2014 April General Conference Thread

[Moliere]

This doesn't have a direct nexus to GC-4/2014, but it's an interesting snippet from Dehlin's FB page. During Oaks' p'hood talk, my mind was swirling a bit as I thought of the people I know who would be hurt by it, but after thinking it through, it started to make sense. If the OW/Progmo/NOM crowd are simply a whiny minority, then why alienate your faithful base who may interpret conciliatory actions as concessions (e.g. those who are taking issue with the website's explanation of the p'hood prohibition)?

Here's the quote:

I'm not going to say that guy is full of crap, but his experience is far different from mine. Local leaders care and I'm certain the GAs care as well.

Also, of course the brethren want to see people pay tithing, attend church, fulfill callings and overall be active. Why wouldn't they? It's possible to be a progmo and still do those things....in fact I'm trying to understand why someone would want to be part of the church and not at least participate a little bit. There are so many programs or callings for people that local leaders can pretty much find a resposibility somewhere that doesn't interfere with a person's progmo status. In our ward we've gone so far as to call a non member as an emergency preparedness specialist because his wife is a member and he supports her by coming to church even though he doesn't believe in it all.

[YOhio]

In our ward we've gone so far as to call a non member as an emergency preparedness specialist because his wife is a member and he supports her by coming to church even though he doesn't believe in it all.

I don't think this is unique, either. Our ward has a non member called to the same position and growing up I had a couple of different youth leaders who weren't members.

[Green Monstah]

I'm not going to say that guy is full of crap, but his experience is far different from mine. Local leaders care and I'm certain the GAs care as well.

Also, of course the brethren want to see people pay tithing, attend church, fulfill callings and overall be active. Why wouldn't they? It's possible to be a progmo and still do those things....in fact I'm trying to understand why someone would want to be part of the church and not at least participate a little bit. There are so many programs or callings for people that local leaders can pretty much find a resposibility somewhere that doesn't interfere with a person's progmo status. In our ward we've gone so far as to call a non member as an emergency preparedness specialist because his wife is a member and he supports her by coming to church even though he doesn't believe in it all.

I agree that local Church leaders are very concerned. They are probably not well equipped to handle these issues without either (a) outing themselves as heterodox, or (b) getting sucked in to the Mormon history maze. I think the folks in the COB are concerned too, and if this guy's story is true, their approach is pragmatic and reasonable. It just sort of sucks to be labelled "irredeemable" when you're grasping at straws to find reasons to stay.

[Green Monstah]

I don't think this is unique, either. Our ward has a non member called to the same position and growing up I had a couple of different youth leaders who weren't members.

My exmo mom was ward organist and taught YW for a spell growing up. For two years, our SS Pres was a non-member.

[All-American]

This doesn't have a direct nexus to GC-4/2014, but it's an interesting snippet from Dehlin's FB page. During Oaks' p'hood talk, my mind was swirling a bit as I thought of the people I know who would be hurt by it, but after thinking it through, it started to make sense. If the OW/Progmo/NOM crowd are simply a whiny minority, then why alienate your faithful base who may interpret conciliatory actions as concessions (e.g. those who are taking issue with the website's explanation of the p'hood prohibition)?

Here's the quote:

Completely disagree with that characterization.

[kccougar]

I like how neatly the groups are defined - it is only the disaffected that have actually studied the issues. Kind of like how everyone who leaves the church must have been offended and/or sinned.

[Moliere]

I agree that local Church leaders are very concerned. They are probably not well equipped to handle these issues without either (a) outing themselves as heterodox, or (b) getting sucked in to the Mormon history maze. I think the folks in the COB are concerned too, and if this guy's story is true, their approach is pragmatic and reasonable. It just sort of sucks to be labelled "irredeemable" when you're grasping at straws to find reasons to stay.

My local leaders aren't concerned so much about historicity and such (well, most of them aren't) and the specific effect it's having on testimonies, but there is a concern for all disaffected and specific local programs have been used to rescue those that are inactive. I doubt anyone in our ward could say they don't feel welcome unless they truly are trying to feel that way.

