Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

When Women (don't) Speak

Recommended Posts

I just got my copy of BYU magazine yesterday.  I'll be honest, I usually send it to the round file.  But I felt the need to open it up and find out what they actually write in that publication.  And this article caught my eye.

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/

It cites scholarly studies evincing the following phenomena in scholarly settings:

  • Unequal Talking Time
  • Routinely Interrupted
  • Limited Influence

This is even in groups where the women are liked and respected.  That seems startlingly bad for the men in the groups.  But...

They seem to have a theme regarding how men behave that wasn't clearly stated as the underlying cause.  Men are more aggressive than women.  It wasn't sexism per se.  It was that men were doing what we are biologically programmed to do.  Be aggressive to make our way in the world.  To hunt and succeed by strength and speed.

When looking at it forensically, I found that I have to agree that the data they came up with was correct.  But I didn't like the article for two reasons.

  • Nothing was said about why men are aggressive -- nor the reason that men are more agressive is actually a good thing.  It was actually condemned.
  • The solution they gave was essentially for everyone to become sheep and "just get along."

Why is that solution flawed?  History has shown that in development of society (even including clearly measurable and provable sectors such as highly technical fields) mildly aggressive tendencies have been the driver behind it.  It's called ambition -- balanced with a healthy dose of virtue.  And biologically, men tend to have that (aggression) a lot more than women.

Case study after case study has also shown (quoting Jordan Peterson) that when women learn to be more aggressive, they will tend to get the same results that men do.  It isn't about sex (exactly).  It is about aggression.  But we in a society have been told that being meek and lowly in heart is the better way to be.  When speaking of Godly things, that is true.  But in the secular world, that simply isn't so. 

Keep in mind that one can be gentle and meek, yet aggressively strong at the same time.  It is a careful balance.  It is a balance that Jesus achieved all the time in his teachings.  And many of us mere mortals can achieve it as well.  But today's world tells us that they are mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, too many people have bought into it. It is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1. I'll be honest, I usually send it to the round file.

2. (quoting Jordan Peterson)

1. I'll do the traditional quick skim and go for a 3 pointer in my round file too. Hah.
2. I rather enjoy his no kidding outlook on a lot of subjects. He is quite good at keeping his cool, citing studies and putting someone in their place with actual facts. He appears to be equally invested in raising both men and women to higher standards, but feminist tend to take issue with this.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a fascinating study.  I agreed with their observations.  One of my favorite parts was that as Carb mentioned they don't blame men.  They said the issue is  "cultural norms", and that sometimes women are part of the problem:

"Rather than outright misogyny, she says it’s usually cultural norms and gendered messages that subtly—and profoundly—shape the rules of engagement. Individuals who suppress female speech may do so unwittingly. “They may love women,” says Preece. “They may even be a woman!” But as a society we have been “slowly socialized over years to discount” female expertise and perspectives."

What they found helpful was that when women are part of a group that group decisions be made by unanimity, rather than majority vote.  That seems to help a lot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually liked the article. It was spot-on for me. Should women’s voices not be heard? Why do we need to be aggressive in order to be heard? My personality is such, that when I’m in a group I am reserved. I’m that way whether it’s a mixed group or all women group. I will speak up if I have something worthwhile to contribute, but I’m not going o be aggressive about it. It’s not in me to act that way.

Another way I find myself to be different than men is in the area of competition. A number of years ago I was working with a boss who set up competitions in order for co-workers to be more successful in sales. This didn’t motivate me at all. Sure, I would like to win the competition prize, but I hated to win because then someone else would lose. I would rather see someone else succeed, rather than me.
I’m very grateful that the Lord doesn’t set up getting into the Celestial Kingdom as a competition. We can all make it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that the theory of Sigmund Freud be considered in the evolutionary difference between men and women.  Basically Freud theorized that men evolved to became the aggressors, the hunters and the warriors and so on - while the women become domestic and the care takers of the home and so on - because if men were left home to tend the fire; that they would pee on it.  I think this is about as good and any explanation I have ever seen as to why men and women have evolved different roles.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, classylady said:

I actually liked the article. It was spot-on for me.

I thought it was spot on as well -- regarding the findings.  It was the interpretations and solutions that I disagreed with.

Quote

Should women’s voices not be heard? Why do we need to be aggressive in order to be heard? 

