Jump to content

Church ends saturday evening sessions for general conference


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'd pick non-homeless retirement first. Heck, I'd pick having somewhere to live 6 months from now.

Bad news?

Link to post
37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What a First World Problem that is.

5cfqnz.jpg

;)

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the ridicule. It’s always such an effective tool in persuading those who view things differently. 
 

Are you arguing that women, because they don’t have the Priesthood and therefore don’t have as many leadership callings, are not worth listening to at General Conference?

That seems to devalue women with their non priesthood holding status. Is that what you’re saying? 


 


 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

If there is an issue about which the Church can improve, I'm all for discussing it. 

Do you have to agree that the church could improve on it before it's ok to discuss it? 

I'm not prohibiting anyone from discussing anything.

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because it seems like, when people bring up things that you don't think the church needs to improve on, you categorize that as 'denigrating' the church or the leaders. 

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

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.  

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's a little hard to figure out where you believe the line is on what changes we can discuss and what changes we should not discuss.

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

I think what I am doing is A) challenging unspoken/unproven assumptions, and B) applying Chesterton's Fence a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

So you would rather hear from  Mary instead of James or John or Peter at a womens meeting? Interesting.  

In the annals of the history of sexism wrapped in a cloak of piety through religious reference, this quip ought to at least receive an honorable mention.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

It is hard to say this without sounding rude,

And yet, somehow, I think you'll manage it. ;) 

1 hour ago, juliann said:

but how is your male struggle

"Male" struggle?

The Gender Wars continue apace!

1 hour ago, juliann said:

at all relevant when women are asking for representation according to our numbers and needs as women? 

You aren't "asking" for anything on this thread, since none of us are in any position to do anything about speaking assignments at General Conference.

So you're doing . . . something else.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Claiming that over half the membership of the church are over-represented in a conference where 3 women were allowed to talk last session is downright silly. 

I haven't claimed that.  I invite you to re-read my posts.

And "allowed to talk?"  Quite a gloss, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That would seem to be a way to make the thread too personal, and you've spoken out in the past about how you don't appreciate it when that happens.

Fair enough.

Quote

Where did I say I was being objective? I don't believe I made that claim.

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

Quote

I said it was valid.  I also said I didn't see how it was relevant to the discussion since it's already understood that not all women (or men) see this issue the same.  How does injecting "I asked my wife and see agrees with me" move the discussion forward?  

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.

Quote

Yep, we get that you continue to think these things.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What on earth were you thinking trotting out this statistic?  Did you actually think this would convince people that there is an over-representation of women at GC because you sliced it down to "women leaders?"

I use numbers and statistics a great deal to make points as an expert in cases.  I frequently see and critique other experts' use of numbers and statistics.  Yours was one of the most disingenuous uses of a stat I can recall in some time.  I'm confident you know full well that the bigger picture has been, and will be for some time, the overall representation of the general population of women.  This is akin to your terrible "blacks have made progress" arguments which flamed out so spectacularly over the weekend.  All you have opened yourself up to now is the argument that there should be additional representation of women amongst the leadership of the Church.  The apt metaphor would be that you cleaned and loaded the gun and handed it to your enemy with the hammer already pulled back for them. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bad news?

Short term: Rental market is totally dried up and the one we've been in for 10 years is being sold.  It's never been like this.

Long term: Decades where build-up keeps getting wiped out. I'm about out of decades.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

5cfqnz.jpg

Thanks for the ridicule.

I wasn't ridiculing you.  I wasn't ridiculing Juliann, either.  I was, instead, poking fun at (or, if you insist, ridiculing) an argument.

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It’s always such an effective tool in persuading those who view things differently. 

Huh.  Well, Mr. Board Nanny, are you going to go tut-tut Juliann for saying my argument (however incorrectly stated by Juiliann) is "downright silly?"

Or is there, as I suspect, some sort of double standard in play?

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Are you arguing that women, because they don’t have the Priesthood and therefore don’t have as many leadership callings, are not worth listening to at General Conference?

No.  Not at all.  Not even remotely.  I categorically reject and condemn this idea.  I repudiate the imputation of it onto me.

