yjacket

Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe we need more female leadership and are upset that we don't. 
1) Why do you think we need more female leadership in the Church?  Is it out of a need to feel like women are adequately "represented"? Is it a desire to ensure "equality"?  What is the basis for this idea?
2) What would you do to create more female leadership?  Young Women's is exclusively women. Primary is almost exclusively women. Relief Society is exclusively women. Out of the major Church organizations at a local level (YM/YW,Primary, RS, EQ, HP, Bishop) 42.8% is women lead and run. The same is true at the Stake level (if you add in High Counsel the percentage drops a bit).  So what exactly do you propose to add in more female leadership?  
The only way you could create more female leadership is either to a) create another organization for women to lead/run or b) give women the Priesthood so they can lead/run Priesthood organizations.
The entire 70s, GA, etc. all come from the Priesthood as in, it is the authority to actually you know run the Church.
This idea that people were "hurt" by only 1 speaker.  Come on please give me a break.  That is something my 6 year old says when she doesn't like what I tell her to do.  Did any speaker say anything nasty about women?  Did any speaker denigrate, demean, call names about women? Did any speaker say anything that in anyway could be made to seem as if they do not respect and honor women?
But just because there was only 1 female speaker they are "hurt".  (Nothing about the message, again only b/c there wasn't another woman). Man, if that is your idea of hurt these people must walk around being "hurt" every second of every day of their lives.  I bet they have no time to think about uplifting others, spreading the Gospel message, about raising a righteous family because they are so "hurt".  I actually feel quite sad for them b/c their lives must be so completely horrible as they walk around expecting everyone else to cater to their every whim b/c if they don't they are "hurt". Quite frankly, that has got to suck b/c I know if I were "hurt" every time something happened I didn't like I'd be living a miserable life.
I actually pity people who are like that-life is too dang short to go about being "hurt" every time something doesn't go your way.
 

Please don't throw emotionally laden passive aggressiveness around.
I'm sure you care plenty about women's feelings; I guarantee as a husband I care plenty about women's feelings, I'm sure the GA's and prophets care plenty about woman's feelings (they are 50% of the population and without whom we won't be here!).
It's not that at all; it is the explicit idea that the only way to show that we "care" about woman's feelings is to ensure that more than 1 (what the right number needs to be, I don't know) of the speakers is a woman.  In other words, simply by the virtue of a speaker being a woman conveys that the Church cares about women. She could stand up and say nothing inspiring, but b/c she is female, the Church now "cares".
My guess is that if one actually does a study of General Conference talks one will find a plethora of talks given to, given about, and giving direction to women. The idea espoused is this perverse idea that only by having someone who is a physiological representative can show that someone truly cares. It boils down to the idea that because I'm not a woman I don't have the right to give advice to women, because I'm not a cripple I can't give advice to cripples, because I'm not homosexual I can't give advice to homosexuals, because I didn't grow up in the ghetto, etc. etc. In other words, if I haven't gone through exactly what you have gone through, I have no right and my advice is considered dross, b/c "I don't know how you feel".  The idea is perverse and immature.
My advice might be better because I have gone through a very similar trial . . .but it might also be much, much worse. I have found in my life to learn to take good advice and consent from wherever it may come from.  I have learned someone doesn't have to be a man to give me advice (in fact some of the best advice comes from people who are completely different than me)
I have learned the best way to get advice and counsel in all things, spiritual or temporal is to find people who have succeeded, who I respect, who have wisdom, who have the Spirit of God-regardless of whether they have been through something similar.
I find GC one of the best times to find counsel and advice from men and women who have succeeded-especially in the realm of the Spiritual. If GC had 10 women speakers, great if it had none great-it doesn't matter. What matters is whether the individuals speaking have the wisdom and are spiritual ready to give counsel and advice to the General Body of the Church. 
Part of giving that counsel and guidance is the Power and Authority of the Priesthood-it is one of the rights and duties of the Priesthood-it is an obligation.  Rather than lagging the woman-men are called to be the Spiritual leader of their household.  
It is a shame that as a Mormon culture we have to many degrees we denigrate (not sure if that is the right word . .. maybe scoff at??) the sacred responsibility of Husbands to be the spiritual leader in the home. 

But you are supposed to know how we feel. But you must be accurate.

