2016 October General Conference thread

[chrisrenrut]

Edit: I don't recall a EQP or HPGL going all nazi on this topic. They just asked if the HT was done. Sadly, they didn't always ask about the families. Still gotta work on that.

Until now, my HP group leadership would only count an in-home visit. They also never bothered to ask how the families I visit are doing. I hope this talk changes that.

[jay santos]

You guys are killing me. Direct quotes from the talk:



I know of at least one bishop that will use this to teach a healthy vision going forward for both VT and HT. Focus on fellowshipping, love, service, and forging relationships. Teach EQ and RS leaders to ask for reports in a manner that emphasizes care and concern for individuals, not stats.

I am surprised that some of you are so worried about what "counts". Sounds like the members are as big of a problem as the leaders. Do what is best for your families and if your EQP or HPGL has a problem with that, just ignore him.

I don't care about what is best or what is not best for families that are being home taught. But I care a lot about data integrity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't care about what is best or what is not best for families that are being home taught. But I care a lot about data integrity.

Haha.

[Moliere]

Here's a decent writeup on the Eyring Sr. mention during Eyring Jr.'s talk: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjami...d-creationism/

[In both science and religion,] you set up some basic postulates from your experience or your experiments and then from that you start making deductions, but everything that matters is based upon things you accept as true. When a man says he will believe in religion if you prove it, it is like asking you to prove there are electrons. Proof depends upon your premises….Every proof in science depends on the postulates one accepts. The same is true of religion. The certitude one has about the existence of God ultimately comes from personal experience, the experience of others, or logical deductions from the postulates one accepts. People sometimes get the idea that science and religion are different, but they are not different at all. There is nothing in science that does not hinge on some primitive constructs you take for granted. What is an electron? I can tell you some things about the electron we have learned from experiment, and if you accept these things, you will be able to make predictions. But ultimately you will always get back to postulates.I am certain in my own mind of the truthfulness of the gospel, but I can only communicate that assurance to you if you accept my postulates.

[kccougar]

Here's a decent writeup on the Eyring Sr. mention during Eyring Jr.'s talk: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjami...d-creationism/

I liked the Mormon Scientist book because I approach religion the same way that Eyring Sr did. He saw few real conflicts between science and religion, and he believed that where there were apparent conflicts, we either misunderstand the science or the religion. And he was okay with that.

[CardiacCoug]

Science and religion are both true in their own ways.

Science is literally true and religion is sometimes true in a metaphorical sense.

[ByronMarchant]

When I was a teenager and even a college student, I used to advocate the philosophy that science tells us how the world was created, and religion tells us why the world was created.

Additionally, I believed that any discrepancy between science and religion would ultimately be resolved.

Then I became a scientist and realized that my understanding of science in my youth was naïve at best.

Simply put, The scientific method is to do everything you possibly can to keep yourself from getting fooled. As long as you do this, you can say that you're applying science everywhere in your life. Try it at church. See how it works out. Some might argue that it's inappropriate to apply the scientific method at church. To these people, I would suggest they try shedding every benefit of science from their life (electricity, cars, planes, medicine, vaccines, clean water, etc) and then reconsider.

It sounds simple to try to keep yourself from getting fooled. But people should remember that this is the natural human tendency. It is natural for people to view things as evidence that are not evidence. It is natural for people to believe things are true when they are not true.

Science is about blinding yourself from your own biases. It's about preventing yourself from convincing yourself that something is true when it isn't.

Religion pleads people to disregard evidence and to convince themselves that their feelings serve as evidence, and this is why science and religion are completely incompatible.

[creekster]

When I was a teenager and even a college student, I used to advocate the philosophy that science tells us how the world was created, and religion tells us why the world was created.

Additionally, I believed that any discrepancy between science and religion would ultimately be resolved.

Then I became a scientist and realized that my understanding of science in my youth was naïve at best.

Simply put, The scientific method is to do everything you possibly can to keep yourself from getting fooled. As long as you do this, you can say that you're applying science everywhere in your life. Try it at church. See how it works out.

It sounds simple to try to keep yourself from getting fooled. But people should remember that this is the natural human tendency. It is natural for people to view things as evidence that are not evidence. It is natural for people to believe things are true when they are not true.

Science is about blinding your self from your own biases. It's about preventing yourself from convincing yourself that something is true when it isn't.

Religion pleads people to disregard evidence and to convince themselves that their feelings serve as evidence, and this is why science and religion are completely incompatible.

