April 2020 General Conference - Global Pandemic Edition

[Eddie]

Some on here have called President Oaks comments anti-gay. Here's what he said:



I have some questions to those that feel that way. What specifically in that statement do you object to? What changes are you looking for from the church? Do you think the law of chastity should be changed to allow for gay marriages and as long as the couple is married it's okay? The church has done a lot more recently to be more sensitive and welcoming, while not backing away from the principle of eternal families and the law of chastity. I'm not saying that the church couldn't do more on this topic, but I am wondering how far people think we should be going as a church.

I have no idea if Oaks was thinking of LGBTQ issues when he wrote/spoke these words. But due to his history of multiple talks addressing the issue, it shouldn't surprise anyone if LGBTQ folks think he is speaking of them.

He talks about marriage as it relates to having children. I don't think it's a stretch to say that two women or two men aren't having sex to have children. (which is different than saying they don't want to have children or couldn't form a family via various avenues open to them.). His focus is on God's plan - as it should be in a church setting - but he is definitely alluding to that plan including married couples, like Adam and Eve, having children on earth and providing the means for spirits in heaven to come here. Which doesn't really fit, strictly, with LGBTQ relationships.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Some on here have called President Oaks comments anti-gay. Here's what he said:



I have some questions to those that feel that way. What specifically in that statement do you object to? What changes are you looking for from the church? Do you think the law of chastity should be changed to allow for gay marriages and as long as the couple is married it's okay? The church has done a lot more recently to be more sensitive and welcoming, while not backing away from the principle of eternal families and the law of chastity. I'm not saying that the church couldn't do more on this topic, but I am wondering how far people think we should be going as a church.

Oaks is careful about his use of language. I'd argue that the use of the word perversion, which has frequently been used to describe homosexuality, is part of what makes that statement anti-Gay. It also treats homosexual sex differently than heterosexual sex. Heterosexuals can have God sanctioned sex, homosexuals cannot. Every act of homosexual sex, whether married or not, is "a sinful degrading and perversion of the most divine attribute of men and women."

He calls homosexual marriage "worldly forces in law and custom."

[Lost Student]

Yep. My kids enjoyed the HS. The cherry on top would've been spotting my aunt that sang in the choir at the time and passed away in 2005 (in her fifties). Unfortunately she wasn't shown.

It turns out she was shown and my cousin got to see his mom singing during conference again. Made me so happy when he shared his screenshot.

[Crockett]

Some on here have called President Oaks comments anti-gay. Here's what he said:

Here are some other fundamentals of our Heavenly Father’s plan:

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ gives us a unique perspective on the subjects of chastity, marriage, and the bearing of children. It teaches that marriage according to God’s plan is necessary for accomplishing the purpose of God’s plan, to provide the divinely appointed setting for mortal birth, and to prepare family members for eternal life. “Marriage is ordained of God unto man,” the Lord said, “… that the earth might answer the end of its creation” (Doctrine and Covenants 49:15–16). In this, His plan, of course, runs counter to some strong worldly forces in law and custom.

The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given His children. Its use was mandated in the first commandment to Adam and Eve, but another important commandment was given to forbid its misuse. Outside the bonds of marriage, all uses of the procreative power are to one degree or another a sinful degrading and perversion of the most divine attribute of men and women. The emphasis the restored gospel places on this law of chastity is because of the purpose of our procreative powers in the accomplishment of God’s plan.

I have some questions to those that feel that way. What specifically in that statement do you object to? What changes are you looking for from the church? Do you think the law of chastity should be changed to allow for gay marriages and as long as the couple is married it's okay? The church has done a lot more recently to be more sensitive and welcoming, while not backing away from the principle of eternal families and the law of chastity. I'm not saying that the church couldn't do more on this topic, but I am wondering how far people think we should be going as a church.

[HBCoug]

They put their pants on one leg at a time, like the rest of us. Except, once their pants are on, they make gold records.

