Happy Days in Random Chatter 10

[Portia]

Since this seems to be the place for Conference reactions ...

Elder Oaks' talk. Holy cow. I definitely enjoyed the directness

My dad apparently gave my brother a four-hour lecture when the latter said he was uninterested in attending the Priesthood Session. L'esprit d'escalier moment: I told him he should have said that I would be happy to go along! Unsurprising fact: they were too tired, anyway, and ended up watching the Captain America movie.

I was doing pretty well at not engaging, then I decided to hop on Twitter and Reddit after seeing Tally's post to see what it was about. I'm genuinely confused why he would address women at an event from which they actively barred women from attending. Seems passive-aggressive. My reaction to his assertion that "men and women are equal" is "some animals are more equal than others." Then I went back to not engaging, so, improvement!

And I don't even think it's possible to not like Elder Holland's talks. They're amazing.

As we were having our pre-move breakfast, they had GenCon streaming. Jeffrey Holland's emotionally overwrought style doesn't resonate with me at all. "I am as certain of [impossible to verify claim] as I am of [easily verifiable claim]!!!" became something of a meme with my friends and family. More Animal Farm moments:

"Rebellion! I do not know when that Rebellion will come, it might be in a week or in a hundred years, but I know, as surely as I see this straw beneath my feet, that sooner or later justice will be done."

And the guy after him really disturbed me with the tale of the Mormon child who was saved (sorry to the seven people who were killed in that tornado). That made me think of a middle grade novel idea, about a Chosen One who is arbitrarily saved when others die all around her. Then I realized Harry Potter exists.

As a marketing person, I was discussing how to re-brand Conference. My boyfriend came up with the tagline, "Hear speakers who can predict the future! ... But they don't." Irreverent, I know, but having a sense of humor about it has really helped lighten the psychological burden for me. I have a tendency to take myself too seriously, so learning how to joke about things has lessened their power to incense me. We aren't out protesting, we aren't ranting on Facebook, we're just trying to do our own thing and be happy.

I hope it was helpful for its intended audience, but if anyone is having a hard time with it, I'm always a message away. :-)

[Portia]

Congrats, Smurf Blue, on your NZ trip! I'm currently trying to scrounge up the money for a trip to a writers' conference at [Ivy League School] with a side trip to NYC (first time ever!) thrown in. And don't let anyone tell you that a woman can't travel alone safely. I just went to Tahoe and had a lovely time. Use common sense and research the areas you'll be visiting. Seeing any LoTR film sites?

I've been a bit busy for the last little bit....

But thank you! I'm really excited. It's under a year away, if everything goes as planned. I'm hoping to make it to at least one filming site, although I haven't chosen any in particular. From lots of feedback I've been getting, doing both islands in the short time I'll have is tough, so I might be sticking primarily to South Island. I think the traveling alone as a women thing is mostly a fear because isolation can increase my anxiety, and anxiety is not the way to stay safe. My dad seemed interested in the idea of sending my younger brother with me, though, which would eliminate that issue.

Are you much of a city person? I'm not, so the saddest thing about my trip to NYC was not spending more time in Central Park. It's so pretty and such a relief from all the skyscrapers. Take an afternoon there, if you can. :) Good luck getting the funds together!

My brother is awesome but he's so high-maintenance and OCD that I can't imagine him jibing well with my laissez-faire travel style. My boyfriend really, really wants to visit New Zealand. You should send me a link to pics after you come back so we can visit vicariously. :D

I'm totally a city person but I don't know if this conference is happening. It seems really expensive for what it is? ... And I currently have the most money I've ever had in my life, so I think I want to spend it on Europe, instead. But NYC really intrigues me because my bio dad is from there. Hmm ...

[bobtheenchantedone]

I'm genuinely confused why he would address women at an event from which they actively barred women from attending. Seems passive-aggressive.

It's like when President Hinkley took time in Priesthood session to talk about how much he wished sisters wouldn't go on missions! Fun. (Though in his case, he mentioned he chose to say it in Priesthood session because he didn't know where else to say it.)

[Emiliana]

Nine weeks weeks left of school. IthinkIcanIthinkIcanIthinkIcan

[UffishThought]

I'm genuinely confused why he would address women at an event from which they actively barred women from attending. Seems passive-aggressive.

