Church ends saturday evening sessions for general conference

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We should all be receiving instructions from those who preside over us.

Are women allowed to preside over anyone, even other women or children?  Honest question, I can't remember how the church defines that phrase.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not prohibiting anyone from discussing anything.

 

I get that.  I was more asking about what changes you considered someone could discuss without being accused of denigrating anything, and which ones were not ok to discuss.

Well, I'll think about that.  But I'm not sure that's accurate.

Quote

I think it's pretty clear that publicly complaining about the First Presidency interloping in the Women's Session is, well, "denigrating" (as in to "criticize unfairly; disparage").  It sure comes across that way. 

It doesn't come across that way to everyone.  Not even to every devout and believing member.  So that seems to be personal judgement rather than a given.

Quote

I'm not trying to draw a line.  I'm not trying to dictate what changes can or cannot be discussed.

Which ones can be discussed without you suggesting that doing so is denigrating or criticizing church leadership? 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Then why discount my arguments if we are all in the same non-objective boat?

I'm not discounting them.  I'm explaining where/why I think they are unpersuasive or invalid.  We don't have to be unbiased to be able to do that.

Quote

Well, for some it's all about gender.  Anecdotally, I think there are plenty of women who would reject the disparagement of the First Presidency speaking in the Women's Session.  Of them interloping.

And plenty who 1) would never interpret what has been said in that way and 2) agree with Juliann's assessment of the situation.  

Quote

 

And I get that you get that.  But I present them looking for a rebuttal.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think they've been rebutted.  If you are going to keep repeating them until you get a rebuttal that you agree with, then that will become tiresome for everyone, you included.  Some things reasonable people are just not going to agree upon.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are women allowed to preside over anyone, even other women or children?  Honest question, I can't remember how the church defines that phrase.

Don't know about officially.  But the Relief Society Presidency presides over the Relief Society.  The Temple Matron presides over women's ordinances (initiatory).   Unless I missed a memo.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps a better solution would have been to remove the priesthood and women's session from GC weekend and have them both take place on a different Saturday night completely?

Curious if they had women leadership gather at conference time like they did priesthood leadership (so I heard, please correct if this is wrong). And wonder now with technology and a tons bigger church, if they are moving away from the idea conference is a time to have in person leadership meetings. 
 

It made sense to have the Priesthood Session at conference time if they wanted male church leaders to have the chance  to attend a session if male leaders were already gathered to Salt Lake that weekend.  With the much smaller numbers of General female leadership and with them living in the area already (iirc, I may be wrong on this), much easier to arrange a mass meeting of leaders. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

What makes this so telling is that at each and every change the church has made to give women more visibility, it has been preceded by the same stale speech.

I don't know what you're referencing here.

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

The only reason there are "gender wars" is because some men are resisting even a hint of more inclusion for girls and women.

Meh.  Disagreement with you is not "resisting even a hint of more inclusion for girls and women."

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

They obviously see it as a loss for themselves or what would be the objection?

I have no idea what you are saying here.  It doesn't even make sense.  Men don't "lose" anything by women speaking at General Conference.

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by the importation of the Gender Wars (the "hammer"), then every issue about Church can be construed as an expression of misogyny or a victimization of women ("as if it were a nail").

But I don't think that's fair or accurate.  I don't think the men of the Church would give two figs if there were more women speakers in Church.  To the contrary, I think they would - like me - be quite pleased about it.

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

After all, they don't care who declares God's word.

Just so.

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

Until someone suggests it might come from women.

And there it is.  Your go-to point.  Your hammer.  To disagree with you is to hate women.  Men in the Church are misogynists.  That's your explanation.  That's where you end up.

I just don't think that's fair at all.  

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm still scratching my head over how these two positions are reconciled in some other heads. 

Here's a proposal: Disagreement with you does not equate to hatred of women.

Observant Latter-day Saint men are not inveterate, hopelessly depraved women-haters who hold women in contempt and object to women being a conduit for revelatory guidance from God.

I have had countless private conversations with men in the Church.  While certainly not perfect, I find the bulk of such confided communications to be quite heartening, as they tend to reflect the wise and good counsel we have received from the leaders of the Church for many years.  I see no broad streak of latent hatred of women, of resentments at the idea of women being involved and more involved in the Church.  For pete's sake, what is there to complain about?  The women in the Church are pretty awesome.  They do a lot of good.  So do the men.  We mostly work together and get a lot of good things done.

