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

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No, I was not aware.  That seems like people who are looking for ways to be offended.

I'm not sure how noting that someone thanked all the brethren for speaking and didn't thank the one sister for speaking is "looking for ways to be offended".  Is having negative feelings about something the same thing as being offended now? 

Quote

So Pres. Oaks is to be faulted after all?

Perhaps you aren't aware, but actions can produce negative emotions, even when no one is at fault.   Sincere mistakes can cause hurt, even when it was intentional.  Accidents can still harm, even if no one is being held personally responsible for that harm.    

It's really hard to "mourn with those that mourn" if you are busy telling someone there is no reason to be mourning.  

Quote

I just can't get on board with this "representation" stuff. 

I don't think anyone is surprised that you feel that way.  

Quote

With slicing and dicing the speakers as being representatives of the listeners, when they are functioning as representatives of Jesus Christ.  The talks are, broadly speaking, addressed to the entirety of the Church.

One of the core tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that men and women are different.  It's one reason we make such a big deal about gender (sex).  We teach we have different roles, that we have different strengths and weaknesses, different ways of looking at the world, and different experiences with the world and also with being a member of God's kingdom here on the earth.  

How do we teach all of that, and then in the next breath have people implying that they just can't get on board with the idea that there is any benefit in hearing the gospel preached by people a member can personally relate to and who can personally relate to them?

Quote

The Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ were all adult males.  All men from a particular socioeconomic strata.  All Jewish.  I don't think we should discount their callings because they didn't "represent" in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc.

No one is saying otherwise.   

Quote

What do you propose be changed?  Female ordination to the priesthood?

Honestly, what I propose be changed is the default reaction that so many men have to this topic.  The "what is the big deal"?! reaction.  The "why are you upset by this thing that doesn't impact me at all?!" reaction.  The "just be quiet about it already" reaction.

We don't need female ordination to make this issue better.  We need more men in the church who value the views of women, even when those women say things the men can't relate to.

[Kenngo1969]

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The only faulty I find with this new position is it is sure a mouthful of a title. 😁

Well, I'm glad you don't find faulty.  For you, that's a change.  I hope you will continue not finding faulty.   There are better things to do with one's time than finding faulty, such as living and letting livey.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure how noting that someone thanked all the brethren for speaking and didn't thank the one sister for speaking is "looking for ways to be offended".  Is having negative feelings about something the same thing as being offended now? 

Perhaps you aren't aware, but actions can produce negative emotions, even when no one is at fault.   Sincere mistakes can cause hurt, even when it was intentional.  Accidents can still harm, even if no one is being held personally responsible for that harm.    

It's really hard to "mourn with those that mourn" if you are busy telling someone there is no reason to be mourning.  

I don't think anyone is surprised that you feel that way.  

One of the core tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that men and women are different.  It's one reason we make such a big deal about gender (sex).  We teach we have different roles, that we have different strengths and weaknesses, different ways of looking at the world, and different experiences with the world and also with being a member of God's kingdom here on the earth.  

How do we teach all of that, and then in the next breath have people implying that they just can't get on board with the idea that there is any benefit in hearing the gospel preached by people a member can personally relate to and who can personally relate to them?

No one is saying otherwise.   

Honestly, what I propose be changed is the default reaction that so many men have to this topic.  The "what is the big deal"?! reaction.  The "why are you upset by this thing that doesn't impact me at all?!" reaction.  The "just be quiet about it already" reaction.

We don't need female ordination to make this issue better.  We need more men in the church who value the views of women, even when those women say things the men can't relate to.

Well said.

Some want the status quo to remain unchanged but that's really not the trajectory of the church. So ironically, those pushing the "What's the big deal about representation?" mentality, while perhaps still in a majority, are really the ones being critical of the church's direction towards improved representation.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure you are aware of the small controversy surrounding the Sunday morning session, when Pres. Oaks thanked all the brethren for their talks and forgot that Sister Aburto spoke as well.  

On one hand it was a small thing, and of course a simple mistake that most of the sisters in the church are not taking personally.  I'm sure that Sis. Aburto didn't take it personally.  On the other hand though, it stings a bit, that it is such the norm at general conference for there not to be any women speakers in a session, that it's easy to forget when one actually does talk.

I didn't know it was even a small controversy. I did notice that he only said 'brethren,' but I assumed that was him just repeating what he had said the night before when he conducted / concluded the priesthood session. 