It's like when President Hinkley took time in Priesthood session to talk about how much he wished sisters wouldn't go on missions! Fun. (Though in his case, he mentioned he chose to say it in Priesthood session because he didn't know where else to say it.)

I just reread that one, and I still think the point of that part of the talk was to make sure women weren't being guilted into going on missions the same way men are. He does say that women do good things and help in ways the men can't, but his point seems to be that it isn't their duty to go.

And the only time Oaks spoke was in the Priesthood session. I wonder, if he were assigned to give a talk in a general session, if he'd have given the same one. My guess is that he saw a need and addressed it in the only opportunity he had. But of course, that's speculation. And while it sucks that I have to learn about myself by listening to an address given to someone else, I DID feel like a large part of that discussion was for the men. It seemed to me that a great deal of the talk was directed at men who felt like they were some kind of wonderful gift to women just because they had a Priesthood office, and expected to be treated that way. I felt like Oaks was telling them to step down off of their high horses because women have the same power, if not the same application of that power. Yes, I would have been happier to see that talk in a general meeting, but I don't fault him for giving it in the only session he talked in. Plus, he had to know that many women watch the session and many more will see it in the Ensign. The message will get out, regardless of where he gave it.

[Tally M.]

I'm genuinely confused why he would address women at an event from which they actively barred women from attending. Seems passive-aggressive.

It's like when President Hinkley took time in Priesthood session to talk about how much he wished sisters wouldn't go on missions! Fun. (Though in his case, he mentioned he chose to say it in Priesthood session because he didn't know where else to say it.)

I just reread that one, and I still think the point of that part of the talk was to make sure women weren't being guilted into going on missions the same way men are. He does say that women do good things and help in ways the men can't, but his point seems to be that it isn't their duty to go.

And the only time Oaks spoke was in the Priesthood session. I wonder, if he were assigned to give a talk in a general session, if he'd have given the same one. My guess is that he saw a need and addressed it in the only opportunity he had. But of course, that's speculation. And while it sucks that I have to learn about myself by listening to an address given to someone else, I DID feel like a large part of that discussion was for the men. It seemed to me that a great deal of the talk was directed at men who felt like they were some kind of wonderful gift to women just because they had a Priesthood office, and expected to be treated that way. I felt like Oaks was telling them to step down off of their high horses because women have the same power, if not the same application of that power. Yes, I would have been happier to see that talk in a general meeting, but I don't fault him for giving it in the only session he talked in. Plus, he had to know that many women watch the session and many more will see it in the Ensign. The message will get out, regardless of where he gave it.

Well said.

[Portia]

I didn't know that about the single session.

Elaine Dalton said the same thing in an address at BYU in January 2013. I wonder who came up with the statement first?

Did you read the talk about sister missionaries because of the BCC post, bob/Uffish? I think that clearly that "policy" or "doctrine" or whatever you want to call it has changed, because objectively, the age was lowered. You could still be an RM and married at 20 now, if that's what floats your boat. (Either sex, actually!) I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd call that "delaying" marriage!

[Portia]

Also, the Village Love-In is such a dated reference to liberalism that I had to look it up on Wikipedia. Greenwich is gentrified, maaan! B-)

[Marduk]

I actually didn't love Holland's talk this go-round. He's by far my favorite speaker--although I can see how some would find him maudlin--but this talk seemed a bit lacking. The tempo was off, the material was not substantive, and his analogies, symbols, and metaphors, usually his strong point, were not particularly compelling or surprising. I think it is one of the worse talks that I've heard him give.

Of course, I have high standards for him. From anyone else, it would've been middle-of-the-road at worst. (Ok, anyone else except Uchtdorf.)

Also, the Village Love-In is such a dated reference to liberalism that I had to look it up on Wikipedia. Greenwich is gentrified, maaan! B-)

When I heard that I assumed the joke was on the restaurant Village Inn. I'm disappointed in myself.

[Portia]

Here's what I'm almost certain he was referring to with "the Village," this is what a "love-in" is.

Greenwich Village, however, was known in the late 19th to mid 20th centuries as an artists' haven, the bohemian capital, and the East Coast birthplace of both the Beat and '60s counterculture movements. What provided the initial attractive character of the community eventually contributed to its gentrification and commercialization.