Of course everyone should be heard in more personal settings.  But here's something the article left out: What needed to be accomplished in these meetings?  What was the heirarchical structure to begin with? From the way it is written, it seems that the particular studies were done on structures that were more "democratic committees" than standard hierarchical structures.

I'll more fully answer your questions at the bottom of this post.

Quote

My personality is such, that when I’m in a group I am reserved. I’m that way whether it’s a mixed group or all women group. I will speak up if I have something worthwhile to contribute, but I’m not going o be aggressive about it. It’s not in me to act that way.

Then you will never be heard.

Quote

Another way I find myself to be different than men is in the area of competition. A number of years ago I was working with a boss who set up competitions in order for co-workers to be more successful in sales. This didn’t motivate me at all. Sure, I would like to win the competition prize, but I hated to win because then someone else would lose. I would rather see someone else succeed, rather than me.

Then someone else will succeed and you won't.  This isn't hard to understand.

Quote

I’m very grateful that the Lord doesn’t set up getting into the Celestial Kingdom as a competition. We can all make it!

I mentioned several times that dealing with God is different.  We're SUPPOSED to be sheep when dealing with God.  But when dealing with mankind, it's a bit different.

Having us all be saved is the goal of His project.  But who is the one making the decisions on how that system works?  Who designed the plan of Salvation?  Did we have input?  Did He sit us all down and ask for input on how to best tweak it to suit our individual opinions?  Scriptures don't portray that.  And I highly doubt it.  Most of the prophets have consensus that it was HIS plan that was GIVEN to us.

We tend to think that because the Lord wants us to be meek and lowly in heart, that we should have Christlike love for all mankind, that we shouldn't push our will on others.  And this is true spiritually speaking.  Why?  Because WE ARE NOT THE ONES IN CHARGE.

God is the one in charge and what does he say?  THOU SHALT... There is no discussion.  There's no hearing everyone.  He's in charge.  He is a jealous God.  It's His way or the low-way.

In earthly things aggression is the way to get things done.  More things done. 

  • Common studies show that the more aggressive person (male or female) will take on 10 projects (as a random number) at once and get 3 or 4 of them done well (but not perfectly) with a few projects completed (not very well) and a few projects incomplete.
  • The same studies also show that the less aggressive person will work on one project at a time (in the same time frame as the aggressive person takes on 10) and make sure that every step is perfect.  And sure enough, they succeed brilliantly.

Out of those results, which one would you want?  By my count, the first person got 6 or 7 projects completed in the same time frame as the one person gets one completed.  While some of them did not get done well, they got done and served the final goals.  One of the reasons they are able to do so is that they make decisions quickly and drive through to the goal.  They don't spend any more time in "committee" than they need to.  So, wide input is kept to a minimum.

But what about those 3 or 4 that did not get done at all?  Well, the less aggressive person failed to do 9 projects.

Consider the societies that simply "tried to get along."  Most failed because people were people.   And they simply did not get along.  There were only three societies that we know of that existed for an extended period that actually did "just get along."  And they're all found in scripture.

  • Enoch and his city existed in peace for a couple hundred years as far as I can tell.  And they were "too good for the earth."  They were translated.
  • Salem:  same thing.
  • Nephites after Christs' visit.  This was ONLY after a personal-mass theophany from the glorified Christ, himself.  And it only lasted four or five generations until they also fell away.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

But societies that were aggressive also showcased the most tyrannical and evil people in history.  Sure thing.  We have to address the Hitlers of the world.

Scriptures say that if it were possible that all kings would be just, that we should always have kings.  But that isn't possible.  Power corrupts and all that.  We don't simply want to give unbridled power to anyone of earthly nature.

What was so special about the US Constitution?  The Constitution first started with the premise that people in power are going to have ambition and want to impose their will on others.  That's why they seek office.  Instead of simply trying to FIGHT against this tendency (which is virtually ineveitable) we should figure out a way to USE the aggression to best advantage.  There are two methods of using ambition to curb ambition in the Constitution.

  • Elections.
  • Checks and balances by others with different interests who are JUST AS AGGRESSIVE AND AMBITIOUS -- to counter each other.

This same underlying principle goes on in board rooms of corporations.  But because the mechanism of replacement is not elections, there is a 

  • Corporations must serve the people (customers) or they go out of business or perform poorly.
  • Corporate heads will hire and fire, promote, demote, etc.
  • Members of the board will offer differing opinions as well as maneuver behind the scenes to enforce their will.  Sometimes this is malicious.  Sometimes it is simply trying to get the most for your department -- which is what they're supposed to do.  But the one who is most aggressive will get the most.  And everyone's aggression will tend to offset other people's aggression.

