Scrutinizing general conference

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

First "then" is correct as it refers to time, second should be "than" as it is a comparison.

English would be better off if we picked one spelling and used it for everything. It is not as if the different spellings ever clarify what the writer means.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

And here I thought all along the family proclamation was a "revelation" so the church could get standing in a Hawaii ssm case. http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

I believe it was this article that gave rise to the notion in some quarters that the family proclamation was written by attorneys. However, in re-reading it just now, I don't see that anything in the article sustains that notion. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe it was this article that gave rise to the notion in some quarters that the family proclamation was written by attorneys. However, in re-reading it just now, I don't see that anything in the article sustains that notion. 

No, there were earlier discussions than that one, such as this:

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

and

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

Ties it to Hawaii:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2011/05/rethinking-the-proclamation/

Edited October 2, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, there were earlier discussions than that one, such as this:

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

and

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

Ties it to Hawaii:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2011/05/rethinking-the-proclamation/

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[JulieM]

I have some time at work this afternoon and I'm reading some links about the proclamation (since I plan on watching Elder Oak's talk when I get home tonight). 

I just read how President Packer altered one of his conference talks and took out the word "revelation" when describing the Family Proclamation":

"In his original talk, Packer said the church's 1995 statement, 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World,' 'qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation.' That descriptive phrase has now been omitted, leaving the proclamation simply described as 'a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow.'" 

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID

"Packer talk jibes with LDS stance after tweak"

Any thoughts on why that was changed back then from "revelation" to "guide"?  Do you think Elder Oaks is correcting that now?

Edited October 2, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I have some time at work this afternoon and I'm reading some links about the proclamation (since I plan on watching Elder Oak's talk when I get home tonight). 

I just read how President Packer altered one of his conference talks and took out the word "revelation" when describing the Family Proclamation":

"In his original talk, Packer said the church's 1995 statement, 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World,' 'qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation.' That descriptive phrase has now been omitted, leaving the proclamation simply described as 'a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow.'" 

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID

"Packer talk jibes with LDS stance after tweak"

Any thoughts on why that was changed back then from "revelation" to "guide"?  Do you think Elder Oaks is correcting that now?

I've addressed this before in saying that the proclamation is technically not a revelation in that it does not plow new doctrinal ground but that I believe it is revelatory in the sense that God inspired the Brethren to draft and publish the proclamation when they did. I've theorized that this is the reason President Packer decided to alter the wording in his talk for the printed text.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

English would be better off if we picked one spelling and used it for everything. It is not as if the different spellings ever clarify what the writer means.

I don't know how people speak where you live, but where I live, we don't pronounce then and than the same way. Different words, different spellings, different ways of saying them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I see absolutely nothing to suggest observant Mormons don't pay attention to Conference.

I'll have to see if I can find it later (just taking a quick mental-health break at work), but I remember reading a piece of research from the BYU Sociology Dept that attempted to analyse changes in behaviour (and possibly attitudes) amongst 'observant' Latter-day Saints in the Utah Valley in relation to GC. They surveyed members before the conference, analysed the talks for specific admonitions, and then went back some months later and polled people on those. Overwhelmingly nothing had changed.

I think one of the greatest gifts my parents ever gave me was their response to the teachings of the prophets. Inevitably after each GC they would discuss together changes to what they had been doing as individuals and what we had been doing as a family based on what had been taught. Those changes brought enormous blessings into our lives, thus laying the foundation for my ever-increasing appreciation of the living prophets of God.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'll have to see if I can find it later (just taking a quick mental-health break at work), but I remember reading a piece of research from the BYU Sociology Dept that attempted to analyse changes in behaviour (and possibly attitudes) amongst 'observant' Latter-day Saints in the Utah Valley in relation to GC. They surveyed members before the conference, analysed the talks for specific admonitions, and then went back some months later and polled people on those. Overwhelmingly nothing had changed.

I think one of the greatest gifts my parents ever gave me was their response to the teachings of the prophets. Inevitably after each GC they would discuss together changes to what they had been doing as individuals and what we had been doing as a family based on what had been taught. Those changes brought enormous blessings into our lives, thus laying the foundation for my ever-increasing appreciation of the living prophets of God.

It may have been that the conference was what they needed to keep them apace of where they had been before. Just a thought.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know how people speak where you live, but where I live, we don't pronounce then and than the same way. Different words, different spellings, different ways of saying them.

Yes, but the difference is slight in most dialects. I know it is not going to happen but I am a dreamer and I am not the only one.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am a dreamer and I am not the only one.

Now you're just trying to be offensive... 