Clear enought?

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

That seems to devalue women with their non priesthood holding status. Is that what you’re saying? 

Yes, it does.  And no, it's not.

C'mon.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

We are missing the point. The Church just eliminated another meeting where I , a high priest, could get one of the perks of my title, a good nap. 😪

  • Haha 3
Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, for some it's all about gender. 

So, in the church, some things ARE all about gender. It should not be surprising, the genders view/experience  things differently or have different needs addressed from conference speakers. Maybe the GA’s should just tell us what their wives think. Is that more effective from hearing directly from ‘wives?’

  • Haha 4
Link to post
3 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

What on earth were you thinking trotting out this statistic? 

As I said before: I think what I am doing is A) challenging unspoken/unproven assumptions, and B) applying Chesterton's Fence a bit.

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Did you actually think this would convince people that there is an over-representation of women at GC because you sliced it down to "women leaders?"

No.  Again, I said that "women leaders are already fairly over-represented in the general sessions."  

Women leaders. 

I presented evidence and analysis to substantiate that point.  And so far all I'm getting in response is huffiness and nasty insinuations.

I am not disputing that women comprise 52% of the Church, nor do I dispute that women do not comprise 52% of the speakers at General Conference.

I have also said that I would be happy with more women speaking at General Conference.

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I use numbers and statistics a great deal to make points as an expert in cases.  I frequently see and critique other experts' use of numbers and statistics.  Yours was one of the most disingenuous uses of a stat I can recall in some time. 

How so?

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm confident you know full well that the bigger picture has been, and will be for some time, the overall representation of the general population of women. 

But surely you've taken a moment to read what I've had to say about "representation," right?

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is akin to your terrible "blacks have made progress" arguments which flamed out so spectacularly over the weekend. 

Not sure what you're referencing here.

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

All you have opened yourself up to now is the argument that there should be additional representation of women amongst the leadership of the Church. 

I have?  Are you sure?

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The apt metaphor would be that you cleaned and loaded the gun and handed it to your enemy with the hammer already pulled back for them. 

Well, then,  Fire away.  Dispose of the histrionics and engage the argument.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Chum said:

Short term: Rental market is totally dried up and the one we've been in for 10 years is being sold.  It's never been like this.

Long term: Decades where build-up keeps getting wiped out. I'm about out of decades.

Sorry to hear this. It has got to be killing to the psyche to live with that kind of stress. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Two sincere questions:

1. Was it viewed as a Conference OF women or a conference FOR women?

2. If it is a Conference specifically FOR the Sisters wouldn't it still be preferable to have God's prophets speak?  If it was supposed to be a conference OF women then I can see the concern.

This reminds me of the founding meetings of the Relief Society where Joseph spoke but generally deferred to Emma.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet, somehow, I think you'll manage it. ;) 

"Male" struggle?

The Gender Wars continue apace!

You aren't "asking" for anything on this thread, since none of us are in any position to do anything about speaking assignments at General Conference.

So you're doing . . . something else.

I haven't claimed that.  I invite you to re-read my posts.

And "allowed to talk?"  Quite a gloss, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

You have twisted almost everything I said. Interesting. You lost the debate the minute you had to rustle up "my wife says" for support. But it isn't like you to so blatantly misrepresent. Women have been asking for more inclusion for a long time. To twist that as my asking on this board is, well, lame. But another indication you really are reaching the bottom of the barrel when it comes to trying to keep women from gaining visible representation in the church.  Oh, and my husband thinks so, too. 

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This reminds me of the founding meetings of the Relief Society where Joseph spoke but generally deferred to Emma.

Do you see a deference to women in the more recent Women’s Conferences?  (Serious question, interested in your perspective)

Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fair enough.

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

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.

 

Disparagement and interloping. Uh huh. Can you think of anymore inflamatory words for a legitimate desire of so many women? I know, ask your wife.

