- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
LookingHard wrote:
Heber13 wrote:
Why can’t we have women like Chieko in charge?
Answer: Patriarchy
Is this a bad time to bring up that only one woman spoke during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th general conference sessions combined?
:silent: 4 out of 36 total talks if you count all the sessions.
or is it a bad time to bring up this stat nibbler wrote:
LookingHard wrote:
Heber13 wrote:
Why can’t we have women like Chieko in charge?
Answer: Patriarchy
Is this a bad time to bring up that only one woman spoke during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th general conference sessions combined?
:silent: 4 out of 36 total talks if you count all the sessions.
Maybe there’s not a good time to bring it up, I think. But there’s a good person to bring it up: any man.Women can and do bring stuff like this up, but lately I ask myself, “So…how’s that workin’ for you?”
So thanks for doing it.
Quickly editing to add: This comment is about my frustration with the whole church, not this site. And I second DJ’s dread above. Maybe I am off-base, but the bulk of his talks and some interviews I’ve heard with him and his wife don’t bode well, I think.
Ann, even as a man once you see the blatant misogyny, you can’t un-see it. I am sure I still don’t see all of it, but this is very easy to see. I remember one man (I honestly think he had OCD) that held a meeting at church and it went like 2x longer than it should and most everyone said they wouldn’t come to the next one. He told everyone he was sorry (nice thing to do – to admit he had messed up). So the next meeting he promised it wouldn’t even go a minute over. His wife was talking and he cut her off mid-sentence and said, “time is up, meeting over, I will say a quick prayer and we will be done on time!” I am not sure if he realized everyone came away saying, “That poor sister has to be married to that rude SOB”. I think he was thinking, “they really admire me for keeping to my word of not going over!”
That was over 10 years ago. Today I would make a comment and the only question would be if it would be a private conversation to him or blurting out, “Dang – that was rude! And to your WIFE. If I did that to my wife I wouldn’t have to put the A/C on at night since the bed would be an ice cold place for a while.”
DarkJedi wrote:
I know this is offensive to some, but I truly dread the day when Bednar becomes president.
I remember dreading the day when ETB would become president but then from day one he never said a word about communists or politics. You just never know what the big chair might do to you.
GBSmith wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I know this is offensive to some, but I truly dread the day when Bednar becomes president.
I remember dreading the day when ETB would become president but then from day one he never said a word about communists or politics. You just never know what the big chair might do to you.
I also was no fan of ETB, but not because of his politics. Those were dark years for me and he did live up to my expectations and more. Our stake patriarch once admitted in an address that he too struggled with ETB.
That’s not to say people, even our leaders, don’t evolve over time or change. My beliefs (some might say unbeliefs) have changed remarkably over the years. I used to get nothing out of TSM’s talks. After one of his conference talks with endless stories of Little Tommy or the widows when he was a young bishop (that were sometimes repeated) I’d often wonder what his point was and why he wasted that 15 minutes of my life. His annoying lilting drawl at the end of most sentences also drove me nuts. I did not have a testimony of church sleep yet.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
LookingHard wrote:
I think he was thinking, “they really admire me for keeping to my word of not going over!”😆 And it’s a testament to how much we all hate drawn-out meetings that I’m sure many did!I always hesitate to use “misogyny” unless it encompasses things like disregard and disinterest. Even obliviousness. Like my own! Since for most of my life I didn’t ask: What is my church teaching me about me?
I think the Bednar/0kazaki divide highlights the difference between seeing families and individuals as unique and worthy of happiness
in this life, not as products to be delivered to heaven in a certain box. MGFs is not heart-warming or inspiring. Neither is the R.S. goal for the year: something about “preparing women” for the blessings of eternal life. These future-oriented, supposedly “big picture” or long-range goals – they just don’t speak to me. I’ve always loved the quote,
Quote:Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present.
That’s why MGFs leave me cold. They don’t feel like love and concern for the present and the people in it. They’re more about the health of the institution.
MGF sounds more like an institutional goal for stability and continuity. But then again, are not all families “multi-generational”? Just not all members.
DarkJedi wrote:
I did not have a testimony of church sleep yet.
I, myself, can bear sure and solemn testimony that church sleep is a gift of God and personally has made the three hour (actually 2 and 1/2 in my case) block bearable. On a truly blessed day I’ll get another half hour in high priests.LookingHard wrote:
MGF sounds more like an institutional goal for stability and continuity.But then again, are not all families “multi-generational”? Just not all members.
I agree, it sounds very organizational/institutional and even businessy. Looked at from that point of view, sustaining these connected families (along with the ordinance checkboxes) is important to our survival. While our biggest growth area remains covert baptisms, Catholicism has relied on births for growth for a very long time. I think there will come a point where our births (“members of record”) will outnumber convert baptisms, although it is interesting to note that membership by birth has been declining. That could perhaps denote an older membership which fits the idea that we are losing younger members.
I’m going to stitch some posts together, one from a different thread to introduce what I wanted to say. DarkJedi wrote:
I know this is offensive to some, but I truly dread the day when Bednar becomes president.
mom3 wrote:
DJ. – I hear you. My list though is a bit longer, but he is on it. In my heart I want to believe they think they are helping. However, I remember watching the faces of parents who didn’t have the MGF’s just melt when the video was played.
mom3 wrote:
Two years ago when he [Monson] verbally stumbled during his talk I prayed then that he could go. He’d done so much and it was fine. In that time he has found a balance. Others have found their voices. Those voices worry me.
I find myself wondering whether a Nelson or Oaks (and maybe 10+ years down the road, Bednar) led church would look radically different than the way the church looks today. I never got an “alpha male” vibe out of Monson, which I believe to be a part of his charm. Monson didn’t alpha male his way into a leadership position, he was thrust into a leadership position. The voice of the more meek might have taken a back seat to other voices in the room.
That and the fact that he’s slowing due to age makes me wonder whether we’re already experiencing what a Nelson or Oaks led church might look like.
I suspect we’re seeing more of what an Uchtdorf or Eyring led church looks like, assuming the first presidency takes the reins when the president is ailing I actually think it’s a tug of war. The two sides are handling it very differently. The Nelson Bednar team are on YSA/Fireside Speaking tours promoting their vision of the kingdom. The Eyring/Uchtdorf team is quietly going about attending interfaith symposiums and community events. Each laying ground work in the hopes of moving the needle in the directions they support. This whole thing will be interesting to watch as it unfolds.
Yep. I have seen a lot of meme’s contrasting GC talks where one is saying, “the world is wicked” and DFU saying almost the opposite, “the world is great!”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.