Thoughts on conference

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My understanding is that the priesthood session is for priesthood-age boys and men (used to be 12 and older; now they can be deacons in the year they turn 12). 
 

If, under the present system, the women’s session is intended to mirror the pattern for the priesthood session, and if people are going to get this spun up over the topics discussed, maybe the women’s session needs to go back to being for Young Women-age and older. 

I agree that 12 and up should also be the norm for Women’s session. Not just because it allows more mature topics to be discussed but also because watching the general sessions is already a lot for primary age kids. 

But, for the record, I think the “spinning up” mostly just happened on this thread.  I commented that my wife felt President Oaks’ address wasn’t appropriate for our 9 year old. Then it spiraled from there.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Probably still would be. I was taught in my youth not to take the reasoning people use for commandments existing too seriously even when it comes from the apostles. Later I found an apostle teaching the same thing so I think I am good there.

That’s what I suggested.  Luckily most members find such teaching foolish for the most part and live a little more free.   I’m glad you agree.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s verses 33-40, it’s not much lengthier than what the Young Women are to memorize. This is what youthful priesthood holders have traditionally memorized, at least from the time I was in my youth: 

“33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
“34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
“35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;
36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;
“37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;
“38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.
“39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.” 
 

Incidentally, if the power that women have in the priesthood is now being emphasized (and Deseret Book now has a bestseller with that theme in the title) perhaps Young Women should be memorizing these verses as well — or at least learning about them. 

I kinda like this one also, but it’s probably too gender-specific for modern sentiments....

Quote

And they were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage, and also for strength and activity; but behold, this was not all—they were men who were true at all times in whatsoever thing they were entrusted.

Yea, they were men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God and to walk uprightly before him.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That’s what I suggested.  Luckily most members find such teaching foolish for the most part and live a little more free.   I’m glad you agree.

That’s a sadly myopic (and very foolish) view of a Elders Maxwell’s and Romney’s message.

It cuts all ways. Members of every stripe and persuasion may find their social, professional, and political views at odds with the counsel of the First Presidency. The lifting of Priesthood ban, for example. The correct course was to follow the First Presidency rather than to turn away in a huff because it didn’t suit one’s personal views. Everyone became “a little more free” precisely by following the prophets.

Elder Maxwell prophetically observed that abortion, family issues, and political opposition to religious freedom will become breaking points for future members.

Then there’s this comment that we are seeing unfold before our eyes...

Quote

If we let come into being a secular church shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hours of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education in school systems that are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

That’s a sadly myopic (and very foolish) view of a Elders Maxwell’s and Romney’s message.

It cuts all ways. Members of every stripe and persuasion may find their social, professional, and political views at odds with the counsel of the First Presidency. The lifting of Priesthood ban, for example. The correct course was to follow the First Presidency rather than to turn away in a huff because it didn’t suit one’s personal views. Everyone became “a little more free” precisely by following the prophets.

Elder Maxwell prophetically observed that abortion, family issues, and political opposition to religious freedom will become breaking points for future members.

Then there’s this comment that we are seeing unfold before our eyes...

 

The founding of our church teaches us that revelation does not come in a vacuum.  Something needs to prompt the question and sometimes hearts must be softened to be prepared for the answer.  I think we saw both of those elements at work in the reversal of the Nov 2015 policy. 

[Jake Starkey]

"Everyone became “a little more free” precisely by following the prophets" certainly was not the case with the proclamation of 2015.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The founding of our church teaches us that revelation does not come in a vacuum.  Something needs to prompt the question and sometimes hearts must be softened to be prepared for the answer.  I think we saw both of those elements at work in the reversal of the Nov 2015 policy. 

Yes. And then we followed the First Presidency.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

"Everyone became “a little more free” precisely by following the prophets" certainly was not the case with the proclamation of 2015.

Free does not always mean license.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[blueglass]

On 10/8/2019 at 1:00 AM, Tacenda said:

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

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.

post first manifesto there were a lot of deals made with wealthy members to keep the church from going insolvent.

A few entries from Wilford Woodruff's journal:

July 20, 1893
20 I signed a Dozen Recommends for 2d Anointing. We got up 126 names to Borrow $1,000
cash to help the Church for a season through th[is?] difficulty. I met with J. F Smith & the
Twelve in the Temple for Prayer And we Conversed upon the financial Condition of the Church.
I met with the Lawyiers to day upon the water question.

Sept 15 1896
15 I held a M[eet]ing with ZC.M.I. Took out $200,000 out of the Reserve fund. We done a good
Deal of Business.

