Something I noticed about the 4 conference sessions

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To be literal and totally fair, there IS institutional discrimination in the church. Women cannot hold the priesthood. That is discriminatory. Factually. Literally. Unquestionably.

Yeah, the dry literal dictionary translation takes all the fun out of it.  Because men can't have babies either, and that is discriminatory too.  The root of the word means one is able to discriminate between something and something else.  And yes, our church is in a shrinking number of Christian organizations that draw any sort of meaningful line between men and women.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

[lds2]

17 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

In the sat and Sunday morning and afternoon sessions there was only 1 female speaker total. Why only 1? That can't make women in the church feel good.

The first session of conference had plenty of women speaking...it was held in March and we had dessert with that. I'll keep my session thanks :).

"The general women’s session will be held in the Conference Center Auditorium in Salt Lake City on Saturday, March 25, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. MDT and will be broadcast to many areas of the world.

All women, young women, and girls eight years of age and older are invited to view the satellite broadcast of the general women’s session. All women eight years of age and older are encouraged to gather together, especially as families, in meetinghouses to view the broadcast."

Edited April 4, 2017 by lds2

[Guest MormonGator]

12 hours ago, Backroads said:

Sometimes you need compassion, sometimes you need to be told reality.

Being someone who lacks compassion and other basic human emotions will get you far on the internet-but in the real world it'll only take you so far. 

I think it boils down to relationships and anonymity. For some people, they can show absolutely no compassion or emotion to strangers on the internet, but they'd never do it in real life. For keyboard warriors, it's their way of being tough. Like trying to show how hardcore you are by getting a press on tattoo 

Edited April 4, 2017 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Being someone who lacks compassion and other basic human emotions will get you far on the internet-but in the real world it'll only take you so far. 

Of course she is not talking about the giver's compassion or lack thereof, she's talking about the potential need of the receiver.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course she is not talking about the giver's compassion or lack thereof, she's talking about the potential need of the receiver.

It's more my general thoughts on the subject matter. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Shooting an injured animal in the head can be an act of compassion. Shooting an injured person in the head could be as well. But that doesn't address morality or the right and wrong of an action. Compassion, in and of itself, does not define right and wrong. It as one of many components.

[Backroads]

My point is that sometimes simpering out "there there you poor thing" is less effective then letting them know they're being ridiculous.

[Backroads]

I don't seek to be mean, but motherhood and teaching lower elementary school has made me crusty beyond my years. "No, you do not knee Billy so hard he has to go to the hospital to retrieve a testicle because he budged in line and no you don't get sympathy."

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Backroads said:

My point is that sometimes simpering out "there there you poor thing" is less effective then letting them know they're being ridiculous.

Understand totally, and don't disagree at all.
 

The trick is getting people to listen to you.If you just tell them they are being ridiculous, they'll ignore you. Those we listen to and whose advice we take are those who can deliver the message -tough or not-in a respectful and polite way. 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Understand totally, and don't disagree at all.
 

The trick is getting people to listen to you.If you just tell them they are being ridiculous, they'll ignore you. Those we listen to and whose advice we take are those who can deliver the message -tough or not-in a respectful and polite way. 

I don't see this as an absolute truth. I do think there's a lot of validity to it. But...in some cases when someone expresses an idea that is ridiculous, and EVERYONE responds by pointing out how ridiculous it was, whereas they may go away with their feelings hurt and an initial response of rebellion, but after time they may have actually learned from it.

Of course that doesn't address how we should behave towards people. Elder Uchtdorf's talk on fear discussed this. Whether or not we feel the ends justifies the means or not, the Lord's way has been prescribed differently. The fact that we may be able to shame someone into changing their thinking doesn't make shaming someone the proper method.

[Backroads]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Understand totally, and don't disagree at all.
 

The trick is getting people to listen to you.If you just tell them they are being ridiculous, they'll ignore you. Those we listen to and whose advice we take are those who can deliver the message -tough or not-in a respectful and polite way. 

