LDS General Conference, Apr 2016

[colton]

My traditional semiannual thread... for those who are watching/listening to LDS General Conference this time, any talks especially meaningful to you? For me so far I'd have to say that Elder Anderson's talk was quite touching, about paying special attention/giving special consideration to children in non-typical situations.

 

[The Thriller]

I thought that talk was interesting. It Was yet another confusing mixed message I've gotten over the last few years. I remember prior to the new baptism policy the lds church and Utah legislature were celebrating the anti-discrimination legislation they had just passed. Then in this session the lds church complains about the proposed hate crime legislation that Sen Ucquart (who's also lds and republican) proposed as being "too much" and "tipping the scales" in favor of gays.

Now this? Basically elder Anderson said for members to treat children from gay families as normal. Yet policy conflicts with this attitude.

It sends a conflicting message IMO. Although I do understand why the church would want to avoid all of the hurt feelings and potential breaking up of families without such a policy.

Now as far as talks go, I thought Pres Uchtdorf's talk during the priesthood session on families and marriage was outstanding.

Lastly, I know it's the elephant in the room, but is President much there anymore? He doesn't look good, doesn't sound good, and only spoke for maybe 90 seconds. The last two conferences the priesthood session has ended 20-30 mins early.

I feel really bad. My grandma has lived a great life. She's 96. And for 94 of those years she's been sharp, Funny, healthy, and active. But the last two she's been rendered almost (nursing) house bound as her hearing has gone, balance has gone, and memory has gone. When she began to go downhill it went fast. We are jaunt waiting for the inevitable.

I fear the same is happening to President Monson.

 

[colton]

How about Elder Kearon's talk about refugees, and President Uchtdorf's reaction immediately after. Wow, that was powerful.

 

[colton]

I thought that talk was interesting. It Was yet another confusing mixed message I've gotten over the last few years. I remember prior to the new baptism policy the lds church and Utah legislature were celebrating the anti-discrimination legislation they had just passed. Then in this session the lds church complains about the proposed hate crime legislation that Sen Ucquart (who's also lds and republican) proposed as being "too much" and "tipping the scales" in favor of gays.

Now this? Basically elder Anderson said for members to treat children from gay families as normal. Yet policy conflicts with this attitude.

Did he even mention gay families at all? While that was probably part of his motivation, I think his focus was really ANY kids from "non-traditional" homes. I.e., kids from single parent homes or raised by grandparents or homes where the parents aren't members. That type of thing.

Now as far as talks go, I thought Pres Uchtdorf's talk during the priesthood session on families and marriage was outstanding.

Yes, that was a great talk. I nearly always love Pres. Uchtdorf's talks.

Lastly, I know it's the elephant in the room, but is President much there anymore? He doesn't look good, doesn't sound good, and only spoke for maybe 90 seconds. The last two conferences the priesthood session has ended 20-30 mins early.

I feel really bad. My grandma has lived a great life. She's 96. And for 94 of those years she's been sharp, Funny, healthy, and active. But the last two she's been rendered almost (nursing) house bound as her hearing has gone, balance has gone, and memory has gone. When she began to go downhill it went fast. We are jaunt waiting for the inevitable.

I fear the same is happening to President Monson.

He definitely seems on a physical decline. His talk on Sunday was also super short. Hopefully his mind is still pretty sharp (seems like it, but who knows).

 

[RJF]

Elder Holland's talk to close was pretty moving. I don't get emotional(in a good way) very often by that talk got me misty eyed. I've not been very involved for some time but over the last 6 months I can tell something is missing. I feel as if I'm starting to fill that void. It's amazing what a little humility can do for a person.

 

[Just Ted]

Priesthood session is always my favorite. I think I get more out of that than any other session. Prbably because I'm not home in my pajamas. Uchtdorf was awesome as usual and I agree with the thoughts on Monson. Hard to watch him deteriorate.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Priesthood session is always my favorite. I think I get more out of that than any other session. Prbably because I'm not home in my pajamas. Uchtdorf was awesome as usual and I agree with the thoughts on Monson. Hard to watch him deteriorate.

