LDS General Conference - Apr 2015

[colton]

To those watching conference, have any talks or quotes been especially meaningful to you?

 

[bigb]

I didn't watch today, but just heard about the handful of people who shouted "opposed" during the sustaining of the leaders.
My question is this: Why be there? Why continue in a church if you feel the leaders are doing the wrong thing?

 

[Zombie]

I didn't watch today, but just heard about the handful of people who shouted "opposed" during the sustaining of the leaders.
My question is this: Why be there? Why continue in a church if you feel the leaders are doing the wrong thing?

Why even bother asking for a vote if everyone is just expected to vote to sustain?

 

[bigb]

Why even bother asking for a vote if everyone is just expected to vote to sustain?

That's not what I'm saying. My line of thinking goes back to the individual. If you are opposed to the prophet and apostles, you have come to the conclusion that they are not called of God. Why be in a Church if it is not led by men who are called of God. You either believe what The D&C says about God not allowing His prophets to lead the Church astray, or you don't. If you dont, why stay?
I think it's a totally different issue at the local level, where I could have an interaction with a leader that nobody else knows about, thus I object or oppose (or simply can't sustain) that person. How many of these people have had a personal interaction with the Prophet or Apostles? The odds are very high that none of them have. Thus, they're not likely opposed to the people themselves, but the stance they've taken on a certain issue or issues. If they are truly called of God, and God will not allow them to lead the Church astray, but you think they're wrong, why stay in that situation? Doesn't make much sense to me, personally. I wouldn't stay in that scenario.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I found two things interesting about that same session.
1 -We Thank Thee O God, for a Prophet was sung.
2- There was a talk that mentioned that the percentage of people that leave the church is not increasing, but is the lowest it has ever? been.

I seem to remember a conversation with Colton and SirKicky and others about this a while back. Last year?

P.S.

My 2 favorites from the Priesthood session were from Larry Gibson on fathers and sons, as well as the one by Pres. Uchtdorf on being real and not being a whitened sepulchre on the outside, but full of dead mens bones and all manner of uncleanness on the inside.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why even bother asking for a vote if everyone is just expected to vote to sustain?

I've often wondered this myself. I don't get the idea of sustaining in the church. Rarely if ever does anyone voting "no" actually mean anything. I don't get the purpose if the "no" votes carry zero weight. I often wondered where this started. I can't recall mention of it in scripture anywhere. I always find this strange. "hey guys we're the true church and God qualifies those he chooses, but can I get your vote?"

 

[Deleted member 365]

I didn't get the opposition to the sustaining thing. Ineffective protest. Didn't generate sympathy and it obviously didn't change anything.

I've noticed lot of focus on marriage and families.

This doesn't make sense to me. Is there really a need to remind the faith of the church's stance on gay marriage every other talk? At this point it's beating a dead horse to me. We all get the church's stance on it. But with the recent anti-discrimination law passed by the Utah legislature, is this really much of an issue anymore? Even the LDS church seems to have bought into the whole equality in the workplace and housing thing.

And the other part being on the young single adults getting paired up. I'm an older single adult. I have yet to meet a faithful member who has consciously blown off this quest for marriage thing. We all know of deadbeats out there. But chances are they're already inactive. Literally in all of my 29 years I have yet to meet a faithful single adult that isn't trying to get married.

Again, at this point it's beating a dead horse.

Imo, church policy passed in 2012 did more to hurt single adults pairing up than anything else in recent memory. That move forced single adults to attend the wards in their geographic area. The ward I attend right now makes the Utah Defensive Linemen unit look attractive. Is it my fault then that I don't want to date someone 3 times heavier than me?

I've been to a few singles wards near BYU and UVU campus and they were much better. I've attended others that were complete jokes. One for 3 straight weeks didn't even have an elders quorum lesson. We just sat there and waited around. Most of us would leave after the presidency had us sing 3-4 hymns in a row.

Worried about the # of single adults?

Allow people ward hop again might be a good start.

Update the curriculum/view of singles. Anyone else see the mixed messages sent via church curriculum? For the Strength of the Youth it warns pre-mission youth to "don't date steady don't date steady don't screw anything up!" Then, as soon as they step off the plane from their mission, they're expected to be married. I can't help wonder if this has contributed to the lack of being able to connect and get married shown by this generation? You scare the hell out of them in dating. Then you expect them to be able to connect with someone on a deep level with very little to no dating experience? Hmmmmm...

And don't get me started on the stigma that one gains when they do get married but divorce! Yikes! Might as well be an untouchable in the caste system

 

[Deleted member 365]

I thought Pres Uchtdorf's and Eryings talks during priesthood were excellent

 

[colton]

2- There was a talk that mentioned that the percentage of people that leave the church is not increasing, but is the lowest it has ever? been.

I seem to remember a conversation with Colton and SirKicky and others about this a while back. Last year?

Here's the thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?19964-LDS-church-membership-statistics

Kicky had been claiming that church membership was stagnant or maybe declining, and I think the statistics showed pretty conclusively that the membership was increasing, although at a lower rate post-1999 than pre-1999.

Regarding the talk yesterday, I'll have to review what his exact words were. I don't recall him saying that the rate of people leaving the church was the lowest it's ever been, just that it's substantially lower than what some critics claim. But I could have missed something.

 

[colton]

I've often wondered this myself. I don't get the idea of sustaining in the church. Rarely if ever does anyone voting "no" actually mean anything. I don't get the purpose if the "no" votes carry zero weight. I often wondered where this started. I can't recall mention of it in scripture anywhere.

It's from D&C 26:2, the law of common consent. See here for some discussion: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine...section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng

I always find this strange. "hey guys we're the true church and God qualifies those he chooses, but can I get your vote?"

It's a show of support, not a vote.

And while I haven't ever witnessed this myself, I know several people who have witnessed sustainings on the local level where people have objected and the objections did affect the calling. Typically it's due to some personal knowledge of dishonesty or the like. The person leading the sustaining vote asks the objectors to come talk to them personally and explain their objection to see if there's anything there.

 

[colton]

I've noticed lot of focus on marriage and families.

Yes, that was definitely a theme.

This doesn't make sense to me. Is there really a need to remind the faith of the church's stance on gay marriage every other talk?

People aren't assigned topics, and they don't know what the other speakers are going to discuss, so it wasn't a coordinated effort. It just happened to be what several people all felt was worth talking about.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Yes, that was definitely a theme.



People aren't assigned topics, and they don't know what the other speakers are going to discuss, so it wasn't a coordinated effort. It just happened to be what several people all felt was worth talking about.

Why the preoccupation with it? The courts are handling the gay marriage bans and the state legislatures are handling anti-discrimination laws. Anyway, moving on...

Can't we throw in a talk about porn to vary things up?

Seriously though Colton, IMO (and granted I'm not a GA. But I am in the belly of the beast having attended various singles wards and have seen countless young adults) porn, preoccupation with electronic devices, and overall testimony building are much greater threats to the family than the gays. On the other hand I thought Elder Oaks' talk was excellent. Materialism is very prevelant today.a

No matter how hard you try you'll never be able to haul your 10,000 sq foot house built on top of the point of the mountain into heaven!