As for objectivity, that seems to blow by you. You represent yourself, always, as the rational, propositional respondent. BB doesn't. That was the point. Not what boat you are in. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Two sincere questions:

1. Was it viewed as a Conference OF women or a conference FOR women?

2. If it is a Conference specifically FOR the Sisters wouldn't it still be preferable to have God's prophets speak?  If it was supposed to be a conference OF women then I can see the concern.

This reminds me of the founding meetings of the Relief Society where Joseph spoke but generally deferred to Emma.

So a conference for women can't be of women? Like the conference for men is of men? What is the difference? I doubt anyone would object if the prophet took a few minutes to speak. But that isn't what was happening. Over half the time was relegated to men who spoke on both days. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

Do you see a deference to women in the more recent Women’s Conferences?  (Serious question, interested in your perspective)

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

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

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn't just say that. Life is ever so much more relevant in underdeveloped countries where women often have a status has been comfortably decided to be somewhere between a donkey and chattel.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, in the church, some things ARE all about gender.

That's been rather my point.  The Gender Wars are being imported into the Church.  And I don't think that's a good thing.

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It should not be surprising, the genders view/experience things differently or have different needs addressed from conference speakers.

Sure.  Hence the Church having the Relief Society and Young Women's programs for women, and the different programs for men.

Hence the Church having, until today, a General Conference session specifically directed at women and another, six months later, specifically directed at men.

And yet several of the news items have framed today's announcement as pertaining to just one of these.  "A session that used to be reserved for men only ... has been permanently scrapped."

Weird, eh?  It's almost as if this news items is being addressed in something of a skewed, slanted way.

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe the GA’s should just tell us what their wives think.

I would prefer that the speakers in General Conference seek to ascertain what the Lord wants them to say.

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Is that more effective from hearing directly from ‘wives?’

I don't look at General Conference as an opportunity to differentiate the validity and value of religious instruction to a world-wide Church based on the gender, or race, or socioeconomic status, of the speaker.  I just don't care.  I am trusting and hoping that those who have been asked (or, as Juliann so risibly put it, "allowed") to address the entirety of the Church would draw on their personal experiences, but would predominantly seek to be a conduit for revelatory instruction from our Heavently Father.

I dislike the notion that the First Presidency interlopes when they speak in the Women's Session.  

I dislike the importation of the Gender Wars into the Church.

I dislike seeking members of the Church use politically-tinged slogans, theories, machinations, etc. to find fault with the Church, particularly when such things are essentially a blank check for endless faultfinding and goalpost-moving.

Lastly, my thinking has been, for some years now, heavily influenced by a 1987 article written by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks: Criticism.  It addresses at some length the means by which members of the Church can and should address grievances, disagreements, proposals, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What on earth were you thinking trotting out this statistic?  Did you actually think this would convince people that there is an over-representation of women at GC because you sliced it down to "women leaders?"

I use numbers and statistics a great deal to make points as an expert in cases.  I frequently see and critique other experts' use of numbers and statistics.  Yours was one of the most disingenuous uses of a stat I can recall in some time.  I'm confident you know full well that the bigger picture has been, and will be for some time, the overall representation of the general population of women.  This is akin to your terrible "blacks have made progress" arguments which flamed out so spectacularly over the weekend.  All you have opened yourself up to now is the argument that there should be additional representation of women amongst the leadership of the Church.  The apt metaphor would be that you cleaned and loaded the gun and handed it to your enemy with the hammer already pulled back for them. 

It's amazing that most of us on this thread whether currently a practicing member or not, would find considerable common ground if we were to meet. Turth be told I would love to meet so many of the posters here. That makes it all the more surprising when I read your commentary. You seem so comfortable moving in and out of 'taking another to the woodshed' without giving notice to how insulting and arrogant this appears (and now here I am doing the same thing!). I agree with smac's statistic on this matter but I guess we'll just have to leave it to the 'experts' to let us know when we have gone off the rails. Oh thank heavens (for 7/11!) and for 'bigger picture' sheriffs! What would we do without you?!

For the record, I thought smac's thread over the weekend was also doomed but not entirely because of how he set it up. The thread also devolved due to a few poster's running afoul of what smac requested. And we wonder why we can't talk about politics!  

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...