Jump to content

Church ends saturday evening sessions for general conference


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But what you see in sci-fi is not what you generally see when you look up from the books, so it may be more noticeable even.

Maybe military sci-fi is different, but a lot of the same biases get put on women even when they are supposed to be the main character.  For example, Asimov’s heroines of the Foundation books are heros for the most part because of what they help others to do than what they do themselves. 

Read David Weber Honor Harrington series. Women kick a**.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it forever changed the character of the meeting from being directed to Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood holders to being a de facto fifth general session,

I know right, ever since they stopped telling us every six months to stop watching porn, stop breaking the law of chastity, and that there were lots of single women waiting to get married so go get married to them, it just hasn't been the same :P

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I know right, ever since they stopped telling us every six months to stop watching porn, stop breaking the law of chastity, and that there were lots of single women waiting to get married so go get married to them, it just hasn't been the same :P

648992436_confPriesthood.jpg.c51fec7b7f3d990738830d756c2b52ab.jpg

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I know right, ever since they stopped telling us every six months to

I won't miss priesthood. Most years it felt like an endless recital of our mistakes. I can't say that about the rest of conference.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Read David Weber Honor Harrington series. Women kick a**.

I might after reading a few fan sites. I don’t usually like war focused stories though.  Though the Dorsai series is one of my favorites. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It was a condescending thing to say, especially because it is something that women get told to do a lot in discussions by men to deflect.  There is a huge amount of baggage with that term, baggage that it is difficult to believe an older, grown man, is unaware of.  But if you truly were ignorant of it then, you aren't now.  

If it helps think of it this way.  The name Joe is a perfectly good nickname for the name Joseph.  Many people with that name go by Joe.  No one would consider the nickname of Joe offensive.  Unless and until it's a critic of the church calling Joseph Smith "Joe Smith" when talking to a member of the church.  That term has baggage, and the people who use it know it does.  

Yes, everyone gets angry, but a man telling a woman to calm down, or to think about what he's saying after she's calmed down, is the same thing as a critic of church referring to Joseph Smith as "Joe Smith".   

I can. That's why I asked if that's what you meant instead of assuming that's what you meant.  There are multiple ways that someone can be wrong, but not that many that make sense in the context of the question you asked.  

Being factually wrong is not an option in our discussion, so I knew you didn't mean 'wrong' in that way.  It wouldn't have made any sense.
 

Again though, this is not the kind of wrong that makes sense with the question you asked.  We aren't talking about our leaders guessing the wrong answer to a question or not knowing the correct size of a piece of machinery.  Those kinds of 'wrong' don't work with what you asked.  
 

I didn't assume.  I asked a question so that I wouldn't have to assume.  It's a question you still haven't actually answered.  In what ways are you asking if the Brethren were wrong?  Wrong how?

On a board like this, I would have made the same response to a male who had gotten testy, impugned my character and severed any further conversation.* But is your above commentary an instance of what might be called  womansplaining?

Quote:
I didn't assume.  I asked a question so that I wouldn't have to assume.  It's a question you still haven't actually answered.  In what ways are you asking if the Brethren were wrong?  Wrong how?

Wrong in any way that you wouldn’t regard as sinful. Or can you seriously not conceive of such a thing? Is that why you’re evading the question?

*Incidentally, I’ve not been certain before this subsequently ensuing dialogue that bsjkki WAS female, though I’ll admit that was my guess.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Ever since they stopped telling us every six months ... that there were lots of single women waiting to get married so go get married to them, it just hasn't been the same.

Whilst sitting in a congregation where literally every unmarried member between the ages of 16 and 60 was a male ...

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:
 

[Quoting JustAnAustralian: “Ever since they stopped telling us every six months ... that there were lots of single women waiting to get married so go get married to them, it just hasn't been the same.”

I really haven’t noticed any of that within the last decade or two. Maybe it’s just that I became less sensitive to it once I finally got married. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Chum said:

I won't miss priesthood. Most years it felt like an endless recital of our mistakes. I can't say that about the rest of conference.

