183 Semiannual General Conference Thread

[Moliere]

Christofferson's The Moral Force of Women talk was edited:

Original: "Some feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt..."
Edited: "Some view homemaking with outright contempt..."

All the people on my FB feed that were mocking feminists are now going to be eating crow.

[UVACoug]

Sorry if you are taking this personally. I don't think I'm treating anybody like crap. I was talking to Tex mainly and these kind of discussions go way back -- I know for sure he doesn't take it personally and I don't take anything you or Tex or obviously BYU71 says on these topics personally. In my mind this discussion should be about ideas and logic -- it's definitely nothing personal.

Listen, it's fine for you to believe gay marriage and gay relationships are immoral because that's what the Prophets have said. Just don't be surprised when the Prophets start saying something very different in the future. Times change and new light and knowledge is what this Church is all about. Polygamy was never going away. Knee-to-ankle garments were never going away. Excluding blacks from the Temple and from the Priesthood was never going away. So when DHO says "gays must be celibate to stay LDS" is never going away, I'm sorry but I just wouldn't be so sure that's a permanent thing.

What makes you think I'm taking it personally? I just don't get how you can claim to respect my right to believe what I want ... and then say that if I don't believe what you believe I am arrogant and stupid. How is that respect? It's not a personal thing ... it is logic. You don't have to respect what I believe, but don't claim that you do when you clearly don't.

[Indy Coug]

The people want what the people want.

The concept of perfected adults living communally in peace and love is the predominant Mormon endgame theme. We're told that if we hit all the checkpoints that "we can have it all" including the ability to have children and create new worlds. Just like our Heavenly Father. We understand the game plan to be - "this is your one shot - don't blow it." On the other hand we understand the game plan to be "this is your one shot - you're going blow it, and we will provide a Savior to bail you out." Mormons mitigate the uneven earthly playing field by saying a couple of things. First, our good behavior in the pre-existence merited our time/place/circumstance to be born under the covenant. Second, temple work is the key to everyone's ticket to the CK. Of course, they have to accept the ordinances, but who wouldn't when faced with the truth as it's unfurled to us after death. Even then, two kingdoms with glory are still available for the people who are too stupid to bow there heads and accept their postmortem good fortune.

But what about eternal truths? Are we to ignore eternal truths as a measure of Faith? Do we believe things that aren't true just because "that's the way it's always been?" Or do we search out new truths so that we can make better and more perfect choices regarding our eternal future. How do we as Latter-Day Saints balance scientific truth with contradictory Mormon lore? Does lore and tradition guide us, and if so where is it going to guide us? Is it a better life plan to stick to the middle of the LDS pack and not to question the sometimes zany banal contradictions of Science and LDS Tradition? Who are these Three Nephites, and where exactly was the Garden of Eden? As I have loved you, Love one another, seems less important than who gets to pray what, and when can they do it. No this is MY duty, and that's Your duty. How many steps can I take on the Sabbath? Oh, Clack's an idiot and we should make fun of him because he thinks that multiple dimensions are real, and he thinks sexual modesty in marriage is a good thing. Oh Brother!

FYI, I didn't make up the theories on multiple dimensions. In fact, in 2013 scientist's say that MD's are a fact. If indeed MD's exist, a good question to ask might be "how do they fit into the eternal equation?" MD's fit quite well into the LDS theology actually, and as a starting point for all you math geniuses the most essential question question in the big picture is "why earth?" If the Lord's creations are more numerous than the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world, why Earth? Why did the Savior end up being crucified on this particular planet? I'll defer to Indy for the actual odds on infinity to one. Personally, I don't believe in chance. LDS theology points us towards multiple dimensions, but people seem to be so invested in this particular dimension that they totally disregard the possibility that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Multiple Dimensions solve several quandry's within the LDS community. If the Savior created just one Earth, and it existed in infinite multiple dimensions, then he would have only been crucified on one Earth infinitely. Perhaps you could call it an Infinite Atonement. We come to Earth to learn Good from Evil. Learn is the key word. The best way to learn in life is to learn by experience. What if you had the opportunity to live the consequences out of every good/bad decision. Perhaps by the end of your life you would have lived out millions of different scenarios. Each scenario would give billions of data points to learn and be judged from. If we lived long enough and knew the result of every possible decision that could be before use - because we had - perhaps would we could be omniscient because there would be nothing left to learn because we learned it all. Perhaps we would even be omnipresent because we would be "everywhere" at the same time. If God wants us to become as smart as he is, perhaps setting us up in a awesome MD universe and sending us to school is how He's doing it. We're already in training, don't you know?

