- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Somebody said they wanted a thread about the question and answer session after the new FP was announced, so I thought I’d start one. I don’t remember a ton from it, but I do remember there was a point (minute 2:35:20) where they talked about working with the Q12 and the camera moved to the Q12 and everyone but Uchtdorf and one other guy (can’t remember his name) was looking back at them and smiling, except Uchtdorf who didn’t even look at them or smile while the camera was facing them. I’m not sure if him getting moved down caused contentions or if that was just a coincidence that he was not looking at them. Let me know if I’m just looking for things that may not be there. I also was a bit worried about Eyering at a couple points where he kept staring off with a plastered smile on his face. When he was talking he seemed like his normal self, but his blank stares at a couple points (especially toward the beginning) had me worried that he wasn’t all there mentally anymore. Who knows, maybe he was just having an off-day. For those who haven’t seen the video, here’s a link. It starts at minute 1.00.00
Yes, I was willing someone to please gently tell Pres Eyring to close his mouth so he wouldn’t look so frightening. Every time I saw Uchtdorf, he had a somewhat forced-looking smile. Some people just smile in public like that, though, so I may have been reading into that a bit.
Interesting… The D&C verse Pres Nelson cited to show that women’s divine role is to have kiddos was originally meant in reference to plural wives. I was disappointed Uchdorft didn’t stay in the presidency. And apparently others aren’t either — here is an article on the fact that some Mormons are not happy about getting less Uchdorft
The reasons give are more that he was international, and that he gave a very respectful tone in conference talks (in the article).
My reasons were that he spoke against “class structure” in the church, against judging people on the fringes, acknowledgement that past leaders have made a lot of mistakes, and his carefully worded statement that “no local leaders are paid” — which to me, was transparency I wasn’t used to seeing about the lay ministry.
For me, his comments in GC define his influence on my life — more of opening the circle wider for people like me. I don’t know how much influence he had in the FP as a counselor, and the impact of moving in DHO in his place. It’s hard to know — as a counselor in a Bpric, I had some influence, but it was really the Bishop who called all the shots. I did influence his thinking a few times — once to go heavier on a disciplinary outcome than the Bishop originally thought, but beyond that I don’t remember having much influence…I wonder how it works in the FP, particularly among aged men who have some pretty well-formed opinions, like RMN must have.
Good thread Amy – When I am done grieving I will add to it. The Press Conference? Yuck.
Nelson: “I’m optimistic about the future and feel confident about the fundamental goodness of humankind.” I liked that statement because I think we often run the risk of believing that the world only gets worse (more wicked) with time. I get the feeling that the focus on the church in coming years will be “keep on the covenant path.” Whatever that translates to, I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot of it during our meetings. I’m thinking it will translate into goals to go to the temple. Millennials may also be wondering why they need a church and this may be the FP’s answer – you have to take the sacrament. When it was first mentioned I also felt like Nelson was referencing multi-generational families, though not in those words. The idea is that you have to keep your covenants to make sure your family (generational family) doesn’t end up off the path.
During the press conference I felt Oaks was being a little forceful in his interjections, sometimes talking over Nelson but I think that may have been the format of the Q&A session.
Questions:
How do you plan to address LGBT issues?Initially Nelson framed the question as a challenge to be worthy. There’s a lot of implication behind that response, but it’s not a surprise either. Our theology is very much tied to the nuclear family.
Nelson also said that there’s a place for them in the church. I’ll extend this to members that have nuanced or differing views as well. I wish Nelson would have elaborated here. It’s one thing to tell someone they’re welcome, it’s quite another to help them feel welcome. What place is there? What does it look like? That’s a question that I don’t think I could answer.
What are the main challenges of the church in areas that are experiencing socioeconomic challenges (like Mexico) and what are your plans to overcome them?(continued)
What will you do in your presidency to bring women, people of color, and international members into decision making for the church?They had trouble here. The leaders of the church aren’t representative. God calls who he calls. There are so many countries that some countries are going to be left out.
:crazy: And later:
“I love them.”
It’s hard to answer a 21st century question with 19th century answers. We’re hamstrung by our received revelations. The received revelations have placed us in a box, a box that’s too small for the 21st century. Over all, the divine role of women in the Mormon church is to raise children. If you are a good woman you can raise up kids that will become bishops.
:crazy: I don’t even want to unpack that one right now.squarepeg wrote:
Interesting… The D&C verse Pres Nelson cited to show that women’s divine role is to have kiddos was originally meant in reference to plural wives.http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2018/01/17/verse-63/
Thanks for linking to the Ardis P. post.I usually don’t nod my head in agreement when people talk about GAs ages, nationality, out-of-touch-ness, but, wow, do I feel it now. Very disappointed in his comments about women throughout the Q&A.
It’s 2018!
How can you, as leaders of the church, retain and draw millennials to belief in God and to the church?You are a child of god. Kids today are better than kids when I was on my mission. Get married.
[something or other about growth]What do you expect for the future of the church in Brazil?Nelson: “And remember that in the year I was born there were no members of the church in South America.”