I remember watching a panel discussion once with linguists and neuroscientists talking about speech works, and how our minds make mistakes like this all the time. Words get missed, switched, etc. with some degree of regularity. And it doesn't evidence some kind of Freudian hidden meaning or anything; it's just how our brains work. I've certainly done the same thing myself - omitted words that I could have sworn I said, only to learn from multiple witnesses that I apparently didn't actually say them. 

Sorry, that's a bit of a tangent.  

 

[Tacenda]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps you should first establish that "the church limits women speakers during conference."

There are about 138 general authorities and officers in the church.  Most of these are priesthood offices (those that are not are in bold) :

• First Presidency: 3
• Quorum of the Twelve: 12
• Presidency of the Seventy: 7
• 1st / 2nd Quorums of Seventy: 98
• Presiding Bishopric: 3
• Relief Society General Presidency: 3
• Sunday School General Presidency: 3
• Young Men General Presidency: 3
• Young Women General Presidency: 3
• Primary General Presidency: 3

Of these the first fifteen (the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) typically all speak at least once during a conference session, with some speaking multiple times.  That leaves a fairly limited number of slots open for other speakers.  And since there are only nine women in these leadership positions, it's understandable that they don't get as much rotation at the pulpit.

On the other hand, consider how often women leaders do speak.  For example, Elder Devn J. Cornish has been a Seventy for ten years, and has given two (2) conference talks, or about one every five years.

In contrast, Sister Linda K. Burton, who served as the sixteenth general president of the Relief Society from 2012 to 2017, gave eight (8) conference talks in five years.

Sis. Burton's predecessor, Sister Julie B. Beck, gave eight (8) conference talks in her five years as Relief Society General President, and an addition seven (7) talks during her five-year tenure as 1st Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency, for an average of 7.5 talks every five years.

So Sister Burton's talk-to-year ratio is 1.6 : 1.

Sister Beck's ratio is 1.5 : 1.

Elder Cornish's is  is 0.2 : 1.

I don't listen to General Conference to tick "diversity" boxes, or to keep count of the speakers by their gender or race or national origin.  I value their spiritual insights that are informed by their own views and experiences, but which mostly come (or should come, anyway) from revelation by virtue of their callings.

In any event, did you listen to General Conference just 1.5 weeks ago?  Let's take a look at the line-up:

Saturday Morning Session

• Welcome Message: Russell M. Nelson
• God among Us: Dieter F. Uchtdorf
• Essential Conversations: Joy D. Jones
• Teaching in the Savior’s Way: Jan E. Newman
• Hearts Knit Together: Gary E. Stevenson
• Room in the Inn: Gerrit W. Gong
• I Love to See the Temple: Henry B. Eyring

Saturday Afternoon Session: 

• Sustaining of General Authorities, Area Seventies, and General Officers: Dallin H. Oaks
• Church Auditing Department Report, 2020: Jared B. Larson
• Not as the World Giveth: Jeffrey R. Holland
• Poor Little Ones: Jorge T. Becerra
• Infuriating Unfairness: Dale G. Renlund
• The Personal Journey of a Child of God: Neil L. Andersen
• Ye Shall Be Free: Thierry K. Mutombo
• Hope in Christ: M. Russell Ballard

Priesthood Session: 

• Bishops—Shepherds over the Lord’s Flock: Quentin L. Cook
• You Can Gather Israel!: Ahmad S. Corbitt
• This Is Our Time!: S. Gifford Nielsen
• Bless in His Name: Henry B. Eyring
• What Has Our Savior Done for Us?: Dallin H. Oaks
• What We Are Learning and Will Never Forget: Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Morning Session: 

• Jesus Christ: The Caregiver of Our Soul: Ulisses Soares
• The Grave Has No Victory: Reyna I. Aburto
• Our Sorrow Shall Be Turned into Joy: S. Mark Palmer
• Pressing toward the Mark: Edward Dube
• Remember Your Way Back Home: José A. Teixeira
• God Loves His Children: Taniela B. Wakolo
• They Cannot Prevail; We Cannot Fall: Chi Hong (Sam) Wong
• Our Personal Savior: Michael John U. Teh
• Christ Is Risen; Faith in Him Will Move Mountains: Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Afternoon Session: 

• Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution: Dallin H. Oaks
• “Behold! I Am a God of Miracles”: Ronald A. Rasband
• Light Cleaveth unto Light: Timothy J. Dyches
• Why the Covenant Path: D. Todd Christofferson
• The Gospel Light of Truth and Love: Alan R. Walker
• “The Principles of My Gospel”: David A. Bednar
• COVID-19 and Temples: Russell M. Nelson

That's 37 talks spread over five sessions.

