More female representation in general conference

[Chum]

It is my perspective that women hold a near monopoly on some kinds of courage. I'm for anything that undams their wisdom in a way that our instruction becomes saturated with it.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Rain said:

If the Lord switched them from being general officers to being called as "prophetesses", but they only served for 4-5 years would you then want the women speaking?

Sure, if it was for the right reason.  But then you'd have to also call all the male general officers prophets.

[CV75]

Drag: problem solved!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Do you feel it is burdensome for the apostles and first presidency?

Honestly? Yeah.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Sure, if it was for the right reason.  But then you'd have to also call all the male general officers prophets.

Yes, for the right reason.  I said the Lord doing it because it would always be for the right reason then.  Now I recognize that some would not recognize it as the Lord and say it was caving into pressure.  

This has me wondering what the apostles are assigned to.  I know Elder Uchtdorf is over missionary work.  I'm guessing there are temples, scriptures, education?  Are the apostles over the auxiliaries as well? If so, what are their responsibilities that are different than the presidencies? Or is this like the ward level where the first presidency is over them?

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Honestly? Yeah.

I'm just trying to see where you are coming from here.  Why do you feel it is ok to "burden" each apostle with a talk, but not each woman leader? I get the things bluebell is saying and somewhat agree with her.  I never would have thought of this burden thing and I'm not understanding why it would make a difference, especially coming from you.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm just trying to see where you are coming from here.  Why do you feel it is ok to "burden" each apostle with a talk, but not each woman leader? I get the things bluebell is saying and somewhat agree with her.  I never would have thought of this burden thing and I'm not understanding why it would make a difference, especially coming from you.

Writing and prepping for a talk like that is a lot of work. Then there might be suggested changes for translation reasons and everything else. It doesn’t seem like a fun process. For the apostles it is really a part of their calling so even if it is burdensome it kind of has to be done. For auxiliary leaders it is more like ‘once every three conferences’ and it is something they may or may not do. They still have more obligations in this area than the 70s and the 70s are usually better (self) trained in public speaking because a lot of their responsibility is to go around speaking at meetings. If I was in the Sunday School Presidency I would wonder why anyone wanted to listen to me and my current calling probably doesn’t involve nearly as much time learning to speak well publicly as even the 70s get.

That is why I see it as potentially burdensome. I am sure that is not true for everyone who is a general officer. Some might enjoy it. It is just more out of their wheelhouse though, of course, some are still very good at it in spite of that.

[Chum]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Writing and prepping for a talk like that is a lot of work

Every talk worth listening to is a lot of work.  I generally need a day of prep time for each not-awful minute. This isn't even scholarly or educated work, just words that are minimally worth the audience's time.

A talk like you're indicating would probably take me a never amount of days to finish.

[Peacefully]

I was overjoyed the first time I heard Neill F. Marriott say “y’all” in General Conference. I had never heard someone who spoke like me in GC before. Not just a woman, but a southern woman. So I can see how it can be helpful for some, to see or hear something of themselves in the speakers. We are a world-wide church and I am happy our leadership is reflecting that more and more. I hope more women in leadership positions will mean we are more represented in GC. In the end, though, I want inspired talks that give me something to think about and ways to improve my life and the life of others. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Peacefully

[Fether]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

The women at the tomb.  Would it have been different for you if say Peter or Matthew were there instead?  Why or why not?

It wouldn’t.

Admittedly, I don’t know why. Perhaps because I see it as so little consequence? Not meant to be a jab at anyone who wishes to see more women in GC.

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, for the right reason.  I said the Lord doing it because it would always be for the right reason then.  Now I recognize that some would not recognize it as the Lord and say it was caving into pressure.  

This has me wondering what the apostles are assigned to.  I know Elder Uchtdorf is over missionary work.  I'm guessing there are temples, scriptures, education?  Are the apostles over the auxiliaries as well? If so, what are their responsibilities that are different than the presidencies? Or is this like the ward level where the first presidency is over them?

From what I have gathered each or a subset of apostles is over different areas of the Church, so say 3 apostles are over primary, another 3 are over Family History/Temples, another 3 are Missionary and so not that long ago I was contacted about doing a survey about church magazine content and my response was alledgedly sent to Elder Gong (That's what they said but who knows) So maybe he is reposnsible for say education with a subset of church magazines? I think they do it that way so by the time you get to be the President of the Church you will have experience in all these things. How often they change or specific areas or what I have no idea 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Writing and prepping for a talk like that is a lot of work.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with this.  I'm just not seeing how it matters.

