Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
Katzpur
Posts: 322
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 08:40
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by Katzpur » 17 Jan 2018, 19:37

Always Thinking wrote:
17 Jan 2018, 13:48
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.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Rudyard Kipling ~

NightSG
Posts: 330
Joined: 09 Feb 2015, 09:35

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by NightSG » 17 Jan 2018, 19:43

dande48 wrote:
17 Jan 2018, 19:06
nibbler wrote:
17 Jan 2018, 16:49
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.

squarepeg
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Feb 2017, 12:51

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by squarepeg » 17 Jan 2018, 19:54

NightSG wrote:
17 Jan 2018, 19:43

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.

NightSG
Posts: 330
Joined: 09 Feb 2015, 09:35

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by NightSG » 17 Jan 2018, 21:46

squarepeg wrote:
17 Jan 2018, 19:54
NightSG wrote:
17 Jan 2018, 19:43

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.)

Roy
Posts: 4888
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by Roy » 22 Jan 2018, 16:16

squarepeg wrote:
17 Jan 2018, 19:54
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.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

User avatar
mom3
Posts: 3485
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 14:11

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by mom3 » 22 Jan 2018, 16:24

Instead it was basically asserted that women have soft influence in the church through their marital and family relationships to men.
To me the biggest irony of this vision, is that both the top men married long time single women. Why those wives don't speak up about being single is beyond me.

I would be representing my single brothers and sisters vocally. Reminding DH, what it's like to be the breadwinner and homemaker at the same time. Sharing what it feels like to sit through meetings where "your faith will win out". But maybe once you land a GA spouse, all the loneliness just disappears.

Ah to be the lucky ones.
"I stayed because it was God and Jesus Christ that I wanted to follow and be like, not individual human beings." Chieko Okazaki Dialogue interview

"I am coming to envision a new persona for the Church as humble followers of Jesus Christ....Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve." - Richard Bushman

AmyJ
Posts: 659
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by AmyJ » 23 Jan 2018, 07:29

Roy wrote:
22 Jan 2018, 16:16
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.
QUASI-RANT (YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED)
I don't want it to be indirectly implied my influence is the "soft" influence on my husband and children. Especially since any "influence" I theoretically have on them is challenged by them at every level and is not clearly visible to me. My "soft" influence does not get them to do their chores, become passionate about things, or teach them about the needs of others. At best, I drag them into my current project/passion when I do the things I am passionate about - and I get "heavenly" credit for that. I also get "heavenly" credit for when my 8 year old decides the situation is too crazy for her so she sits quietly staring out the window "so well-behaved" and then blurts out a statement with lots of three syllable words that is both quirky, charming, and accidentally applicable. My husband gets more mileage upgrading his behavior to match what he perceives is my level of perfection than me nagging at him on end (one of the first rules of marriage that I learned - say more with fewer words repeated, restated, and re-parsed as needed with compassion).

I feel the "soft influence" is a lot of emotional load carrying that is being hand-waved at and mentioned in general terms. I work full time, and I am going to school part time now, but I choose to remember when our daughter's popcorn days are and make sure she has change for those days. I choose to keep tabs on the laundry and when it needs to be done. I choose to remind my husband that our children will mirror what we teach them - and make all sorts of twists on it. I choose when to remind him that our child's apparent meltdown and non-functioning state may not be because she wants to be selfish and defiant, but something triggered a reaction that triggered the meltdown - and we will get farther in life learning to identify what the something was, and teach her protocols to identify and cope with it. (And then we deal with the selfishness aspect that is part of being an 8 year old.)
I have a husband who chooses to work on respecting and communicating with me and our family. He chooses to make delicious food for us, eventually value my opinion and implement my planning (or come up with his own), and he chooses not to make decisions that would self-destruct us. He is a good man who can be emotional, compassionate, expansive, generous, and stalwart. He lives in an eternal "now" which makes activities more fun, and most plans spontaneous. It also makes it easy for him to leave the past behind... after all, that was 5 minutes ago:)