Where you and I diverge in our opinions, I think, is not in our assessment of women in the Church, but in our assessment of its men.

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

But....the solution to any war is to not fight righteous progress. Unless one does want a war....

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Lastly, my thinking has been, for some years now, heavily influenced by a 1987 article written by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks: Criticism. 

And yet you use memes in serious arguments to disparage. Seems like a disconnect to me. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, that was my question too.  When Joseph attended RS meetings he spoke but deferred to her Presidency.  These were meetings specifically of women in their organization (RS).  I consider that correct.

However in a meeting where the Prophet(s) call the Sisters of the Church together to teach them as God's representative I wouldn't expect to see the same deference.

So which were these?  RS/YW meeting of their organizations?  Or a Church conference for the Sisters to be taught?  Because I see two different situations possible.

 

Great questions.  I love this way of seeing the issue.  You've blown my mind wide open on this one. 

I agree that it completely depends on what these meetings were supposed to be.  If framed as the bold, then I don't think any woman would have an issue with them as they have been the last few years.  But I think that they were in the past framed as the underlined and then morphed into the bold when they were added to GC, but no one specifically mentioned the change so that women could be aware of it and view the meeting differently.

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

And yet you use memes in serious arguments to disparage. Seems like a disconnect to me. 

Well, okay.  I thought we were disparaging each other's arguments, not each other.  She critiqued my argument by calling it "silly" and pointing out that I quoted my wife anecdotally.  I critiqued her argument by posting a meme.

But I'll think on what you have said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't know about officially.  But the Relief Society Presidency presides over the Relief Society.  The Temple Matron presides over women's ordinances (initiatory).   Unless I missed a memo.

Is there somewhere where it says this?  Like in the church handbook?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is there somewhere where it says this?  Like in the church handbook?

• 4.2.4 Preside in Righteousness

  Presiding in the Church includes the responsibility to help God’s children prepare to dwell in His presence. Those who preside serve and teach with gentleness, meekness, and pure love, following the example of Jesus Christ (see John 13:13–15).
  The Lord revealed that “of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers” in His Church (Doctrine and Covenants 107:21). Each unit, priesthood quorum, and other organization in the Church is led by a presiding officer. He or she is called and set apart by one who holds priesthood keys or someone he has authorized. Each presiding officer serves under the direction of a person who holds priesthood keys (see 3.4.1). This structure provides order and clear lines of responsibility and accountability in doing the Lord’s work.
  A calling or assignment to preside does not make the person who receives it more important or valued than others.
  If you have been called or assigned to preside, follow the Savior’s teaching that “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:27; see verses 26–28). Counsel with others and seek unity in accomplishing the Lord’s will (see 4.2.5).
  Do not aspire to preside in any organization in the Lord’s Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 121:37). Rather, humbly and faithfully serve in the position to which you are called. Strive to accomplish the Lord’s work with an eye single to His glory (see Doctrine and Covenants 4:5).

Well, according to the handbook each organization in the Church (that would include Primary and Relief Society) are led by a presiding officer.  And he or SHE is called and set apart.
So the Bishop calls the Relief Society President to PRESIDE over that organization and therefore the sisters in her stewardship.

Edited June 7, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  I thought we were disparaging each other's arguments, not each other.  She critiqued my argument by calling it "silly" and pointing out that I quoted my wife anecdotally.  I critiqued her argument by posting a meme.

But I'll think on what you have said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Memes are personal attacks too often imo to be able to separate them out when not intended to be, similar to how some words shouldn’t be used ever or at least outside of very limited, specialized arenas where they have a technical meaning (think “cult” for example).

They are also extraordinarily superficial and usually emotional appeals and tend to distract from reasoned arguments Imo. 

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, if the only reason that that session existed was so that the men and (eventually) the women could hear messages specifically for them, then I get your point.  Who cares if other people are listening in?  If they initially existed for that reason but have changed to where the speakers are now speaking to everyone, then I understand why they would be seen as superfluous now.  

Also, if they were now doing more harm than good--if they were causing more women, for example, to be angry or upset after they were over than helping women to feel the spirit and grow stronger in the gospel--then stopping them would be a completely pragmatic decision.

So I don't really understand their reasonings either, though I can conceive of some scenarios it makes sense.

