Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The church's new 'international area organization adviser' position.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not speaking on ANY woman's behalf.  In fact, I'm specifically advocating that neither you nor I should do any such thing.

When it comes to painfully obvious statements like 'many women are ok with the status quo at GC' then it should not matter who brings this to light. And of course I agree with you there are many matters that call for the man to step back a bit. Such is life, however, on an open forum where all should be welcome to respond with their own thoughts. If a woman wants such exclusivity, get your own forum.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

When it comes to painfully obvious statements like 'many women are ok with the status quo at GC' then it should not matter who brings this to light. And of course I agree with you there are many matters that call for the man to step back a bit. Such is life, however, on an open forum where all should be welcome to respond with their own thoughts. If a woman wants such exclusivity, get your own forum.  

 

Spock Eyebrow - 1.gif

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But where?  Are you saying you had already explained yourself in this very thread,

Yes, in this very thread.  I explained my position in the first instance.  And then, when you complained that I had not "elaborated" on a term, I provided links to where I had, in fact elaborated.  And now I've done that a second time. 

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

or are you expecting all readers to know that you have explained yourself before/elsewhere? 

If you complaint about something I have said, and then fail to read what I have said after I say it again (by providing links to it, as I have now done twice), then yes, I am expecting you to know what I have said.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm genuinely confused.

So am I.  You attributed to me something I did not say, and then complained that I had not explained what I did say, when in fact I had explained myself.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It was not an intentional "gloss/slant." It was my perception of the tone of your posts.  Consider it feedback.

Right back atcha.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is part of the problem with you assuming all discussion on here is adversarial; you assume bad faith where there is none.

It seemed like a fair assumption.  But I retract it and apologize.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, and this may only be my perception, your posts appear to demand a great deal of precision and you come off as dismissive of feelings. 

This despite me saying: "I think we sometimes don't keep feelings in their proper sphere and element.  I don't discount "feelings."  I acknowledge them.  I understand their import and value.  But I think they need to be kept within appropriate parameters.  A person can be overly-reliant on "feelings," to the exclusion of reasoning and evidence (the converse proposition is also true)."

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

When you then say things like "appropriate parameters" the implication is that you have parameters in mind which you consider appropriate. 

Yes.  And just because those parameters cannot be expressed as a percentage or some other mode of exacting precision doesn't mean they cannot be expressed at all.  And I've spent 20 or so posts in this thread explaining what I have in mind.

Here:

Quote
Quote

You often knock down feelings, but that is an important part of each one of us. 

I'm not sure that's accurate.  I try to keep "feelings" in their appropriate sphere.
...

 

Quote

It would go so far in these conversations if instead of trying to knock down every post you disagree with line by line you really tried to feel where people came from. 

I'm not much into posting about feelings.  That doesn't mean I don't have them, though.  Or recognize them in others.  Or appreciate their significance.  

But again, I want to keep them in their sphere.  

And here:

Quote
Quote

There is a very fine line, if any, between “I feel” and “I think.”  

With respect, I disagree.  "I think" denotes, or should denote, concepts more along the lines of reasoning, analysis, weighing of evidence, and so on.  "I feel," on the other hand, denotes, well, feelings.  Feelings can be rational or irrational.  Feelings can be influenced, sometimes even heavily so, by irrelevencies and prejudices.  Feelings can be based on substantial ignorance.  But because feelings can be strong, they are sometimes privileged over reasoning and evidence-based analysis.

And here:

Quote
Quote

My concern is that because there are those who legitimately feel unwanted and disrespected (and I am not trivializing the feeling), the Church should therefore show action to assuage their concerns.

I share that concern.

"I have strong emotions/feelings regarding X (about the Church), therefore my emotions are determinative in how the Church should proceed" just does not work for me.  It is a recipe for mayhem.

Now, if a person has strong feelings about X, and has a proposed course of action for the Church to pursue, and can use reasoning / analysis / evidence to substantiate and justify that course of action, I'm all ears.  But in the main, I just don't feel particularly inclined to go along with the I-feel-strongly-about-this-though-I-have-nothing-particularly-cognizable-to-address-it-but-if-you-do-anything-other-than-huzzah-me-and-my-feelings-you-are-lacking-empathy-and-are-a-terrible-person stuff, particularly because it seems to be predicated on guilt-tripping.  I note how comfortable Juliann is with publicly accusing me of being "dismissive of women."  That's a pretty serious charge, and I see it as a bullying tactic.  It's not based on reasoning or evidence, and is instead an accusation intended to shame into silence someone with whom Juliann disagrees (me). 

