General Conference Predictions

[The_Tick]

It is not a matter of cutting out every activity that has an element of risk. It is simply altering the sleepover activity so that most of the fun remains while eliminating most of the risk. Win-win.

As for campouts, that is a poor comparison. As a scout leader I never cared about going to sleep before the scouts did because I knew they weren't going anywhere. Too afraid of bears and getting lost at night. A good scary story prior to bed also helped provide some insurance.

One year when I was YM president we planned a joint YM/YW trip to Moab. It was suggested by some of the leaders that it would simpler if we got one campsite and just tried to "be careful" watching the kids at night. I insisted that we have separate campsites three miles apart and get together for meals and activities, but sleep apart. They pushed pretty hard but I told them it was a hill I was ready to die on. It just seemed like a completely unnecessary risk. I was amazed that I needed to even make the argument. It was like these people couldn't remember being teenagers with hormones. They must have also been unaware that some youth in our ward did some tent-hopping a few years prior during a handcart trek (my kids told me about it). I also know someone who was a YW leader years ago and her Laurel president got pregnant on a joint YW/YM campout. Sneaking out after the leaders/parents are asleep is the easiest thing in the world.

I wasn't disagreeing with your late night thing. I think it has some merit.

I was curious if the folks would have the same hang ups about other type of over night activities is all. It seems odd to me to not allow a kid to spend the night at someone's house, but let them spend a week away at Scout Camp.

My only history with this is 4 years ago when I was still YM President, we had 5 YM come back from Scout Camp that weren't able to pass/prepare the Sacrament for 3 weeks because of something that went on at Scout Camp.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wasn't disagreeing with your late night thing. I think it has some merit.

I was curious if the folks would have the same hang ups about other type of over night activities is all. It seems odd to me to not allow a kid to spend the night at someone's house, but let them spend a week away at Scout Camp.

My only history with this is 4 years ago when I was still YM President, we had 5 YM come back from Scout Camp that weren't able to pass/prepare the Sacrament for 3 weeks because of something that went on at Scout Camp.

Depends on the scout leader. Two of my boys were in scouts once and the troop was planning to do a week-long Uintah trip. I had some concerns about the leadership so I took a week off and arranged to tag along to keep my boys safe. Sure enough, the leader lost two boys and we had to send out a search party to find them (disaster was narrowly averted). Several boys got hypothermia on a hike because he didn't make them dress properly (in spite of my warning). Of course, he turned both blunders into faith-promoting stories.

Yeah, I would probably say that scout camps and outings can be more dangerous than sleepovers.

[The_Tick]

Depends on the scout leader. Two of my boys were in scouts once and the troop was planning to do a week-long Uintah trip. I had some concerns about the leadership so I took a week off and arranged to tag along to keep my boys safe. Sure enough, the leader lost two boys and we had to send out a search party to find them (disaster was narrowly averted). Several boys got hypothermia on a hike because he didn't make them dress properly (in spite of my warning). Of course, he turned both blunders into faith-promoting stories.

Yeah, I would probably say that scout camps and outings can be more dangerous than sleepovers.

We had a really great scout leader, but it was something he couldn't do anything to stop and had cell phones not been used no one would have known anything about it.

Just the inherant risk of the unknown.

We allow sleepovers and we allow our kids to go on them.

I am anti-sleepovers though. They always want to use the big TV and eat the good food.

[LA Ute]

Depends on the scout leader. Two of my boys were in scouts once and the troop was planning to do a week-long Uintah trip. I had some concerns about the leadership so I took a week off and arranged to tag along to keep my boys safe. Sure enough, the leader lost two boys and we had to send out a search party to find them (disaster was narrowly averted). Several boys got hypothermia on a hike because he didn't make them dress properly (in spite of my warning). Of course, he turned both blunders into faith-promoting stories.

Yeah, I would probably say that scout camps and outings can be more dangerous than sleepovers.

Heaven save us from LDS Scout leaders who don't take the calling seriously.

[SteelBlue]

We have allowed sleepovers for our oldest (now 16) over the years though he really doesn't care for them anymore. I have to say that I did not initially oppose them as long as I knew the host family well. We often said no to people we didn't know, finding a good excuse as necessary. But the main reason I've grown to dislike sleepovers is the risk to us as hosts. I can't stay awake much past 1 a.m. these days and I simply don't want to be the parent that let X happen after he fell asleep.

I trust my son not to do anything incredibly stupid. I believe he wouldn't do anything more with a group than I did when I snuck out at his age. You know the usual tp'ing, cruising the town, etc... But if anything bad did happen, i.e. car wreck, drinking, hooking up with girls etc... I'd feel like that's on me. While I hate to have him miss out on some of the fun things I experienced as a kid, I'm much more apt to send everyone home around 1 a.m.. I just don't want the hassle.

[Levin]

From BKP's talk



Does BKP think that homosexuality and homosexual acts are illegal or should be illegal? Seems that way. The gay marriage issue has nothing to do with "legalizing immorality."

"Immorality" as BKP defines it is already completely legal. It's only places like Iran that make homosexuality illegal.