Of these 37 talks, twenty (20) were given by members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  Pretty understandable, I think.

So that leaves a total of 17 talks, two were given by women: Joy Jones and Reyna I. Aburto.  That's 11.76% of the speaking slots, despite women only representing 7.69% of the general authorities/officers of the Church.

Of the twenty talks given by the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, two (10%) were given by Elder Ulisses Soares (from Brazil) and Elder Gerrit W. Gong (Chinese-American).  (I guess Elder Uchtdorf is too caucasian to count for "diversity" purposes).

Of the remaining 17 talks, nine of them (52.94%) were given by men and women who reflect the "international" nature of the Church:

• Elder Jorge T. Becerra (Hispanic-American)
• Sis. Reyna I. Aburto (Nicaraguan-American)
• Elder Thierry K. Mutombo (Congolese)
• Elder Edward Dube (Zimbabwean)
• Elder José A. Teixeira (Portuguese)
• Elder Taniela B. Wakolo (Fijiian)
• Elder Chi Hong (Sam) Wong (Chinese)
• Elder Michael John U. Teh (Filippino)
• Elder Alan R. Walker (Argentine)

These talks, together with those of Elder Soares and Elder Gong, comprise 29.73% of the talks given at the April 2021 General Conference. 

Does this lineup of speakers reflect a different state of affairs from the lineups I listened to growing up?  Yep.  Quite a big difference there.  I remember being surprised and excited to listen to Elder Helvécio Martins.  Now, "diversity" amongst the speakers at General Conference is fairly commonplace.

"Wouldn't it be something if the church allowed more diversity in the speakers at conference...?"  Well, isn't that happening now?

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess I rate the sisters higher up along with the 12 or first presidency. 😳

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I rate the sisters higher up along with the 12 or first presidency. 😳

Because of their gender?

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I didn't know it was even a small controversy. I did notice that he only said 'brethren,' but I assumed that was him just repeating what he had said the night before when he conducted / concluded the priesthood session. 

I remember watching a panel discussion once with linguists and neuroscientists talking about speech works, and how our minds make mistakes like this all the time. Words get missed, switched, etc. with some degree of regularity. And it doesn't evidence some kind of Freudian hidden meaning or anything; it's just how our brains work. I've certainly done the same thing myself - omitted words that I could have sworn I said, only to learn from multiple witnesses that I apparently didn't actually say them. 

Sorry, that's a bit of a tangent.  

 

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).

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well said.

Some want the status quo to remain unchanged but that's really not the trajectory of the church. So ironically, those pushing the "What's the big deal about representation?" mentality, while perhaps still in a majority, are really the ones being critical of the church's direction towards improved representation.

I also don't get someone who is very much represented saying, "I don't get the big deal about representation." 

To me that's like someone who's not colorblind telling someone who is "I don't get the big deal about not being able to see the color red".

  

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I also don't get someone who is very much represented saying, "I don't get the big deal about representation." 

To me that's like someone who's not colorblind telling someone who is "I don't get the big deal about being able to see the color red".

  

 

To me it demonstrates, at the very least, a lack of empathy.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I just can't get on board with this "representation" stuff.  With slicing and dicing the speakers as being representatives of the listeners, when they are functioning as representatives of Jesus Christ.  The talks are, broadly speaking, addressed to the entirety of the Church.

 

Says the man who has never listened to a General Conference of women, with 2 male speakers. The talks may be addressed to the entirety of the Church but until there are more women speakers the talks are not addressing the needs of the entirety of the Church. 

Quote

The Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ were all adult males.  All men from a particular socioeconomic strata.  All Jewish.  I don't think we should discount their callings because they didn't "represent" in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc.

Discounted by no one, ever. 

Quote

What do you propose be changed?  Female ordination to the priesthood?

I understand and respect what you are saying, but I'm struggling to understand the remedy to what you apparently feels ails the Church.  Short of female ordination to the priesthood, what sort of substantive changes do you see?