This tactic generally doesn't work for me, largely because I work in a field where men disagree with women, and women disagree with men, as a matter of course.  Gender just isn't part of the equation in my communications with other lawyers, or with judges on the bench.  I interact with female lawyers all the time in adversarial contexts, and I virtually never see tears or emotive pleas from them. In fact, the only example I can think of in 19 years of experience is when I was clerking for a judge up in Tacoma, and a female lawyer nearly went to pieces during a hearing on a criminal case. She was pretty much on the verge of tears (I'm not sure why). The judge had little patience with this attorney, told her to stand up straight, take a few deep breaths, collect her thoughts, regain her composure, and present her argument. Unfortunately, the attorney couldn't quite do all of that. I think she was just too nervous.

After the hearing, I had a discussion with the judge back in her chambers.  She asked me if I thought she had been too hard on the lawyer.  I said maybe a bit.  The judge responded with something like this: "Well, I didn't.  She's an attorney representing a defendant in a criminal case.  I wouldn't do her any favors by coddling her and her emotions.  When she's in court she needs to be held to the same standard as is expected of every attorney that walks through the door."

In retrospect, I think that discussion has had an ongoing impact on me as pertaining to this board.  This forum is akin to a courtroom in that it is an adversarial construct.  Many people don't come here because it is an echo chamber.  Many of the discussions here involve people who do not agree with each other, and so come here to hash out ideas and exchange viewpoints.  The board rules provide measures to ensure some base level of civility and common decency, but otherwise people are free to disagree with each other.

So there's my background.  I am not, as Juliann falsely claims, "dismissive of women," nor am I even dismissive of emotions.  I just don't think an individual's personal feelings, isolated and in and of themselves, carry much probative weight in terms of persuading me to accept/reject or support/oppose a proposition or argument (heck, we aren't even talking about a proposition or argument, just a bit of carping against the Church).
...
 

As long as we're trading anecdotes, I asked my wife what she thought of this last General Conference.  She was quite happy with it.  I also asked her about her reaction to the new "international area organization adviser" callings, and she said she thought they were a great idea.  I also asked her if she felt concerned about there being only two female speakers.  She said something like "Of course not, there are are not that many female leaders, and they speak all the time.  We had a ton of sisters speak in October."  I went back and checked the speakers during the October 2020 General Conference, and found the following:

Saturday Morning Session

  • Moving Forward - Russell M. Nelson
  • We Will Prove Them Herewith - David A. Bednar
  • Becoming like Him - Scott D. Whiting
  • ***Eyes to See - Michelle D. Craig
  • Hearts Knit in Righteousness and Unity - Quentin L. Cook
  • Recommended to the Lord - Ronald A. Rasband
  • Love Your Enemies - Dallin H. Oaks

Saturday Afternoon Session

  • Sustainable Societies - D. Todd Christofferson
  • Finding Joy in Christ - Steven J. Lund
  • All Nations, Kindreds, and Tongues - Gerrit W. Gong
  • There Was Bread - W. Christopher Waddell
  • The Exquisite Gift of the Son - Matthew S. Holland
  • The Culture of Christ - William K. Jackson
  • God Will Do Something Unimaginable - Dieter F. Uchtdorf

Women’s Session

  • ***By Union of Feeling We Obtain Power with God - Sharon Eubank
  • ***Keep the Change - Becky Craven
  • ***The Healing Power of Jesus Christ - Cristina B. Franco
  • Sisters in Zion - Henry B. Eyring
  • Be of Good Cheer - Dallin H. Oaks
  • Embrace the Future with Faith - Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Morning Session

  • Watch Ye Therefore, and Pray Always - M. Russell Ballard
  • ***Peace, Be Still - Lisa L. Harkness
  • Seek Christ in Every Thought - Ulisses Soares
  • I Believe in Angels - Carlos A. Godoy
  • We Talk of Christ - Neil L. Andersen
  • Let God Prevail - Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Afternoon Session

  • Tested, Proved, and Polished  Henry B. Eyring
  • Let Patience Have Her Perfect Work, and Count It All Joy! - Jeremy R. Jaggi
  • Highly Favored of the Lord - Gary E. Stevenson
  • Ask, Seek, and Knock - Milton Camargo
  • Do Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly with God - Dale G. Renlund
  • Enduring Power - Kelly R. Johnson
  • Waiting on the Lord - Jeffrey R. Holland
  • A New Normal - Russell M. Nelson

So there were 34 talks.  Of those, 20 were from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  Of the remaining 14, five (35.71%) were from women, who comprise 7.69% of the general authorities/officers of the Church.  