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but the difference is slight in most dialects. I know it is not going to happen but I am a dreamer and I am not the only one.

No Imagine here...John Lennon was a nut...and the words to the song is athiest...and one of the most beautiful songs I have ever heard.  I am a dreamer too.  Today what would it be like in living life in peace?

[Rivers]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just saw this Facebook meme, got a chuckle out of it and had to share it with the board. I'm a fan of irony.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1428848880564834&set=p.1428848880564834&type=3

I'm the opposite of the critics.  I pay close attention to conference talks looking for positive things.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe it was this article that gave rise to the notion in some quarters that the family proclamation was written by attorneys. However, in re-reading it just now, I don't see that anything in the article sustains that notion. 

Did you notice in the article where it cites an interview Sister Okazaki did with Greg Prince where she complained how she didn't have any imput in putting together the document? She thought the document needed to be changed in some areas and was upset the Relief Society wasn't consulted prior to publication. 

Doesn't this interview undercut the revelation claim? If it was a revelation, wouldn't it have been presented as such to the Relief Society and Sister Okazaki? Instead, she thought that the document was in need of some changes and more importantly, she thought that it could be changed, as in it wasn't a revelation but a mere statement of belief. Also, a stay the course statement doesn't seem to be very revelatory.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the image contains some fairly mild barbed humor at the expense of both "observant" Mormons (who are teased at the in the image for not paying due attention to General Conference talks) and hostile former members (who end up listening to General Conference, albeit for grist for their complaining-about-the-church mill).

-Smac

 

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

COmes off more as a hit against those who leave because they aren't far enough in.  I see absolutely nothing to suggest observant Mormons don't pay attention to Conference.  I wish it were as innocuous as that, sure. 

Different sides of the same coin it would seem. But it ragged me because despite my best efforts I nodded off too many times. I blame it on narcolepsy (gotta blame it on something other than myself) because I cannot sit and listen to any type of talk without nodding off. It is interesting that I can read scriptures or watch videos (even religious ones) without nodding off. But, in any event, I laughed at both me and my counterpart. But I do not believe that I would make a good critic because I would still nod off.

Glenn

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Did you notice in the article where it cites an interview Sister Okazaki did with Greg Prince where she complained how she didn't have any imput in putting together the document? She thought the document needed to be changed in some areas and was upset the Relief Society wasn't consulted prior to publication. 

Doesn't this interview undercut the revelation claim? If it was a revelation, wouldn't it have been presented as such to the Relief Society and Sister Okazaki? Instead, she thought that the document was in need of some changes and more importantly, she thought that it could be changed, as in it wasn't a revelation but a mere statement of belief. Also, a stay the course statement doesn't seem to be very revelatory.

Would the Proclamation really be much different with Relief Society input?

I see potential for a good satire here. 

Proclamation on the Family:  The Feminist Version.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Did you notice in the article where it cites an interview Sister Okazaki did with Greg Prince where she complained how she didn't have any imput in putting together the document? She thought the document needed to be changed in some areas and was upset the Relief Society wasn't consulted prior to publication. 

Doesn't this interview undercut the revelation claim? If it was a revelation, wouldn't it have been presented as such to the Relief Society and Sister Okazaki? Instead, she thought that the document was in need of some changes and more importantly, she thought that it could be changed, as in it wasn't a revelation but a mere statement of belief. Also, a stay the course statement doesn't seem to be very revelatory.

I don’t follow your logic here. I don’t see how it would had to have been presented first to Sister Okazaki for it to be revelation. And I’m well aware of her complaints and believe she was being presumptuous. 

[Calm]

I think he is just saying the women would have been told it was a revelation to explain the need for it to preempt their plans.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Did you notice in the article where it cites an interview Sister Okazaki did with Greg Prince where she complained how she didn't have any imput in putting together the document? She thought the document needed to be changed in some areas and was upset the Relief Society wasn't consulted prior to publication. 

Doesn't this interview undercut the revelation claim? If it was a revelation, wouldn't it have been presented as such to the Relief Society and Sister Okazaki? Instead, she thought that the document was in need of some changes and more importantly, she thought that it could be changed, as in it wasn't a revelation but a mere statement of belief. Also, a stay the course statement doesn't seem to be very revelatory.

 

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t follow your logic here. I don’t see how it would had to have been presented first to Sister Okazaki for it to be revelation. And I’m well aware of her complaints and believe she was being presumptuous. 