I think we need exactly the amount of female leadership that the Lord has revealed he wants.  As soon as the Lord reveals additional female leadership positions, I want those too!  Until the Lord reveals the need for additional female leadership positions, I will trust that the Church is being run as it should be.  Kind of reminds me of a little ditty I learned as a kid, I think it went something like this:
 

I'm thinking you should get in touch with President Monson and lecture him on his duties to be more inclusive. The Brethren clearly aren't doing it right. Set them straight.

I was not tracking all the speakers and when they spoke – but it was during one of the Sunday sessions that a Lady from the primary presidency spoke.  I thought her words were very inspiring and prophetic (among one of the most inspirational talks for me) and should be considered as much scripture (given through the Holy Ghost) as any of the conference talks given.  BTW the talk was about preparing children to be able to resist evil - aka the stripling warriors.  
 
The Traveler
 

I'm thinking it's an anti-female agenda on the part of the Brethren. Someone should notify Kate Kelly immediately.

Why is that? Do we go to conference to hear the Word of God through His chosen leaders, or do we go to only hear the Word of God through the eyes of a social agenda? Why is it that everything is so politicized these days? Oh my goodness there was only 1 female speaker!!!! The Horror!!! Oh, if only there were 2 that would make it better?  Not 2 what about 5?  Not 5, well then what exactly is the "right" number of female speakers? Is it that one can only hear God's will as spoken by His leadership if they are of the same gender?
I've seen exactly where this line of thinking leads-I've seen in it in business and in the government.  Where I used to work, rather than ensuring the absolute best person obtained the job it was an unwritten rule that there must be an equal number of male and female supervisors.  If there is an XO, then the XO and chief must be male and female (and it rotated-if the Chief was male- the next Chief would be female).  On every promotion board there is a "female advocate" and a "minority advocate".  All based on the premise that men and women are "equal", i.e. that they are the same and therefore if there isn't an equal amount of supervisors who are male/female it must mean there is discrimination.
But no one wants to consider the alternative-men and women are different and unique and as such have different strengths and weaknesses.  That might actually mean that men are more well-suited for supervisory roles.  So instead of focusing on the actual content that matters, what kind of a supervisor, how well will you do the job, etc. people focus on the fluff-making sure that an equal number of men and women get into supervisor roles, get promoted, etc. etc. etc.
Unfortunately, it actually does the opposite of promoting "equality"-people aren't stupid and they can very well see when individuals are more a "political" appointment vs. not.
Quite frankly? Who gives a rip and why in the world does it matter? Do we go to Conference to hear a political agenda or to hear the Word of God?

Christoferson, Utchdorf and Holland.
Utchdorf: Don't fear have faith. Makes total sense-we can have a complete understanding of the evil, wickedness and problems that are surrounding us and becoming stronger (it is the latter days) but we ultimately know who wins.  Faith overcomes fear.
Holland: The Church is for everyone who is willing to love God and earnestly striving to do so.
Christoferson: We must be willing to speak out and stand for what's right and true, understanding sometimes being firm and unwavering in truth and right will be labeled as judgmental. Being a discipline of Christ requires speaking truth.
 

This very well could be; you can get a backlash generation. I do have to remind myself that my kids are not in the Millennial generation, they are post-millenial-whatever that is.  The 4 turnings of generations is an interesting philosophy.

I'm not sure about this.  My kids have the same experience as yours (although they're older - 8th and 10th grade) but they've had that same kind of education all throughout their lives.  BUT - I have noticed that more and more kids in their peer group see the SJW "brainwashing" as "the Man" and - being the teen-agers that they are - they are "taking it to the Man" by taking their schooling and everything else the Millennial generation is feeding them and shooting daggers at it in the same way we used to take our education as Another Brick in the Wall back in our day.  It does seem like my kids' generation is leaning sharply conservative so much so that most of my discussions with them at home is balancing them out of extreme right views.

Just because I have been known to wear pants to church, you make assumptions.
Fine. It was me. 
Spies everywhere.

