- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
President Uchtdorf in his talk at the General Women’s Meeting said:
Quote:
I am honored to have this opportunity to be with you as we open another general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the coming week the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles will meet with all the General Authorities and general auxiliary leaders, and the remaining sessions of our worldwide general conference will follow on the coming Saturday and Sunday.
The takeaway that I heard was that this women’s meeting was the first session, and the rest of the sessions would be next weekend. So it was a first that the women’s meeting was now officially part of conference. And lest you think I was alone in this interpretation, Elder Bruce A. Carlson of the Seventy also thought the same thing. When he gave the opening prayer at the priesthood session, he referred to that meeting as the fourth session of General Conference. (women’s meeting #1, Sat morning session #2, Sat afternoon #3,and priesthood #4.) You can hear ithere on youtubeNow the weird stuff starts. If you go to LDS.org and listen
LDS.orgThis in no way was done by some lower level editor, but required direction for somebody very high up, like Pres Monson. And Pres Uchtdorf must be really ticked off at this. With everything in the world going on, this is what the brethren are worried about?
My admittedly poor memory has me thinking that I heard the General Women’s Meeting referred to as the “first” session but during the Saturday and Sunday sessions I was bummed because I heard the more traditional numbering. I missed the opening prayer and hymn for the “4th” session but after watching the videos in the link it is as you say. Maybe they thought he goofed up as opposed to some conspiracy to keep the conferences separate but equal.
Alas, again a minor point, the General Women’s Meeting is listed last on the main conference page. A small thing that perhaps only I give weight to but sometimes the details reveal a portion of the larger whole.
P.S.: how on earth do you catch a thing like that?
To call it a “worry” and to claim that it had to have been approved by President Monson . . . I assume it was seen as a slip / mistake by whoever puts the video online and that they didn’t even bother asking about it. Also, there is a difference between talking about the Women’s Conference opening General Conference and including it as distinct session of General Conference. I don’t see this as contradicting what President Uchtdorf said, and I think it is . . . inaccurate . . . to even imply he might be mad at President Monson over it. Really, I think that assertion is a non-starter and totally wrong. I also see absolutely no “demotion”, since it has never been classified as an official session of General Conference. I would love that to change, but it hasn’t yet, so this is just a continuation of the past.
I wish the editing hadn’t been done, and I don’t like the message many will take from it, but I certainly don’t see it as having any greater significance – and, frankly, I think the assertions in the post are an extreme stretch.
I do recognize that many women were pleased that Pres. Uchtdorf referred to Women’s Conference as the first session and saw it as another step in the right direction. I don’t disagree with that. I agree that the editing is unfortunate, but I am not ready to blame Pres. Monson without evidence. Yup, maybe “ticked off” was too strong of word. How about disappointed? He (Uchtdorf) tried to offer an olive branch to the women by including the women’s meeting as part of conference, and Elder Carlson agrees with the gesture and makes it a point to emphasize it in his prayer. And then somebody (a low level editor?) takes it all away. It seems almost every conference now, they change something to make it look better. My thinking is that have always been editing conference talks, but with the internet, they can’t get away with what they use to. All these changes look like they are just trying to make the brethren look perfect, with never a misspoke work. But they are human, and if we saw them in a more human light from time to time, maybe we wouldn’t have the “hero worship” problem that seems to permeate much of the church members.
Maybe there is some confusion because there has been no “formal” announcment? Hopefully that is the case.
I think disappointed might be accurate – but not in President Monson, since I’m positive he had nothing to do with it. I can’t even tell you how much this frustrates me. It’s such a small thing, and it costs the church nothing. It wouldn’t represent a change in doctrine, it wouldn’t require that all new handbooks be printed – it would be SO easy simply to allow the Women’s Meeting to “count” as part of GC, yet they won’t do it. It’s one of a hundred tiny ways in which women are told that we don’t count, that we are lesser, that we are “a divinely appointed appendage” but the Church could go on just fine without us. But it’s important enough to EDIT A PRAYER so that those uppity women don’t go thinking that we actually count.
Ugh.
What message does this send about God? To me it’s another example of sending the message that God is more concerned about policies than people and that women are less in His eyes. Fwiw, I don’t think it sends a message about God at all. I think it sends a message about humans. Sometimes, people really can’t see the forest for the trees. I also think there is an important object lesson in this for all of us. Sometimes even we obsess over the details that really aren’t that important in the big picture.
Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, I don’t think it sends a message about God at all. I think it sends a message about humans. Sometimes, people really can’t see the forest for the trees.
I also think there is an important object lesson in this for all of us. Sometimes even we obsess over the details that really aren’t that important in the big picture.
Ray, to some of us the Church’s continuing marginalization of women is actually quite important. Feeling that God doesn’t care about you because of your gender is very much a big picture issue.
We are always being taught that the Mormon God is very concerned with details – how many earrings we have, what percent we tithe, how long our meetings are, and on and on. This leads to a tendency to assume that any aspect of the Church must come from God (even if it’s actually a favor of PR or the Correlation department or the whim of a local leader). So it’s not a stretch to see this statement from the Church and think, What does this tell us about God?
Joni, I’m not saying the message you mentioned doesn’t get taught by some people, including leaders, or that it isn’t natural for many people to reach the conclusions you mention. I’m just saying that I, personally, as an individual, don’t see this as saying anything about God. I’m saying I see it as saying something about people who focus on details over which they ought not obsess (making sure wording in a prayer matches their view). Likewise, I’m saying we also tend to obsess sometimes over details that aren’t important – but I’m NOT saying marginalization of women is an unimportant detail.I absolutely didn’t mean to imply that; it was a generic point, and I think it is a valid point. Also, to make this crystal clear, I care DEEPLY about the marginalization of women in the LDS Church and have written and spoken extensively about it. My concluding message in my Sunday School class the last time I taught (summarized in the thread about those lessons) was specifically and explicitly about part of that in how we address modesty so often. So, when you say “to some of us”, I am part of that “us” – and I think by seeing this as a human issue and not a God issue, I actually am showing I care about it.
Quote:I’m just saying that I, personally, as an individual, don’t see this as saying anything about God. I’m saying I see it as saying something about people who focus on details over which they ought not obsess (making sure wording in a prayer matches their view). Likewise, I’m saying we also tend to obsess sometimes over details that aren’t important
This is probably why you, Ray, are able to stay sane and healthy as a member of the church while people like me struggle so much. I am working on learning how to separate what people say and who God really is. I don’t know why I take things to heart.
Something nice happened today in church that goes along with what you’re saying Ray. I went to sacrament meeting today but in a different ward. The sacrament hymn was Reverently and Meekly Now, which I really love. And the thought came to me that maybe all of the messy history of the church and irritating, unfair things people say and do are perhaps not worth all the anguish and perhaps it’s just mostly a bunch of noise that I need to try to tune out. Not that the words and actions aren’t painful, but maybe God is hoping I can look past the hurt and still find Him and let go of some of the other stuff that in the end isn’t as important as learning to love and forgive. It’s hard to explain but at the time it was very liberating. I get angry with the leaders when they put policies before people, but maybe I’m doing the same thing by obsessing so much about them and other details instead of on Christ.
So is the Women’s meeting a part of the church General Conference, or not? I anxiously await an answer?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.