Thoughts on conference

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Considering how some posters have to howl about how oversensitive people are now every time some concern is mentioned relating to a woman, I am in agreement many are taking offense rather frequently.

Calm, each of us, as humans, have our own areas that cause us to be sensitive or to over-react. I understand that condition. I guess what is disconcerting is that when another identifies a better path - for example, what is the benefit of worrying about it? Do you think God would create a heaven where some will be happy and others will be distraught? - we respond that we need to have our taking offensive protected and acknowledged as if it is something of value and great worth. 

Often I remember the refrain from elementary school, "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  Today that phrase is anathema. How often do we hear, "Words are powerful."  I heard on the news tonight. We are training individuals to take offense, to protest, to let others know that they are offended, etc.  It is just such an unpleasant societal feature and a sign of weakness. I also think it can easily lead to the destruction of a society. 

[truth a la carte]

I agree with Rockpond. Every child is different, and parents know what is best for their kids (as the church has repeatedly pointed out). I would have been very upset with Oaks’ talk if it had occurred a few years ago when my kids were a bit younger. Among our friends and neighbors are two men who are legally married to each other and who are raising children. It would have been inappropriate for my kids, at 8 or 9 years old, to hear a prophet, seer, and revelator say that our friends were unworthy…... though they should be loved anyway…... This was not a message for kids. My kids ALREADY love our friends. Oaks' message was far more applicable to adults (who are often quite ugly to people they judge as sinners). Furthermore, the message of “love-the-sinners-but-know-they-are-unworthy” is very easily reduced in a child’s mind to  “the-sinners-are-unworthy.” Entirely inappropriate for young kids. There is absolutely no way I would have wanted President Oaks giving this talk to my children when they were a few years younger than they are now.

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

So in your opinion, church leaders can preempt by not consulting or announcing the topic prior to a talk or discussion the parents' decision not to expose their children yet to a certain teaching even though the Church teaches it is the parents' decision?

Are you agreeing with the general principle here, or is there something specific that President Oaks said that you think crosses a line?

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

I agree with Rockpond. Every child is different, and parents know what is best for their kids (as the church has repeatedly pointed out). I would have been very upset with Oaks’ talk if it had occurred a few years ago when my kids were a bit younger. Among our friends and neighbors are two men who are legally married to each other and who are raising children. It would have been inappropriate for my kids, at 8 or 9 years old, to hear a prophet, seer, and revelator say that our friends were unworthy…... though they should be loved anyway…... This was not a message for kids. My kids ALREADY love our friends. Oaks' message was far more applicable to adults (who are often quite ugly to people they judge as sinners). Furthermore, the message of “love-the-sinners-but-know-they-are-unworthy” is very easily reduced in a child’s mind to  “the-sinners-are-unworthy.” Entirely inappropriate for young kids. There is absolutely no way I would have wanted President Oaks giving this talk to my children when they were a few years younger than they are now.

He said they were "unworthy?"

[truth a la carte]

Good catch, I'm typing too fast. What Oaks did say: "All can choose obedience to seek His highest blessings, or make choices that lead to one of the less glorious kingdoms." Again, this is not difficult for those of us who are a little older. We're used to nuance.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If by sex, you mean the discussion that it takes a male and a female to have offspring, I am shocked that your 9 year old has no idea about that. That is what he said.  "That highest destiny is only possible through marriage for eternity. Eternal life includes the creative powers inherent in the combination of male and female.". 

As I’ve said, I know my children and am uniquely qualified to make these kinds of decisions.  What may shock you or what may or may not be a consideration to President Oaks is irrelevant. 

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I’ve said, I know my children and am uniquely qualified to make these kinds of decisions.  What may shock you or what may or may not be a consideration to President Oaks is irrelevant. 

I didn't make any comment about you knowing your children.  And my opinion of what a 9 year old is exposed to (aside from being home schooled or living in a commune) is really a tangent from my point.  I'll drop that whole like it thought. 