That's a good question. I don't think it will, but I think it will.  I don't believe the Church is going to change it's stance on homosexual relationship, women and the priesthood, etc.  So in one sense, the Kate Kelly's of the world are going to have to go pound sound.
However, I think it will as a stumbling block.  Children in today's society are being raised to be SJW.  A quick example; my son is in 3rd grade.  He has a 3rd grade reading assignment about space exploration and then a written assignment afterwards about 1st's in space.  Every single first listed was a SJW topic, first woman in space, first black in space, first black woman in space, first indian-american in space, first LGBT in space (okay thankfully they didn't go that far, but you get my point). I'm an engineer, my son loves engineering stuff . . .why the shooting darn heck (avoiding the profanity filter :-) )) are they teaching this crud instead of, first rocket into space, first obit, first space walk, first satellite, etc.
From a very small age, our children (it has gotten especially bad with Common Core) are being pumped and primed to be SJW through identity politics.  No matter how much you teach your children at home, when they go to indoctrination camps for 8 hours a day they will pick up some of this stuff. Today's adults don't realize it b/c most people don't quite fully understand at how bad public schools have become at leftist, social indoctrination-but over the last 10 years . . .it's gotten bad.  As a consequence of it, we are seeing the rise of SJW phenomena in the rising generation.
Now what happens when these kids who have been indoctrinated get out on their own . . .which indoctrination is going to win?  That of their parents, or schools?  What happens when the indoctrination of schools, peers, etc. win out over religion and parents?  Why is the Church having a much larger problem with retaining today's youth (once they leave the nest) than previous generations?  One of the reasons given for lowering the mission age was specifically to address this (i.e. provide less gap time between high school and mission-and it has worked more youth are going on missions).
What happens when the SJW finds out that their worldview is not the Church's worldview?  They either try to change it (good luck with that!) or they leave.
And that is the concern. So no, I don't believe it will gain traction with believing members.  But I do believe it will make it more difficult for individuals to maintain believing member status-especially for the rising generation and in that sense it will gain traction-for those that leave.

Some thoughts after conference.  Does anyone every think as to what exactly is the point of SJW in the Church?
For example, I read about a father who has gender bended the scriptures, i.e. femanized all males in the scriptures and made males out of all the females in the scriptures and is reading them to young children.  Why? I really don't get it.  So women can have "strong" examples in the scriptures.  So torture, twist and reverse the scriptures just to make a modern day political point to young impressionable children? The scriptures have enough lessons in them to be learned by young children without the need to change them to fit our own social agenda.
Needless to say, the only boy in the family didn't like it.  I have an idea . . .let's take all the stories about Cinderella, princesses, etc. and reverse them too!
My goodness, the current society is just plain nuts.  We have a falling birth rate, the US is below repopulation rate (i.e. without immigration in 20-30 years the population will actually start declining) and the most important lessons we can teach to young impressionable minds is that the scriptures are wrong about gender? Right, like some amazonian woman teancum is going to heave the massive javelin and kill the Queen Ammorona.
My goodness, instead of teaching the values of family, hard work, persistence, grit, determination we are teaching children that women can do everything men can do. Why are we trying to teach young girls that they can be everything that a man can be?  It's patently false, men and women are different, each have their unique strengths and weaknesses and this is good. God made is so that man and woman can come together become one flesh, become perfected through each other and Christ form families and enjoy all the blessings God has.
This is just so incredibly nuts . . .  

Some thoughts after conference.  Does anyone every think as to what exactly is the point of SJW in the Church?
For example, I read about a father who has gender bended the scriptures, i.e. femanized all males in the scriptures and made males out of all the females in the scriptures and is reading them to young children.  Why? I really don't get it.  So women can have "strong" examples in the scriptures.  So torture, twist and reverse the scriptures just to make a modern day political point to young impressionable children? The scriptures have enough lessons in them to be learned by young children without the need to change them to fit our own social agenda.
Needless to say, the only boy in the family didn't like it.  I have an idea . . .let's take all the stories about Cinderella, princesses, etc. and reverse them too!
My goodness, the current society is just plain nuts.  We have a falling birth rate, the US is below repopulation rate (i.e. without immigration in 20-30 years the population will actually start declining) and the most important lessons we can teach to young impressionable minds is that the scriptures are wrong about gender? Right, like some amazonian woman teancum is going to heave the massive javelin and kill the Queen Ammorona.
My goodness, instead of teaching the values of family, hard work, persistence, grit, determination we are teaching children that women can do everything men can do. Why are we trying to teach young girls that they can be everything that a man can be?  It's patently false, men and women are different, each have their unique strengths and weaknesses and this is good. God made is so that man and woman can come together become one flesh, become perfected through each other and Christ form families and enjoy all the blessings God has.
This is just so incredibly nuts . . .  