I bet he'd think the Festival of Colors is a love-in. :P

[SmurfBlueSnuggie]

Portia, I've never been a huge fan of Holland's. Last conference I think was the one time I really loved his talk. Usually I feel very strongly after his talks. Not always positively. But I dislike talks that play that strongly to emotion. They overwhelm and confuse me as much as they help. Unless the message is exactly what I personally needed, I don't love them. President Uchtdorf is is my favorite, as was Jay Jenson before he was released. I loved having him as my Area 70 at BYU. I got to hear him speak several times and was very sad when he was released. Both of them are more likely to build a point on a combination of logic and emotion, then finish it off with clear direction, often in the form of a list. I love lists, especially check lists. They are both very accessible speakers for me.

I'm also not a huge fan of President Monson's style, which saddens me. He has a lot to teach, and his focus on service is something I care deeply about. But it's difficult for me to connect with. On the other hand, Pres Monson has been my mom's favorite speaker for many years.

ETA: I need to listen to Priesthood session. There's usually one that I really like from there. Not always, but usually.

[Portia]

Yeah, Uchtdorf is someone I really respect and whose direction I think could benefit the Church a lot. (It's interesting how tone can vary so widely while not changing convictions, eh?) I'll have to remember to go back and read his speeches from this time around.

[vorpal blade]

I'm genuinely confused why he would address women at an event from which they actively barred women from attending. Seems passive-aggressive.

I think Elder Oaks answered this criticism in his talk.

Since these subjects are of equal concern to men and to women I'm pleased that these proceedings are broadcast and published for all members of the church.

Men and women were invited to watch and listen live to the priesthood session using online or broadcast sources, and as usual are invited to study them when available in print or online.

[Portia]

Um, then why not just let them in?

[vorpal blade]

Elder Oaks' talk. Holy cow. I definitely enjoyed the directness

Honestly I found his talk pretty confusing. If women have priesthood authority why can't they use it outside the temple (I guess because the temple president only gives women the authority to use it inside the temple?)? After I read this blog post I feel like I understand more of what he was talking about now (CW: temple stuff?): http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org ... t-version/

One of the interesting things about Elder Oaks' talk was that women can and do use priesthood authority outside of the temple. Every Primary President, every Relief Society President, every Visiting Teacher, every missionary (man or woman) operates using priesthood authority. Whenever a member of the church, male or female, operates faithfully in his or her calling under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys, he or she is exercising priesthood authority and wielding priesthood power.

[mic0]

I was offered a job but had to ask if it is okay that I can't really start working 20 hours/week until May. In the interview I tried to make it clear that I could do training until that point, or less work or something, so hopefully they still like me. It is like exactly what I am doing now for my department, except for a tech company and hopefully more money. I hope I didn't mess that up. :/ On the bright side, I know now that there are people in the world outside academia who would hire me for linguistic-y things!

[Whistler]

yaaay I hope it works out

[vorpal blade]

Um, then why not just let them in?

The Priesthood session is for men and boys. I think it is good for them, and for the church as a whole, to have this special meeting where only men and boys are invited to attend. Since, as Elder Oaks points out, what is said can be of benefit to all members of the church I think it is good that all members can now watch the broadcast at home, or read or watch the talks later.

[Portia]

Then let the Women's Session be for women exclusively. I'd consider that fair.

[Genuine Article]

Then let the Women's Session be for women exclusively. I'd consider that fair.

Yeah, I thought about asking a Board question about this. The Women's meeting had a bunch of GAs there, and Pres. Monson presided over it, which strikes me as odd. Female auxiliary presidents can preside over their normal meetings just fine, so it's not like the prophet was needed to preside over the Women's meeting (unless that's specifically down in the books somewhere). I'm left to conclude that Pres. Monson and the other non-speaker GAs were there because they wanted to be, and while I'm not an OW advocate, that strikes me as being pointedly unfair, since many women want to attend priesthood session but haven't been allowed. Maybe it's them employing the buddy system so Pres. Eyring wasn't left alone with a bunch of women. Same thing at the local level - a man was present and stayed for the whole broadcast at my building. Why? To set up the projector? To watch us? To preside over us? I don't know. In any case I'm going to ask that more/any women in the ward be trained on how to use all of our AV equipment. It seems silly that we always have men coming and setting those things up for all of our ward functions.