Also to be clear, all my questions are actually questions.  They are not complaints.  Or arguments that things should be changed.  Or even things I think should be changed.  They are just things that don't make sense to me and I'm trying to understand them.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Then there might be suggested changes for translation reasons and everything else. It doesn’t seem like a fun process. For the apostles it is really a part of their calling so even if it is burdensome it kind of has to be done.

Why is giving a talk in conference part of their calling, but not part of other people's callings.  We know that apostles are supposed to be special witnesses which means they are supposed to teach and testify of Christ.  Practically speaking then conference fills the bill here, but as far as I am aware there is nothing that says that what they say should be to all the world every 6 months.  There is not even anything that says it must be to all the world.  Technically, they could visit a different ward or 2 every week.  But again, practically speaking, conference works.

But there is much more to their callings than speaking and testifying.  For example, we have been given a little info about hos missionaries are called and that is part of the calling/assignment of some apostles.   

And then many if not all of the officers of the church go around speaking as well.  For example, one of the women in the primary presidency spoke to my daughter's institute.  

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

For auxiliary leaders it is more like ‘once every three conferences’ and it is something they may or may not do. They still have more obligations in this area than the 70s and the 70s are usually better (self) trained in public speaking because a lot of their responsibility is to go around speaking at meetings. If I was in the Sunday School Presidency I would wonder why anyone wanted to listen to me and my current calling probably doesn’t involve nearly as much time learning to speak well publicly as even the 70s get.

But whom the Lord calls He qualifies.  It makes total sense to have someone speaking to the whole church who has built up practice for years doing it in wards, stakes and regions, but it isn't required.  Many of these women will have been speaking in their wards, stakes, charitable causes, education and government groups so it's possible he has been qualifying them all along as well. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is why I see it as potentially burdensome. I am sure that is not true for everyone who is a general officer. Some might enjoy it. It is just more out of their wheelhouse though, of course, some are still very good at it in spite of that.

I have been sitting here talking with my husband trying to get a grip on all of this.  The best he has been able to come up with is keys.  It doesn't really answer all my questions with this, but it's about as close as we have been able to get this.   Honestly, I would be happy with "I don't know" a lot of times in discussions like this. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

It wouldn’t.

Admittedly, I don’t know why. Perhaps because I see it as so little consequence? Not meant to be a jab at anyone who wishes to see more women in GC.

I appreciate your answer.  

[Rain]

54 minutes ago, Duncan said:

From what I have gathered each or a subset of apostles is over different areas of the Church, so say 3 apostles are over primary, another 3 are over Family History/Temples, another 3 are Missionary and so not that long ago I was contacted about doing a survey about church magazine content and my response was alledgedly sent to Elder Gong (That's what they said but who knows) So maybe he is reposnsible for say education with a subset of church magazines? I think they do it that way so by the time you get to be the President of the Church you will have experience in all these things. How often they change or specific areas or what I have no idea 

Thanks! 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm just trying to see where you are coming from here.  Why do you feel it is ok to "burden" each apostle with a talk, but not each woman leader? I get the things bluebell is saying and somewhat agree with her.  I never would have thought of this burden thing and I'm not understanding why it would make a difference, especially coming from you.

For  me and my personality, I would probably feel really annoyed by it if I was one of the sisters.  I'd probably feel like it was unfair to expect me, as a woman, to speak all the time at GC when the men with similar callings were not expected to speak as much.  

I see the apostles differently because they have different callings than everyone else.  In my mind, it's right that their speaking responsibilities are unique because their calling is unique. 

But would it be right that the YW's general president had different speaking responsibilities than the YM's general president?  If it were me, and I had to deal with the stress of constantly speaking and my male counterpart didn't, I'd probably be resentful about it.

Well, if I transported my current self into that situation anyway.  Hopefully, if I ever was called to such a thing (pure hypothetical here) I'd have been able to get rid of more of my weaknesses by then. 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully, if I ever was called to such a thing (pure hypothetical here) I'd have been able to get rid of more of my weaknesses by then. 

I've gotten to know my scared, whiny, reactive inner-6yo-boy pretty well. I really can't see life w/o him now.

