dislike the "the sisters are so spiritual" and "they are so wonderful" remarks in church when it comes to women.  You mentioned you have noted that men are not telling women how to be women,but I have not noticed any decline in women telling men where they are wrong, how they are wrong, how often they are wrong, that all their problems begin and end with the male hierarchy, yadda, yadda, yadda.  

Yeah, and no.  I don't buy the argument that language is everything because what you are really saying is that "We" are so important that you may only address us in specific ways and if you don't then we will be angered, "hurt" (gads I get tired of that statement - it is like the entire world revolves around having their feelings hurt).  Yes, it is best that each of speak plainly, but when humans are doing their human thing, then I think the rest of us ought to grow up and act more like adults rather than petulant children. 

 

[Calm]

"have not noticed any decline in women telling men where they are wrong, how they are wrong, how often they are wrong, that all their problems begin and end with the male hierarchy, yadda, yadda, yadda. "

And you have heard this across the pulpit at conference or in Sacrament Meeting how often?

[Calm]

SR, the "We" she was referring to was when leadership tell women they (leadership and the Church) need women.Depending on how it is said, it can often convey the sense that "we" are the men, the men are the Church, and they are asking the women to do things because they are needed, it is over and above what women are expected to do, which means it is not because they are members and it is expected of them.  Think of it like talking about temple builders back in the day telling the women "we need you" for food, clothing, etc., but the women were not seen as building the temple along side the men because they were not directly involved in construction.

Not everyone says it that way, it can at times however come across that way.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

SR, the "We" she was referring to was when leadership tell women they (leadership and the Church) need women.Depending on how it is said, it can often convey the sense that "we" are the men, the men are the Church, and they are asking the women to do things because they are needed, it is over and above what women are expected to do, which means it is not because they are members and it is expected of them.  Think of it like talking about temple builders back in the day telling the women "we need you" for food, clothing, etc., but the women were not seen as building the temple along side the men because they were not directly involved in construction.

Not everyone says it that way, it can at times however come across that way.

Calm, we are all humans and some times each of us can be offended easily.  It is as if we look for ways to take offense.  Rather than do this we each need to learn to not be offended by what others say - it is not personal and we need to take it as "they must be talking to someone else or they are just having a bad day" and move on.  

For me the moment people start counting what gender does what and how often then I immediately conclude that/those individuals are sexist.  They are not seeking truth, but rather they are seeking for their gender of choice to front and center.  

Fundamentally, and always, it is a power struggle.  Someone does not have it and they want it.  I hate, I detest completely, these kinds of social politics.  I understand they have taken over our society and we have that influence in the Church of Jesus Christ, but I still hate it.  

This kind of thinking adds one more filter to their listening - it is not whether it is worthwhile, true, helpful, but does it come from a gender I like or prefer.  I was listening to NPR and an individual was talking about an entertainer.  She said, "yeah, she only works with women - her manager is a woman, her marketing team are women, etc. It is not a political statement, she is just committed to women."  Not a political statement?  Gads, how stupid is this kind of sexist activity.  Why do women use this type of filter; it is not only is this individual the best for the job, it becomes something else - what is the best woman for the job?  What is the result of this type of activity?  It certainly is not excellence; it is a preference for mediocrity because the deciding qualification becomes gender.  

Give me the simplicity of hungering to hear truth from wherever it comes; hiring the most qualified person for the job, and not taking offense when another person uses language I don't appreciate.  

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

And God cannot commit evil. So by definition, sexism does not come from God. 

'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.' --Joseph Smith

This principle doesn't mean you are incorrect in the context of this thread. But it does open the possibility that at times sexism *might* have been sanctioned in times past (or present) for reasons that we do not yet understand. I cannot give any good example at the moment though and maybe there aren't any.