I really liked each of the talks in the Priesthood session a lot. I got less out of President Monson's, but we could tell why so I won't get into that.

The other 4 had some really powerful stuff in them.

President Nelson basically pushed us to think about what are we really willing to do, and much of it the stuff nobody else will know about, just us and God.

I loved Brother Owen's as it is something I've thought about a lot over the years, but he put it to words much better than I could have. The best leaders are the best followers.

There was so much good in President Uchtdorf's that I don't even know where to start on it.

President Eyring's brought many ideas home and the thought of the small acts that are what make miracles when done over time.

I just want to add Elder Hollands to these because he really put the heart into the messages. We try to be our best, we will mess up, and it's ok.

This doesn't do them justice, but I must be getting old because I appreciate conference more and more every year.

~Spazz

 

[Boris]

I thought that talk was interesting. It Was yet another confusing mixed message I've gotten over the last few years. I remember prior to the new baptism policy the lds church and Utah legislature were celebrating the anti-discrimination legislation they had just passed. Then in this session the lds church complains about the proposed hate crime legislation that Sen Ucquart (who's also lds and republican) proposed as being "too much" and "tipping the scales" in favor of gays.

Now this? Basically elder Anderson said for members to treat children from gay families as normal. Yet policy conflicts with this attitude.

It sends a conflicting message IMO. Although I do understand why the church would want to avoid all of the hurt feelings and potential breaking up of families without such a policy.

Now as far as talks go, I thought Pres Uchtdorf's talk during the priesthood session on families and marriage was outstanding.

Lastly, I know it's the elephant in the room, but is President much there anymore? He doesn't look good, doesn't sound good, and only spoke for maybe 90 seconds. The last two conferences the priesthood session has ended 20-30 mins early.

I feel really bad. My grandma has lived a great life. She's 96. And for 94 of those years she's been sharp, Funny, healthy, and active. But the last two she's been rendered almost (nursing) house bound as her hearing has gone, balance has gone, and memory has gone. When she began to go downhill it went fast. We are jaunt waiting for the inevitable.

I fear the same is happening to President Monson.

I think you should ex communicate already. Why do you put yourself threw this pain?

 

[green]

I think you should ex communicate already. Why do you put yourself threw this pain?

I'm not sure if you're serious but if you are, this is dumb advice.

Change happens from within. Change happens locally.

If he enjoys the Church and its teachings, but has a problem with a few things of the many good, then by staying he can help promote change.

It's advice like yours, "if you don't like it then leave" that allows bigotry and hate to prosper.

It's people coming together and sharing ideas, much like how Joseph, the quorum of the 12 and early members did, that allows the church to grow, evolve and become stronger.

Remember, the prophet is not infallible. They are wrong a lot. If we all left the church every time a prophet was wrong, there would be no church.

And for those of you that are uneasy about the gay children policy, stay strong with your uneasiness. It people like you that eventually led to changes in who receives the priesthood.

Right now there is some teenager walking around without that hate inside him, and that teenager will eventually become the prophet, and much like President Kimball, will wonder why such stupid, hateful ideas have a place in the church. And when that happens, policy will change and the church will release statements throwing the current regime under the bus, just like how the church did that to Brigham Young recently.

Nothing good comes from just walking away.

 

[Boris]

I'm not sure if you're serious but if you are, this is dumb advice.

Change happens from within. Change happens locally.

If he enjoys the Church and its teachings, but has a problem with a few things of the many good, then by staying he can help promote change.

It's advice like yours, "if you don't like it then leave" that allows bigotry and hate to prosper.

It's people coming together and sharing ideas, much like how Joseph, the quorum of the 12 and early members did, that allows the church to grow, evolve and become stronger.

Remember, the prophet is not infallible. They are wrong a lot. If we all left the church every time a prophet was wrong, there would be no church.

And for those of you that are uneasy about the gay children policy, stay strong with your uneasiness. It people like you that eventually led to changes in who receives the priesthood.