The basic idea here is that the aggressive tendencies are almost inevitable.  Instead of trying to fight nature, why not try to USE nature to best advantage?

The article talks about everyone simply getting along -- have unamiity.  What are the statistics on success rates and productivity?  There are none that show anywhere near the success and productivity as aggressive project managers making executive decisions.  We do have statistics on aggression (with restrictive framework) accomplishing much.

It is not to say that we cannot get have unanimity or that unanimity means that we will fail.  I'm saying:

  • Unanimity in and of itself is a very lofty goal that is rarely accomplished.  And if that is required to get anything done, imagine how little we will get done.
  • Democracy is "nice" but it is highly inefficient.
  • There is no evidence that it will lead to better outcomes.  In fact, I can give you many instances where seeking for unanimity caused projects to fail.
Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 7:56 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

"Rather than outright misogyny, she says it’s usually cultural norms and gendered messages that subtly—and profoundly—shape the rules of engagement. Individuals who suppress female speech may do so unwittingly. “They may love women,” says Preece. “They may even be a woman!” But as a society we have been “slowly socialized over years to discount” female expertise and perspectives."

I disagree.  I believe that the "social norms" are merely symptoms.  The cause goes deeper and is thus much more difficult to get around.

The underlying cause is that we biologically are made to be sheep.  And we will all tend to shut up when the alpha shows up.  The alpha speaks and we stop talking.  The alpha hears a weaker voice and it is shut down.  And there is a reason why the "Alpha" is usually a male.  But there can be alpha females that are just as powerful or more powerful than alpha males.  And they become just as effective or more effective than their male counterparts.  But this quality is less common in women or is diminished in women more than men.  And again, it is not because of social norms.  It is part of our DNA.

This is so imprinted on our DNA that we cannot overcome it without Divine intervention.  Thus it is much easier to overcome in religious/spiritual settings.  Outside those settings, you may as well try to get a river to flow uphill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
16 hours ago, classylady said:

Another way I find myself to be different than men is in the area of competition. A number of years ago I was working with a boss who set up competitions in order for co-workers to be more successful in sales. This didn’t motivate me at all. Sure, I would like to win the competition prize, but I hated to win because then someone else would lose. I would rather see someone else succeed, rather than me.

That's fascinating, I never thought about it that way. I like to win and hate losing, so I can't relate. When I lose in TKD or video games it bothers me for days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I disagree.  I believe that the "social norms" are merely symptoms.  The cause goes deeper and is thus much more difficult to get around.

The underlying cause is that we biologically are made to be sheep.  And we will all tend to shut up when the alpha shows up.  The alpha speaks and we stop talking.  The alpha hears a weaker voice and it is shut down.  And there is a reason why the "Alpha" is usually a male.  But there can be alpha females that are just as powerful or more powerful than alpha males.  And they become just as effective or more effective than their male counterparts.  But this quality is less common in women or is diminished in women more than men.  And again, it is not because of social norms.  It is part of our DNA.

This is so imprinted on our DNA that we cannot overcome it without Divine intervention.  Thus it is much easier to overcome in religious/spiritual settings.  Outside those settings, you may as well try to get a river to flow uphill.

If you mean by psychopath, or sociopath, or just a major Bully who doesn't care for anyone else but themselves...I can see your reasoning...and I could even see how our society today works in that manner.  The World goes by the laws of nature where in many instances the strong (or in some instances, those who give the illusion of being strong, even if they are weak) gain advantage over others.  I would agree with much of what you say in that light.

The World and the way it works today is fashioned after the pattern of the destroyer, the plan which the adversary hatches forth in his attempt to make men miserable.  Just because that is how it works much of the time does not mean we have to subscribe to such activity ourselves, or such emotions and actions.  We can try to show equality and fairness to all regardless of Gender, Race, religion, age, or other discriminators that are prevalent in use in today's societies.

In the Lord's society, which we know would be the perfect society, such attitudes SHOULD not really be at the forefront, and those who exhibit such attitudes would be humbled until they realize no one is better than the other, and all are equal in the Lord's sight.