It's funny that you say that. When I say something similar, I get attacked for either misreading or misrepresenting church leaders' teachings. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's funny that you say that. When I say something similar, I get attacked for either misreading or misrepresenting church leaders' teachings. 

I am Chum.

Link to comment
On 6/10/2021 at 1:15 PM, bluebell said:

Exactly.

It’s a perspective we haven’t heard. There is a reason that historians often refer to women and children as “the silent majority.”  

The works and poems of Eliza R Snow are phenomenal!

Link to comment
19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let me see if I have this right. Scott acts like a prick by posting the above. Bsjkki, calls the post petty. Instead of apologizing, Scott doubles down, and tells her to ‘calm down’. Then Scott acts all indignant when she decides not to engage further. Do I have that right?

Thank you for the synopsis.  You just saved me a lot of time- both present and future. 

Link to comment

To be honest, I missed Scott’s follow up edit to his post after reading the original. The Benadryl kicked in and I was out. My comment about being thoroughly done with the topic was posted at 11:25 pm on Monday night. He responded. I fell asleep. He edited at 12:14 am on Tuesday. (Pg.9)

The discussion had moved on to donuts by the time I picked up on the thread. 
 

Then, he reengaged Wednesday (pg.14) and I didn’t honestly take the time to figure out what he was talking about. People began discussing he told me to ‘calm down’ which I didn’t even remember. 
 

I felt the debate ‘over’ before his snarky grammar correction. 
 

I do not feel Priesthood broadcasts began due to outside pressures. He does. I guess, from his comments, he felt the brethren caved to pressure. I took issue with that characterization.

His follow up question is nonsensical. My Priesthood leaders make changes to policies/broadcasts all the time. I never viewed not carrying them live as ‘wrong’ nor did I view their decision to carry them live was due to outside pressures. I can think of lots of reasons to make this change. 

My husband was ecstatic because he then could stay home and watch from his couch and avoid the excruciating pain that came from sitting on church benches.  
 

*I can’t end this comment without a ‘thank you’ to all those who engaged this topic. I would also point out telling someone to ‘calm down’ is also a bit petty and condescending. 😘
 


 

 

D8C9D457-EC95-4F98-A49D-6D20BF932C15.thumb.jpeg.5aa0e9fb1688a4c1a3c7be94ab7fc376.jpeg

 

F3E04230-B7AC-484B-8612-BA274C531EAF.jpeg

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

To be honest, I missed Scott’s follow up edit to his post after reading the original. The Benadryl kicked in and I was out. My comment about being thoroughly done with the topic was posted at 11:25 pm on Monday night. He responded. I fell asleep. He edited at 12:14 am on Tuesday. (Pg.9)
 

The discussion had moved on to donuts by the time I picked up on the thread. 
 

Then, he reengaged Wednesday (pg.14) and I didn’t honestly take the time to figure out what he was talking about. People began discussing he told me to ‘calm down’ which I didn’t even remember. 
 

I felt the debate ‘over’ before his snarky grammar correction. 
 

I do not feel Priesthood broadcasts began due to outside pressures. He does. I guess, from his comments, he felt the brethren caved to pressure. I took issue with that characterization.

His follow up question is nonsensical. My Priesthood leaders make changes to policies/broadcasts all the time. I never viewed not carrying them live as ‘wrong’ nor did I view their decision to carry them live was due to outside pressures. I can think of lots of reasons to make this change. 

My husband was ecstatic because he then could stay home and watch from his couch and avoid the excruciating pain that came from sitting on church benches.  
 

*I can’t end this comment without a ‘thank you’ to all those who engaged this topic. I would also point out telling someone to ‘calm down’ is also a bit petty and condescending. 😘
 


 

 

D8C9D457-EC95-4F98-A49D-6D20BF932C15.thumb.jpeg.5aa0e9fb1688a4c1a3c7be94ab7fc376.jpeg

84FC5424-6392-4D00-93EA-5BD28480EE26.jpeg

deleted comment. 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...