- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
No matter how we slice this – I am so unhappy. This was what I feared in the interim week. My worst fears didn’t totally play out. But I knew Uchtdorf wouldn’t be kept in. Even though many people are holding out hope that “at least he will speak in Conference” there is no guarantee on that that either. He can easily be back seated without a blink.
I am grieving this more than the loss of President Monson. Strangely enough my devout Mom is also. It’s not just middle wayers who found joy in the Silver Fox.
I recall back in the day when Marion D. Hanks was “sidelined” and the talk was that it was because he had become to popular. I fear that in part this might be the reason for Elder Uchtdorf’s release from the presidency. That is a good point GBS. As you allude to and Mom points out, DFU is popular among the general membership because he’s a good speaker and he’s sincere among other things. I never feel like he’s a parrot. I have even said jokingly that if DFU wanted to start his own church I’d be one of the first in line. Maybe DFU should contact Denver Snuffer and say, “Hey, I know you don’t vant to be the leader of your movement, but I am willing and capable. Lets do it together!” 
LookingHard wrote:
Maybe DFU should contact Denver Snuffer and say, “Hey, I know you don’t vant to be the leader of your movement, but I am willing and capable. Lets do it together!”
😆 Yeah, except I don’t think Snuffer is on track. At least I could follow DFU.DarkJedi wrote:
I have even said jokingly that if DFU wanted to start his own church I’d be one of the first in line.
I’d say it un-jokingly!
I feel so much unconditional love from Uchtdorf when he speaks to us. Not so for me with Nelson or Oaks. I would readily follow the love.
Was reading some Dalai Lama quotes this morning, feeling the love, and was wishing he was one of our GAs (although not really, because it’d kind of ruin him). Uchtdorf is much closer to the Dalai Lama than Oaks or Nelson….like, “Here, have some love, and spread it to others….no militant rulebook and no strings attached.”
Thanks, OON, for that additional information. I don’t know why I thought the trend had been to put the most senior apostles in the FP. Memories are funny things and often unreliable. mom3 wrote:
I am grieving this more than the loss of President Monson.
I feel the same way. I mean I knew that this day would come eventually – President Monson was getting up in age. And if I thought about it, I knew the hope was thin that they would keep DFU in the presidency. But still… it is not a comfortable feeling.
squarepeg wrote:
Was reading some Dalai Lama quotes this morning, feeling the love, and was wishing he was one of our GAs (although not really, because it’d kind of ruin him).
😆 We need to get a thread started on that question and answer session they had with the press. It’s
fullof 😯 :crazy: 😯 moments that mostly sap my enthusiasm.nibbler wrote:😆 We need to get a thread started on that question and answer session they had with the press. It’s
fullof 😯 :crazy: 😯 moments that mostly sap my enthusiasm.
Man, that was something, wasn’t it!? I felt like Pres Nelson had no idea what any of the concerns were even about, and Pres Oaks knows what they’re all about but doesn’t care one iota.
Woman asks, “What about women?” First Presidency be like, “We LOVE women! They make such good mothers!”
I’m sitting there thinking, ok, but NOT all women will be mothers, and if the only ways women contribute to the church are by raising boys and giving advice to our husbands, I’m not sure anyone in their right mind would say that makes us equal in power to men. Men can, after all, be fathers and they can also give advice to their wives…AND they have Priesthood authority, sooo…. And if women held the Priesthood and could hold some of these callings that currently are male-exclusive, men could play more of a role in raising their children, rather than realizing in their 80s that all that their kids are and have done they owe to their wives because they themselves were so busy fulfilling church responsibilities when their kids were growing up, they hardly knew them. How is this all not obvious? It’s very simple logic.
Imagine if things were flipped and women held the Priesthood and men didn’t. The female First Presidency is all, “Right, men don’t hold the Priesthood. We love men, they make such good fathers! What would we do without them to give us advice and to raise up daughters to run the church someday!?” Who is going to say, “Oh, yeah, that sounds really reasonable! Great answer!”?