My main point is this: You've falsely alleged that President Oaks talked about sex and "birds and the bees."  He didn't. What he said could have easily been heard in any sacrament meeting or stake conference. It wouldn't have been out of place in a general session. 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I didn't make any comment about you knowing your children.  And my opinion of what a 9 year old is exposed to (aside from being home schooled or living in a commune) is really a tangent from my point.  I'll drop that whole like it thought. 

My main point is this: You've falsely alleged that President Oaks talked about sex and "birds and the bees."

I made no such allegation.  I said that what he taught could push us to have those conversations earlier than we feel is prudent. 

 

 

[kllindley]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I made no such allegation.  I said that what he taught could push us to have those conversations earlier than we feel is prudent. 

 

 

So, he didn't do anything that anyone else, including a peer, could have done. And he certainly didn't force you to have that conversation, you still have every ability to choose for yourself whether or not you have it.  In other words, just another thing to gripe about. 

[kllindley]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

When Dallin Oaks forces me to discuss an adult topic with my 9 year old daughter, I blame Dallin Oaks.

He "forced" you, huh? And what adult topic that you couldn't address in a developmentally appropriately way?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, he didn't do anything that anyone else, including a peer, could have done. And he certainly didn't force you to have that conversation, you still have every ability to choose for yourself whether or not you have it.  In other words, just another thing to gripe about. 

First, as I said above, what he said could push us to have those conversations earlier than we feel is prudent. 

Second, he is different than a peer.  He’s a man we sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelatory.  His words carry more weight. 

Third, this wasn’t my gripe  It was a sincere concern from my sweet wife who is as faithful and orthodox a believer as they come.  So if she felt that way, I take it seriously.

 

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

He "forced" you, huh? And what adult topic that you couldn't address in a developmentally appropriately way?

That was written as a hypothetical.  

And not every topic has a developmentally appropriate way to be discussed with a 9 year old.

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by rockpond

[Duncan]

Does anyone know anything about the Stake YM counsellours? how can one High Councilor govern the entire stake of YM's? especially some stakes have a ton of youth

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Does anyone know anything about the Stake YM counsellours? how can one High Councilor govern the entire stake of YM's? especially some stakes have a ton of youth

They can call counselors and a secretary to serve with him (from outside of the HC). 

And then there is the stake AP-YW Committee that is comprised of both members of the HC and members called from the stake to serve as counselors. 

I suppose that if stake size warrants it, you could also call more high councilors (although I tend to believe that we’ll see a trend toward smaller wards and stakes accompany these changes). 

Edited October 8, 2019 by rockpond

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That was written as a hypothetical.  

And not every topic has a developmentally appropriate way to be discussed with a 9 year old.

 

.

Edited October 8, 2019 by kllindley

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

First, as I said above, what he said could push us to have those conversations earlier than we feel is prudent. 

Second, he is different than a peer.  He’s a man we sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelatory.  His words carry more weight. 

Third, this wasn’t my gripe  It was a sincere concern from my sweet wife who is as faithful and orthodox a believer as they come.  So if she felt that way, I take it seriously.

 

 

I think I  need Nehor's shock collar intervention here. 👋

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That was written as a hypothetical.

I don't think it is a good idea to complain about hypotheticals.  If it turns out you are never actually "forced" to have those conversations, then it comes across as an unnecessary criticism and even attacks.

Better to keep it to what is really going on, there is concern this might happen.

Having said that, I can understand why there is concern when same sex topics are taught over the pulpit to young children because I find it easy to imagine the conversation taking a turn into asking details about physical intimacy that might not occur to a child when thinking of a man and woman because that is seen as acceptable and there is no reason to ask why the Church teaches it isn’t in any context.

Think along the lines of:

Why is it okay for you to be married and have a family in the Church, but not my friend Jessica’s dads?

The Church teaches marriage must be between a man and a woman.

Why?

Because God tells us this is the way it needs to be. 

Well, what is so different about two men in love from a man and a woman?etc...

Edited October 8, 2019 by Calm

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Considering how some posters have to howl about how oversensitive people are now every time some concern is mentioned relating to a woman, I am in agreement many are taking offense rather frequently.