 

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he is just saying the women would have been told it was a revelation to explain the need for it to preempt their plans.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t see the proclamation as being a revelation in the sense of breaking new doctrinal ground, but I do see it as being revelatory in that the Church leaders were inspired to prepare and publish it when they did, essentially summarizing, reaffirming and re-emphasizing truths that had been present among and taught to the Latter-day Saints for many generations and were urgent given what was happening in society at the time and what would be happening in the future. 

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just saw this Facebook meme, got a chuckle out of it and had to share it with the board. I'm a fan of irony.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1428848880564834&set=p.1428848880564834&type=3

Reminds me of this by Hugh Nibley in The World and the Prophets....

Quote

In a very old text, Peter is reported as saying in a letter to James regarding the use of his own writings in the church: “They think they are able to interpret my own words better than I can, telling their hearers that they are conveying my very thoughts to them, while the fact is that such things never entered my mind. If they take such outrageous liberties while I am alive, what will they do after I am gone! https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1103&index=5

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

No Imagine here...John Lennon was a nut...and the words to the song is athiest...and one of the most beautiful songs I have ever heard.  I am a dreamer too.  Today what would it be like in living life in peace?

There will be no peace until Jesus returns.

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t see the proclamation as being a revelation in the sense of breaking new doctrinal ground, but I do see it as being revelatory in that the Church leaders were inspired to prepare and publish it when they did, essentially summarizing, reaffirming and re-emphasizing truths that had been present among and taught to the Latter-day Saints for many generations and were urgent given what was happening in society at the time and what would be happening in the future. 

Somewhat reminiscent of the 1909 First Presidency declaration The Origin of Man....

Quote

Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this subject will be timely and productive of good.

In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Somewhat reminiscent of the 1909 First Presidency declaration The Origin of Man....

 

Yes. Such is the nature of these proclamations of which there have been five. They don’t declare new doctrine, though they do make known the mind and will of the Lord. Thus they are not apt to be included in the scriptural canon, but they should be read and heeded. 

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not sure what you mean by "flailingly negative." I don't flail all that much, especially when interpreting Facebook memes.

Maybe you meant to say "unfailingly negative." But that doesn't describe me either.

And I think you meant to write "more complicated than that." You made the same error as the creator of the meme. (As I mentioned, I'm fan of irony.)

If that's what you think, you definitely don't agree with me.

Yes, a depiction of laughing at those who are in pain is not in anyway mocking those people.

[Button Gwinnett]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

There is a good chance that some of it was your responsibility...there is no need to call it "fault" as if it was a mistake.  People have to make choices of what to invest their time and money and attention.  There can be many good things to choose from, studying history might have been "good" for someone, but caring for family might be a "best" choice.

I had to give up genealogy when my youngest was a year old.  Unlike my oldest, she was not happiest when absorbed in playing by herself, but needed a constant social connection...plus she didn't take 3 hour naps like he did, but 20 minute ones.  Genealogy was a "good" choice, but not the "best" one for me at that time.

Mistakes begin to be made, imo, when people are not comfortable enough with their choices to ignore criticism or mildly point out they did the best with what they had and leave it at that and instead feel the need to defend their choices, but do so by refusing to see their behaviour as a personal choice and instead try to shift responsibility on to others.

If I'm understanding Jeanne's argument correctly all I think she is saying is that the authorized, pre internet, narrative taught in Sunday school, seminary, institute and general conference address and church magazines which are/were the traditional means that the average member of the church was taught the gospel, its history along with the scriptures lacked most if not all of the gritty details that many members today are finding difficult to digest. And unless this average member had read every church magazine article, studied and highlighted its pages they would have missed some of these obscure nuanced historical tidbits. I'll even go so far as to say that any faithful member who relied entirely on the scriptures, a casual reading of church magazines and on the correlated lessons of the past 50 years would have good reason to feel that they had been misled or not given the full historical context of church history they are now discovering post internet days and given the release of the church essays and its revelations.  Sorry I'm not one of those that's feels that the onus lays with the member. The church could have done a lot more, had it wanted that information out,  than it did over the past 50 years to be more forth coming with its difficulties than it has been  but it obviously  chose not to do so for.  I think we do the average member a disservice when we up the expectations that every member should have known information that only professional church scholars and historians was aware of.

So I for one am sympathetic to any member who feels hood winked by the church.

When I write this post I am thinking of my dear departed mother the most loving, dedicated, devout, believing member of the church I ever knew.  She loved the church , the temple, the scriptures (which she read every day). She dedicated her life to the church and to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  She never even had a sip of a caffeinated beverage in her entire life.  I have no doubt that many of the recent revelations that have come out of late would have come as a great surprise and shock as new, previously unknown information to her, despite living into her 90's

Edited October 3, 2017 by Button Gwinnett