General Conference Sessions Consolidated

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Depends on how many of the women replacing them used that weird cheery Primary voice.

*shudders*

Now now. It really isn't worse than the sonorous male conference voice, usually accompanied by lip smacking. And there hasn't been a primary voice outbreak for over a year. 

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Tip for advanced users only:

mix in a little honey mustard.

Yeah...this works..and also..just the very tiniest hint of heinz 57,

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Now now. It really isn't worse than the sonorous male conference voice, usually accompanied by lip smacking. And there hasn't been a primary voice outbreak for over a year. 

My family used to joke we could ignore any female speaker who tried to do the Primary voice and any Seventy trying to emulate the apostolic lilt so many seem to aspire to. In the case where either did the opposite one we decided we would take that an an indication to pack up and head for Missouri.

Edited October 28, 2017 by The Nehor

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 

A boy learns from his mother and father just as a daughter learns from her father and her mother.  It has existed since time began.  This feeble hand wringing about what gender a speaker will be without any attempt to focus first on the value of what is said is just plain stupid. 

  

 You are getting awfully worked up about this. I seem to recall something, what was it...the Family Proc? Its says mothers and fathers are essential, as in two fathers can't possibly teach a daughter what a mother could. My daughter lost her dad at age 4. Sorry, but I really was not capable of teaching her all the father things and had to rely on other men for some of that.  In your scenerio, it wouldn't make a whit of difference since it ultimately doesn't matter. I know you don't really think that and are going off on an anti-"feminist" rant. But you do need to make an objection that isn't nonsensical. 

Frankly, unless you have listened to the Women's Session every year, you don't have any standing for making this particular objection anyway. 

31 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, your daughters do have the same role models as your sons.  What you are doing is creating the false premise that a role model must be the same gender as the observer.  Said another way, a boy can never learn from his mother because she is the wrong gender.

  Strawman.  Non sequitur. And a bunch of other things. 

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My family used to joke we could ignore any female speaker who tried to do the Primary voice and any Seventy trying to emulate the apostolic lilt so many seem to aspire to. In the case where either did the opposite one we decided we would take that an an indication to pack up and head for Missouri.

How many more hours until you get there?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

How many more hours until you get there?

Wait, I missed it? The End of Days are upon us? Woohoo!!!!!

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am kind of surprised they just do not do the two simultaneously. One in the Conference Center and one in the Tabernacle.

Ah, but who would be in which venue, then?

<ducking>

[The Nehor]

Just now, rongo said:

Ah, but who would be in which venue, then?

<ducking>

Draw lots and let God decide.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Draw lots and let God decide.

I would seriously offer the Conference Center to the sisters, but I'm afraid that would be seen as patronizing.

There is nothing wrong with being in the Tabernacle, other than it doesn't seat as much (and, someone has to sit behind the pillars).

[The Nehor]

Just now, rongo said:

I would seriously offer the Conference Center to the sisters, but I'm afraid that would be seen as patronizing.

There is nothing wrong with being in the Tabernacle, other than it doesn't seat as much (and, someone has to sit behind the pillars).

Sitting behind the pillars means you can check your email without apostles giving you the stinkeye. Gotta look at the glass as half full.

[Rain]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would seriously offer the Conference Center to the sisters, but I'm afraid that would be seen as patronizing.

There is nothing wrong with being in the Tabernacle, other than it doesn't seat as much (and, someone has to sit behind the pillars).

It has been a couple of decades since we went, but the benches in the balcony were not comfortable at all and in no way fit my husbands long legs so if those are still the same there is that difference.  If they were redone, none of the benches on the floor as far as I know have soft cushions either. 

The biggest problem though would be the technical stuff and staff.  To put things on world wide with translators etc would be considerably more simultaneous work to have them done at the same time.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, your daughters do have the same role models as your sons.  What you are doing is creating the false premise that a role model must be the same gender as the observer.  Said another way, a boy can never learn from his mother because she is the wrong gender.  Do you see the absolutely silliness of such a position?  You are creating something that does not exist and then making it into a valid position, which it is not.

It’s silly to try to argue that people can only learn from role models. Clearly that’s not what rock was saying. 

Its just a fact that, when learning how to be a woman in God’s kingdom, girls need women role models. That is a role that men can’t model for girls because it is not a role they have experience with.

That does not mean girls can’t also learn from men. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am kind of surprised they just do not do the two simultaneously. One in the Conference Center and one in the Tabernacle.

That wouldn’t work for families with young children. No one to babysit. And for households with only one tv or computer, only one person would get to watch. Plus, the first presidency is expected to be at both.

[Nofear]

I don't see how the downsides can't include both 1) fewer priesthood sessions and 2) fewer sister speakers. The only difference between the two is that the change necessarily includes 1) but 2) can be circumvented. We can bemoan one or both as we please. Apparently the powers that be decided that the upsides outweighed the downsides, potential or necessary.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, your daughters do have the same role models as your sons.  What you are doing is creating the false premise that a role model must be the same gender as the observer.  Said another way, a boy can never learn from his mother because she is the wrong gender.  Do you see the absolutely silliness of such a position?  You are creating something that does not exist and then making it into a valid position, which it is not.