I personally expected to hear more women speakers than the four. I don't know why there weren't and was/am disappointed. My wife thinks that calling the lack of more female authorities speaking "unfortunate" greatly understates the gravity of the scenario. But the imposition to "judge not unrighteous judgement" and my ignorance gives me pause to pursue a more emotional response*.  Yet, neither can I judge those who are more passionate in their view.

 

 

 

* Though, I do not doubt but that I hold accountability for seeking personal revelation on the matter to any degree less than the imposition on us all to seek personal revelation on any particular pronouncement of the prophets.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Nofear said:

This principle doesn't mean you are incorrect in the context of this thread. But it does open the possibility that at times sexism *might* have been sanctioned in times past (or present) for reasons that we do not yet understand. I cannot give any good example at the moment though and maybe there aren't any.

I personally expected to hear more women speakers than the four. I don't know why there weren't and was/am disappointed. My wife thinks that calling the lack of more female authorities speaking "unfortunate" greatly understates the gravity of the scenario. But the imposition to "judge not unrighteous judgement" and my ignorance gives me pause to pursue a more emotional response*.  Yet, neither can I judge those who are more passionate in their view.

I like what you say here.
But this still puzzles me.  We heard a sermon from 4 out of 9 possible women speakers.  That's a pretty good percentage.

[Calm]

"For me the moment people start counting what gender does what and how often then I immediately conclude that/those individuals are sexist.  They are not seeking truth, but rather they are seeking for their gender of choice to front and center."

If that is the only perception you have of those who do this, you will likely be misunderstanding a good number of them.  People are complex and it is unlikely that such a broadly defined behaviour has only one motivation for all those who act in this way.

I have seen Church records that keep track by sex activities such as temple recommends, missionaries called, and such.  Are you saying that those who are collecting the info and sharing it are doing so for power politics?  There can be many good reasons to be aware of who is doing what.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/3/2017 at 11:22 AM, Teancum said:

 But it is a patriarchal religion.

The Church has always been this.  Do you really think that there is something special about the year 2017?

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/3/2017 at 8:22 PM, 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.

If the Church is just some social club where one goes to feel good about themselves or gain social status, then women should vote with their feet.  Perhaps the women in the Church as a whole understand that the Church should not change with the world.  That by definition would make it a worldly church.  A church after the order of Babylon.  I one has a testimony of the Church, all these petty issues are just that petty.  What profit a woman to leave the Church because it does not cater to all her needs and she loses her soul?  Better to have the view of doing the Lords will and gaining exaltation than trying to overthrow the order of the Church and be a servant for eternity in the telestial kingdom.  Remember God does not deal with rebellion well.  God kicked a lot of his children out of heaven for rebellion and God will do it again without hesitation. 

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Church is just some social club where one goes to feel good about themselves or gain social status, then women should vote with their feet.  Perhaps the women in the Church as a whole understand that the Church should not change with the world.  That by definition would make it a worldly church.  A church after the order of Babylon.  I one has a testimony of the Church, all these petty issues are just that petty.  What profit a woman to leave the Church because it does not cater to all her needs and she loses her soul?  Better to have the view of doing the Lords will and gaining exaltation than trying to overthrow the order of the Church and be a servant for eternity in the telestial kingdom.  Remember God does not deal with rebellion well.  God kicked a lot of his children out of heaven for rebellion and God will do it again without hesitation. 

Conference talks don't seem to be revealed from God as Him directing the leaders on who to choose to speak. I believe that mostly things in this church are done with policies. I'm sure God wouldn't frown upon having more women speak. But you're speaking of a lot more than just conference speakers, I see.

But maybe I'm wrong and they do pray on who should speak. Still since Pres. Monson's talks were so short and I'm sure the leaders were aware of it, couldn't they have slipped another woman in there?

Edited April 5, 2017 by Tacenda

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I like what you say here.
But this still puzzles me.  We heard a sermon from 4 out of 9 possible women speakers.  That's a pretty good percentage.

4 out of 9 is only part of the picture. There are the number of women leaders. The number of talks. Etc. 