So if we are really counting noses, if we are reducing the value of General Conference speakers down to their gender and nothing else (a risible exercise, but I'll play along), then female leadership speakers were over-represented 4.64 times their numbers in October 2020.  They were also over-represented in the April 2021 General Conference (taking 11.76% of the speaking slots, despite comprising 7.69% of the general authorities/officers of the Church).

Anyway, I also conveyed to my wife some of the sentiments expressed on this thread (Tacenda characterizing the new callings as "window dressing" (echoed by Juliann) and "limit{ing} women speakers during conference" and not "allow{ing} more diversity in the speakers at conference," Juliann's characterization of two women speakers at General Conference as "shocking" (as in not enough) and that the Church doesn't value women speakers ("If they valued women speakers.....")), and she (my wife) said "It sounds like those people are looking for ways to be offended."  As regarding Tacenda's commend about a lack of "diversity," my wife was really surprised.  She said something like "Did that person even watch General Conference?  Sister Aburto is from Nicaragua.  Elder Dube is from Zimbabwe.  Elder Mutombo (she couldn't remember his name) is from the Congo.  And many others.  There were speakers from all over the world!"

I think she may have a point.
...
Bluebell criticized me, sort of obliquely, by suggesting that "It's really hard to 'mourn with those that mourn' if you are busy telling someone there is no reason to be mourning."  This is the sort of rhetoric I find problematic.  The context was that Pres. Oaks "thanked all the brethren for their talks and forgot that Sister Aburto spoke as well," and that this had created a "small controversy."

Holy cow.  What a trivial nitpick.  This has caused members of the Church to "mourn?"  Seriously?  And I'm supposed to go along with that?  I'm supposed to validate that?  I'm supposed to "mourn with those that mourn" about Pres. Oaks forgetting to publicly thank Sis. Aburto?  And I'm lacking in empathy and if I don't?

No.  I just can't get on board with that.  We are under covenant to sustain the leaders of the Church.  That has to mean something.  And I find the supposed injured feelings caused by this "controversy" to be unserious and immature.

There are tough days ahead for the members of the Church.  I think we need to toughen up a bit.  A lot actually.  

And here:

Quote
Quote

You think there are places where feelings can be spoken and places where they should not be spoken.

Yes.  Time, place and manner.  How, when and where we express our viewpoints about the Church is an important part of keeping our covenants.
 

Quote

This board isn't the place where feelings shouldn't matter.

No.  I'm not saying that.  I am saying that feelings are not, in and of themselves, determinative.  I am saying that this board is about discussion and debate.  We can and ought to be civil and courteous, but we should also allowed to express our viewpoints. 

If a viewpoint is based mostly/entirely on an individual's feelings/emotions, then there's not much to discuss.  Feelings, like tastes, are largely beyond the realm of reasonable discourse.  So there has to be something more.  Reasoning.  Evidence.  Analysis.  These can and ought to be used to substantiate and validate inwardly-held emotions, feelings, opinions, and so on.  

Quote

And our feelings also shouldn't matter when it comes to how the Lord directs his kingdom.

"How the Lord directs His kingdom" is up to the Lord.  Not us.  Not our feelings.

How the leaders of the Church carry out their mandated and discretionary duties is certainly something about which we can have feelings and opinions.  But even then, feelings alone are not determinative.  A feeling isn't reasonable or valid or righteous simply because it exists.  Hence the value that can come from reasoning, evidence, analysis, counsel, prayer, study, and so on.

Quote

You think that feelings are unreliable or at least not as reliable as thinking is.

Not quite.  I think that feelings have an important, but not dispositive or ultimately determinative, role to play in decisions we make in this life.  