WHat lovely and romantic thoughts.

[Sleeping in EQ]

When I was a teenager and even a college student, I used to advocate the philosophy that science tells us how the world was created, and religion tells us why the world was created.

Additionally, I believed that any discrepancy between science and religion would ultimately be resolved.

Then I became a scientist and realized that my understanding of science in my youth was naïve at best.

Simply put, The scientific method is to do everything you possibly can to keep yourself from getting fooled. As long as you do this, you can say that you're applying science everywhere in your life. Try it at church. See how it works out. Some might argue that it's inappropriate to apply the scientific method at church. To these people, I would suggest they try shedding every benefit of science from their life (electricity, cars, planes, medicine, vaccines, clean water, etc) and then reconsider.

It sounds simple to try to keep yourself from getting fooled. But people should remember that this is the natural human tendency. It is natural for people to view things as evidence that are not evidence. It is natural for people to believe things are true when they are not true.

Science is about blinding yourself from your own biases. It's about preventing yourself from convincing yourself that something is true when it isn't.

Religion pleads people to disregard evidence and to convince themselves that their feelings serve as evidence, and this is why science and religion are completely incompatible.

I too have endured some ridiculous opinions about science in religious settings, and I can only imagine what it must be like for a scientist to do so. Still, you don't seem to understand either science or religion. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you refer to "natural human tendency," and "It is natural for people...."

[clackamascoug]

Even the most studied scientist on Earth only understands about 5% of science. Even the most studied religionist on Earth only understands about 5% of religion. I like science and I like religion - and I realize that I'm an idiot that knows nothing about neither. So I take the benefits of science, and I take the benefits of religion and I meld them into a lifestyle that brings me happiness. Hopefully at some future time and space I'll be a 100% master of both fields - till then - I think I'll work a little more on loving my neighbor, because I'm weak in that college.

[Jeff Lebowski]

When I was a teenager and even a college student, I used to advocate the philosophy that science tells us how the world was created, and religion tells us why the world was created.

Additionally, I believed that any discrepancy between science and religion would ultimately be resolved.

Then I became a scientist and realized that my understanding of science in my youth was naïve at best.

Simply put, The scientific method is to do everything you possibly can to keep yourself from getting fooled. As long as you do this, you can say that you're applying science everywhere in your life. Try it at church. See how it works out. Some might argue that it's inappropriate to apply the scientific method at church. To these people, I would suggest they try shedding every benefit of science from their life (electricity, cars, planes, medicine, vaccines, clean water, etc) and then reconsider.

It sounds simple to try to keep yourself from getting fooled. But people should remember that this is the natural human tendency. It is natural for people to view things as evidence that are not evidence. It is natural for people to believe things are true when they are not true.

Science is about blinding yourself from your own biases. It's about preventing yourself from convincing yourself that something is true when it isn't.

Religion pleads people to disregard evidence and to convince themselves that their feelings serve as evidence, and this is why science and religion are completely incompatible.

Irony alert!

[Clark Addison]

Big props to CS and this thread. Today, when my home teacher came over and asked which talk was my favorite, I immediately responded "I really enjoyed Elder Holland's talk on home teaching in the Priesthood session." He had a look on his face that I believe can best be described as "lucky guess!"

[Parrot Head]

Big props to CS and this thread. Today, when my home teacher came over and asked which talk was my favorite, I immediately responded "I really enjoyed Elder Holland's talk on home teaching in the Priesthood session." He had a look on his face that I believe can best be described as "lucky guess!"

Is it still a certain member of the bishopric? If so, of course he'd ask that.


I still haven't made it through the last session, so we're short there, but I have listened to the Women's session and thought it was pretty solid. They gave some strong talks there and the bipolar story really grabbed me for some reason. If you haven't watched the session, I recommend sneaking it in sometime.

[Clark Addison]

Is it still a certain member of the bishopric? If so, of course he'd ask that.

Yes, it is, see here: http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1285911

And yes, I knew the question was coming. My wife cheated by checking out some talks during Primary, but thanks to CS, I was covered.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Big props to CS and this thread. Today, when my home teacher came over and asked which talk was my favorite, I immediately responded "I really enjoyed Elder Holland's talk on home teaching in the Priesthood session." He had a look on his face that I believe can best be described as "lucky guess!"

Why do you take this guy seriously? If my HT tried the stuff you describe I would just respond with nonsense. "We pray as a companionship before love making, not always after"