General Conference Sessions Consolidated

[Avatar4321]

18 hours 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.

then who will watch the children of Zion?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

then who will watch the children of Zion?

Holding them simultaneously is an ill conceived and ill considered notion. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought rockpond was a he, not a she.

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

Yes, I confused him with bluebell.  I am a bit preoccupied at the moment.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Holding them simultaneously is an ill conceived and ill considered notion. 

I am technically ill so your statement is technically correct. And correct in general.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

then who will watch the children of Zion?

We can probably convince the Father to send some angels to take care of it.

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I think you would have a point IF we were addressing role models for all of life.  The point of this topic was limited strictly to speaking in conference.  No child, male or female, only observes General Conference and never has a role model any other place.  That was the point of my disagreement with a silly statement that somehow a daughter would deficient in her selection of role models if denied seeing a woman speak, not in Relief Society, not in Mutual, but strictly and only in General Conference.  I just find the proposition silly and I called Rock on it. 

Some of my other points addressed the concern raided by J that this change would be a negative if somehow women were not speaking in the same numbers as previous.  If you will read my point the gist is evaluating any speaker first on their gender - if a woman is speaking then praise God women are safe and the Feminist movement is maintained.  However, if speakers are not female then obviously the Feminist movement is taking a step back within the Church so the thinking goes.  I reject such gender evaluations of speakers in General Conference as well as book authors, etc. 

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

It is more a knee jerk response to the feminist gibberish I was reading and Rock's groveling to the feminist agenda was a step too far. I tend to reject the overarching and often over-reaching we find with all minority groups that if their specific group is not represented then all is wrong with the world.  The weakness of the argument is that that only want to dissect the populace to the point that they themselves are benefited, but not too interested in all other minority groups are benefited in the same or equal manner.  This is too much of a derail to go further, but no one in any group wants a perfect representation of all subgroups. 

Role models are wonderful things, but to begin the criticism that the Church is somehow deficient if women are not speaking in every meeting held by the Church is just silly.  I reject the gender standard yields more spiritual speakers or even better speakers.  What yields better speakers is better speaking regardless of the gender of who is speaking.  That is my main point when criticizing General Conference speakers; forget the gender blather.

Poster removed

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

It is more a knee jerk response to the feminist gibberish I was reading and Rock's groveling to the feminist agenda was a step too far. I tend to reject the overarching and often over-reaching we find with all minority groups that if their specific group is not represented then all is wrong with the world.  The weakness of the argument is that that only want to dissect the populace to the point that they themselves are benefited, but not too interested in all other minority groups are benefited in the same or equal manner.  This is too much of a derail to go further, but no one in any group wants a perfect representation of all subgroups. 

Role models are wonderful things, but to begin the criticism that the Church is somehow deficient if women are not speaking in every meeting held by the Church is just silly.  I reject the gender standard yields more spiritual speakers or even better speakers.  What yields better speakers is better speaking regardless of the gender of who is speaking.  That is my main point when criticizing General Conference speakers; forget the gender blather.

Poster removed

It looks like Storm was removed so he won’t see this but in my defense:  “groveling to the feminist agenda” and expressing a desire for my daughters to have female role models in general conference are not the same thing.

Then again, I think Storm was the only one on the thread failing to see the distinction. 

And also, for the record, I would not advocate for equal male/female speaking time in general conference because that would put way too heavy a burden on the good sisters leading their organizations since there are far fewer women leaders. 

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

then who will watch the children of Zion?

is that a movie like the Children of the Corn? i'm confused!!!!!

[mnn727]

On 10/27/2017 at 4:44 PM, hope_for_things said:

  15-20 minute talk format, its not effective, and I'm generation X and as an orthodox member I had a hard time paying attention to all of it.  Its just not in touch with society.  Its not innovative and its not connecting very well. 

 

Sounds like the problem may be with you.

Edited October 30, 2017 by mnn727

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Sounds like the problem may be with you.

I'm just noticing trends and making an observation.  Is the problem with the people who no longer pay attention, perhaps.  From a practical perspective the church could double down on the status quo method, or innovate.  Every institution has that right, and many that fail to innovate lose relevancy. 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just noticing trends and making an observation.  Is the problem with the people who no longer pay attention, perhaps.  From a practical perspective the church could double down on the status quo method, or innovate.  Every institution has that right, and many that fail to innovate lose relevancy. 

Shrinking attention spans are a global problem in the western world.

The problem with "innovating" and accommodating shrinking attention spans is that testimony acquisition depends on reading scriptures that are not light reading by modern standards. "Meme" and "Vine" converts are going to get scorched by the heat of the sun (parable of the sower), and the pablum of "innovation" will make Elder Holland's spiritual twinkies seem robust by comparison.

We need to encourage people to raise the bar on attention, not lower it. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Shrinking attention spans are a global problem in the western world.

The problem with "innovating" and accommodating shrinking attention spans is that testimony acquisition depends on reading scriptures that are not light reading by modern standards. "Meme" and "Vine" converts are going to get scorched by the heat of the sun (parable of the sower), and the pablum of "innovation" will make Elder Holland's spiritual twinkies seem robust by comparison.

We need to encourage people to raise the bar on attention, not lower it. 

An interesting experience a close family member of mine had in the past few years.  This person was inactive in the church since adolescence, and actually requested to have her name removed and had become an atheist.  After struggling with different issues and getting her life back together she ended up dating a member of the church, meeting with missionaries and being re-baptised.  She is very active now and married to the man that helped her become interested in the church again. 