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For  me and my personality, I would probably feel really annoyed by it if I was one of the sisters.  I'd probably feel like it was unfair to expect me, as a woman, to speak all the time at GC when the men with similar callings were not expected to speak as much.  

I see the apostles differently because they have different callings than everyone else.  In my mind, it's right that their speaking responsibilities are unique because their calling is unique. 

But would it be right that the YW's general president had different speaking responsibilities than the YM's general president?  If it were me, and I had to deal with the stress of constantly speaking and my male counterpart didn't, I'd probably be resentful about it.

Well, if I transported my current self into that situation anyway.  Hopefully, if I ever was called to such a thing (pure hypothetical here) I'd have been able to get rid of more of my weaknesses by then. 

So for you, in a way, male/female speaking in conference really comes down to there are callings that the men hold that the women don't.  

[Robert F. Smith]

 

[2BizE]

I appreciate the female perspectives.  Having more women speak is also my desire. If the prophet can break down non-doctrinal traditions like allowing women to be witnesses or allow women to serve in 70-like callings, or allowing young women to hand out towels at baptisms for dead, surely allowing more women to speak in GC is in the range of possibility.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Rain said:

So for you, in a way, male/female speaking in conference really comes down to there are callings that the men hold that the women don't.  

That's probably accurate.  For me, it's about the calling, not the gender.  I don't want to hear from a woman just because she's a woman anymore than I want to hear from a man just because he's a man.  

I would like there to be more women speakers, but (from my perspective) not as some form of affirmative action, where a woman speaks only because she is a woman and we need to get the numbers right.  I want women with legitimate authority applicable to the whole church to speak and teach on their sphere  within the calling they hold. 

I don't want women speakers added so that the numbers look better.

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's probably accurate.  For me, it's about the calling, not the gender.  I don't want to hear from a woman just because she's a woman anymore than I want to hear from a man just because he's a man.  

I would like there to be more women speakers, but (from my perspective) not as some form of affirmative action, where a woman speaks only because she is a woman and we need to get the numbers right.  I want women with legitimate authority applicable to the whole church to speak and teach on their sphere  within the calling they hold. 

I don't want women speakers added so that the numbers look better.

I agree.

[AtlanticMike]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't want women speakers added so that the numbers look better

I think right now might be a good time to have the relief society go back to how it used to be before correlation. Let it be independent financially like it used to be. I personally think that could be a good thing for the church and its image.

    I think this could also mean that more women would speak in general conference because they would give us updates on how the relief society is doing and they could also tell us the goals they have set for the next year. Could this ever happen? Is it something women would even want?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

This is the guy who says culture/order is intrinsically masculine and chaos is intrinsically feminine.

Also the same guy who thinks any questioning of the “patriarchy” ignores the “the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.”

So I am gonna pass on him trying to tell me why men don’t go to church. Gonna take a stab and say it is because the church is feminizing men or something. That is a usual take for him.

[Duncan]

47 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I think right now might be a good time to have the relief society go back to how it used to be before correlation. Let it be independent financially like it used to be. I personally think that could be a good thing for the church and its image.

    I think this could also mean that more women would speak in general conference because they would give us updates on how the relief society is doing and they could also tell us the goals they have set for the next year. Could this ever happen? Is it something women would even want?

they used to have their own Relief Society Conference and so unless you were in RS then you wouldn't really be "in the know" back then someone said the Church was a compilation of "mini churches" and so now they combined it all under roof, so to speak, and so now you get to know what the RS Presidency says and who they are

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/25/2021 at 7:57 PM, The Nehor said:

This is the guy who says culture/order is intrinsically masculine and chaos is intrinsically feminine.

These are the traditional symbols of yin and yang, on which most of Eastern religion and philosophy are structured.  However, I don't recall Peterson arguing what you indicate.  That's like claiming that Daniel Peterson advises that we worship Ashera. 

Quote

Also the same guy who thinks any questioning of the “patriarchy” ignores the “the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.”

Actually he doesn't believe in the patriarchy.  He says instead that men and women have traditionally cooperated with one another and loved one another.  He denies silly feminist claims.

Quote

So I am gonna pass on him trying to tell me why men don’t go to church. Gonna take a stab and say it is because the church is feminizing men or something. That is a usual take for him.

He actually gives a very rational argument completely unrelated to your wild M'Khia Bryant stabbing motion. 

ETA:

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Robert F. Smith