This is why you are usually seen as not even trying. This has been addressed so often it's not funny. Priesthood is not needed for a great number of callings. There is that "presiding" thing even if it was. 

 

[Rain]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps you should first establish that "the church limits women speakers during conference."

There are about 138 general authorities and officers in the church.  Most of these are priesthood offices (those that are not are in bold) :

• First Presidency: 3
• Quorum of the Twelve: 12
• Presidency of the Seventy: 7
• 1st / 2nd Quorums of Seventy: 98
• Presiding Bishopric: 3
• Relief Society General Presidency: 3
• Sunday School General Presidency: 3
• Young Men General Presidency: 3
• Young Women General Presidency: 3
• Primary General Presidency: 3

Of these the first fifteen (the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) typically all speak at least once during a conference session, with some speaking multiple times.  That leaves a fairly limited number of slots open for other speakers.  And since there are only nine women in these leadership positions, it's understandable that they don't get as much rotation at the pulpit.

On the other hand, consider how often women leaders do speak.  For example, Elder Devn J. Cornish has been a Seventy for ten years, and has given two (2) conference talks, or about one every five years.

In contrast, Sister Linda K. Burton, who served as the sixteenth general president of the Relief Society from 2012 to 2017, gave eight (8) conference talks in five years.

Sis. Burton's predecessor, Sister Julie B. Beck, gave eight (8) conference talks in her five years as Relief Society General President, and an addition seven (7) talks during her five-year tenure as 1st Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency, for an average of 7.5 talks every five years.

So Sister Burton's talk-to-year ratio is 1.6 : 1.

Sister Beck's ratio is 1.5 : 1.

Elder Cornish's is  is 0.2 : 1.

I don't listen to General Conference to tick "diversity" boxes, or to keep count of the speakers by their gender or race or national origin.  I value their spiritual insights that are informed by their own views and experiences, but which mostly come (or should come, anyway) from revelation by virtue of their callings.

In any event, did you listen to General Conference just 1.5 weeks ago?  Let's take a look at the line-up:

Saturday Morning Session

• Welcome Message: Russell M. Nelson
• God among Us: Dieter F. Uchtdorf
• Essential Conversations: Joy D. Jones
• Teaching in the Savior’s Way: Jan E. Newman
• Hearts Knit Together: Gary E. Stevenson
• Room in the Inn: Gerrit W. Gong
• I Love to See the Temple: Henry B. Eyring

Saturday Afternoon Session: 

• Sustaining of General Authorities, Area Seventies, and General Officers: Dallin H. Oaks
• Church Auditing Department Report, 2020: Jared B. Larson
• Not as the World Giveth: Jeffrey R. Holland
• Poor Little Ones: Jorge T. Becerra
• Infuriating Unfairness: Dale G. Renlund
• The Personal Journey of a Child of God: Neil L. Andersen
• Ye Shall Be Free: Thierry K. Mutombo
• Hope in Christ: M. Russell Ballard

Priesthood Session: 

• Bishops—Shepherds over the Lord’s Flock: Quentin L. Cook
• You Can Gather Israel!: Ahmad S. Corbitt
• This Is Our Time!: S. Gifford Nielsen
• Bless in His Name: Henry B. Eyring
• What Has Our Savior Done for Us?: Dallin H. Oaks
• What We Are Learning and Will Never Forget: Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Morning Session: 

• Jesus Christ: The Caregiver of Our Soul: Ulisses Soares
• The Grave Has No Victory: Reyna I. Aburto
• Our Sorrow Shall Be Turned into Joy: S. Mark Palmer
• Pressing toward the Mark: Edward Dube
• Remember Your Way Back Home: José A. Teixeira
• God Loves His Children: Taniela B. Wakolo
• They Cannot Prevail; We Cannot Fall: Chi Hong (Sam) Wong
• Our Personal Savior: Michael John U. Teh
• Christ Is Risen; Faith in Him Will Move Mountains: Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Afternoon Session: 

• Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution: Dallin H. Oaks
• “Behold! I Am a God of Miracles”: Ronald A. Rasband
• Light Cleaveth unto Light: Timothy J. Dyches
• Why the Covenant Path: D. Todd Christofferson
• The Gospel Light of Truth and Love: Alan R. Walker
• “The Principles of My Gospel”: David A. Bednar
• COVID-19 and Temples: Russell M. Nelson

That's 37 talks spread over five sessions.