I also members of the Church run the risk of over-privileging feelings because we claim to rely on the Spirit.  So a strong feeling about Issue X can be construed as a spiritual confirmation as to one's position for or against Issue X.  I think that people in the Church can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself."

Also, consider these remarks by Michael Ash:...

Quote

We sometimes make them more important than the analysis that is more reliable.  

I think we sometimes don't keep feelings in their proper sphere and element.  I don't discount "feelings."  I acknowledge them.  I understand their import and value.  But I think they need to be kept within appropriate parameters.  A person can be overly-reliant on "feelings," to the exclusion of reasoning and evidence (the converse proposition is also true).

And here:

Quote
Quote

You consider that this board is a courtroom or sorts.  That emotions get in the way of working out the ideas and viewpoints.

When emotions are given undue weight and attention, yes.

Quote

You think that emotions over small things

No.  Quite the contrary, I think emotions are very important.  But I think all sorts of problems can arise when people act mostly on emotion and less on reasoning, evidence, analysis, wise counsel, and personal revelation.

Quote

amount to criticizing leaders and that worries you. 

Sort of.  The Online Disinhibition Effect can have a corrosive effect on the individual member's relationship to the Church and its leaders.

I think we as members of the Church need to be more resilient. 

I think we need to not look for ways to be offended, or for things to publicly complaint about. 

I think we need to support and prayer for the leaders of the Church.

I think we need to consider the over-arching decency and goodness and sacrifice of the men and women who devote themselves to building up the Church, and who are then called to serve in leadership positions they did not seek, and who thereafter spend tremendous amounts of time and effort to magnify their callings and improve the Church and its effect on the members and the world.

I think we need to largely abstain from public fault-finding, particularly as pertaining to trivialities.

To the extent there is something about the Church that needs correction and improvement, I think we should formulate ideas and proposals rather than publicly disparage and tear down the leaders of the Church.  And if the idea really has some merit, pass it on up.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, keep moving forward.

I'm reminded here of Chestertons' Fence:...

And on and on.

I get the feeling that you aren't reading what I am saying.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As a reader, and potential conversationalist, knowing what those parameters are is helpful.

See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ttribe said:

 

Spock Eyebrow - 1.gif

My first thought was 'they did a pretty good job with a younger Spock' though no one could ever match Nimoy. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my uncle who was a true blue 'trekkie'. He declared that Star Trek Next Generation was a heresy in that Klingons could never befriend the Federation in the way that Worf did. And for that reason, he never watched the series. ; )

Link to comment
On 4/14/2021 at 2:29 PM, bluebell said:

I do get what you are saying.  I think there's a difference though between omitting a word we could have sworn we said, and being so used to saying a phrase a specific way that we don't immediately notice it's not applicable in the situation we just used it in.

I don't know that that kind of slip would have any hidden meanings or messages either, but it's a different kind of slip than the kind you seem to be talking about (unless I'm misunderstanding you, which could be the case).

Oh, I've got know way of knowing what caused him to misspeak. I just know that it's not uncommon for people to do so, even when they specifically intend not to.

For all I know, he may have even read exactly what was on the teleprompter and then just failed to catch himself in time to correct it before it was too late. 

Regardless, I'm sure President Oaks regrets his oversight (for actually failing to recognize Sis. Aburto and not merely out of a feeling of personal embarrassment), and I'm sure no offense was taken. Still, I can understand how even an unintended slight might cause someone to feel, you know, slighted. I don't see that there's anything wrong with acknowledging that.

 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not speaking on ANY woman's behalf.  In fact, I'm specifically advocating that neither you nor I should do any such thing specifically because you and I have no idea what it is like to BE a woman.  I'm advocating for listening to them and refraining from telling them they are wrong to feel the way they do.

I just caught your edit on this. I too have no problem allowing others (in this context, women) to express their feelings. It becomes a problem when said feelings morph into conclusions that are seen as incontrovertible by virtue of having the feeling alone. It's the conclusions, not the feelings that are being taken to task. Big difference.

Edited by Vanguard
Link to comment
5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That sounds facile, but let's review it a bit:

1. The Saturday morning session of each conference begins with "the speakers {are} selected from the general authorities and general officers of the Church."  So are you propsing that women be ordained to the priesthood, such that they would be more numerically represented in "the general authorities and general officers of the Church?"

