Women's Session

[Traela]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm a man, so take this is you will. I'd find it odd if there were a Catholic meeting for women during which the Pope spoke and then Catholic women complained about it because he was a man and it was a women's meeting. He is, after all, the Pope, and I'd assume that Catholic women would want to hear from him.

Am I missing something here on the LDS side of things?

No, some people just like to complain.

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Traela

[bsjkki]

I need a list of all the things President Nelson told me I need to do before the end of the year. Anyone take good notes? At least my calling got a lot easier today.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm a man, so take this is you will. I'd find it odd if there were a Catholic meeting for women during which the Pope spoke and then Catholic women complained about it because he was a man and it was a women's meeting. He is, after all, the Pope, and I'd assume that Catholic women would want to hear from him.

Am I missing something here on the LDS side of things?

There are few opportunities to hear women leaders speak.  In the past, we always had one talk from the first presidency and three talks from the women officers.  In addition, the past several years there has been usually two talks iirc during General Conference.

With removing the Women's Session from the previous weekend and alternating it with the Priesthood Session, that may mean in April instead of having the chance to hear five women speak, we will hear two.  Subtract another one from the Women's Session and each year, we will hear talks from 6 women, instead of 10.

Since we often teach on .Sunday from Conference talks, that means less opportunities to hear from women than as well.

It is possible they will compensate by having more women speak during the General Session.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Calm

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

There are few opportunities to hear women leaders speak.  In the past, we always had one talk from the first presidency and three talks from the women officers.  In addition, the past several years there has been usually two talks iirc during General Conference.

With removing the Women's Session from the previous weekend and alternating it with the Priesthood Session, that may mean in April instead of having the chance to hear five women speak, we will hear two.  Subtract another one from the Women's Session and each year, we will hear talks from 6 women, instead of 10.

You had to point that out. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

Do you think there will be female speakers in the Priesthood session in April?

Wouldn’t bother me if there were, but no, I don’t think so. 

I’ll be content either way. 

[sheilauk]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm a man, so take this is you will. I'd find it odd if there were a Catholic meeting for women during which the Pope spoke and then Catholic women complained about it because he was a man and it was a women's meeting. He is, after all, the Pope, and I'd assume that Catholic women would want to hear from him.

Am I missing something here on the LDS side of things?

Of course LDS women want to hear from the President and other leaders.  General conference is all about hearing from the President of the church and other authorities, most of whom are men. There are 9 women leaders and traditionally we have heard mainly women speak in the women's conference.  

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Traela said:

No, some people just like to complain.

 

It is not that I don't want to hear from our male leaders, I love hearing them speak.  I just miss hearing my sisters as well.

There have been two Face to Faces that have included one female leader with two males.  Having more of these would be great.  It is hard to get to know the nine main women leaders when only a few of them can talk twice a year.  Perhaps they will start promoting devotionals, etc. to increase opportunities.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/face-to-face/archive?lang=eng

Edited October 7, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Twitter verse is apparently raging about President Oaks talk to the ladies tonight

Why?

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm a man, so take this is as you will. I'd find it odd if there were a Catholic meeting for women during which the Pope spoke and then Catholic women complained about it because he was a man and it was a women's meeting. He is, after all, the Pope, and I'd assume that Catholic women would want to hear from him.

Am I missing something here on the LDS side of things?

No, I think it’s odd too. I would be upset if the prophet didn’t speak at the women’s session. 

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I think it’s odd too. I would be upset if the prophet didn’t speak at the women’s session. 

I didn't mind all three members of the First Presidency spoke but as Calm pointed out, this will mean we don't have the opportunity to hear from female leadership very much at all. That is what makes me sad. 

[bluebell]

I loved the women’s session. I loved that the prophet and Pres. Eyring said that with the new home centered gospel learning that it will be the women’s primary responsibility to oversee it. 

I loved Elder Oaks talk, and that he actually talked about what some of women needed to repent of and do better rather than just telling us we’re so amazing. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I have espoused this idea for quite some time now. Often doing actually gets in the way of being, like a cover-up. It's good sometimes to just sit and be and not do anything. Deep (and often wordless) prayer allows this, as does meditation/contemplation. Monks don't do as much as other people, but they sure seem to be more.

I originally liked the idea that being more is not doing more, but after meditating on the subject of “being” for some time, I came to the conclusion that our being is ultimately, intrinsically, and inseparably tied to our doing.

For example, I may be said that monks do less, but I disagree.  If you think about it, they do more then the rest of us in terms of prayer/meditation, etc.  This prioritization of what we do ultimately affects who we are and who we become.  It is all about priorities.  Simplifying our lives and becoming more contemplative is not doing less, it is simply doing differently.  That is my personal take anyway.  