Polyandry and Polygamy are hot topics in our LDS Community. Why? Are they God given principles or not? Do we really believe that God has millions of wives or not? Did Joseph Smith catch a vision of the eternities and see that the folks there had multiple wives and thought that was the pattern to follow. I can see the wisdom of having only one wife in this dimension, but if we really are living out decision choices in other dimensions, and when the dimensions collapse into a new eternal singular reality, what do we do with all of the wives that we were sealed to, and what do our wives do with all of the husbands they were sealed to. We become an "Eternal Family," so tightly woven that we are bound/sealed all of us to Jesus Christ for eternity.

As for me, all I'm doing is sticking out my head and looking around and saying "how does that idea fit in." In case you're asleep at the wheel, multiple dimensions are picking up steam quicker than any other theory that considers the Universe as a whole. It's not just me.

I guess that makes me a science nut and a mormon nut. But you guys already know that.

I'm not willing to dismiss this possibility out of hand, but by the same token I find virtually no pragmatic utility from this either.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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

I'd like to think that there's an intentional dialectic here, but I suspect that it's just more of the Church's double speak, more of its right hand not knowing what its left hand is doing.

The result seems to maintain control, though, for as the mighty Hetfield once wrote, "You can do it your own way, if its done just how I say."

[Northwestcoug]

I'm not willing to dismiss this possibility out of hand, but by the same token I find virtually no pragmatic utility from this either.

On the contrary, I think it has great utility justifying/explaining away crazy doctrine like polygamy.

[CardiacCoug]

What makes you think I'm taking it personally? I just don't get how you can claim to respect my right to believe what I want ... and then say that if I don't believe what you believe I am arrogant and stupid. How is that respect? It's not a personal thing ... it is logic. You don't have to respect what I believe, but don't claim that you do when you clearly don't.

Just explain why you think gays should have no right to be married and adopt kids if that's what you believe. Why is that right and fair?

I promise my response to whatever you say won't be: "But you're so arrogant. You don't respect my beliefs! You think anybody who disagrees with you is stupid!"

Aren't you a lawyer? What the hell kind of argument is that? Have you tried that in front of a judge?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just explain why you think gays should have no right to be married and adopt kids if that's what you believe. Why is that right and fair?

I promise my response to whatever you say won't be: "But you're so arrogant. You don't respect my beliefs! You think anybody who disagrees with you is stupid!"

Aren't you a lawyer? What the hell kind of argument is that? Have you tried that in front of a judge?

You are wasting your time.

[Harry Tic]

The people want what the people want.

The concept of perfected adults living communally in peace and love is the predominant Mormon endgame theme. We're told that if we hit all the checkpoints that "we can have it all" including the ability to have children and create new worlds. Just like our Heavenly Father. We understand the game plan to be - "this is your one shot - don't blow it." On the other hand we understand the game plan to be "this is your one shot - you're going blow it, and we will provide a Savior to bail you out." Mormons mitigate the uneven earthly playing field by saying a couple of things. First, our good behavior in the pre-existence merited our time/place/circumstance to be born under the covenant. Second, temple work is the key to everyone's ticket to the CK. Of course, they have to accept the ordinances, but who wouldn't when faced with the truth as it's unfurled to us after death. Even then, two kingdoms with glory are still available for the people who are too stupid to bow there heads and accept their postmortem good fortune.