Those organizing conference could have anyone speak. Just because it is done a specific way doesn't mean it has to be done that way. Women can speak without being ordained. You really want that to be your first point. That sounds like middle-school reasoning...at best.

A lot of assumptions build in here.  The purpose of General Conference is to hear from the leaders of the Church.

Quote

2. Alternatively, are you proposing that women speakers be selected who are not in the above group?  If so, how would you propose these "more women" be selected?  Would they necessarily be in a leadership role?  Or would anyone from anywhere be sufficient?

Sure. There are women leaders in the church who could be chosen. But is it required that a woman be in general leadership for her to be asked to speak? I don't think so.

Generally, I think it is.  That's what "General Conference" means.  It is for those who have stewardship over the entirety of the Church to address . . . the entirety of the Church.

That does not mean that exceptions cannot be made.  That has happened here and there (I recall there being a few youth speakers a few years back).  But they would be just that: exceptions to the rule.

Quote

But as has already been noted, a new group of women leaders have been called. They could be chosen.

They are not "the general authorities and general officers of the Church."  We don't hear from the members of the 3-8 quorums of Seventy, either.

Quote

Suggesting that because the church doesn't give women the same level of opportunity for leadership  as it does to men, the church therefore cannot have women speak, is absurd.

It is not absurd.  Again, the purpose of General Conference is to hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship over the Church.

The idea that General Conference is supposed to be a meeting wherein a demographics-based cross section of the Church membership address the entirety of the Church, without regard to stewardship or callings or the overall organization of the Church, is absurd.

This does not seem to be a matter of "the church" giving or not giving "women the same level of opportunity for leadership."  If there were a revelation regarding female ordination, I'd be happy and fine with that.  Until then, we work within the parameters we've got.

Quote

3. If you are advocating that women who are not among "the general authorities and general officers of the Church" be selected as speakers for General Conference, wouldn't consistency also require that men who are not among "the general authorities and general officers of the Church" also be selected as speakers?

Could be.

Quite a digression, that.  Again, the purpose of General Conference is to hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship.

Quote

But you're acting like God wrote on stone with his finger explaining how speakers for general conference should be selected. You're essentially arguing that "because it is done this way, it must be done this way." That's weak sauce. ;)

I'm saying that the way the Church is managing General Conference makes sense.

I'm also saying that the folks who are, metaphorically speaking, calling for the destruction of Chesterton's Fence aren't doing a very good job of justifying that course of action.

Quote

There are plenty of male speakers already so I don't know that the church needs to find more ways to have more men speak, but they could have different men speak.

"Could" here is pretty weak sauce.

"Should" is likewise pretty weak.

Again, the purpose of General Conference is to hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship over the Church.  

Quote

I don't think that would be breaking one of God's commandments.

Nor do I.

But then, I'm not sure converting General Conference into a sliced-and-diced display of the Church's demographic composition is the way to go.

Quote

But again, speaking isn't the primary need here. It's having better female representation in respected leadership roles.

So . . . female ordination?  Is that where you think we should go?

Quote

4. And what about teenagers?  Should they be included as speakers as well?  Why or why not?  If women need "representation" at General Conference, why not teens?

We've seen teens speak at Priesthood meeting. You are missing the point about representation. Speaking is a visible marker but the real issue is about the level of female leadership in the church.

I get that.  What I don't get is how this is relevant to your proposal.  You want more women to speak at General Conference, even though they aren't necessarily in a "leadership" position?  If the "real issue" is about "female leadership," then what's the point of having them speak? 

And how do you get to more "female leadership" in the upper echelons of the Church without female ordination?

Quote

5. What about race?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by racial categories?

They kind of did that this last conference, no?

It think it happened organically.  Elder Helvecio Martins speaking during my childhood was a novelty and unique.  Today, racial diversity amongst the upper echelons of the Church is quite commonplace.

Quote

Leaders recognized that representation from around the world would be important so they did something about it.

And they did so by . . . drawing on "the general authorities and general officers of the Church."

As for the nine women who are among "the general authorities and general officers of the Church," they seem to speak far more often than pretty much any leaders except the First Presidency and the Q12.

Quote

They could do something about female representation as well. They just have to decide to do it.

Sigh.  Chesterton's Fence.

"Jesus could have called varying ethnicities and women to be His apostles.  He just had to decide to do it."  Oh.  