And all of this without ever devoting any time to reading the scriptures.  She just isn't a reader, doesn't read books at all, yet her testimony is strong, its based on her experiences with people and events.    

Thinking about the early Christians, the gospels were written as narrative plays to be acted out and read and experienced in one sitting.  They were likely evolving quite a bit too, and people weren't even literate back in those days.  The experiences of religious communities haven't ever really had much to do with actual education. 

I wonder if we haven't departed too far from beautiful in an effort to educate.  I would attend church just to listen to beautiful music and experience the arts.  Perhaps we need to get back to that more.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

An interesting experience a close family member of mine had in the past few years.  This person was inactive in the church since adolescence, and actually requested to have her name removed and had become an atheist.  After struggling with different issues and getting her life back together she ended up dating a member of the church, meeting with missionaries and being re-baptised.  She is very active now and married to the man that helped her become interested in the church again. 

And all of this without ever devoting any time to reading the scriptures.  She just isn't a reader, doesn't read books at all, yet her testimony is strong, its based on her experiences with people and events.    

Thinking about the early Christians, the gospels were written as narrative plays to be acted out and read and experienced in one sitting.  They were likely evolving quite a bit too, and people weren't even literate back in those days.  The experiences of religious communities haven't ever really had much to do with actual education. 

I wonder if we haven't departed too far from beautiful in an effort to educate.  I would attend church just to listen to beautiful music and experience the arts.  Perhaps we need to get back to that more.  

The gospels were written as plays to be acted out? That’s a tough one for me to swallow. 

At least one of the gospels, Luke, was an epistle to someone named Theophilus. It was a prequel to the Book of Acts. 

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The gospels were written as plays to be acted out? That’s a tough one for me to swallow. 

At least one of the gospels, Luke, was an epistle to someone named Theophilus. It was a prequel to the Book of Acts. 

Thats what I’ve read from scholars, Julie M. Smith talks about this with respect to the gospel of Mark in particular in this recent interview.

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/10/25/human-jesus-gospel-mark/

However, Luke is much longer and I can’t find a quick reference to a scholar talking about the Lukian tradition also following this pattern, perhaps it is unique to Mark.  

[mnn727]

On 10/30/2017 at 1:30 PM, hope_for_things said:

  I would attend church just to listen to beautiful music and experience the arts.  Perhaps we need to get back to that more.  

That may be good for some people but would bore me to death, I want some meat not just dessert. I'd be heading elsewhere fast.

[hagoth7]

On 10/28/2017 at 4:43 PM, 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.

There wold be no parent home (and no teens) to tend the wee ones.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

There wold be no parent home (and no teens) to tend the wee ones.

One time our stake presidency decided to invite all the youth (12+) to the Saturday evening stake conference session.  One time!  No babysitters left at home. 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, mnn727 said:

That may be good for some people but would bore me to death, I want some meat not just dessert. I'd be heading elsewhere fast.

When does the church ever serve meat these days?  The correlated curriculum that is on perpetual replay mode is so boring.  The only interesting discussions I'm a part of are when the teachers choose to go off script.  

[kiwi57]

On 10/30/2017 at 11:33 AM, rockpond said:

It looks like Storm was removed so he won’t see this but in my defense:  “groveling to the feminist agenda” and expressing a desire for my daughters to have female role models in general conference are not the same thing.

Then again, I think Storm was the only one on the thread failing to see the distinction. 

And also, for the record, I would not advocate for equal male/female speaking time in general conference because that would put way too heavy a burden on the good sisters leading their organizations since there are far fewer women leaders. 

I have read this discussion with some interest.

Out here in the international Church - a.k.a. "The mission field" - we have this strangely naive view of General Conference that appears not to resonate with some of you Americans; namely, that we go to General Conference to "give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles." There's a hymn that we sing down here: "Come listen to a prophet's voice," it says, "and hear the words of God." It therefore seems to us that those who want to make it a matter of skirts vs. suits are rather significantly missing the point.

A while back, someone accused me of disagreeing with the Women's meeting being made part of General Conference. That was a rather idiotic accusation, not only because I have never said (or even thought) anything that would give any reasonable person such a notion, but because it has always made perfect sense to me that the Women's meeting should be part of General Conference. To my mind, it has been that way de facto since at least 1995, when President Hinckley presented the Family Proclamation. (Which is now the great test of faithfulness for the Saints.)

So since it is part of General Conference, it also makes sense for it to be on the same weekend.

The only question then, is: do we go to 6 sessions, or does something else give way?

If it had been up to me, I would have suggested doing away with one of the general sessions - perhaps Saturday afternoon (we could do the sustainings on Saturday morning) so that the Women's session and the Priesthood session would be back to back. But even that would have been likely to create baby-sitting headaches for families with distances to travel.

Given that the content of what we receive is so significantly more important than the gender of the one delivering it - so much so that the two considerations don't even bear mentioning in the same breath - the solution that has been found is probably the best one all around.

In any event, I'm going to be sustaining it and not fault-finding about it.

[Avatar4321]

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 8:50 AM, hope_for_things said:

When does the church ever serve meat these days?  The correlated curriculum that is on perpetual replay mode is so boring.  The only interesting discussions I'm a part of are when the teachers choose to go off script.  

I feast quite well at conference. Not sure what you think the meat is.

heck that one talk by elder renlund during priesthood sustained me for the last month. It's still on my mind.