I see what you did there:)

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I see what you did there:)

I hope so.

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think it is a good idea to complain about hypotheticals.  If it turns out you are never actually "forced" to have those conversations, then it comes across as an unnecessary criticism and even attacks.

Better to keep it to what is really going on, there is concern this might happen.

I have tried to be clear in what is really going on throughout my comments here (a concern raised by my wife about what discussions could arise from Pres. Oaks address).  The line that @kllindley quoted where I used the word "force" was my responding to @mfbukowski's post about "easterners" and "californicators" and "welcome to the real world".  Just as his post didn't seem entirely serious, I didn't think my response to him would be taken seriously either.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Having said that, I can understand why there is concern when same sex topics are taught over the pulpit to young children because I find it easy to imagine the conversation taking a turn into asking details about physical intimacy that might not occur to a child when thinking of a man and woman because that is seen as acceptable and there is no reason to ask why the Church teaches it isn’t in any context.

Think along the lines of:

Why is it okay for you to be married and have a family in the Church, but not my friend Jessica’s dads?

The Church teaches marriage must be between a man and a woman.

Why?

Because God tells us this is the way it needs to be. 

Well, what is so different about two men in love from a man and a woman?etc...

Thank you for understanding.  Very much appreciated.

[Tacenda]

On 10/6/2019 at 9:29 PM, blueglass said:

I liked President Nelson's report on humanitarian aid.  Would like to see this accompanied with a full financial report on where the funds are dispersed and the prospectus for the next year, 5year plan.

Attached is the official church financial report for 1936 (see pgs2-3), as well as the last publicly available report from 1959 (see pg92) on 1958 financials . 

https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1936a/page/n3

https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1959a/page/n93

 

 

You could sign a petition...http://bycommonconsent.org/?fbclid=IwAR16ywz9yw63k1IU2Cf9xMPbrtDtTyAYBy9Gt3B1el-_wjKgHdtTRZyGyYo

“And all things shall be done by common consent in the church”

DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 26:2

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it is our desire to faithfully fulfill our obligation to our church by at least annually giving our “voice and Common Consent” as to the allocation of the funds that have been and are currently being donated by us to our Church.

We believe as President Hinckley stated that the financial information of our church “belongs to those that made the contribution”.

For most of our history our church provided full disclosure of its funds. Even in times of financial difficulties members could share in the joy of knowing that good works were being accomplished with their collective donations. We have confidence that a full annual financial disclosure will vindicate the virtue and integrity of our church’s financial affairs that are consistent with the principles taught by our Lord. Such open transparency will also dispel all mystery that often leads to unverifiable speculation both without and within our church:  “And He doeth nothing, save it be plain.” (2 Ne. 26:33). We seek complete transparency in all our financial affairs by following the Lord’s counsel that monies placed into His treasury shall “not be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by voice and common consent” (Doctrine and Covenants 104:71).

Therefore, we the undersigned members formally request that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once again publish a full annual financial report that provides sufficient details so that we as members can once again give our “voice and Common Consent” as to the allocation of monies expended by our Church.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Does anyone know anything about the Stake YM counsellours? how can one High Councilor govern the entire stake of YM's? especially some stakes have a ton of youth

What do you think he will be 'governing'? According to the Handbook, his primary role is to provide training to those serving in the wards.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I will watch General Conference at home this weekend, but I'm glad to have been warned in advance that one of the apostles will be mentioning that human reproduction requires a male and a female. Strong stuff! 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What do you think he will be 'governing'? According to the Handbook, his primary role is to provide training to those serving in the wards.

In our stake, the stake YM presidency along with the high councilor over YM not only provided training but also did much of the planning and prep work for our stake Aaronic priesthood camps and Trek.  But they also called specialists to help with those camps/trek (I know since my wife and I were those specialists one year).

So, if the HC feels overwhelmed, I assume the stake can just call additional specialists to assist.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I will watch General Conference at home this weekend, but I'm glad to have been warned in advance that one of the apostles will be mentioning that human reproduction requires a male and a female. Strong stuff! 

I actually don't think that was mentioned.