Right now there are about 30 talks given in the Saturday and Sunday regular sessions every Conference.
I think they can easily include priesthood related and female related talks in the regular sessions without needing an entire separate session for them.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Memes are personal attacks too often imo to be able to separate them out when not intended to be, similar to how some words shouldn’t be used ever or at least outside of very limited, specialized arenas where they have a technical meaning (think “cult” for example).

They are also extraordinarily superficial and usually emotional appeals and tend to distract from reasoned arguments Imo. 

I was actually trying to inject a bit of levity to counteract the ugliness I think is found in stuff like "It is hard to say this without sounding rude, but how is your male struggle at all relevant."  

And her questioning my intelligence: "They are males in a woman's conference. That isn't a difficult concept for many..... "

On her accusing me of "relying on 'gender' to maintain the status quo."

On her falsely claiming/implying I am "trying to keep women from gaining visible representation in the church."

On her implying that I think women "have a status has been comfortably decided to be somewhere between a donkey and chattel."

But a meme is outside the pale of civilized discourse?  I'm . . . not sure about that.  But I'll think on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This still seems to be very much a First World Problem.

There.  I just said it again.  If you have a substantive response, have at it.

Well, I don't see that as a substantive response.  I see it as a massive deflection.  Broadly speaking, I think the leaders of the Church are trying to address issues far more important that placating faultfinders gassing on about socially trendy and unspecified-and-endlessly-malleable notions regarding "representation."  By this reckoning, Jesus Christ should be condemned because His apostles were too homogenous.  

And the irony here is just . . . staggering.  I made a remark about this issue (the number of women speakers in General Conference) being a "First World Problem" and you respond by comparing it to women in developing countries "hav{ing} a status has been comfortably decided to be somewhere between a donkey and chattel."

That you find some symmetry between the two only ratifies the point: This is a First World Problem: "a relatively trivial or minor problem or frustration (implying a contrast with serious problems such as those that may be experienced in the developing world)."

 

 

Thanks,

-Smac

That is the problem with your positions, the logic will inevitably degenerate into badly done memes. 

Quote

  I made a remark about this issue (the number of women speakers in General Conference) being a "First World Problem" and you respond by comparing it to women in developing countries "hav{ing} a status has been comfortably decided to be somewhere between a donkey and chattel."

No I didn't. And you know it, which makes this kind of response really, really disappointing. It is getting very close to lying. You attempted to trivialize and ridicule women's concerns with the dismissive "first world problem" tag, which certainly does imply that women's desires for equality is not a concern in and of itself and not worthy of discussion. You brought up the first world label, that brings up 3rd world...or more properly, under developed countries' problems. Are you now, to add to your meme display, claiming that women have equal rights in countries such as Afganistan? Are you listening to the news. At all? Do tell us about women's conditions in underdeveloped countries, smac. Then explain why you hate women.  See what I did there? Yeah, that is exactly the logic you are using.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• 4.2.4 Preside in Righteousness

  Presiding in the Church includes the responsibility to help God’s children prepare to dwell in His presence. Those who preside serve and teach with gentleness, meekness, and pure love, following the example of Jesus Christ (see John 13:13–15).
  The Lord revealed that “of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers” in His Church (Doctrine and Covenants 107:21). Each unit, priesthood quorum, and other organization in the Church is led by a presiding officer. He or she is called and set apart by one who holds priesthood keys or someone he has authorized. Each presiding officer serves under the direction of a person who holds priesthood keys (see 3.4.1). This structure provides order and clear lines of responsibility and accountability in doing the Lord’s work.
  A calling or assignment to preside does not make the person who receives it more important or valued than others.
  If you have been called or assigned to preside, follow the Savior’s teaching that “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:27; see verses 26–28). Counsel with others and seek unity in accomplishing the Lord’s will (see 4.2.5).
  Do not aspire to preside in any organization in the Lord’s Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 121:37). Rather, humbly and faithfully serve in the position to which you are called. Strive to accomplish the Lord’s work with an eye single to His glory (see Doctrine and Covenants 4:5).

Well, according to the handbook each organization in the Church (that would include Primary and Relief Society) are led by a presiding officer.  And he or SHE is called and set apart.
So the Bishop calls the Relief Society President to PRESIDE over that organization and therefore the sisters in her stewardship.

Thank you!