Sept 22, 1896
22 I Borrowed $2,000 this morning of J R Winder & George Romney to pay upon our Notes that
were Crouding upon us. We are in a terrible financial Condition. Susan Called upon me to day
for some Council about renting her farm.

Oct 9, 1896
9 I spent the Day in the office. We Met to arange the Mutual Improvement Presidency. W
Woodruff is the superintendt & Joseph F Smith H J Grant & Brigham H Roberts are my
assistent. We took up one $25,000 Dollar Note from Mr Clarkson through the Assistance of John
M Cannon

A bit of a turn-around with this entry

Nov 16 1896 [] I Received 2 Letters one from Sylvia M Thompson. Held a Meeting with the
ZCMI Board. Cash on hand $71,235.60. Recepts for Oct 286,859.63. Disbursments $277,939.52.
Cash on hand 80,155.73. The institution is doing well.

[Jake Starkey]

I am glad the 1st Presidency's collective heart was softened.

[SettingDogStar]

8 hours ago, blueglass said:

post first manifesto there were a lot of deals made with wealthy members to keep the church from going insolvent.

A few entries from Wilford Woodruff's journal:

July 20, 1893
20 I signed a Dozen Recommends for 2d Anointing. We got up 126 names to Borrow $1,000
cash to help the Church for a season through th[is?] difficulty. I met with J. F Smith & the
Twelve in the Temple for Prayer And we Conversed upon the financial Condition of the Church.
I met with the Lawyiers to day upon the water question.

Sept 15 1896
15 I held a M[eet]ing with ZC.M.I. Took out $200,000 out of the Reserve fund. We done a good
Deal of Business.

Sept 22, 1896
22 I Borrowed $2,000 this morning of J R Winder & George Romney to pay upon our Notes that
were Crouding upon us. We are in a terrible financial Condition. Susan Called upon me to day
for some Council about renting her farm.

Oct 9, 1896
9 I spent the Day in the office. We Met to arange the Mutual Improvement Presidency. W
Woodruff is the superintendt & Joseph F Smith H J Grant & Brigham H Roberts are my
assistent. We took up one $25,000 Dollar Note from Mr Clarkson through the Assistance of John
M Cannon

A bit of a turn-around with this entry

Nov 16 1896 [] I Received 2 Letters one from Sylvia M Thompson. Held a Meeting with the
ZCMI Board. Cash on hand $71,235.60. Recepts for Oct 286,859.63. Disbursments $277,939.52.
Cash on hand 80,155.73. The institution is doing well.

A whole dozen recommends for the 2a?! Holy cow haha

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

I am glad the 1st Presidency's collective heart was softened.

Assuming , of course, that they have hard hearts. 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/9/2019 at 7:37 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

You are right about CFR-ing an opinion. That has happened to me a few times — enough for me to understand how aggravating it is. On those occasions, I typically respond that I am the reference for my own opinion. 
 

To her credit, Rain removed the CFR from her post. And she was right to point out that Tacenda probably lacks the background or inside knowledge to react in such a shrill manner about the placement of temples in Utah. By her own admission, Tacenda was triggered by complaining she had seen elsewhere. 
 

One of the factors that goes into the decision about temple placement is the temple usage (or potential usage) in a given area. My recollection is that President Hinckley, speaking at the groundbreaking for the Draper Utah Temple, addressed the question of why another temple in the Salt Lake Valley. He indicated it was to relieve pressure on the Jordan River Temple. It’s a safe assumption that the same reasoning applied to the nearby Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple. It makes little sense to continue with overcrowding in a temple when the means (and willing donors) are available to build an additional facility to meet demand. 

We need to remember that a mere 40 years ago the Salt Lake Temple was IT for the Salt Lake Valley.

No Oquirrh. No Jordan River. No Draper.

Just wondering if the valley has had commensurate growth in recommend holders since that time.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We need to remember that a mere 40 years ago the Salt Lake Temple was IT for the Salt Lake Valley.

No Oquirrh. No Jordan River. No Draper.

Just wondering if the valley has had commensurate growth in recommend holders since that time.

I think that goes without saying. When a new temple is built here, it is always to meet expanding demand. 
 

If you were to observe as I have the urbanized south part of the valley compared to the rural farmland that was here 40 years ago, it would be obvious to you. That growth has been largely (though not wholly) comprised of active Church members. 
 

Edited to add:will soon be augmented by a fifth, in Taylorsville (as of the announcement last weekend). And there is one to be built in Tooele, just over the mountain to the west. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

On 10/12/2019 at 9:22 AM, Bernard Gui said:

That’s a sadly myopic (and very foolish) view of a Elders Maxwell’s and Romney’s message.