I'm completely confused by this BKP talk. There is no logic here whatsoever.

He views gay marriage is immoral. There's one logical interpretation that works.

Another: he views gay sex as immoral, and legalizing gay marriage legitimizes gay sex. There's another logical interpretation.

You want to be flummoxed.

[Levin]

Which part is immoral, the gay acts, or the gay marriage?

Why don't we go all the way and criminalize all LDS immorality, if that's the way we are thinking about these things? Let's outlaw green tea and R-rated movies.

Because we have a thing called the First Amendment (R-rated movies), and the people wouldn't abide outlawing green tea.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, was illegal (state law) before it was legal (court order) before it was again illegal (vote of the people) before it was again legal (J. Walker).

On gay marriage, there's still a beach head and the Church can logically defend what is still protected territory and not defend that which is water under the bridge (ratification of the 1st Amendment and revolutionary fervor for their untaxed tea).

The illogic here is yours by trying to argue for logical equivalence where is no practical equivalence. We live in a real, practical world. Judge others' actions accordingly.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Yes - I don't know how the brethren refer to to the person but I call him the "designated survivor" a la the US government's designated survivor. Hard to figure out who it is on TV because you don't ever get a single shot of the whole front row where the Q12 sits but it's easy to figure out if you are in the Conference Center. My brother and I always have a contest to see who is the first to figure out the designated survivor.

My BIL's brother is the head engineer for the church and in charge of GC broadcasts, I was talking about the "dedicated survivor" with him on Sunday and he texted his brother asking about it.

He called me today and said that his brother called him this morning and said that is 100% conspiracy theory. That if a Q12 or 1stP member misses conference it is because they are on assignment and that all 15 were at all 5 sessions of conference this last weekend and there is video to prove it. According to the report part of the GC filming protocol is to get a shot of each of them.

He also said that another common rumor is that the 1stP isn't supposed to be on a plane together at the same time, but that is false and he has flown with all three of them at once.

I told him to ask about the prayer clock, no report on that.

[All-American]

My BIL's brother is the head engineer for the church and in charge of GC broadcasts, I was talking about the "dedicated survivor" with him on Sunday and he texted his brother asking about it.

He called me today and said that his brother called him this morning and said that is 100% conspiracy theory. That if a Q12 or 1stP member misses conference it is because they are on assignment and that all 15 were at all 5 sessions of conference this last weekend and there is video to prove it. According to the report part of the GC filming protocol is to get a shot of each of them.

Well, he's wrong, for what it's worth. They're watching it at home.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Well, he's wrong, for what it's worth. They're watching it at home.

Just reported back what I was told, the guy is someone I have known since I was a kid. (Yes my BIL grew up down the street from me)

[DU Ute]

(Yes my BIL grew up down the street from me)

Makes you wonder if the two of them were ever involved in an illicit sleepover rendezvous.

[Mrs. Funk]

A friend's most recent Facebook status:

One of the great and difficult things about talks like President Packer's is that it forces people to pick a side. You can't listen to that talk and still stay on the fence. You either sustain that man as a prophet, seer, and revelator or you don't.

A rousing discussion about whether or not a person can disagree with statements from the apostles and prophets and still sustain them. Sigh.

[CardiacCoug]

He views gay marriage is immoral. There's one logical interpretation that works.

Another: he views gay sex as immoral, and legalizing gay marriage legitimizes gay sex. There's another logical interpretation.

You want to be flummoxed.

Regarding your first interpretation, how is gay marriage any more immoral than gay sex?

So we as a Church completely support the rights of gay people to live together and have sex, but we find it an outrageous example of "legalizing immorality" to think they have the right to make a formal commitment to each other through marriage? Sorry if I find that completely and utterly illogical.

A married gay couple with a commitment to long-term monogamy is preferable morally to an unmarried gay couple. Isn't that obvious and isn't the outrage over gay marriage (when nobody supports becoming an Iranian-style state that makes homosexuality a crime) utterly illogical? Why don't we really stand up for our beliefs and campaign for putting gays in prison if we really have a problem with "legalized immorality"?

And really, how deficient in empathy and compassion does the Church have to be make this argument to gay people:

We really just hold you to the same standard as straight people No sex outside of marriage. But of course you can't get married to anyone to whom you're attracted, because gay marriage is immoral.

As far as the second interpretation -- that gay marriage "legitimizes" gay sex -- 90% of the educated modern world under the age of 50 already realizes that people who are born gay have the same right to a sexual relationship as those who were born straight.

The concept that we should shame gay people into celibacy only exists among callous religious fanatics and the elderly who think gay people are really just perverted straight people.

[CardiacCoug]

I think I'm being a little harsh here about BKP. At least he's not giving the green light to violence against gay people anymore. In that sense, he's come a long way in the last 30 years. And this passage has some pretty good comedic value.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Church backs up BKP comments. This was on the front page of today's DNews:

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comm...-marriage.html

Comments so far have all been enthusiastic about the hard-line approach. I would say more, but I don't want to appear supercilious.