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

 

But a meme is outside the pale of civilized discourse?  I'm . . . not sure about that.  But I'll think on it.

That is not what I said or at least meant...though perhaps my use of “cult” as a example could lead someone to infer that. 
 

Memes, however, are flippant responses. If you want someone to focus on a reasoned or technical argument you are presenting, throwing in what amounts to a bomb of sarcasm is foolish Imo as the visual and one liner nature of memes causes them to dominate anything they are posted with. 
 

If the point of the meme is your major argument and you don’t mind it not being considered a rationale argument as opposed to an emotional one, I don’t see a issue with using memes, especially for fun.  Use memes like you would use sound bites. If soundbites help your argument, why not, but be prepared for that being the only thing remembered from your comments. 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Memes are personal attacks too often imo to be able to separate them out when not intended to be, similar to how some words shouldn’t be used ever or at least outside of very limited, specialized arenas where they have a technical meaning (think “cult” for example).

They are also extraordinarily superficial and usually emotional appeals and tend to distract from reasoned arguments Imo. 

They are also often used to make fun of someone while trying to hide behind the "i was just joking" excuse.  There usually isn't a place for those kinds of memes when someone is trying to discuss real concerns.  They come across as flippant and dismissive.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Right now there are about 30 talks given in the Saturday and Sunday regular sessions every Conference.
I think they can easily include priesthood related and female related talks in the regular sessions without needing an entire separate session for them.

I have hope that that's what ends up happening.   

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is not what I said or at least meant...though perhaps my use of “cult” as a example could lead someone to infer that. 
 

Memes, however, are flippant responses. If you want someone to focus on a reasoned or technical argument you are presenting, throwing in what amounts to a bomb of sarcasm is foolish Imo as the visual and one liner nature of memes causes them to dominate anything they are posted with. 
 

If the point of the meme is your major argument and you don’t mind it not being considered a rationale argument as opposed to an emotional one, I don’t see a issue with using memes, especially for fun.  Use memes like you would use sound bites. If soundbites help your argument, why not, but be prepared for that being the only thing remembered from your comments. 

I usually see memes as the functional equivalent of throwing in the towel because you’re out of rational arguments. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

And you know it, which makes this kind of response really, really disappointing. It is getting very close to lying.

Honestly with the stats on misunderstandings in communication as well as my own experiences, I think our personal perspectives can block out the most obvious concepts and implications and substitute our own mistaken connections way too easily.   The stronger the perspective, the more likely the misunderstanding when intelligent people are involved Imo unless someone is in the habit of asking for clarification and sticking with it till all appear to agree on what is being said.

The only reason I assume anyone is intentionally misrepresenting these days is when I see a correct representation done by them elsewhere demonstrating they ‘get it’.

Otoh, when conversations are repeated over and over again and the misunderstandings are also repeated, there is conveyed a lack of caring about getting the other’s view correct. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I usually see memes as the functional equivalent of throwing in the towel because you’re out of rational arguments. 

With the kinds of memes that have been used in this thread, I usually interpret them as a sign of just how much better the person thinks their opinion is than the one the meme is making fun of.  Kind of "my opinion is so superior" or "your argument is so dumb that I don't even have to pretend consider your beliefs or your concerns" approach.

Memes can be really funny, but not when someone is sincerely upset or trying to talk about something serious.  

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I usually see memes as the functional equivalent of throwing in the towel because you’re out of rational arguments. 

But then there are some who do it for fun rather than trying to make a serious argument.  In many cases because the others’ arguments aren’t seen as worth being serious about. 
 

Memes are comedic devices. Just like many can pull off a spontaneous joke, but would totally flop trying to do a stand up routine, using memes as a part of an argument takes skill, timing, and likely some inherent talent unable to be learned. 
 

I find Nehor and cinepro’s use of memes works for me in most cases because they fit in with the rest of the style when they use them and they don’t make the meme either too heavy or missing the point. Surgical skill.  But very few can make memes work in nonsuperficial arguments. 
 

Memes have the further disadvantage/advantage of being “loud”, very loud visually speaking. Think of ending a debate with a honking noise...

Edited June 7, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Memes can be really funny, but not when someone is sincerely upset or trying to talk about something serious.  

Timing is everything. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are also often used to make fun of someone while trying to hide behind the "i was just joking" excuse. 

One’s choice of humor often reveals one’s own treasured prejudices.