I’m not saying we can’t learn from the other gender.  That would be ridiculous. And it’s not what it means to be a role model. 

Will my daughters grow up to be priesthood holders?  Fathers?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It’s silly to try to argue that people can only learn from role models. Clearly that’s not what rock was saying. 

Its just a fact that, when learning how to be a woman in God’s kingdom, girls need women role models. That is a role that men can’t model for girls because it is not a role they have experience with.

That does not mean girls can’t also learn from men. 

Hello Bluebell, I hope that you are right.  I hope that a young girl does not need a woman to speak in conference in order to learn how to be a woman in God's kingdom.  I am glad that both little boys and little girls can have role models and that to provide them, or find them, they do not require that we begin to be conscious of what gender a person is before they can be called to speak at conference or that we must have a balanced number of men and a corresponding number of women to speak before all the saints can say that conference was acceptable. 

The simple fact that we humans can learn from each other regardless of sex or gender is important.  The pseudo-feminism that demands that all things must reflect a 50/50 split between men and women in order to be fair is the stuff of two year olds and makes about as much sense. 

As I said, let me read a great poem or a great story without an conscious thought of what gender wrote the wonderful piece.  Do we need to start saying to ourselves - "well, I read a poem by a woman so now I must find a poem by a man in order that I can tell myself I am fair, equitable to all?"  Of course not!  Nor should we attempt to import these silly philosophies into the kingdom of God.  May those who agitate for the distortion of truth knows as "gender equality" take a breath and first just listen to whoever speaks, male or female.  If a sister speaks, listen for inspiration. If a brother speaks, then for goodness sake do the same thing.  More importantly, teach your children to act likewise.  God forbid that we have LDS parents whining about what gender is speaking and teach that silliness to their children so they can agitate for the same type of thing. 

BTW, those who think gender equality is the new restored truth should join the Community of Christ.  They have adopted such policies to guide their flock.  No need waiting around for the Church of Jesus Christ to follow the ways of the world; its mission is different and demands a different, more humble way.  Do what makes you happy.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

  Strawman.  Non sequitur. And a bunch of other things. 

No mame, it was not a strawman nor a non sequitur.  It was using his same logic to demonstrate the silliness of his proposition.  You do that often when participants disagree with you when it comes to feminists positions. You attack and you attack often with these types of accusations.  It will not work with me at this time.  I am right and the logic was correct. Let's move on.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No mame, it was not a strawman nor a non sequitur.  It was using his same logic to demonstrate the silliness of his proposition.  You do that often when participants disagree with you when it comes to feminists positions. You attack and you attack often with these types of accusations.  It will not work with me at this time.  I am right and the logic was correct. Let's move on.

No... don’t claim that it was my logic.  I indicated a desire to have more role models for my daughter.  You misinterpreted that as me saying that my daughters could only learn from women.  Totally different principle.  You created a strawman that you could defeat rather than understanding what I had actually said. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by rockpond

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It’s silly to try to argue that people can only learn from role models. Clearly that’s not what rock was saying. 

Its just a fact that, when learning how to be a woman in God’s kingdom, girls need women role models. That is a role that men can’t model for girls because it is not a role they have experience with.

That does not mean girls can’t also learn from men. 

I don't know how many times I have watched my daughter do things that I just CAN'T do...and I will say to her....where did you learn to do that...??  Her reply is Dad taught me..

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

No mame, it was not a strawman nor a non sequitur.  It was using his same logic to demonstrate the silliness of his proposition.  You do that often when participants disagree with you when it comes to feminists positions. You attack and you attack often with these types of accusations.  It will not work with me at this time.  I am right and the logic was correct. Let's move on.

It wasn't a feminist position. It was a church position. I'm still very interested in why do you think my daughter needing a father figure is silliness.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

No... don’t claim that it was my logic.  I indicated a desire to have more role models for my daughter.  You misinterpreted that as me saying that my daughters could only learn from women.  Totally different principle.  You created a strawman that you could defeat rather than understanding what I had actually said. 

What you stated was the following:  "It’s not about gender representation.  It’s about my daughters having the same role models that my sons have."  In other words, your sons have role models when men speak - and somehow these same role models are unavailable for your daughter - that your daughter must have a female speak in order for her to have a role model.  My response was the your daughter has the same role model as a son.  You did not say you wanted MORE role models for your daughter.  Please explain how my statement - that both genders could learn from the same role model - a male speaker - is a strawman?  Based solely on what you said I created no strawman argument.

Maybe you did not explain yourself so well the first time you wrote your statement or maybe now you are trying to clarify.  Regardless, the fact remains that my statement that sons and daughters could learn from the same role model is accurate and true.  Of course it is stupid to think that a girl cannot have a male role model. 