There are those that buck the trend as well.  There would be no Steve Jobs without a Wozniak.  For all his attitude, Steve Jobs was only the vehicle to promote the genius of Steve Wozniak.  Of course, Wozniak may not have been able to market his ideas without Jobs, but Jobs was useless on his own (IMO).  In the same light, many of those who actually create the redemptive ideas that make our lives easier or better are NOT those who are part of the "alphas" you try to utilize as your point, but actually decent people who are buried among the market of greedy and selfish individuals that would not let such helpful ideas burgeon on their own.  The real people (in my opinion) who help the world tend to be good people overall, it's just how the world operates that in many cases to get their ideas out from among the packs of ravening wolves, it takes a ravening tiger to push it forward.

Fortunately, I hope this is not ALWAYS so, but in many cases, it appears that is how it occurs in our western society.

I do think there are those that are good and great people that also get heard because they are good and great people with great ideas that push society forward rather than into the dark ages of animal emotions and instinct.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That's fascinating, I never thought about it that way. I like to win and hate losing, so I can't relate. When I lose in TKD or video games it bothers me for days. 

I like to win too. But, I have given up my winnings/prize to someone else. I like to see others succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I thought it was spot on as well -- regarding the findings.  It was the interpretations and solutions that I disagreed with.

Of course everyone should be heard in more personal settings.  But here's something the article left out: What needed to be accomplished in these meetings?  What was the heirarchical structure to begin with? From the way it is written, it seems that the particular studies were done on structures that were more "democratic committees" than standard hierarchical structures.

I'll more fully answer your questions at the bottom of this post.

Then you will never be heard.

Then someone else will succeed and you won't.  This isn't hard to understand.

I mentioned several times that dealing with God is different.  We're SUPPOSED to be sheep when dealing with God.  But when dealing with mankind, it's a bit 

 

Just wanted to comment on the two bolded areas.


First: “Then you will never be heard” — true. Hopefully, if an aware person is in charge, they will be aware that there are those in the room that have something worthwhile to share but won’t because they are not aggressive enough to get their thoughts shared.  I’m thinking along the lines of a Sunday School class. Many don’t share thoughts or experiences because they feel inferior, or in my case it’s too intimidating to speak up in front of men and some women. I’m much more likely to speak up in a group where I feel accepted and everyone feels comfortable. There are times I don’t participate, even though I know the correct answer (reading these forums, I’ve learned a thing or two) because of the alpha attitude of some in the class. They seem to take over, and I’m not aggressive enough to interject. So, my information, thoughts, and feelings don’t get shared.

Second: “Then someone else will succeed and you won’t. This isn’t hard to understand.” For me, what is success? It certainly isn’t getting first in a competition or a promotion. In many areas I know I can win, and often did. I would much rather give up my prize to a struggling coworker.(I’m so glad I’m retired. ) I had no desire to be the one in charge., even when I was a supervisor. Let me just do my job so I could go home and be where my heart was—with my family. I was not the main breadwinner in our home. That was my husband’s job. So, glad he was willing to be that person. So, was I an unsuccessful employee? I think not. I used my time wisely And did my job. Then I went home to my real job. I was happy to see my coworkers get promotions and worked to see them get ahead. I received promotions too, but it didn’t mean much. (When I was single it did mean a lot more). Let me be a mom to my kids and support my husband. I consider that a success! I may be in the minority in regards to my thinking. But, success, in my mind has always been as a wife and mother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
11 hours ago, classylady said:

 I like to see others succeed.

I do too, and like I said, that's very sweet of you. 

However in the real world, especially in business/sales that attitude will get you fired very quickly! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are those that buck the trend as well.  There would be no Steve Jobs without a Wozniak.  For all his attitude, Steve Jobs was only the vehicle to promote the genius of Steve Wozniak.  Of course, Wozniak may not have been able to market his ideas without Jobs, but Jobs was useless on his own (IMO).  In the same light, many of those who actually create the redemptive ideas that make our lives easier or better are NOT those who are part of the "alphas" you try to utilize as your point, but actually decent people who are buried among the market of greedy and selfish individuals that would not let such helpful ideas burgeon on their own.  The real people (in my opinion) who help the world tend to be good people overall, it's just how the world operates that in many cases to get their ideas out from among the packs of ravening wolves, it takes a ravening tiger to push it forward.