To be clear, I will trust that my leaders felt inspired about who talked. I'm just saying that 4 out of 9 only gives a partial picture.

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Church is just some social club where one goes to feel good about themselves or gain social status, then women should vote with their feet.  Perhaps the women in the Church as a whole understand that the Church should not change with the world.  That by definition would make it a worldly church.  A church after the order of Babylon.  I one has a testimony of the Church, all these petty issues are just that petty.  What profit a woman to leave the Church because it does not cater to all her needs and she loses her soul?  Better to have the view of doing the Lords will and gaining exaltation than trying to overthrow the order of the Church and be a servant for eternity in the telestial kingdom.  Remember God does not deal with rebellion well.  God kicked a lot of his children out of heaven for rebellion and God will do it again without hesitation. 

Why do you get to decide these issues are petty? Would you have been there telling Joseph that Emma's issues over the tobacco are petty? 

This is not a simple issue over how many women get to talk. For many women this is a sign of a much bigger issue of feeling devalued in the church. I will be honest and tell you that I personally, do not feel devalued by the church, but I understand why other women would feel that way. 

If your wife came to you and said, "I don't feel valued by you when you ________" would you just tell her that her issues are petty and that she is headed for Babyon or would you listen to her and work things out?

[carbon dioxide]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Conference talks don't seem to be revealed from God as Him directing the leaders on who to choose to speak. I believe that mostly things in this church are done with policies. I'm sure God wouldn't frown upon having more women speak. But you're speaking of a lot more than just conference speakers, I see.

But maybe I'm wrong and they do pray on who should speak. Still since Pres. Monson's talks were so short and I'm sure the leaders were aware of it, couldn't they have slipped another woman in there?

I would agree.  I have no problem with more women speaking.  Giving a talk in any Church meeting is not a priesthood issue.  However at the end of the day is it really that big of a deal?  The message is more important than the individual giving it and i think most members really don't care that much.  I believe if one starts worrying about how many women verse men are giving talks, one is being side tracked on issues that really are not important. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

If your wife came to you and said, "I don't feel valued by you when you ________" would you just tell her that her issues are petty and that she is headed for Babyon or would you listen to her and work things out?

That depends on the issue.  Some issues are objectively petty even it is not to the individual.  I have some issues that I might find important but honestly speaking in the grand scheme of things, they are petty.  I however would not expect my wife to make fundamental changes in things just to make me happy or feel valued.  Sometimes the problem that I have is not an issue of me not feeling valued by my wife or my wife being wrong but its simply an issue of me being wrong on something or making something important when in reality it really is not that important. 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree.  I have no problem with more women speaking.  Giving a talk in any Church meeting is not a priesthood issue.  However at the end of the day is it really that big of a deal?  The message is more important than the individual giving it and i think most members really don't care that much.  I believe if one starts worrying about how many women verse men are giving talks, one is being side tracked on issues that really are not important. 

Maybe girls need to see more women speak also. I guess some men don't get it.

[carbon dioxide]

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

That depends on the issue.  Some issues are objectively petty even it is not to the individual.  I have some issues that I might find important but honestly speaking in the grand scheme of things, they are petty.  I however would not expect my wife to make fundamental changes in things just to make me happy or feel valued.  Sometimes the problem that I have is not an issue of me not feeling valued by my wife or my wife being wrong but its simply an issue of me being wrong on something or making something important when in reality it really is not that important.   There are things in the Church that bug me but what would bug me much more would be the Church to make changes so that these things don't bug me anymore.  I don't want a church that I agree with all the time.  If I agreed with everything the Church does, that would make the Church as flawed as I am as a person. 

 

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

That depends on the issue.  Some issues are objectively petty even it is not to the individual.  I have some issues that I might find important but honestly speaking in the grand scheme of things, they are petty.  I however would not expect my wife to make fundamental changes in things just to make me happy or feel valued.  Sometimes the problem that I have is not an issue of me not feeling valued by my wife or my wife being wrong but its simply an issue of me being wrong on something or making something important when in reality it really is not that important. 