 

And I think this is where relationships come in. Those people who love and trust you are best able to take frankness and truth. But at the same time, do we sugarcoat and avoid topics just because we haven't built the ideal relationship up with an acquaintance?

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Backroads said:

 

And I think this is where relationships come in. Those people who love and trust you are best able to take frankness and truth. But at the same time, do we sugarcoat and avoid topics just because we haven't built the ideal relationship up with an acquaintance?

100% agree. When we don't bother to try to get to know the other person, it makes it much easier to show zero compassion towards them. The internet makes it worse because we don't see them-so it's easier to forget that they are human and deserve respect and a bit of empathy. For the record I do not claim to be perfect, there are certainly times when I could reach out and get to know someone better or show more understanding, for sure. 

[NeuroTypical]

Here - maybe I can solve things for everybody:

There is a valid role for people who want to engage in empathy, caring, support, because it's a way to love thy fellow human, and love is important.
There is a valid role for people who want to convey harsh practical realities, because sharing important maturing truths about life is a way to love thy fellow human, and love is important. 

Now everybody do this:

Edited April 4, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[yjacket]

13 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I don't seek to be mean, but motherhood and teaching lower elementary school has made me crusty beyond my years. "No, you do not knee Billy so hard he has to go to the hospital to retrieve a testicle because he budged in line and no you don't get sympathy."

Amen. I have also found that being a father has made me more firm.  I don't know if crusty is the right word for it.....I'm not sure what the right word is.  Maybe more resolute, maybe more confident in my own abilities and authority?

It is my belief that the best exercise in leadership, the best way to learn how to properly lead and guide is in being a parent.  It is a 24x7 exercise in leadership.  Because of that I've learned a lot of leadership principles and I believe in many ways I had a lot of things wrong when I was younger about leadership.

As such and having been through some of the fires of early parenthood, I've seen how the world teaches parenting and leadership.  And most of it in my opinion is completely wrong.  I've seen the drastic difference it makes in my own children when I've parented & lead by the current world standards vs. old school standards of 40-50 years ago.  

And as such, I've also seen (and this isn't an insult to anyone), what happens when children who haven't been taught properly become adults. The vast majority, IMO, of SJW comes down to life isn't fair, I want life to be fair and therefore in order to make life fair I'm going to be hurt and upset and anyone who doesn't cater to my belief is an un-compassionate, insensitive jerk.

I have almost had the exact same exchange with my children-sure the topic differs but the generalities is the same.  Son, get xyz done or no abc.  Or no I will not buy you an I-Pad (when will I . .. let's see when pigs fly!).  I've had my children, cry and say to my face, "daddy you don't love me!!!" and I've laughed in their face about it (as it is the most ridiculous thing), or I've said "yeah, I probably wouldn't like me too much right now if I were you either, but such is life-deal with it".

Least anyone be concerned, Authority without love is a tyrant and love without authority ends up being milktoast. It requires a balance. IMO, SJW need more of a dose of firmness than, "everyone loves you!".  Because IMO what is more evident in the thread (and others like it), is an unwillingness to accept leadership and authority.  SJWs are unwilling to accept Church leadership as it stands-that is the bottom line.  When it comes down to that point, no amount of compassion or love is going to change that opinion.

I have learned in my life, the only way to have authority/leadership in life is to act like it and to do so requires a specific tone, tenor, manner of speech, etc..  Of course, having a position that naturally has authority helps, but if one has that but doesn't act like it no one will respect it.

But it is a delicate balance (love and leadership), one must balance them and sometimes it requires more love and sometimes it requires more firmness.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 

But it is a delicate balance (love and leadership), one must balance them and sometimes it requires more love and sometimes it requires more firmness.

Come down too hard, you alienate your kids. Come down too soft,they walk all over you. 

[yjacket]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Come down too hard, you alienate your kids. Come down too soft,they walk all over you. 

Exactly right; giving them enough rope to hang themselves, but not too much rope where they will actually kill themselves.  It's a tough balance.

