183 Semiannual General Conference Thread

[byu71]

I chose to wallow in the flesh pots of Babylon (well, Austin, TX) this past weekend rather than hear the Lord's Anointed. Because, you know, free passes. And I can read the Lord's Anointed's talks and watch them anytime now.

So I haven't gotten the conference lowdown except for what I've gleaned from FB posts. The nearest I can tell is that this happened:

President Uchtdorf: Church leaders have made mistakes in the past.
Elder Oaks: We're not making any now.

Fair enough? I'll have to actually read the talks to see if this summary holds.

It is a very dynamic (I think that is the term) church. There is something there for everyone. Those that believe not everything a GA says should be taken as a "commandment" have their source.

Those who believe that everything a GA says should be taken as commandment have their source.

[Uncle Ted]

I chose to wallow in the flesh pots of Babylon (well, Austin, TX) this past weekend rather than hear the Lord's Anointed. Because, you know, free passes. And I can read the Lord's Anointed's talks and watch them anytime now.

So I haven't gotten the conference lowdown except for what I've gleaned from FB posts. The nearest I can tell is that this happened:

President Uchtdorf: Church leaders have made mistakes in the past.
Elder Oaks: We're not making any now.

Fair enough? I'll have to actually read the talks to see if this summary holds.

LOL.

Oaks.jpg

[Harry Tic]

It is a very dynamic (I think that is the term) church. There is something there for everyone. Those that believe not everything a GA says should be taken as a "commandment" have their source.

Those who believe that everything a GA says should be taken as commandment have their source.

71, bringing the wisdom. I think this is a very good point. It's probably a feature, and not a bug, in the church's structure that this tension is persistent, real, and ongoing (as much as folks on both sides of the culture wars would like to see a definitive resolution in their favor, including me, most of the time). Doesn't Teryl Givens have some kind of shtick about these kinds of structural differences being essential to the church's health?

[Tex]

Also, Oaks said:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...n-gay-marriage

So is he saying that things like polygamy and the priesthood ban were never truths God declared to be unchangeable? Do we know which truths are unchangeable?

There is at least one: this forum will always be a refuge for the faithless and self-loathing.

[CardiacCoug]

Funny how within the Church and larger society we acknowledge that previous generations were screwed up but for some reason think we've got it all figured out. Where's the insight and common sense in that?

I wonder what kinds of things our grandchildren will look back on 40 years from now and think were horrible and crazy.

Within the Church, rights/inclusion for women and gays will probably be the main issues -- our grandchildren will look at this stuff and scratch their heads: "Why were they so stupid and wrong?"

Within larger society, gotta say I wonder if football will be a very, very different sport 40 years from now. When I saw Jamaal Williams being carted off with a concussion (brain trauma) and a possible spinal cord injury and everybody is cheering him I gotta say it felt like something from the Roman Colosseum. I love football as much as the next guy but there's this voice in the back of my mind asking, "Why the hell do you support and find entertainment in kids risking brain damage and spinal cord injuries?" Just sayin'....

[Tex]

Within the Church, rights/inclusion for women and gays will probably be the main issues -- our grandchildren will look at this stuff and scratch their heads: "Why were they so stupid and wrong?"

I have never yet heard a member of the church who thinks we are getting it "stupid and wrong" on gays articulate a cogent argument as to how homosexuality could ever be sanctioned by the church without also completely destroying all existing doctrine on the family.

You're welcome to give it a shot in the name of future generations, if you like, though.

[TripletDaddy]

I have never yet heard a member of the church who thinks we are getting it "stupid and wrong" on gays articulate a cogent argument as to how homosexuality could ever be sanctioned by the church without also completely destroying all existing doctrine on the family.

You're welcome to give it a shot in the name of future generations, if you like, though.

I forgot to pack a lunch today. Now I have to figure out what to eat

[Donuthole]

I forgot to pack a lunch today. Now I have to figure out what to eat

I have awesome leftovers from Sunday dinner which I have now forgotten to bring two days in a row. (chicken cordon bleu, sweet potato mash, fresh green beans)

[thesaint258]

I have my leftover chili in the fridge. Mmmmm.