Dude... Wosniak was NOT some wallflower or Beta or whatever non-aggressive persona you put him in.  Jobs and Woz are not good examples for what @Carborendum is juxtaposing.  Their relationship is totally different - their conflict is a conflict of VISION not a conflict of power.  Woz standing up to Jobs is just one straight shot example of this.  Woz doesn't need Jobs to market his ideas.  As a matter of fact, Jobs was terrible at marketing ideas (hence, the struggles of Apple).  Jobs and Woz were both Visionaries.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, classylady said:

Just wanted to comment on the two bolded areas.


First: “Then you will never be heard” — true. Hopefully, if an aware person is in charge, they will be aware that there are those in the room that have something worthwhile to share but won’t because they are not aggressive enough to get their thoughts shared.  I’m thinking along the lines of a Sunday School class. Many don’t share thoughts or experiences because they feel inferior, or in my case it’s too intimidating to speak up in front of men and some women. I’m much more likely to speak up in a group where I feel accepted and everyone feels comfortable. There are times I don’t participate, even though I know the correct answer (reading these forums, I’ve learned a thing or two) because of the alpha attitude of some in the class. They seem to take over, and I’m not aggressive enough to interject. So, my information, thoughts, and feelings don’t get shared.

Then you need to stay in Healthcare or Education.  Stay away from Engineering or Construction or the Military.  And definitely stay away from Sales.

It's like what Brandon Sanderson said in that Lecture that somebody posted here last week - "You can do anything" is a lie your parents and teachers like to tell you.

The problem with Feminists is - because they can't compete in the environment that is not suited to their personality, they take out scoreboards and make everybody else conform to their personality.  But, of course, they only wage those feminist power wars in white collar jobs... I don't see any feminists fighting to penetrate the work place of bricklaying and underwater welding.

Meanwhile, children are growing up being second fiddle to their mothers' careers.  Happy mother's day.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There would be no Steve Jobs without a Wozniak.  For all his attitude, Steve Jobs was only the vehicle to promote the genius of Steve Wozniak. 

Thank you for making my point.  We have a lot of Wozniaks.  But if that is all we had, there wouldn't have been Apple.  It is the drive, ambition, and aggressiveness that took that genius idea and PROMOTED IT and DELIVERED IT. 

How many geniuses are out there with genius ideas that never go anywhere?  We don't have any idea because we never see them.  Why?  Because they never get delivered by anyone with genius alone.  They have to have the ambition and aggressiveness as well.

NOTE: I have no idea the character of Wozniak or his personality.  But I'm going off of the characterization that YOU posited.

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you mean by psychopath, or sociopath, or just a major Bully who doesn't care for anyone else but themselves.

This is what happens when people don't actually read all the conditionals and exclusions and so forth.  If I didn't put them in my earlier posts, people would be decrying my ignorance.  I put them in and people decry my ignorance while they ignore the qualifiers I posted.

JJ,

Please see the bold.

On 5/8/2020 at 3:59 PM, Carborendum said:

History has shown that in development of society (even including clearly measurable and provable sectors such as highly technical fields) mildly aggressive tendencies have been the driver behind it.  It's called ambition -- balanced with a healthy dose of virtue. 

I wonder what you think of Jesus cleansing the temple with a scourge. I guess he was a psychopath, or a sociopath, or just a major bully who doesn't care for anyone else but themselves.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, classylady said:

First: “Then you will never be heard” — true. Hopefully, if an aware person is in charge, they will be aware that there are those in the room that have something worthwhile to share but won’t because they are not aggressive enough to get their thoughts shared.  I’m thinking along the lines of a Sunday School class. Many don’t share thoughts or experiences because they feel inferior, or in my case it’s too intimidating to speak up in front of men and some women. I’m much more likely to speak up in a group where I feel accepted and everyone feels comfortable. There are times I don’t participate, even though I know the correct answer (reading these forums, I’ve learned a thing or two) because of the alpha attitude of some in the class. They seem to take over, and I’m not aggressive enough to interject. So, my information, thoughts, and feelings don’t get shared.

This bolded is at the heart of the position I'm taking.  How often does that happen?  It isn't easy to be aware of everything.  Usually time is a constraint that prevents people from being able to listen to everything.  The reality of life is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  And if you don't squeak, you won't get the grease.  Is this completely fair? Absolutely not.  But it is effective in getting projects done.

For every project that requires a team of people to get things done, there simply aren't enough leaders with leadership qualities.  And among those that do have such qualities, not enough of them are going to be the righteous King Benjamin or Mosiah that we wish all leaders were.  So, we make due with imperfect men (or women) who know how to organize and drive a project to completion.