So let me be clear. If it were, what you consider, a petty issue, then you would tell that the issue is petty? 

[california boy]

On 4/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, JLHPROF said:

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.

You really think God needs us to worship Him?  You think religion and the church is here on earth so that we can do things for God?  Personally I think you have entirely missed the purpose of why we are on this earth.  And with this kind of thinking, perhaps it is why religion is failing.  The sabbath was created for man and not man for the sabbath.  Could Christ have been more clear?  Religion is indeed for the people and what they get out of it.  God certainly does not need one single person to worship Him to be God. We can do nothing for God.  People are not checking the box about whether they are being fulfilled.  They are checking the box to see if religion is bringing them closer to God.  When religion divides people.  When religion keeps sinners out.  When religion discriminates.  When religion is untruthful.  When religion forbids children from being a part of them, THEN they start to check those boxes and leave.  

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

You really think God needs us to worship Him?  You think religion and the church is here on earth so that we can do things for God?  Personally I think you have entirely missed the purpose of why we are on this earth.  And with this kind of thinking, perhaps it is why religion is failing.  The sabbath was created for man and not man for the sabbath.  Could Christ have been more clear?  Religion is indeed for the people and what they get out of it.  God certainly does not need one single person to worship Him to be God. We can do nothing for God.  People are not checking the box about whether they are being fulfilled.  They are checking the box to see if religion is bringing them closer to God.  When religion divides people.  When religion keeps sinners out.  When religion discriminates.  When religion is untruthful.  When religion forbids children from being a part of them, THEN they start to check those boxes and leave.  

After reading your post, the following two excepts from the Bible instantaneously came to my mind.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Mathew 10)

and...

13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Eccl 12)

Edited April 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[rongo]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

Being a mother outweighs anything I have ever done. But it isn't a substitute for being able to support or help support yourself or family. ic

No, it isn't. My wife is more than capable of working, if needed, and my daughter is very capable, resilient, and competent. My sister has been a single mother for 18 years. And, economically, it is extremely hard to just have one income now, unless the couple make it a #1 priority for dad to work and mom to stay home. 

bsjkki:

Insurance--what a nightmare. Our monthly premium is $2000 a month and we are self employed.

We have no insurance. Our premium through the school is $10,000 a year, and that is for high-deductible coverage. We would then pay the first $2600 of anything. It is much better for us to roll the dice and take our chances. Luckily, the Obamacare fine was only about $750, which beats the premium and deductible we were paying for absolutely nothing. We wouldn't be able to make ends meet if I had health insurance, and Obamacare is just as expensive. I'm skeptical that there actually are people on Obamacare. My parents, both on social security alone, also would have had to pay $10,000-$15,000 a year in premiums under Obamacare. If they don't qualify for the "subsidies," I'm not sure who would --- unless it is people with absolutely no income. 

Sorry for the derail. This just reminded me of that. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

After reading your post, the following two excepts from the Bible instantaneously came to my mind.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Mathew 10)

and...

13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Eccl 12)

I am sure Christ was talking about pitting one against the other is a part of the beautiful plan of salvation.  We should have more contention in the church.  By doing so,  we are following the words of Christ.  That's your read of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

[omni]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Church is just some social club where one goes to feel good about themselves or gain social status, then women should vote with their feet.  Perhaps the women in the Church as a whole understand that the Church should not change with the world.  That by definition would make it a worldly church.  A church after the order of Babylon.  I one has a testimony of the Church, all these petty issues are just that petty. 

So why make any changes at all?  The modern Church is completely unrecognizable from what we read in the OT.  

Did the Church become a "worldly church" when it abandoned polygamy to gain statehood? Did it do so when it allowed black men to hold the priesthood?  How about when it began to allow women to pray in sacrament meeting (which didn't happen until 1978)? 