Of these 37 talks, twenty (20) were given by members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  Pretty understandable, I think.

So that leaves a total of 17 talks, two were given by women: Joy Jones and Reyna I. Aburto.  That's 11.76% of the speaking slots, despite women only representing 7.69% of the general authorities/officers of the Church.

Of the twenty talks given by the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, two (10%) were given by Elder Ulisses Soares (from Brazil) and Elder Gerrit W. Gong (Chinese-American).  (I guess Elder Uchtdorf is too caucasian to count for "diversity" purposes).

Of the remaining 17 talks, nine of them (52.94%) were given by men and women who reflect the "international" nature of the Church:

• Elder Jorge T. Becerra (Hispanic-American)
• Sis. Reyna I. Aburto (Nicaraguan-American)
• Elder Thierry K. Mutombo (Congolese)
• Elder Edward Dube (Zimbabwean)
• Elder José A. Teixeira (Portuguese)
• Elder Taniela B. Wakolo (Fijiian)
• Elder Chi Hong (Sam) Wong (Chinese)
• Elder Michael John U. Teh (Filippino)
• Elder Alan R. Walker (Argentine)

These talks, together with those of Elder Soares and Elder Gong, comprise 29.73% of the talks given at the April 2021 General Conference. 

Does this lineup of speakers reflect a different state of affairs from the lineups I listened to growing up?  Yep.  Quite a big difference there.  I remember being surprised and excited to listen to Elder Helvécio Martins.  Now, "diversity" amongst the speakers at General Conference is fairly commonplace.

"Wouldn't it be something if the church allowed more diversity in the speakers at conference...?"  Well, isn't that happening now?

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you not get that many women do not feel  wanted and respected when few women speak overall?  Have you ever once tried to feel what they are feeling so you might understand?  I don't mean being sympathetic.  I mean empathetic like the Savior.

You often knock down feelings, but that is an important part of each one of us.  It's an important part of who the Savior is as well. 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'll take myself out of the thread for not following the rules now. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because of their gender?

I kinda was being sarcastic and truthful at the same time.

[Vanguard]

59 minutes ago, Rain said:

Do you not get that many women do not feel  wanted and respected when few women speak overall?  Have you ever once tried to feel what they are feeling so you might understand?  I don't mean being sympathetic.  I mean empathetic like the Savior.

You often knock down feelings, but that is an important part of each one of us.  It's an important part of who the Savior is as well. 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'll take myself out of the thread for not following the rules now. 

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'm sure it has occurred to you there are probably many women who do feel 'wanted' and 'respected' despite the fact GC is dominated by male speakers. They are elated when hearing from our leaders and do not entertain these types of issues nor do they desire change. What about them? And do you really think that those who you accuse of 'knock[ing] down feelings' would fare better if they 'attempted' to listen empathetically? And what happens if nothing changes with female speakers? You'd be ok because you were empathetically listened to? I would venture to say there would still be the same issue and the individual would be accused of expediting you and giving you lip service. And on and on it would go... 

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

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'm sure it has occurred to you there are probably many women who do feel 'wanted' and 'respected' despite the fact GC is dominated by male speakers. They are elated when hearing from our leaders and do not entertain these types of issues nor do they desire change. What about them? And do you really think that those who you accuse of 'knock[ing] down feelings' would fare better if they 'attempted' to listen empathetically? And what happens if nothing changes with female speakers? You'd be ok because you were empathetically listened to? I would venture to say there would still be the same issue and the individual would be accused of expediting you and giving you lip service. And on and on it would go... 

Says the male now ostensibly speaking for a hypothetical group of women...

[Vanguard]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Says the male now ostensibly speaking for a hypothetical group of women...

Are you kidding me? Hypothetical? And only because I'm male? Good grief. : (

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

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'm not Rain but I'm going to respond by saying that I don't think the church should always act to assuage concerns (though sometimes they should).  I just think the church should care about the concerns.  And for the most part I really believe our leaders do.

With some members, that's a different story.  

Quote

I'm sure it has occurred to you there are probably many women who do feel 'wanted' and 'respected' despite the fact GC is dominated by male speakers. They are elated when hearing from our leaders and do not entertain these types of issues nor do they desire change. What about them?

What about them?  Will listening to and empathizing the concerns of women who feel differently harm them in some way?