But I do agree that some people get tied up in worldly accomplishments, thinking that if they do more, they will be more - when in fact they end up losing touch with themselves and who they really are.

doing is important.  We just need to do differently - take time to be silent and know God.  That is not doing nothing.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I didn't mind all three members of the First Presidency spoke but as Calm pointed out, this will mean we don't have the opportunity to hear from female leadership very much at all. That is what makes me sad. 

I can understand that. I guess it just doesn’t bother me.  I loved the women’s talks tonight (sis. Jones was my favorite) but I’d still rather listen to the apostles and prophets speaking directly to the women of the church if I was forced to choose between the two groups. 

[Rain]

A huge part of women's session was about nurturing.  There were some who really struggled with a few things from the session.  Instead of putting them down let's nurture them. 

And to be honest, I am one who struggled, but I am not asking this for myself. I do not want others to feel alone.

 

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I originally liked the idea that being more is not doing more, but after meditating on the subject of “being” for some time, I came to the conclusion that our being is ultimately, intrinsically, and inseparably tied to our doing.

For example, I may be said that monks do less, but I disagree.  If you think about it, they do more then the rest of us in terms of prayer/meditation, etc.  This prioritization of what we do ultimately affects who we are and who we become.  It is all about priorities.  Simplifying our lives and becoming more contemplative is not doing less, it is simply doing differently.  That is my personal take anyway.  

But I do agree that some people get tied up in worldly accomplishments, thinking that if they do more, they will be more - when in fact they end up losing touch with themselves and who they really are.

doing is important.  We just need to do differently - take time to be silent and know God.  That is not doing nothing.

In the talk it was saying that you don't have to do it all. Just choose wisely what you do.  Sometimes serving someone else is more important than a sink full of dishes. I love that she used the idea of sometimes, because sometimes the dishes really need to get done.

My paraphrase - we should be wise and choose things that fufill us, not that make us "busy".

Edited October 7, 2018 by Rain

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

A huge part of women's session was about nurturing.  There were some who really struggled with a few things from the session.  Instead of putting them down let's nurture them. 

And to be honest, I am one who struggled, but I am not asking this for myself. I do not want others to feel alone.

 

I struggled too but I tend to struggle  through women's conference every year. It's sort of like those Mother's Day talks that drive me crazy. 

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

In the talk it was saying that you don't have to do it all. Just choose wisely what you do.  Sometimes serving someone else is more important than a sink full of dishes. I love that she used the idea of sometimes, because sometimes the dishes really need to get done.

My parsphrase - we should be wise and choose things that fufill us, not that make us "busy".

I like that a lot!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm a man, so take this is as you will. I'd find it odd if there were a Catholic meeting for women during which the Pope spoke and then Catholic women complained about it because he was a man and it was a women's meeting. He is, after all, the Pope, and I'd assume that Catholic women would want to hear from him.

Am I missing something here on the LDS side of things?

I think the thing missing is that a minority are complaining loudly and do not represent the bulk of the women in the LDS church who want to hear from the First Presidency.

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think the thing missing is that a minority are complaining loudly and do not represent the bulk of the women in the LDS church who want to hear from the First Presidency.

Where is all this "complaining loudly." I don't see anything but this forum. I don't think having mixed feelings about things is "complaining loudly."

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

You had to point that out. 

I think in numbers...

[Rain]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think the thing missing is that a minority are complaining loudly and do not represent the bulk of the women in the LDS church who want to hear from the First Presidency.

I work with a group of strong, awesome women whose whole goal is to nurture others. I cannot feel more blessed to learn from them, laugh with them, cry with them and work beside them. I have learned so much about compassion as I see their actions and dedication. There are so many individual traits of these women that fit them so uniquely.

I'm glad to hear from the prophet and his counselors. It is a blessing to have him. I'm glad that bluebell loved hearing from the first presidency. I'm glad my daughter was deeply touched by something Elder Eyring said.

I love the prophet too, but I would really like to hear from the strong, unique, awesome women leaders of the church as well. President Oaks talks about the Proclamation and gender being eternal. Why is it considered complaining if I would prefer to hear my gender speak at a meeting specifically for my gender when I will be hearing from each of the first presidency at some other time during the conference? 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Rain

[halconero]

Personal prediction: the current talks are leading up to a more contraversial announcement reemphasizing the importance of parenthood in the church.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, halconero said:

Personal prediction: the current talks are leading up to a more contraversial announcement reemphasizing the importance of parenthood in the church.

Did you listen to the women's session? That was pretty much what Elder Oak's talk did - at least for mothers/women.

[halconero]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Did you listen to the women's session? That was pretty much what Elder Oak's talk did - at least for mothers/women.

Yup, that’s partly why I’m saying what I’m saying.

Edited October 7, 2018 by halconero

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, halconero said:

Personal prediction: the current talks are leading up to a more contraversial announcement reemphasizing the importance of parenthood in the church.

Its weird to think that an emphasis on importance of parenthood would ever be controversial for church members.