Quote

6. What about nationality?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by national origin?

7. What about socioeconomic strata?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by income?

8. What about educational levels?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by educational achievement?

9. What about the doctrines pertaining to stewardship?  

Your digression has become dull.

As are the vague platitudes and demands about what the leaders of the Church "could" or "should" do.

In any event, "representation" as to age, race, nationality, socioeconomic strata, educational levels is not legitimate?  But "representation" as to gender is?  Sounds like special pleading.

Quote

You are trying so hard to prove why the church shouldn't include more women. I wonder why that is.

I'll tell you:

Because I think the leaders of the Church are, broadly speaking, working hard at their callings, and are striving to work within the parameters set forth in the scriptures and doctrines and policies of the Church.  

Because there are imbalances in the upper leadership of the Church as to gender, and that seems to be baked into the concept of priesthood and stewardship.

Because the purpose of General Conference is to hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship over the Church.

Because I don't think longstanding practices and procedures should be undone at the say-so of critics and cranks who lack stewardship and authority.

Because I think there are ways to go about affecting change in the Church, none of which inolves members publicly slandering the Brethren.

Because I think that critics will never be satisfied, regardless of what the Church does, so it's hard to grant a presumption of good faith when they come along and pour on the sanctimony about how they are champions of women, and anyone who disagrees with them is a misogynist (a la "I wonder why that is...").

Because I tire of the sneering insinuations that the Brethren oppress women, and that they do so by calculation and design.

But mostly because the Church is run by revelation and the priesthood.  It has strictures and parameters that can be - and often have been - adjusted to fit the needs of the Church.  But absent a revelation extending priesthood ordination to women (which I would welcome), the general leadership of the church will be skewed towards men.

Quote

As I see it, General Conference is for the body of the Church.  As the Church grows, there will naturally be an influx of leaders of diverse backgrounds.  We have seen that quite a bit, particularly in the Seventy.  The process is, I think (I hope) a natural and revelatory one.

Yet that really doesn't include women.

I know.  Right now there are nine women amongst the "the general authorities and general officers of the Church."  And absent a revelation, I don't think that can change.

I'd be fine with such a change, provided it came through revelation.

Quote

You seem to think male diversity is a good thing but don't recognize any differences in the way females might look at, think about, and discuss important issues.

I do recognize that.  

Stewardship matters in the Church.  There are all sorts of people in the Church with all sorts of varying ideas.  But the purpose of General Conference is to hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship.

Quote

The issue of priesthood authority and stewardship seems to be front and center here.  What is being proposed here comes across and wanting to substitute quotas for revelation.  

No its not.

Yes, I think it is.

Quote

Priesthood is not a requirement for leadership or speaking.

"Priesthood is not a requirement for leadership" in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Are you sure?  Really sure?

As for "speaking" in General Conference, yet again, the purpose of General Conference is to hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship.  There can be exceptions to this rule, but the rule is there.

Quote

Good grief, SMAC. Digging in your heals to justify the lack of female participation and inclusion is pretty sad.

As is the sanctimony of your whiteknighting schtick.

In terms of percentage of leadership, there is an abundance of "female participation" in General Conference.

And women can and do attend the meetings, so there's plenty of "inclusion" there.

Quote

Like I said before, the remedy is simple.

Like I said before, your remedy is facile.  

The simplicity goes the other way.  The purpose of General Conference is to hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship.  Until and unless we receive a revelation extending priesthood ordination to women, there will pretty much always be more men speaking than women.  Not because, as you suggest, the Brethren are hopelessly mired in sexism and misogyny, but because we work with the revelations as we have them and understand them.  

Quote

But first a person has to recognize there is a problem and then want a remedy before they can implement one.

Quite so.

Quote

You don't want a remedy because you don't see a problem.

I don't see a problem with General Conference having the purpose of letting the members hear from leaders of the Church with general stewardship over it.

Quote

That is a problem IMO.

I don't.

"Jesus, I need to point out that you have twelve adult male Jews as your apostles.  You need to recognize there is a problem and then want a remedy before you can implement one.  So..."

Cue the special pleading in 3...2...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I want to say that I really appreciate this.  It is heartening and very helpful to hear a man remind another man that he does not have the knowledge necessary to speak to the validity of women's experiences or feelings that are connected to being a woman in this world.