I highly doubt anyone at the local level or general level is labeling people as irredeemable. I just don't buy the guy's story at all. Anytime you use "I could be wrong" or so many other assumptions then you are treading on not just heresay but total make believe. I don't doubt there are a few GAs that think like he is describing but overall and in total leadership at all levels is concerned about the 1.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not going to say that guy is full of crap, but his experience is far different from mine.

I'll say it. He's full of crap.

[Green Monstah]

My local leaders aren't concerned so much about historicity and such (well, most of them aren't) and the specific effect it's having on testimonies, but there is a concern for all disaffected and specific local programs have been used to rescue those that are inactive. I doubt anyone in our ward could say they don't feel welcome unless they truly are trying to feel that way.

I highly doubt anyone at the local level or general level is labeling people as irredeemable. I just don't buy the guy's story at all. Anytime you use "I could be wrong" or so many other assumptions then you are treading on not just heresay but total make believe. I don't doubt there are a few GAs that think like he is describing but overall and in total leadership at all levels is concerned about the 1.

Yeah, that's seems highly suspect.

[Omaha 680]

This doesn't have a direct nexus to GC-4/2014, but it's an interesting snippet from Dehlin's FB page. During Oaks' p'hood talk, my mind was swirling a bit as I thought of the people I know who would be hurt by it, but after thinking it through, it started to make sense. If the OW/Progmo/NOM crowd are simply a whiny minority, then why alienate your faithful base who may interpret conciliatory actions as concessions (e.g. those who are taking issue with the website's explanation of the p'hood prohibition)?

Here's the quote:

People. Need. To. Stop. Putting. A. Period. After. Every. Word. For. Emphasis. It's one of the most annoyting habits on the internet.

[DrumNFeather]

I'll say it. He's full of crap.

I'd like to know of a doubter that has received MORE attention than this guy. For him to suggest that nobody cares when he has been able to have an audience with a number of GAs is disingenuous at best.

[Moliere]

I'll say it. He's full of crap.

[YOhio]

People. Need. To. Stop. Putting. A. Period. After. Every. Word. For. Emphasis. It's one of the most annoyting habits on the internet.

Well you just did it. Lead by example.

[Pheidippides]

I'd like to know of a doubter that has received MORE attention than this guy. For him to suggest that nobody cares when he has been able to have an audience with a number of GAs is disingenuous at best.

If you want my thoughts on the matter, I think that there is a major schism in the leadership on this issue. I have no evidence to back this up - it's nothing more than a sense - but it seems to me as though some people want to extend arms of fellowship and others want to give another Salt Sermon. I don't see a concensus.

Dehlin has turned in the past few weeks, and I think it's obvious to those who pay attention to him on any level. Something has happened to really make him mad, something on a local level at least. He's gone from doubting to inactive to participating semi - believer to pissed off antagonist over the course of the last few years. I don't blame him for this - many have followed a similar path - but it has been very public. I think he feels betrayed - my reading is that he tried to make it work as a NOM, it didn't work, and now he's mad/disappointed.

As for conference itself, I only have a very few thoughts - but I also only saw very little:

1. Hales looks horrible. I doubt he's around much longer, and hope he finds rest.

2. Packer is also not long for this world, and same wishes to him.

3. Reports of Monson's dementia/alzheimers seem to be greatly exaggerated.

4. I thought that everybody except Oaks learned a lesson from last conference and simply ignored the OW movement.

5. No new temple announcements - when was the last time that happened?

6. The ROI on the missionary increase seems to be lackluster, if you assume the purpose is conversions (I only think that is a secondary motivation).

7. Tad Callister as SS President is terrifying to people who had issue with his Ensign article on modesty.

[Northwestcoug]

I'd like to know of a doubter that has received MORE attention than this guy. For him to suggest that nobody cares when he has been able to have an audience with a number of GAs is disingenuous at best.

You have a point there. I admire John Dehlin. I think his heart is in the right place. But he's been given everything he wants to stay in the church. Both local and general leaders have been accommodating. If he's not happy with all he's gotten, then he needs to reevaluate just exactly why he wants to stay.