In a marriage it takes two to tango. I'm not excusing the husband's behavior; however more likely than not the marriage was broken way before the actual infidelity and for that both the husband and the wife share the fault.
From what you've presented the ex could use a good lesson in something called social grace . . . i.e. when someone offers you an apology/condolences, you accept it.  This new cultural norm that a fully formed adult gets to say something like "you don't know how I feel, or thanks a lot for opening the problem again", or feels it appropriate to lash out at another is quite new and quite frankly is the attitude of a teenager that never grew up.  A moody teenager is expected to have those feelings and not respond appropriately.  A fully formed mature, responsible adult might still have those feelings but knows better than to be a jerk.  
Some things are better left unsaid and even if one does think "well I really didn't need to be reminded about xyz", the best appropriate action is to simply accept the offer and then move on. The fact that she didn't and instead lashed out at you does not reflect well on her and her maturity level, i.e. she hasn't grown up and that very well could have been a source of the marital problems. . . but who knows.
At this point, there is not much else you can do. Don't worry about it and move on with life.  If anything, simply say STTE of "I'm glad things are working out well for you, your husband and children.  I hope things continue to go well.  If you ever would like to chat please let me know" and then be done with it.
Life is just too dang short to hang onto junk like this and let it worry and stress you out.

I've always paid. I always will pay it.
The blessings that come from paying tithing come from our Father in Heaven.
If my Bishop were to steal all my tithing and go play poker, the blessings between myself and our Father in Heaven remain the same.
By not paying tithing, and finding reasons/doubts not to, I'm the only one drawing the short stick in the end.

My general retort to these type "where does all the money go" questions is: the government takes a lot more money from you want probably has a lot more currption/wasteful spending.  When was the last time you looked specifically at that and did anything productive about it?
Admittedly this is probably not the most charitable response, and reflects my inner impatience with people.

Well, you'd think if the leaders of our church were in it for the money and power, they'd do more traditional things like live in expensive places, take expensive vacations, wear expensive clothes, drive expensive cars, hire zoos for their grandchildren's birthdays, rooms full of strippers, etc.
Our church leaders, by accounts of those who are most closely associated with them, basically live lives of endless meetings, and travel to meetings, and meetings about meetings.  Saying the same stuff over and over and over again.  Without any hope for a lighter meeting load until old age sets in and they die.  Not exactly the glamorous lifestyle that beckons to people lusting after money and power.

Here's the deal: Romantic love, as best I can recall, has never been taught as a principle of happiness in the Gospel. And statistically, whereas it's a bit harder to gauge happiness, stability has decidedly declined since the invention of western culture's "love" marriages.
Romantic love is a bunch of false hooey. It's nothing but hormones swimming in the brain. Sure, it's nice. And I'm a sucker for it. But anyone who's been married for a long time knows that it is not the foundation of a good marriage. Hormones fade.
True love, on the other hand, (Christ's love) IS the foundation of a good marriage. True love is about sacrifice, commitment, and consciously placing another's value above your own self-interests.
This ^ is another part of that big lie we've been discussing about homosexuality and the idea that they cannot find happiness if they don't have their romantic love needs fulfilled (as in they cannot have a legitimized sex relationship with whom they want). It's total garbage at every level. By their logic, if my wife gains weight, gets injured, loses a limb, or even just grows older, I can no longer find happiness in my relationship with her, because I am not sexually attracted to fat, disabled, arm-less, or/and old women. And we wonder why marriages are falling apart the world over. Because "passion" is, according to the big lie, the most important thing in a "marriage".
I have good (and previously faithful) people I know well who have up and left the church in support of this lie. These people are almost all faithfully married with children and have lived the truth. In one case, the husband has homosexual feelings, but has chosen to remain committed to his wife and children -- indicating that he understand the truth of it -- and yet they still leave the church in support of the idea that "passion" should rule and that those who the church, essentially, are asking to make the same choice that he has made are being assaulted with hate and bigotry. Seriously?
Well...that's about how the logic works in these things. That is to say...no logic at all.
I have no doubt that polygamy would be incredibly difficult to live. But it is not because there would be less passion. A., per the point(s) above, passion is not the primary ingredient in happiness (if an ingredient at all) and B., (and this also relates directly to the lie of homosexuality) passion can be learned/developed.
What?! You mean you can change what you're passionate about and/or who you're passionate for?
The horror! How dare I? What hate speech is this!?

I'm finding 31% of births being medicaid funded to be abhorrent.  The fact that it's one of the lowest in the nation nauseating. 

That's because the Rs aren't actually conservative any more.

It's like both want the power, but want it in their own way.  But both the Ds and the Rs are not actually helping the people. 

Oh goody, I've been upgraded to a "pal"!!
Can the letter be just this one sentence repeated 1500 times? "I will exhibit tough love at all times like MormonGator"

I'll settle for just the dinner.