Women's issues always have a lot of baggage behind them (probably for men too), and so they are more difficult to navigate right from the get go. 

Add to that the negative cultural baggage connected to "emotional women," and it can be a minefield for us to attempt to talk about our feelings, especially in groups with men who are primarily concerned with deciding whether or not those feelings (feelings that come from experiences they've never had) are acceptable.

We are not asking that everyone agree with our feelings.  It's heartening when that is recognized as well. 

 

This may or may not work with our needing more a voice, but this thread reminded me of this quote. 

May be an image of one or more people and text that says 'WHAT'S THE GREATEST LESSONA WOMAN SHOULD LEARN? THAT SINCE DAY ONE. SHE'S ALREADY HAD EVERYT YTHING SHE NEEDS WITHIN HERSELF. IT'S THE WORLD THAT CONVINCED HER SHE DID NOT -RUPI KAUR'

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I want to say that I really appreciate this.  It is heartening and very helpful to hear a man remind another man that he does not have the knowledge necessary to speak to the validity of women's experiences or feelings that are connected to being a woman in this world.

 

 

But what happens when the assertion is true? Are you questioning whether there are many women who think that all is well with these issues? And if not, are you really whittling this down to my anatomy as the determinative factor as to whether I can bring this up on this thread? What if I get permission from my wife that indeed I am correct in my assertion - you know, I kind of 'vicarious pass card' to make the assertion I did? Do I get to comment then? Or does she have to get a password, log on, and corroborate what I have claimed before I can speak? Good grief. How about a little good faith in the exchange so that we can better explore the topic or do you just want an echo chamber? Yuck.  

Link to comment
On 4/9/2021 at 9:36 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Don't get me wrong. This is a good thing. 

But calling the inclusion of women a "bold step forward" doesn't speak too highly of the church's record with female inclusion.

All cultures are not synonymous with US culture. To point out the obvious. It is a bold step in some cultures. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This may or may not work with our needing more a voice, but this thread reminded me of this quote. 

 

I will be the first to acknowledge that many feminists would struggle with me, because I don't agree with the "I'm a woman, I don't need a man!" mentality.  Women don't need men to be happy or to be fulfilled or to be successful (and men don't need women for that either) but I do believe that we are meant to work together and to be complementary to each other, and that we need each other to reach our full potential.

So the quote is great in it's desire to empower women to understand their own strength and ability (which is important in a culture that can sometimes make that hard), but I don't want to get so caught up in empowering that I throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This may or may not work with our needing more a voice, but this thread reminded me of this quote. 

May be an image of one or more people and text that says 'WHAT'S THE GREATEST LESSONA WOMAN SHOULD LEARN? THAT SINCE DAY ONE. SHE'S ALREADY HAD EVERYT YTHING SHE NEEDS WITHIN HERSELF. IT'S THE WORLD THAT CONVINCED HER SHE DID NOT -RUPI KAUR'

Great find tacenda, I've never heard that quote before but it's almost exactly how my wife and I raise our girls.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

My first thought was 'they did a pretty good job with a younger Spock' though no one could ever match Nimoy. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my uncle who was a true blue 'trekkie'. He declared that Star Trek Next Generation was a heresy in that Klingons could never befriend the Federation in the way that Worf did. And for that reason, he never watched the series. ; )

Oh, that's too bad.  There are some timelessly good TNG episodes, such as The Measure of a Man, The Inner Light, Best of Both Worlds, and All Good Things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I will be the first to acknowledge that many feminists would struggle with me, because I don't agree with the "I'm a woman, I don't need a man!" mentality.  Women don't need men to be happy or to be fulfilled or to be successful (and men don't need women for that either) but I do believe that we are meant to work together and to be complementary to each other, and that we need each other to reach our full potential.

So the quote is great in it's desire to empower women to understand their own strength and ability (which is important in a culture that can sometimes make that hard), but I don't want to get so caught up in empowering that I throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm even less a feminist, haha! I need my husband!! I did grow up hearing my mother say that men need the priesthood because women give birth and they need some kind of god given power or something g like that. She lived the days during the ERA with the church getting members to vote against it. So it never bothered me not to be ordained with their kind of PH. But I would love to hear more from other women in a setting like conference and whether I'm wrong or not I do put the women leaders aside the men in the 15 with as much importance. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, that's too bad.  There are some timelessly good TNG episodes, such as The Measure of a Man, The Inner Light, Best of Both Worlds, and All Good Things.