Thus, if you require that every person who is in charge is like King Benjamin, you're not going to have many qualified leaders.  That is why such a solution will not work without Divine intervention.

Quote

Second: “Then someone else will succeed and you won’t. This isn’t hard to understand.” For me, what is success? It certainly isn’t getting first in a competition or a promotion.

Now you're changing the rules.  The discussion was that for a given project (or "thing") how does "the project" succeed?  It certainly isn't by stating, "well, I'm not interested in this project anyway."  

Again, I said that in Religious settings or matters relating to God (like Salvation, or life satisfaction, or ... a million other things) then you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.  But that's not what the study was talking about.  And to conflate the two misses the point.

I wish we did live in such a world where the most ambitious and powerful people listened to everyone equally.  That would certainly be ideal.  But until mankind is able to change to become the people we all hope to become, we have to deal with what is.  And when doing so, we work with the tools we have to best use rather than trying to melt down and re-form the tools to what we really need.  In my metaphor, that would require Divine intervention.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I wish we did live in such a world where the most ambitious and powerful people listened to everyone equally.  That would certainly be ideal.  But until mankind is able to change to become the people we all hope to become, we have to deal with what is.  And when doing so, we work with the tools we have to best use rather than trying to melt down and re-form the tools to what we really need.  In my metaphor, that would require Divine intervention.

EXACTLY.

And that's really what's going on here on this thread... the same issue when talking about Socialism versus Capitalism.  The same issue when talking about Trump... Living in the World but not OF the World.  The gift of Free Agency makes it so that in our efforts to live IN the world, we have to allow for the natural man as a natural order.  But when it comes to OUR OWN area of authority - then we get to call the shots and do it according to our Divine Principles.

Here is a perfect talk by Elder Eyring to illustrate this difference:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vort said:

Wow.

Elder Eyring trying to hold his emotions when speaking of the Divine Authority of President Lee touched me a lot.  This truly is the TRUE Church of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, it only takes 1 person who is not single to to the glory of God to make this not work in secular settings.  Elder Eyring tried his best to make it clear he is not disparaging the efforts of secular organizations.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Elder Eyring trying to hold his emotions when speaking of the Divine Authority of President Lee touched me a lot.  This truly is the TRUE Church of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, it only takes 1 person who is not single to to the glory of God to make this not work in secular settings.  Elder Eyring tried his best to make it clear he is not disparaging the efforts of secular organizations.

 

I had just watched that video of Pres. Eyring about an hour ago. It popped up on my FaceBook feed.  Powerful! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, classylady said:

I like to win too. But, I have given up my winnings/prize to someone else. I like to see others succeed.

I use to compete in cycling and I also commuted 25 miles one way to work everyday on my bicycle.  I could get to work (or back home) in just over an hour - that was with traffic, stoplights and whatever else was going on.  About 25 years ago as I was approaching the age of 50, I was ridding home when this cute little girl (in her early 20's) passed me on a hybrid cycle.  Thinking I would teach this little girl a lesson - I downshifted and went low in my drops thinking I would blow past her in a sprint.  5 miles later I had not caught her and had hardly even kept up and was spent.  The lesson was one for me to learn.   Regardless of how good you are or think you are - sooner or later, you will meet someone much better - so much that there is nothing you can do about it.

This all reminds me of something my mission president use to say - "Your best is not nearly good enough but good enough is never even close to your best."   Sooner or later the best is not the effort of one - but of many working together.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Elder Eyring trying to hold his emotions when speaking of the Divine Authority of President Lee touched me a lot.  This truly is the TRUE Church of Jesus Christ.

I had seen this the other day.  But I hadn't connected it to this at the time.  Thanks.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Unfortunately, it only takes 1 person who is not single to to the glory of God to make this not work in secular settings.  Elder Eyring tried his best to make it clear he is not disparaging the efforts of secular organizations.

And this is why socialism often falls apart.  Sure it would be better if we all chipped in and everyone worked as hard as they could to build up the whole society.  But if only one person doesn't decides to go a different way, then it messes it up for everyone.  And the natural tendency is for not just one, but many to go a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And this is why socialism often falls apart.  Sure it would be better if we all chipped in and everyone worked as hard as they could to build up the whole society.  But if only one person doesn't decides to go a different way, then it messes it up for everyone.  And the natural tendency is for not just one, but many to go a different way.

Socialism falls apart because eventually, you run out of other peoples money. The Iron Lady was absolutely right.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this