But what about eternal truths? Are we to ignore eternal truths as a measure of Faith? Do we believe things that aren't true just because "that's the way it's always been?" Or do we search out new truths so that we can make better and more perfect choices regarding our eternal future. How do we as Latter-Day Saints balance scientific truth with contradictory Mormon lore? Does lore and tradition guide us, and if so where is it going to guide us? Is it a better life plan to stick to the middle of the LDS pack and not to question the sometimes zany banal contradictions of Science and LDS Tradition? Who are these Three Nephites, and where exactly was the Garden of Eden? As I have loved you, Love one another, seems less important than who gets to pray what, and when can they do it. No this is MY duty, and that's Your duty. How many steps can I take on the Sabbath? Oh, Clack's an idiot and we should make fun of him because he thinks that multiple dimensions are real, and he thinks sexual modesty in marriage is a good thing. Oh Brother!

FYI, I didn't make up the theories on multiple dimensions. In fact, in 2013 scientist's say that MD's are a fact. If indeed MD's exist, a good question to ask might be "how do they fit into the eternal equation?" MD's fit quite well into the LDS theology actually, and as a starting point for all you math geniuses the most essential question question in the big picture is "why earth?" If the Lord's creations are more numerous than the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world, why Earth? Why did the Savior end up being crucified on this particular planet? I'll defer to Indy for the actual odds on infinity to one. Personally, I don't believe in chance. LDS theology points us towards multiple dimensions, but people seem to be so invested in this particular dimension that they totally disregard the possibility that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Multiple Dimensions solve several quandry's within the LDS community. If the Savior created just one Earth, and it existed in infinite multiple dimensions, then he would have only been crucified on one Earth infinitely. Perhaps you could call it an Infinite Atonement. We come to Earth to learn Good from Evil. Learn is the key word. The best way to learn in life is to learn by experience. What if you had the opportunity to live the consequences out of every good/bad decision. Perhaps by the end of your life you would have lived out millions of different scenarios. Each scenario would give billions of data points to learn and be judged from. If we lived long enough and knew the result of every possible decision that could be before use - because we had - perhaps would we could be omniscient because there would be nothing left to learn because we learned it all. Perhaps we would even be omnipresent because we would be "everywhere" at the same time. If God wants us to become as smart as he is, perhaps setting us up in a awesome MD universe and sending us to school is how He's doing it. We're already in training, don't you know?

Polyandry and Polygamy are hot topics in our LDS Community. Why? Are they God given principles or not? Do we really believe that God has millions of wives or not? Did Joseph Smith catch a vision of the eternities and see that the folks there had multiple wives and thought that was the pattern to follow. I can see the wisdom of having only one wife in this dimension, but if we really are living out decision choices in other dimensions, and when the dimensions collapse into a new eternal singular reality, what do we do with all of the wives that we were sealed to, and what do our wives do with all of the husbands they were sealed to. We become an "Eternal Family," so tightly woven that we are bound/sealed all of us to Jesus Christ for eternity.

As for me, all I'm doing is sticking out my head and looking around and saying "how does that idea fit in." In case you're asleep at the wheel, multiple dimensions are picking up steam quicker than any other theory that considers the Universe as a whole. It's not just me.

I guess that makes me a science nut and a mormon nut. But you guys already know that.

I personally kind of like the idea of exploring the theological ramifications of mathematical/cosmological oddities. Granted, some of this stuff sounds pretty weird, but I like the idea of at least trying to think through the big questions in bold ways. That's true to the spirit of JS and BY and hardly anyone does it anymore. And, if they do, they are generally written off as cranks, which they often are.

Nothing in my church experience has been more disappointing than becoming a High Priest and discovering that those famous "High Priests Group discussions" are just tepid rehashes of the same crappy manuals that are used in every other class. I was hoping to get a bit of meat after all these years, some wild and exciting speculation every week along these lines.