[zil]

12 minutes ago, yjacket said:

It is my belief that the best exercise in leadership, the best way to learn how to properly lead and guide is in being a parent.

Maybe you could convince "them" that this is a mandatory prerequisite for all leadership positions in the church.   A simple little addition to handbook 2.

[yjacket]

Just now, zil said:

Maybe you could convince "them" that this is a mandatory prerequisite for all leadership positions in the church.   A simple little addition to handbook 2.

lol . . . just b/c I think it is the best doesn't mean it is the only way.  I'm glad that it isn't requisite . . .but if I'm King for a day who knows! :-).  

But you will notice that in general, the vast majority of Bishops, SP, GA, etc. have kids.  But that could be more correlation rather than causation.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, yjacket said:

lol . . . just b/c I think it is the best doesn't mean it is the only way.  I'm glad that it isn't requisite . . .but if I'm King for a day who knows! :-).  

But you will notice that in general, the vast majority of Bishops, SP, GA, etc. have kids.  But that could be more correlation rather than causation.

Yeah, yeah, men schmen.  I'm talking about the women called as presidents of various auxiliaries - a new rule requiring them to be mothers wouldn't bother me in the slightest.   (I'm sure some woman somewhere would get all upset, but I'm thinking it would be just fine.)

[yjacket]

Just now, zil said:

Yeah, yeah, men schmen.  I'm talking about the women called as presidents of various auxiliaries - a new rule requiring them to be mothers wouldn't bother me in the slightest.   (I'm sure some woman somewhere would get all upset, but I'm thinking it would be just fine.)

Hmm . . . I hadn't thought about it that way; interesting insight.  In my experience, I generally think most RS Pres. have kids, I'd probably say less so for YW/YM and Primary Pres.  I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing; my wife and I were called to be primary teachers before we had kids.  I guess in some ways good to give exposure to kids, maybe some ways bad as I'd hate to stick an individual who hasn't had teenagers in as the YW pres. (but they do seem to do it more frequently).

[zil]

2 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 In my experience, I generally think most RS Pres. have kids

Yeah, and then they go and call me and one of my friends (different wards) - no kids, both single (she, never married).  It's just weird.  It's like the world is upside down.  I think we need to canonize some of the old stereotypes...

Just now, yjacket said:

my wife and I were called to be primary teachers before we had kids

Yes, that's standard operating procedure in most wards I know - YAs, YSAs, SAs - shuffle them all off to primary.

1 minute ago, yjacket said:

maybe some ways bad as I'd hate to stick an individual who hasn't had teenagers in as the YW pres. (but they do seem to do it more frequently).

I'm going to PM you the phone number of my bishop, just in case...

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 my wife and I were called to be primary teachers before we had kids.

LG and my first calling was something to do with the boy scouts, and we don't have kids either. Very strange! 

[zil]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

LG and my first calling was something to do with the boy scouts, and we don't have kids either. Very strange! 

I'm just not sure what the point is:

• Encourage young people to have kids
• Discourage young people from having kids
• Give parents a break from their kids
• Remind people why they're glad they don't have kids (at home anymore)
• Encourage someone to move out of the ward / stake

...?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here - maybe I can solve things for everybody:

There is a valid role for people who want to engage in empathy, caring, support, because it's a way to love thy fellow human, and love is important.
There is a valid role for people who want to convey harsh practical realities, because sharing important maturing truths about life is a way to love thy fellow human, and love is important. 

Now everybody do this:

I don't wanna.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm just not sure what the point is:

• Encourage young people to have kids
• Discourage young people from having kids
• Give parents a break from their kids
• Remind people why they're glad they don't have kids (at home anymore)
• Encourage someone to move out of the ward / stake

...?

I used to tease my bishop and say "Dude, this calling makes me want to drink!"

It was a joke, he was a wonderful man and he took it as such, and the calling was not the bad. Thank God I never had to do go camping or anything with them. Very easy, laid back calling