Quote

What profit a woman to leave the Church because it does not cater to all her needs and she loses her soul?  Better to have the view of doing the Lords will and gaining exaltation than trying to overthrow the order of the Church and be a servant for eternity in the telestial kingdom.  Remember God does not deal with rebellion well.  God kicked a lot of his children out of heaven for rebellion and God will do it again without hesitation. 

Do you really believe that an all loving God would damn an otherwise good person for eternity in the Telestial Kingdom, simply for leaving the Church?  I doubt you would support the Taliban for imprisoning someone who converted from Islam to Christianity, so why do you believe a perfectly just God would do something similar (or much worse)?

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

"For me the moment people start counting what gender does what and how often then I immediately conclude that/those individuals are sexist.  They are not seeking truth, but rather they are seeking for their gender of choice to front and center."

If that is the only perception you have of those who do this, you will likely be misunderstanding a good number of them.  People are complex and it is unlikely that such a broadly defined behaviour has only one motivation for all those who act in this way.

I have seen Church records that keep track by sex activities such as temple recommends, missionaries called, and such.  Are you saying that those who are collecting the info and sharing it are doing so for power politics?  There can be many good reasons to be aware of who is doing what.

Calm, do you think you may be taking my comments out of context of this thread?  Yes, you know you are and it does not apply.  If someone is evaluating GC or church meetings and making a judgment call on their value solely by determining if "my" gender of choice spoke and how often then there is a problem.  

Why is it so difficult to have a conversation about these types of topics without exaggerating things out of proportion?

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

You really think God needs us to worship Him?  You think religion and the church is here on earth so that we can do things for God?  Personally I think you have entirely missed the purpose of why we are on this earth.  And with this kind of thinking, perhaps it is why religion is failing.  The sabbath was created for man and not man for the sabbath.  Could Christ have been more clear?  Religion is indeed for the people and what they get out of it.  God certainly does not need one single person to worship Him to be God. We can do nothing for God.  People are not checking the box about whether they are being fulfilled.  They are checking the box to see if religion is bringing them closer to God.  When religion divides people.  When religion keeps sinners out.  When religion discriminates.  When religion is untruthful.  When religion forbids children from being a part of them, THEN they start to check those boxes and leave.

I think God needs us to obey him, not worship.  (Although some would say obedience is worship).
Yes, I think the gospel is to fulfill God's work and glory.  That happens to benefit us too and provide the ultimate fulfillment for us as well.
If we are not becoming like God and obeying his commandments all the warm feelings of closeness will be for naught.

When religion allows sinners to keep their sins it prevents them for coming closer to God.
When religion attempts to unite the wicked with the righteous in a false unity.
When religion drops its God given standards to prevent discrimination.
When religion casts its pearls before swine, profanes the sacred, and seeks popularity.
THEN that religion is worth very little regardless of how many stay.

 

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, omni said:

So why make any changes at all?  The modern Church is completely unrecognizable from what we read in the OT.

Did the Church become a "worldly church" when it abandoned polygamy to gain statehood? Did it do so when it allowed black men to hold the priesthood?  How about when it began to allow women to pray in sacrament meeting (which didn't happen until 1978)?

When the Church changes to be more acceptable to the world it becomes a "worldly church".  When God speaks and gives direction it shouldn't matter what the world would think of that direction.
If God wants to end polygamy we end polygamy.  If God wants to start up polygamy we start up polygamy.
If God wants to give priesthood to men, women, people of all races, or any other groupings, those are the people who can hold priesthood.  If God doesn't allow it, all the ordinations we perform would be meaningless.

Quote

Do you really believe that an all loving God would damn an otherwise good person for eternity in the Telestial Kingdom, simply for leaving the Church?  I doubt you would support the Taliban for imprisoning someone who converted from Islam to Christianity, so why do you believe a perfectly just God would do something similar (or much worse)?

Yes.  I do believe that.  God follows his own laws.  It's not an issue of "God damning people".  It's a case of people not following the requirements to receive the blessings.