Well yeah, it probably took a few years for people to filter down to SA after disembarking from the Ark.
:angel: Could you give a message to the youth. What can they learn from you? As Nelson puts it, “How can the youth follow an old man?”He travels. Lots of experience leading the church. He talks to his grandchildren… who are probably in their late 40s (not youth)
What message can you give those that are leaving the church or have problems with early church leadership or principles that have been taught? And also you have an army of missionaries but church growth ain’t great.Know the difference between doctrine and human. Don’t be offended. Keep the commandments. He implies people leave because they want the freedom to sin. It’s not one guy, it’s the council of the Q15. Joseph Smith Papers. Context… and how would you like it if there were Nibbler Papers that people picked through to find fault. “Boy the prophet Joseph comes out mighty high.” …for you, but not for many people leaving.
nibbler wrote:
Nelson also said that there’s a place for them in the church. I’ll extend this to members that have nuanced or differing views as well. I wish Nelson would have elaborated here. It’s one thing to tell someone they’re welcome, it’s quite another to help them feel welcome. What place is there? What does it look like? That’s a question that I don’t think I could answer.
That’s what I want to know. I’m afraid that many of these answers were more talk than action. They were speaking for publicity, very careful with how they worded things and how they responded. When put on the spot, it’s easy to talk one way when you feel another.
Always Thinking wrote:
Somebody said they wanted a thread about the question and answer session after the new FP was announced, so I thought I’d start one. I don’t remember a ton from it, but I do remember there was a point (minute 2:35:20) where they talked about working with the Q12 and the camera moved to the Q12 and everyone but Uchtdorf and one other guy (can’t remember his name) was looking back at them and smiling, except Uchtdorf who didn’t even look at them or smile while the camera was facing them. I’m not sure if him getting moved down caused contentions or if that was just a coincidence that he was not looking at them.I don’t care to watch the entire press conference, but I’d like to see where the camera moved to the Q12. I want to see Uchtdorf’s expression that you described. You said it was at 2:35:20, but the whole thing is just barely over 2 hours long, not two and a half hours. Could you double-check the time, please? You probably have a pretty good idea how far into it that part was.
dande48 wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Nelson also said that there’s a place for them in the church. I’ll extend this to members that have nuanced or differing views as well. I wish Nelson would have elaborated here. It’s one thing to tell someone they’re welcome, it’s quite another to help them feel welcome. What place is there? What does it look like? That’s a question that I don’t think I could answer.
That’s what I want to know. I’m afraid that many of these answers were more talk than action.
Pretty much the same as it has been for singles all along; talk about how valuable the singles are, and how none of us is meant to be alone, but then that reminder is strangely absent when a single member dies, still alone. And of course, the “value” of the adult singles isn’t seen on Sunday mornings in any of the wards I’ve visited.
NightSG wrote:Pretty much the same as it has been for singles all along; talk about how valuable the singles are, and how none of us is meant to be alone, but then that reminder is strangely absent when a single member dies, still alone. And of course, the “value” of the adult singles isn’t seen on Sunday mornings in any of the wards I’ve visited.
I feel like this is particularly a problem for single women, because in the same press conference when asked how the leadership would address the inequity inherent in the male dominated top level of leadership, the response was a lengthy explanation of how women contribute by bearing children who grow up to be bishops, missionaries, etc, and women contribute by giving good advice to their husbands who hold the Priesthood. If you’re single, you’re not giving advice to a husband. And many single women do not have children. So basically, a single woman without children has no purpose in the Church?
:wtf: It sounded like the First Presidency just has zero thought for people who don’t fit the cookie cutter mould of “married with children”. That is a LOT of people to dismiss.
squarepeg wrote:
NightSG wrote:Pretty much the same as it has been for singles all along; talk about how valuable the singles are, and how none of us is meant to be alone, but then that reminder is strangely absent when a single member dies, still alone. And of course, the “value” of the adult singles isn’t seen on Sunday mornings in any of the wards I’ve visited.
I feel like this is particularly a problem for single women,
Try being a single adult man, not fulfilling the manly responsibility by marrying whatever 4’8″ 350lb bearded “sister” will take the ring first.
Divorced is even worse; if you didn’t get the kids then obviously everything wrong with the marriage was your fault, and if you did, it was still all your fault and you tormented her more by taking the kids.
Either way, you get stuck with all the callings that aren’t really important enough to waste married men on, and of course, you still get treated like a child, because even if you were married and raising kids, you’re clearly not a real adult yet or you’d still be married. (Even past 40.)
squarepeg wrote:
I feel like this is particularly a problem for single women, because in the same press conference when asked how the leadership would address the inequity inherent in the male dominated top level of leadership, the response was a lengthy explanation of how women contribute by bearing children who grow up to be bishops, missionaries, etc, and women contribute by giving good advice to their husbands who hold the Priesthood.
When I heard this I thought of the well worn adages “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” and “Behind every great man is a great woman.” It is difficult that this question was not even answered by highlighting the small advances of women in the church in recent years and suggesting that more was to come. Instead it was basically asserted that women have soft influence in the church through their marital and family relationships to men.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