We are not good at balancing the emotional load. Sometimes I ask him to take more of it on him due to circumstances in my life - and sometimes he can't carry more than he already does (the "only now" complicates things). We simplify our lives as best as we can (eliminating extra social events/activities), establish lines of effective, respectful communication (that usually work), and strive to be grateful for what we have, our family, and the opportunities we have. If life happened to us and things get out of hand (it happens to the best of us), we strive to start from where we are and triage everyone's needs/righteous wants.
Last edited by AmyJ on 23 Jan 2018, 07:35, edited 1 time in total.

squarepeg
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Feb 2017, 12:51

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by squarepeg » 23 Jan 2018, 07:34

Roy wrote:
22 Jan 2018, 16:16

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.
Yes. So frustrating. It's not that those old adages are untrue, it's just that some women will not be with a great man and/or will not rock any cradles. Or, some women will be with a man but they will not be able to influence him positively, or, they will rock cradles but maybe those babies will grow up and make lousy choices despite her best efforts. We can't say women are valuable because they can do certain things if only SOME women can actually do those things. Saying "Women are powerful in the church because of their influence on men," is just another way of reminding everyone that men are in charge, and that despite all the rhetoric, men and women are most certainly not equal.

I wish they'd have answered the question as you suggest they should have, Roy, citing advances and policy changes made recently. The way they answered it makes me feel insulted....like, "How stupid do they think we are?"

squarepeg
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Feb 2017, 12:51

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by squarepeg » 23 Jan 2018, 07:44

AmyJ wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 07:29

I don't want it to be indirectly implied my influence is the "soft" influence on my husband and children.
I don't think Roy meant "soft" as in "weak", but "soft" as in "indirect".

Both men and women can powerfully influence others and have profound effects on others' behavior. But men in the church are given authorization to do it directly, though Priesthood authority. Women have to do it through men.

Men can influence their spouses and kids, and that is a very powerful means of bringing others to Christ, but no one is going to say THAT is the manner by which men have influence in the Church. That would be absurd.

AmyJ
Posts: 659
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: Thread about Press Conference after new FP announced

Post by AmyJ » 23 Jan 2018, 07:48

squarepeg wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 07:34
Yes. So frustrating. It's not that those old adages are untrue, it's just that some women will not be with a great man and/or will not rock any cradles. Or, some women will be with a man but they will not be able to influence him positively, or, they will rock cradles but maybe those babies will grow up and make lousy choices despite her best efforts. We can't say women are valuable because they can do certain things if only SOME women can actually do those things. Saying "Women are powerful in the church because of their influence on men," is just another way of reminding everyone that men are in charge, and that despite all the rhetoric, men and women are most certainly not equal.

I wish they'd have answered the question as you suggest they should have, Roy, citing advances and policy changes made recently. The way they answered it makes me feel insulted....like, "How stupid do they think we are?"
Here is the other thing that bothers me. If we are so great at "influencing" the men in our lives (which I don't believe), isn't that taking over their agency indirectly? And wouldn't they have issues with that and handle their own agency?

I can see our "soft influence" being the environment we put up with and what we set up. I like having a clean house enough to do something about it regularly - I recognize that everyone is happier in an clean environment, but I do it for myself. I hate chaos mode, so I take on emotional load responsibilities to handle it on my own terms - if I handle it, at least I see the storm on the horizon if I screw it up otherwise it would bowl me over. In my family, I usually have the resources to spare to identify what needs to be done and figure out how to get it done in theory. But you know, this is not a role or gender specific issue. There are men out there who handle emotional logistics better than I do (that's not even that hard to find) - I don't have a better emotional load regulator built into my female DNA - or if I do, it is socialized through my childhood to be a part of my nature.

The irony is the more I talk about the "soft influence" of females, the more it looks like grit and tempered words....

Post Reply