*facepalm*
I created a post about the news conference as requested! squarepeg wrote:
Woman asks, “What about women?” First Presidency be like, “We LOVE women! They make such good mothers!”I’m sitting there thinking, ok, but NOT all women will be mothers, and if the only ways women contribute to the church are by raising boys and giving advice to our husbands, I’m not sure anyone in their right mind would say that makes us equal in power to men. Men can, after all, be fathers and they can also give advice to their wives…AND they have Priesthood authority, sooo…. And if women held the Priesthood and could hold some of these callings that currently are male-exclusive, men could play more of a role in raising their children, rather than realizing in their 80s that all that their kids are and have done they owe to their wives because they themselves were so busy fulfilling church responsibilities when their kids were growing up, they hardly knew them. How is this all not obvious? It’s very simple logic.
Here’s my question as well… it seems to me that women hold most of the ward emotional load of the ward/branch between their R.S. Compassionate service focus and child-raising activities, and social networking around the ward/branch. I feel comfortable saying this because people are more comfortable coming to me for ALL emotional load questions regarding my family instead of my husband. The times when people do not talk to me about logistics/emotional load stuff end badly for our family. I serve in the nursery sometimes now that my daughter is 16 months and “invited” into nursery. I mentioned to my husband the other day that I could not cover 3rd hour for 1 week – and he was adamant that they not expect him to help and it wasn’t his place to help. I understand his point of view, but I was thinking, “Our daughter is now 1/3 of the nursery attendees, so unless someone else is called to serve, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to assist 1/3 of the time – or opt out of the program”. Now, I get that my husband my be the exception here – and there might be good reasons for it – but that knee-jerk reaction still sticks with me.
NOTE: I realized today that I am seeing more men teaching in Primary and it is causing fewer raised eye brows. This is another sign that things are changing.
I do not feel we have equal hierarchal power with men. I feel that there is a weird imbalance where women do more (or different) and know more (or different) and either get more credit (we do get a random amount of emotional load credit on Mother’s Day and in some General Conference talks) or less credit (how long did it take to put sisters on the Missionary Council – I think we hit a critical mass of sisters going out to serve that finally made it possible). I believe that the leadership does not want shift the power balance very much – either to not tilt the organization boat, or because they believe that the power balance is currently acceptable before God – or additional reasons left out. I just mourn that the changes are slow, and there isn’t a whole lot of transparency about it.
squarepeg wrote:
Imagine if things were flipped and women held the Priesthood and men didn’t. The female First Presidency is all, “Right, men don’t hold the Priesthood. We love men, they make such good fathers! What would we do without them to give us advice and to raise up daughters to run the church someday!?” Who is going to say, “Oh, yeah, that sounds really reasonable! Great answer!”?*facepalm*
My snarky comment for the day: the announcement that RMN has 116 grandchildren sounds positively polygamy-ish. That is so many kids, how can he possibly remember all their names? Roadrunner wrote:
My snarky comment for the day: the announcement that RMN has 116 grandchildren sounds positively polygamy-ish. That is so many kids, how can he possibly remember all their names?
EQUALLY SNARKY NOTE: That is a side benefit of getting married a second time. Someone has to celebrate the birthdays…
REPENTANT NOTE: It is possible that the emotional load of celebrating grandchild birthdays is handled by him personally, or paid staffing, or an internal marital agreement was reached and his wife handles it.
Roadrunner wrote:
My snarky comment for the day: the announcement that RMN has 116 grandchildren sounds positively polygamy-ish. That is so many kids, how can he possibly remember all their names?
All the boys are named Russell, Marion, or Jared and all the girls are named You.
Alternatively: He’s the prophet, and you can’t contradict the prophet. Your name is whatever he calls you.
C’mere Billy.
[no one looks up]
Billy, I said come here.
[whispered]
Go on son, your name is Billy now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.