Never question D Todd Christopherson Bruce Dickenson!

[LVAllen]

Agreed. It is a different version, but not by much. They have tempers, insecurities, failing bodies, as well as good days and bad days just like the rest of us.

They put their pants on one leg at a time, like the rest of us. Except, once their pants are on, they make gold records.

[Copelius]

A soprano then?

[Northwestcoug]

I am more offended that upon initial glance you were placing me with the tenors than that you implied the dress. Really. A tenor. Have some respect.

A soprano then?

[Copelius]

As an aside, I think I finally spotted Copelius:

[ATTACH]10129[/ATTACH]

I am more offended that upon initial glance you were placing me with the tenors than that you implied the dress. Really. A tenor. Have some respect.

[tooblue]

No mustache. No Cope.

The only one to comment is Lost Student?

lol, and you are all criticizing the brethren for being out of touch

[Jeff Lebowski]

first, the profile of the typical non-q12 (and maybe 1q70) ga is pretty different from that of the q12 member. less tenure in a full time ecclesiastical role, more likely to have substantial and recent connections to non-full time church affiliates outside of their family circle, more likely to not be an old white male from the intermountain west, etc. second, my point is not that these are not brilliant, compassionate, salt-of-the-earth people--i think that's true, and i'd add sincerely committed to improving people's lives (in general). i don't think anybody is intentionally sticking their finger in the eyes of the younger generations.

if you're saying that decisions like participation in prop 8, the lgbtq cudgel every conference, the gay parent baptism debacle, less than nuanced treatments of gender, etc., any of which the average <40 year old member could have told you would be an absolute cluster with no upside, come from something other than an innocent disconnect from the audience, that seems to me to be a far more ominous conclusion.

One of these guys is an apostle.

[Lost Student]

As an aside, I think I finally spotted Copelius:

[ATTACH]10129[/ATTACH]

No mustache. No Cope.

[tooblue]

As an aside, I think I finally spotted Copelius:

Copelius.jpg

[tooblue]

I wonder if this is just a different version of what you see on an individual level. When you go to church on Sunday, you see what appears to your eye to be a flock of true-blue believers, each of whom follows the Word of Wisdom, pays tithing, accepts the Book of Mormon as scripture and Joseph Smith as a prophet, doubts not, fears not, and, for the most part, errs not. Then you get to know them. And it turns out the reality could not be more different from the initial appearance.

If I've learned anything from exposure to leaders of the Church outside of the usual channels, it is that they are people too. Very good ones, to be sure, and they set examples worth following. But they walk life's road same as the rest of us.

Agreed. It is a different version, but not by much. They have tempers, insecurities, failing bodies, as well as good days and bad days just like the rest of us.

[tooblue]

The scriptures speak of the need for leaders to practice extreme distancing from the perfection of Christ. I'm not arguing that they don't speak of their humble circumstances, nor do I find them out of touch, but of speaking in humility as vessels for the word of God, acknowledging their imperfections as messengers.

Take John the Baptist, through the words of St. Thomas Aquinas



Or Nephi:





Or King Benjamin:



They all make the very sincere and humble and possibly even exaggerated attempt to publicly acknowledge their potential lack of worthiness as vessels of divine communication. Very few conference talks open with this kind of humility, though some do. Nephi acknowledges that he may be in err.

I think we could use a little more of this in our time.

I think it is purely an issue of style and context. King Benjamin was more than a prophet, he was a King who wielded real power over the people he commanded to congregate before him firstly in his name, not Gods.

Regardless, I don't disagree we could use more humility in our time. And as it happens, we are all being humbled in some measure now due to this epidemic.

I really enjoyed conference. One of the reasons the announcement of the temple in Shanghai in particular moved me is because I personally know individuals who joined the church in the Toronto area and then re-patriated to China. Being able to even congregate together weekly let alone attend the temple has been a struggle. The announcement is miraculous.