General Conference Predictions

[Maximus]

That's not what he said.

If you read the rest of the talk, it becomes ever more clear that is what he is talking about.

[woot]

What he said was ambiguous. You are choosing to assign an unambiguous meaning to his words. One alternative is that he chose his words to refelct his ideas but so as not to be inconsistent with what the church has said through others on the topic. IMO, this is more likely to be correct in the context of his speech. But due to the ambiguity in his words none of us will know exactly what hemeant unless and until he clarifies.

I agree that he looks very ill.

How do you explain away the word "unnatural" then?

[Jeff Lebowski]

If you read the rest of the talk, it becomes ever more clear that is what he is talking about.

I was disturbed by the distorted logic regarding gay marriage laws as much as anything.

[creekster]

How do you explain away the word "unnatural" then?

I don't need to explain it away.

Your sense of natural is, I am guessing here, probably something like a condition resulting whiting a certain probability range from genetic combinations. (I have no doubt you would word this more precisely and elegantly, but go with it if you can). I think (but don't know)when he uses it he means, in this instance, our mortal condition compared to our resurrected condition. Gender is immutable and so in the resurrected state no one will have tendencies toward anything except a standard male/female alliance. You should be no more insistent on imposing your terms on his statement than in allowing him to impose his on your understanding.

[CardiacCoug]

In the press release here:
http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/officia...der-attraction

Oaks at first says how homosexuality is "not natural." Then he says, "We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality."

So I think Creekster is right that while a scientist would call homosexuality something like a "naturally-occurring variant" of human sexuality because it's pretty common (as Oaks agrees), the religionists are able to call homosexuality "not natural" (in a religious sense) and "common" at the same time. Different definitions.

[Flystripper]

I was disturbed by the distorted logic regarding gay marriage laws as much as anything.

Sounded like greenie missionary logic TBH.

[RobinFinderson]

There is a bit of unintended comedy in a group of elderly white men from Utah spending much of their efforts focused on homosexual issues.

I think that if the gay movement really wanted to drive everyone nuts, they would pack up the Bay Area and colonize in SLC. Plant a flag and declare, "This is the Right Place!"

Good idea. I basically thought that was already happening in the Marmalade District, but I guess with a Gay Brigham they could pick up the pace.

So I recently conducted a scientific poll of all of the voices in my head, and discovered the following statistics in response to the question, "How often do thoughts about gay people enter your head each day?" Listed in descending order of those who think the most about gay people:

1. Gay people.
2. Straight Christian pastors who need their massage therapist to travel with them on vacation.
3. The long-term incarcerated.
4. Mormons.
5. Raunchy comedians.

So there you go. Mormons think about gay people a bit more than raunchy comedians, and a bit less than the incarcerated.

[jay santos]

Primary yesterday, kids are invited to come up to the front to say what they learned in conference. No lie.

Kid 1: "I learned we shouldn't have sleepovers because we could do stupid stuff."

Kid 2: "I learned we shouldn't be gay."

[myboynoah]

Primary yesterday, kids are invited to come up to the front to say what they learned in conference. No lie.

Kid 1: "I learned we shouldn't have sleepovers because we could do stupid stuff."

It's a Mormon thing. I knew it.