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What you stated was the following:  "It’s not about gender representation.  It’s about my daughters having the same role models that my sons have."  In other words, your sons have role models when men speak - and somehow these same role models are unavailable for your daughter - that your daughter must have a female speak in order for her to have a role model.  My response was the your daughter has the same role model as a son.  You did not say you wanted MORE role models for your daughter.  Please explain how my statement - that both genders could learn from the same role model - a male speaker - is a strawman?  Based solely on what you said I created no strawman argument.

Maybe you did not explain yourself so well the first time you wrote your statement or maybe now you are trying to clarify.  Regardless, the fact remains that my statement that sons and daughters could learn from the same role model is accurate and true.  Of course it is stupid to think that a girl cannot have a male role model. 

Your logic is wanting.  If her (edit:  his, mixed up posters) statement was an absolute, then yours was as well since you didn't clarify the "more" either and therefore as faulty as hers.

Men can be role models for girls, but if those are the only role models, she is going to have gaps in her training on how to be a good woman, good mother, good wife even if men are great for role modeling how to be a good person, parent, and spouse for her.  

Boys also need female role models as well as male In their lives.

Church leadership apparently agrees given its long support of RS and YWs which they ensure have female teachers as well as having female speakers at conference and a Women's Meeting/Session for decades.

Pointing out the healthiness of having some female role models in Church leadership positions as well as men is not insisting that only women can be role models for girls nor is it insisting there be a 50/50 or quota representation.  It is simply recognizing that seeing women act in Church leadership roles lets girls know not only are they themselves capable of such, but they are seen as needed by church leaders.

Refusing to recognize this is being blind to what church leadership has been trying to accomplish ever since YWs started and probably since RS started which was meant not only to provide service for others, but be a place where women could come together to learn from each other.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Your logic is wanting.  If her statement was an absolute, then yours was as well since you didn't clarify the "more" either and therefore as faulty as hers.

Men can be role models for girls, but if those are the only role models, she is going to have gaps in her training on how to be a good woman, good mother, good wife even if men are great for role modeling how to be a good person, parent, and spouse for her.  

Boys also need female role models as well as male In their lives.

Church leadership apparently agrees given its long support of RS and YWs which they ensure have female teachers as well as having female speakers at conference and a Women's Meeting/Session for decades.

Pointing out the healthy of having some female role models in Church leadership positions as well as men is not insisting that only women can be role models for girls nor is it insisting there be a 50/50 or quota representation.  It is simply recognizing that seeing women act in Church leadership roles lets girls know not only are they themselves capable of such, but they are seen as needed by church leaders.

Refusing to recognize this is being blind to what church leadership has been trying to accomplish ever since YWs started and probably since RS started which was meant not only to provide service for others, but be a place where women could come together to learn from each other.

I thought rockpond was a he, not a she.

In fact I'm quite certain of it. He has been in a bishopric.

[rpn]

On 10/27/2017 at 7:44 PM, rongo said:

 thinks this is simply a move to make feminists happy

And I think it is a move to reduce costs for a lot of those who travel to conference from around the world, including those who do so with church funds.  (If it were the feminism thing, they would have announced that women would begin this rotation in April.)

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Bluebell, I hope that you are right.  I hope that a young girl does not need a woman to speak in conference in order to learn how to be a woman in God's kingdom.  I am glad that both little boys and little girls can have role models and that to provide them, or find them, they do not require that we begin to be conscious of what gender a person is before they can be called to speak at conference or that we must have a balanced number of men and a corresponding number of women to speak before all the saints can say that conference was acceptable. 

The simple fact that we humans can learn from each other regardless of sex or gender is important.  The pseudo-feminism that demands that all things must reflect a 50/50 split between men and women in order to be fair is the stuff of two year olds and makes about as much sense. 

As I said, let me read a great poem or a great story without an conscious thought of what gender wrote the wonderful piece.  Do we need to start saying to ourselves - "well, I read a poem by a woman so now I must find a poem by a man in order that I can tell myself I am fair, equitable to all?"  Of course not!  Nor should we attempt to import these silly philosophies into the kingdom of God.  May those who agitate for the distortion of truth knows as "gender equality" take a breath and first just listen to whoever speaks, male or female.  If a sister speaks, listen for inspiration. If a brother speaks, then for goodness sake do the same thing.  More importantly, teach your children to act likewise.  God forbid that we have LDS parents whining about what gender is speaking and teach that silliness to their children so they can agitate for the same type of thing. 

BTW, those who think gender equality is the new restored truth should join the Community of Christ.  They have adopted such policies to guide their flock.  No need waiting around for the Church of Jesus Christ to follow the ways of the world; its mission is different and demands a different, more humble way.  Do what makes you happy.

I'm sincerely wondering if you understand what the definition of role model is. If someone has never been a daughter in God's kingdom, they, by definition, cannot model that role for anyone else.

I don't understand why you are so against this idea, as it's not at all controversial.