This talk won't go over well with some...

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

not to change the topic, but who in the hell put hales and scott back to back.

God did it. Quit complaining.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It makes little sense for me to debate you because, like Tex and Indy, you will eventually come back to the position that things are the way they are because God ordained that they be that way, and we are in no position to question God. That's not debate; it's retreat. We have irreconcilable points of view and I'm not looking for converts to my way of thinking. I am entertained, though, when I watch true believers square off and attempt the difficult trick of using logic to support unsupportable arguments. That is high entertainment.

perhaps you should go back and read this thread again before you tell him he is a caveman with no position. His view was that it was nice talk and that his wife really liked it. Requiem and SIRS seemed to fly off the handle by taking his words and construing to mean something completely different.

Now before I get the counter argument that Sister Beck's talk set women in the church back 50 years think of this

1. This talk happens every GC
2. Did what she say really affect you? Sure someone is bound to bring it up in relief society but in the big scheme of things what she said wont even be remembered in 6 months.
3. If GC is so bad why even watch or listen? My suggestion is go out on a nice walk, watch some football, play cards or do whatever it is you like to do in your spare time and spare yourself the agony

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

A quick google search led me here:

http://skdesigns.com/internet/articl..._deepest_fear/

marianne williamson, nelson mandela... same difference.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

perhaps you should go back and read this thread again before you tell him he is a caveman with no position. His view was that it was nice talk and that his wife really liked it. Requiem and SIRS seemed to fly off the handle by taking his words and construing to mean something completely different.

Now before I get the counter argument that Sister Beck's talk set women in the church back 50 years think of this

1. This talk happens every GC
2. Did what she say really affect you? Sure someone is bound to bring it up in relief society but in the big scheme of things what she said wont even be remembered in 6 months.
3. If GC is so bad why even watch or listen? My suggestion is go out on a nice walk, watch some football, play cards or do whatever it is you like to do in your spare time and spare yourself the agony

Like I said before, I don't have a dog in this fight -- I just like watching the fall-out. I never said GC was bad, though I haven't watched it in a long time. You shouldn't be so defensive. I actually like TooBlue a lot. He's an artist, and I have a lot of respect for that. I do think he must have a lot of inner conflict, though, being so artistic and yet being so close-minded. He spends a great deal of time making arguments that I don't think he really believes. He reminds me of myself when I was younger.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My problem is this: why aren't men told more forcefully that fatherhood is their most noble calling?

I'll probably be waiting a long time.

Or maybe you just aren't paying attention.

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It makes little sense for me to debate you because, like Tex and Indy, you will eventually come back to the position that things are the way they are because God ordained that they be that way, and we are in no position to question God. That's not debate; it's retreat. We have irreconcilable points of view and I'm not looking for converts to my way of thinking. I am entertained, though, when I watch true believers square off and attempt the difficult trick of using logic to support unsupportable arguments. That is high entertainment.

Every religious argument boils down to what God does and doesn't do, no matter what side one takes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Every religious argument boils down to what God does and doesn't do, no matter what side one takes.

Not true.

Participants debate what they believe is right according to God. That's a big difference. Assuming what God actually does assumes some or one of the participants have hit it on the head, which isn't necessarily true. They could all be wrong.

[SteelBlue]

During this talk I said to my wife "this is going to spur a 16 page thread on CougarGuard." Now I'm thinking that estimate may have been low.

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I try to be sympathetic to those that feel judged, but the quote attributed to Nelson Mandela comees to my mind in this case.

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

Nelson Mandela didn't make this statement; it's often misattributed to his 1994 inaguaration speech:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marianne_Williamson

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It makes little sense for me to debate you because, like Tex and Indy, you will eventually come back to the position that things are the way they are because God ordained that they be that way, and we are in no position to question God. That's not debate; it's retreat. We have irreconcilable points of view and I'm not looking for converts to my way of thinking. I am entertained, though, when I watch true believers square off and attempt the difficult trick of using logic to support unsupportable arguments. That is high entertainment.

That's a cop out -come on, let's bloody our knuckles.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My problem is this: why aren't men told more forcefully that fatherhood is their most noble calling?

Perhaps because it isn't?

If fatherhood was the most noble calling, what do we say of those who sacrifice it in performing time-consuming callings?

Maybe the reason why Pres. Monson didn't have more children? (who knows).

I would be interested to hear a talk about how men shouldn't trade material gain (working 80 hours a week in a big law firm) for time with their family.

I'll probably be waiting a long time.

Only needed to wait about an hour.

Seriously, I think this is a great point. I believe just like every mother should take her role as a mother into her life decisions, so should a man take his role as a father into those big decisions. I would turn down certain church callings because of this, I believe. Not sure because it's never happened.

Oaks said something like a father should weigh how much time to spend in career vs time spent with family saying someone probably doesn't look back at their life and say "I wish I would have spent more time at work."

This issue has become so politicized that it's unfortunate. I think most people probably liked what he said about sarcastically spending more time at work, but if he said the same thing about women, it probably would have pissed people off.