Clack, I hereby sustain you as my HP instructor. Seriously, that would be awesome.

[Harry Tic]

Christofferson's The Moral Force of Women talk was edited:

Original: "Some feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt..."
Edited: "Some view homemaking with outright contempt..."

This is fascinating. If you want to get a tiny glimpse into power struggles that are almost entirely invisible when the GAs present themselves as speaking with a single voice, this is the kind of thing that should get your attention. It is not insignificant that this change was made. The question is what or who instigated the change. Presumably a senior apostle found the language objectionable and requested that the change be made. So, who would have been sufficiently sensitive to recognize that this kind of language--which is accepted without batting an eye by perhaps a significant majority of church members--is divisive/misleading/misguided/hurtful? It heartens me to think that someone of presumably a higher pay grade than Elder C cares about such things.

Of course the truly significant case of discrete editing in the recent past was the talk that BKP was obliged to emend. For the pres of the Q12 to be forced to downgrade his characterization of the PoF from a "revelation" to something else was stunning, especially given that he had not called it a "revelation" in an off-the-cuff way but had actually argued for it to be such in his original talk. One wonders who in the 1P (presumably) called his attention to it, told him it was wrong, and asked him to change it. To do that to someone that DHO once characterized as a "grizzly bear" takes real cojones. I'll go out on a limb and say that there is a hell of a lot more diversity of thought among the GAs than the ordinary church member would ever guess.

[Indy Coug]

This is fascinating. If you want to get a tiny glimpse into power struggles that are almost entirely invisible when the GAs present themselves as speaking with a single voice, this is the kind of thing that should get your attention. It is not insignificant that this change was made. The question is what or who instigated the change. Presumably a senior apostle found the language objectionable and requested that the change be made. So, who would have been sufficiently sensitive to recognize that this kind of language--which is accepted without batting an eye by perhaps a significant majority of church members--is divisive/misleading/misguided/hurtful? It heartens me to think that someone of presumably a higher pay grade than Elder C cares about such things.

Of course the truly significant case of discrete editing in the recent past was the talk that BKP was obliged to emend. For the pres of the Q12 to be forced to downgrade his characterization of the PoF from a "revelation" to something else was stunning, especially given that he had not called it a "revelation" in an off-the-cuff way but had actually argued for it to be such in his original talk. One wonders who in the 1P (presumably) called his attention to it, told him it was wrong, and asked him to change it. To do that to someone that DHO once characterized as a "grizzly bear" takes real cojones. I'll go out on a limb and say that there is a hell of a lot more diversity of thought among the GAs than the ordinary church member would ever guess.

More Everesting of mole hills going on here. The edit clearly allows for other groups besides just feminist thinkers to view homemaking with contempt. Inclusiveness at work.

[Harry Tic]

More Everesting of mole hills going on here. The edit clearly allows for other groups besides just feminist thinkers to view homemaking with contempt. Inclusiveness at work.

Don't take this wrong, but you're incredibly naive.

[Indy Coug]

Don't take this wrong, but you're incredibly naive.

Don't take this wrong, but you're there are some who are pathologically jaded.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Don't take this wrong, but you're there are some who are pathologically jaded.

lol. Indy lecturing on being jaded. Awesome.

[RC Vikings]

I'll go out on a limb and say that there is a hell of a lot more diversity of thought among the GAs than the ordinary church member would ever guess.

Jack Weyland, the author, in our HP group shared with us that he was talking to someone in the 12 and they told him their was a lot of back and forth that went on among them. They always came to the same conclusion but it wasn't always easy to get there. It made me wonder why God wasn't telling them all the same thing.

[Moliere]

More Everesting of mole hills going on here. The edit clearly allows for other groups besides just feminist thinkers to view homemaking with contempt. Inclusiveness at work.

I think it's more interesting how the spirit tends to work better after the talk is given instead of during the talk. I'd say I have the same problem.