Right now there is some teenager walking around without that hate inside him, and that teenager will eventually become the prophet, and much like President Kimball, will wonder why such stupid, hateful ideas have a place in the church. And when that happens, policy will change and the church will release statements throwing the current regime under the bus, just like how the church did that to Brigham Young recently.

Nothing good comes from just walking away.

Nice sales pitch. Honestly. Claiming the suposably infallible church is led by the populace instead of JEHOVAH's inspiration is kinda dumb. If you are LDS you are a heretic and should be excommunicated.

 

[colton]

Claiming the suposably infallible church is led by the populace instead of JEHOVAH's inspiration is kinda dumb.

Supposedly infallible? Claimed by whom? Certainly not the church itself. Claiming itself to be "the only true and living church" (as the LDS church does claim) does not mean the church leaders themselves are infallible. It means that we believe the LDS church to be the only church containing the authority from Jesus to preach the gospel and administer its ordinances.

If you are LDS you are a heretic and should be excommunicated.

Wow, that escalated quickly. Good thing it's not your call as to who should or should not be excommunicated.

 

[Boris]

Supposedly infallible? Claimed by whom? Certainly not the church itself. Claiming itself to be "the only true and living church" (as the LDS church does claim) does not mean the church leaders themselves are infallible. It means that we believe the LDS church to be the only church containing the authority from Jesus to preach the gospel and administer its ordinances.



Wow, that escalated quickly. Good thing it's not your call as to who should or should not be excommunicated.

Ok so you disagree with my point that popular opinion should not change a church but JEHOVAH's divine inspiration should? I think that is a dumb opinion to have. Either you have morals and values or you do not. Morals always change with time. Are you saying green was correct that LDS values should change as society changes? I think that opinion is grounds for ex communication in any church.

 

[colton]

Ok so you disagree with my point that popular opinion should not change a church but JEHOVAH's divine inspiration should? I think that is a dumb opinion to have. Either you have morals and values or you do not. Morals always change with time. Are you saying green was correct that LDS values should change as society changes? I think that opinion is grounds for ex communication in any church.

You seem to be either a troll or a fanatical LDS hater or both. Since you just misstated my own posted opinion as well as that of green, I think I won't continue this conversation further.

 

[Boris]

You seem to be either a troll or a fanatical LDS hater or both. Since you just misstated my own posted opinion as well as that of green, I think I won't continue this conversation further.

Uh, how did I misstate green? You took my opinion without much respect or discernment so I asked for clarification. To which you responded accusing me of being fanatical LDS hater.

Green was specific that holding onto anti-LDS beliefs will eventually lead to changed religious policy. He or she gave specific details on how this has happened in the past. What was the wording? Hold strong you gay supporters because you will change the prophets by outliving them? Tell me how that is not heretical.

Sorry if you believe a church should be molded to the will of its members. I believe religion should be directed by JEHOVA through prophetic inspiration. What green wrote sounded more of a baptist perspective to me so sorry I am trolling and a fanatical LDS hater because I took it that way. I thought the LDS church believed in prophetic inspiration but apparently I was mistaken.

 

[JazzGal]

Nothing good comes from just walking away.

Not true for everyone.

I do agree with your post. If a person gains more good than bad from staying and can make a difference, then they should do so. It isn't easy thinking a bit differently from the majority, but it is how change occurs.

 

[green]

Not true for everyone.

I do agree with your post. If a person gains more good than bad from staying and can make a difference, then they should do so. It isn't easy thinking a bit differently from the majority, but it is how change occurs.

I agree with this. I'd wish most would stay. Some should leave and that's ok. If they do what God has asked of them, they'll end up in a great place.

 

[green]

Ok so you disagree with my point that popular opinion should not change a church but JEHOVAH's divine inspiration should? I think that is a dumb opinion to have. Either you have morals and values or you do not. Morals always change with time. Are you saying green was correct that LDS values should change as society changes? I think that opinion is grounds for ex communication in any church.