[Harry Tic]

I have awesome leftovers from Sunday dinner which I have now forgotten to bring two days in a row. (chicken cordon bleu, sweet potato mash, fresh green beans)

I do this all the time. I have some awesome leftovers, but I forget about them for a couple of days. And then I run the cost/benefit analysis: how likely will I be to have uncontrollable diarrhea if I eat this vs. how great this will taste.

More often than not, I opt for the latter.

[CardiacCoug]

I have never yet heard a member of the church who thinks we are getting it "stupid and wrong" on gays articulate a cogent argument as to how homosexuality could ever be sanctioned by the church without also completely destroying all existing doctrine on the family.

You're welcome to give it a shot in the name of future generations, if you like, though.

It destroys "all existing doctrine" on the family if we were to treat a gay couple with adopted kids just like a straight couple with adopted kids. You're right. No way that could happen.

That type of argument was obviously used with race issues and was unfounded. Societal attitudes change and the "doctrine" is then reinterpreted and reassessed. Elsewhere in society exclusionary attitudes toward gay people were common and fears were obviously totally unfounded. "How could we have a gay teacher? What would that mean for educating our kids?" Nonsense.

What the hell difference does it make if a couple is different gender or same gender as far as coming to Church or getting married in the Temple? Not a whit. Having exclusionary rules based on genitalia isn't going to be something normal people accept 40 years from now. After society at large changes and demands it, this "doctrine" will be reinterpreted and reassessed. Further light and knowledge will be received. That's how this works.

[FN Phat]

I opted for a can of Progresso Light. It was a tussle between the veggie beef or the chicken noodle. i went with the veggie beef.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I do this all the time. I have some awesome leftovers, but I forget about them for a couple of days. And then I run the cost/benefit analysis: how likely will I be to have uncontrollable diarrhea if I eat this vs. how great this will taste.

More often than not, I opt for the latter.

I don't eat leftovers.

[byu71]

It destroys "all existing doctrine" on the family if we were to treat a gay couple with adopted kids just like a straight couple with adopted kids. You're right. No way that could happen.

That type of argument was obviously used with race issues and was unfounded. Societal attitudes change and the "doctrine" is then reinterpreted and reassessed. Elsewhere in society exclusionary attitudes toward gay people were common and fears were obviously totally unfounded. "How could we have a gay teacher? What would that mean for educating our kids?" Nonsense.

What the hell difference does it make if a couple is different gender or same gender as far as coming to Church or getting married in the Temple? Not a whit. Having exclusionary rules based on genitalia isn't going to be something normal people accept 40 years from now. After society at large changes and demands it, this "doctrine" will be reinterpreted and reassessed. Further light and knowledge will be received. That's how this works.

I hope when all this further light and knowledge comes there is a place for those who believe that the healthiest relationship for a child to be raised in is one between a man and a woman. Let the civilian world call same gender marriage, marriage. That is fine and is probably coming. Much like most men and women live together before they get married, a trial run if you will. I just hope the enlightened masses don't start pointing their fingers and call people stupid who may not buy into their enlightened world.

Do you think progressives will be able to eventually enlighten the Muslim world or do you think they will stay happy letting them believe what they want and stay concentrated on Christians?

[Northwestcoug]

It destroys "all existing doctrine" on the family if we were to treat a gay couple with adopted kids just like a straight couple with adopted kids. You're right. No way that could happen.

That type of argument was obviously used with race issues and was unfounded. Societal attitudes change and the "doctrine" is then reinterpreted and reassessed. Elsewhere in society exclusionary attitudes toward gay people were common and fears were obviously totally unfounded. "How could we have a gay teacher? What would that mean for educating our kids?" Nonsense.

What the hell difference does it make if a couple is different gender or same gender as far as coming to Church or getting married in the Temple? Not a whit. Having exclusionary rules based on genitalia isn't going to be something normal people accept 40 years from now. After society at large changes and demands it, this "doctrine" will be reinterpreted and reassessed. Further light and knowledge will be received. That's how this works.

This may happen in the church. However, it won't happen without a radical change to the notion of the 'sacred/divine role of motherhood'. Because if the church starts sanctioning gay marriages, it will make the decades of equating the importance of motherhood with priesthood responbilities meaningless.