Quote

And do you really think that those who you accuse of 'knock[ing] down feelings' would fare better if they 'attempted' to listen empathetically? 

Yes I do.  The men on the board who try to do that seem to fare better.  Is there some reason we should believe that wouldn't be the case with everyone?

Quote

And what happens if nothing changes with female speakers? You'd be ok because you were empathetically listened to?

This article on the importance of empathy and validation, and how it legitimately helps, might be useful to you.

Quote

I would venture to say there would still be the same issue and the individual would be accused of expediting you and giving you lip service. And on and on it would go... 

This statement shows that you don't have a lot of experience with Rain's posts.  As such, I'm not sure why you think you can predict how she would react in any situation, much less the one you described above.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Are you kidding me? Hypothetical? And only because I'm male? Good grief. : (

You say there are "probably" women who "do feel 'wanted' and 'respected' despite the fact GC is dominated by male speakers," so yes - hypothetical.

You, as a male, making this argument shows how decidedly tone deaf you are to the issues being raised by women in this thread.  You and I simply do not have the frame of reference they do to speak about the feelings of women; we just don't.  Our role as males should be to hear them out, not tell them how wrong they are, that they don't speak for all women, devalue their concerns, and tell them to go away and simply trust that all will be okay because...well...the RIGHT men are in charge!

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Says the male now ostensibly speaking for a hypothetical group of women...

The "these women agree with me so your concerns are invalid" approach to mourning with those that mourn.

[ttribe]

Just now, bluebell said:

The "these women agree with me so your concerns are invalid" approach to mourning with those that mourn.

A possible addition - "these HYPOTHETICAL women who PROBABLY agree with me..."

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, I'm glad you don't find faulty.  For you, that's a change.  I hope you will continue not finding faulty.   There are better things to do with one's time than finding faulty, such as living and letting livey.

I am not sure that was a compliment.  😇😆😆

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

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'm sure it has occurred to you there are probably many women who do feel 'wanted' and 'respected' despite the fact GC is dominated by male speakers. They are elated when hearing from our leaders and do not entertain these types of issues nor do they desire change. What about them? 

Ah, the woman sock puppet approach....you can stick it on any man's hand and so he can continue telling women what they should think and feel without pause.

Quote

And do you really think that those who you accuse of 'knock[ing] down feelings' would fare better if they 'attempted' to listen empathetically? 

What does your woman sock puppet think?

Quote

And what happens if nothing changes with female speakers? You'd be ok because you were empathetically listened to?

Try another woman sock puppet if you have run out of words for the first one! What does she say?

Quote

I would venture to say there would still be the same issue and the individual would be accused of expediting you and giving you lip service. And on and on it would go...  

Oh, gosh. See? You didn't need a woman sock puppet after all!  You know exactly not only what women think but what they would say!

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

The only faulty I find with this new position is it is sure a mouthful of a title. 😁

 

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, I'm glad you don't find faulty.  For you, that's a change.  I hope you will continue not finding faulty.   There are better things to do with one's time than finding faulty, such as living and letting livey.

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure that was a compliment.  😇😆😆

Well, let me put any doubt to rest, then!  It is.    I hope, my tongue-in-cheek delivery notwithstanding, that you will continue "living and letting livey."

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Do you not get that many women do not feel  wanted and respected when few women speak overall? 

Some feel that way, yes.  I'm not sure how prevalent the sentiment is.

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Have you ever once tried to feel what they are feeling so you might understand? I don't mean being sympathetic.  I mean empathetic like the Savior.

Yes.

6 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

6 hours ago, Rain said:

It's an important part of who the Savior is as well.

To an extent, yes.

6 hours ago, Rain said:

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.  

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I'll take myself out of the thread for not following the rules now. 

No need.  I think you've assumed a bit about me, but that's no biggie.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

I created a thread about this on March 12th. It didn’t get much traction. 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Peacefully

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Some feel that way, yes.  I'm not sure how prevalent the sentiment is.

I'd say since we don't have data it's useless to assert one way or another.  I'll say this, "I" feel that way, and I said so out loud to my husband after conference.  I'm just now reading that others felt the same.  Whether that matters to you is of no significance to me other than the fact that if you think something, it's likely that others feel the same, and if I feel something, it's likely that others feel the same.  That tells me that other women likely feel dismissed, and that other men could not be less concerned. That's the religion I have signed on for.