Thanks,

-Smac

TNG is good, but the new Star Trek Discovery is amazing.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Vanguard said:

That might be so for the women you seem to think you speak for - as if Rain could not have spoken for herself without everyone running to her defense. For the record, I find her style to be quite balanced, moderated, and reasonable. It is eminently obvious to me that indeed there are many women who feel as she seems to. Conversely, it seems eminently obvious that there are also many women who feel otherwise though I am taken to task for bringing this reality to light because my reproductive hardwiring is different than a woman's and no less from one who shares said hardwiring but thinks he can still speak on a woman's behalf. Crazy world. ;o

Please refrain from speaking about me in this thread or using me as an example.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Actually, what I had in mind when I said that was Juliann's rather nasty, and public, and unsubstantiated, and unfair, and ugly, accusation that the leaders of the Church do not value women speakers.  That remark is rather hard to square with "supporting the leaders of the Church."

Generally, no, I don't think that "sharing feelings about a lack of women speakers is complaining and not supporting the leaders of the church."  

In response to those feelings, I have shared my own thoughts, which are that women speakers are, if anything, over-represented in General Conference.

I have also said:

I've said quite a bit of other stuff as well, none of which has disparaged women.

Where I have transgressed is to disagree with women.  And for that I have to put up with personal attacks and false accusations.  Ah well.

Broadly speaking, yes.  Merely griping about a problem is faultfinding.  This is not only a waste of time, but is corrosive to the unity we are seeking to attain in the Church, and to some extent is at odds with our covenants.  There are all sorts of scriptures that caution against backbiting, murmuring, finding fault, speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, and so on.  My thinking on this has been heavily influenced by a 1987 article by Elder Oaks, entitled Criticism, which addresses at some length the ways by which we should work through disagreements within the Church.

Yes.  That has happened many times in the Church.  FHE started that way.  The Church's welfare program started that way.

I don't know about that.  There are all sorts of reasons why a proposal may or may not be acted upon.

By way of illustration: A few years ago the bishop of our ward was looking for ways to have the young women more engaged.  He also noted that the number of young men in our ward did not typically allow for them to act as ushers since they were all either blessing or passing the Sacrament.  The bishop went to the stake president and requested permission to call the young women to act as ushers.  After some discussion, the stake president said no.  I think it was partly out of tradition, but also partly out of the notion that ushering is a priesthood function.  The stake president noted, correctly, that one of the duties of a deacon is to "assist the bishop."  From that he seemed to extrapolate that ushering was a priesthood responsibility.

A few years later, here we are, with young women ushering in the Church.

Was our bishop's proposal to have young women act as ushers "not of merit?"  Nope.  It was a good idea.

Did our bishop's proposal "not belong in God's church?"  Nope.  It's in God's Church now, and may well have been appropriate when our bishop proposed it.

Anyhoo, our bishop, having counseled with the stake president, followed the instruction and did not call the young women to act as ushers.  More to the point, though, is the bishop did not vilify the stake president.  He didn't publicly disparage the character and decency of the stake president.  He didn't accuse the stake president, directly or obliquely, of sexism (a la the above-referenced "If they valued women speakers....." ugliness).  He didn't go around to other members of the stake and try to rally support against the stake president.  He did not seek to turn public sentiment against the stake president.  He did not try to use pressure tactics to bend the stake president into capitulation.  I see these sorts of things all the time.  By members of the Church.  And I think they are wrong.  

The bishop could have pressed the matter a bit, with the stake president and then perhaps further up the line to the area authority.  Instead, the bishop let the matter drop, and a few years later the bishop's proposal (which was almost certainly not unique to him) was implemented by the Church.  Sometimes that will happen, but more often it won't.  That's the nature of large organizations.  That's the natural outcome of stewardship and authority.  

As members of the Church, our responsibility is to build up the Kingdom of God.  I don't think we do that by publicly slandering the Brethren, using pressure tactics, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am truly trying to understand where you are coming from so I'm trying to take my time with this.  Unfortunately, tomorrow my parents are coming for a week so I don't know that I will get back to this.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...