To me, it sounds like you are using the Church to justify your bigotry.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Nothing good comes from just walking away.

Why? Sometimes, just walking away is the best thing to do. It was for me.

While I find pleas for greater tolerance and love for gays coming from the pulpit to be a good thing, one can, I believe, reasonably question the LDS Church's commitment to these principles. For example, while the LDS Church is on one hand reaching out to the gay community in rapprochement, with the other hand, it is working behind the scenes in secret to institute the horribly tone deaf and uncharitable internal policy about children of same sex parents. So which is the real LDS Church, the tolerant one extending a hand of friendship, or the intolerant one stigmatizing children of same sex parents and requiring them to renounce their parents' union to remain in full Church fellowship?

Regardless, certain messages we are hearing today we never would have heard 5-10 years ago. So, I think progress is being made.

On the same topic, here's my theory as to why the LDS Church is trying to appear more socially tolerant of gays. LDS Leaders realize that they are having a harder and harder time holding onto their youth, who are, in general, more socially conscious/progressive than their parents. Such messages of tolerance are not targeted to the WWII generation, or even the baby boom generation, who generally care less about such issues and are probably on average more anti than pro gay, but to the millennials who are, I believe, leaving the Church at an alarming rate, or what is to the LDS leaders an alarming rate. If the LDS Church continues to take stands on social issues that put them squarely out of tune with the views of millennials, it will continue to hemorrhage its younger members. Thus, while I'd like to think that such gestures of tolerance represent a sincere extension of the hand of charity, I am cynical enough to believe that it's more of a strategic/marketing ploy to keep more of the young members in the flock.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

How about Elder Kearon's talk about refugees, and President Uchtdorf's reaction immediately after. Wow, that was powerful.

Why was it powerful? Are they saying things or raising insights that nobody else has? I believe that there have been plenty of others in both the religious and secular communities who have expressed similar sentiments and have been doing so for some time now. Did you feel the same sense of 'wow' when they spoke? Or is what made it a 'wow' moment is that it was coming from people or an organization to whom you would not normally attribute such sentiments?

I'm not asking to be snarky, but more to understand aspects of LDS culture in that LDS leaders rarely, if ever raise 'moral' issues that others have not also raised prior to that moment. Yet, when the same sentiments expressed by so many others are expressed by an LDS Leader from the pulpit, suddenly the words have moral import and LDS leaders are credited by the faithful with deep moral insights. If the moral insights they speak are so powerful, why does it require them to be uttered by an LDS general authority for the LDS faithful to perceive them as such?

 

[JazzGal]

Why was it powerful? Are they saying things or raising insights that nobody else has? I believe that there have been plenty of others in both the religious and secular communities who have expressed similar sentiments and have been doing so for some time now. Did you feel the same sense of 'wow' when they spoke? Or is what made it a 'wow' moment is that it was coming from people or an organization to whom you would not normally attribute such sentiments?

I'm not asking to be snarky, but more to understand aspects of LDS culture in that LDS leaders rarely, if ever raise 'moral' issues that others have not also raised prior to that moment. Yet, when the same sentiments expressed by so many others are expressed by an LDS Leader from the pulpit, suddenly the words have moral import and LDS leaders are credited by the faithful with deep moral insights. If the moral insights they speak are so powerful, why does it require them to be uttered by an LDS general authority for the LDS faithful to perceive them as such?

While I didn't listen to General Conference and do not know the specific quotes you are referencing, I understand what you are saying here. My conservative family and friends have been very opposed to bringing refugees to the U.S. based on their fear of all things Middle Eastern/Muslim. Although somewhat reluctantly, the tone is changing because of what has been said in women's conference and general conference. It is sad that they needed to be reminded of their humanity, but I'm glad that they had someone to help them with it. I do get frustrated that they were not being able to figure that out for themselves. And yes, I realize that not all LDS members are this way. I'm talking about specific people in my life.

I don't think someone needs to express a completely original thought for it to be powerful. It is powerful when it is finally heard and understood, no matter the source.