It cuts all ways. Members of every stripe and persuasion may find their social, professional, and political views at odds with the counsel of the First Presidency. The lifting of Priesthood ban, for example. The correct course was to follow the First Presidency rather than to turn away in a huff because it didn’t suit one’s personal views. Everyone became “a little more free” precisely by following the prophets.

No.  Going along with that which you disagree with isn't free.  It feels good not to be trammeled 😉

On 10/12/2019 at 9:22 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Elder Maxwell prophetically observed that abortion, family issues, and political opposition to religious freedom will become breaking points for future members.

How prophetic is it to name a couple controversial issues and say if members don't follow the prophets, if they dare to halt between two opinions, they will find themselves disagreeing with the leaders?  

On 10/12/2019 at 9:22 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Then there’s this comment that we are seeing unfold before our eyes...

 

That included a bunch of questions.   What are you seeing unfold before your eyes?  Is government about to fail and will we really be unable to rely on our families when the failure comes?  

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that goes without saying. When a new temple is built here, it is always to meet expanding demand. 
 

If you were to observe as I have the urbanized south part of the valley compared to the rural farmland that was here 40 years ago, it would be obvious to you. That growth has been largely (though not wholly) comprised of active Church members. 

I lived in Salt Lake for the calendar year 1981, and could not take it any longer.

My eldest daughter was actually born in Utah.  It's a burden she will carry.

I got to go to the Jordan River dedication, but lived far enough North that I did not go there for endowments.

I can see your point. The only direction for growth at that time was west and south, and unsurprisingly that's where the growth was.

Edited October 13, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Jake Starkey]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

No.  Going along with that which you disagree with isn't free.  It feels good not to be trammeled 😉

How prophetic is it to name a couple controversial issues and say if members don't follow the prophets, if they dare to halt between two opinions, they will find themselves disagreeing with the leaders?  

That included a bunch of questions.   What are you seeing unfold before your eyes?  Is government about to fail and will we really be unable to rely on our families when the failure comes?  

Nope.  Right and wrong are obvious.  The LDS branches in the American south probably lost up to 50% of their membership because of the lifting of the Priesthoodd ban.  I knew a Mississippi branch president in poured concrete into the font so blacks could not be baptized.

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Calm]

Emphasis on attending the temple has changed as well. I don’t remember any temple trips as a youth though the Oakland temple was only an hour away and I could even see it from my high school across the bay.  They may have had some, but they weren’t encouraging all the kids to go if so as I would have gone in that case.

There were no younger temple workers at the Provo temple when I first started going early 80s.  Now I see adults in their 20s as workers, which means to me a much higher percentage overall of frequent temple attendance by younger members. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Nope.  Right and wrong are obvious.  The LDS branches in the American south probably lost up to 50% of their membership because of the lifting ofPriesthoodd ban.  I knew a Mississippi branch president in poured concrete into the font so blacks could not be baptized.

 

Do you have documentation of this or was it personal experience? (Not doubting except in the generic way I doubt all memories, especially my own, thus why I prefer documentation.)

Edited October 13, 2019 by Calm

[rchorse]

16 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Nope.  Right and wrong are obvious.  The LDS branches in the American south probably lost up to 50% of their membership because of the lifting ofPriesthoodd ban.  I knew a Mississippi branch president in poured concrete into the font so blacks could not be baptized.

 

That seems odd because blacks have always been able to be baptized. There was never a ban on blacks joining the church, just on priesthood. Was the branch president just that clueless?

[Jake Starkey]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you have documentation of this or was it personal experience? (Not doubting except in the generic way I doubt all memories, especially my own, thus why I prefer documentation.)

Only from what LDS people told me from East Texas to west Florida over a twenty year period.

It would be a great project to provide data for.

I was told the major cities, Houston and New Orleans and Atlanta, etc., had almost no leakage because of the lifting of the ban.

East Texans are always Texas before Mormon or Baptist or whateverer in my experiences over thirty years, so I am not surprised at those tales.  Race came before religion for many of them.  Even though we are in SLC, I suspect for older in the lower South, that is still the case.

[Jake Starkey]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

That seems odd because blacks have always been able to be baptized. There was never a ban on blacks joining the church, just on priesthood. Was the branch president just that clueless?

Maybe so.  The fellow who told me the story said he was a twenty-year old missionary there on the phone with the Mission President after midnight asking for instructions.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Nope.  Right and wrong are obvious.  The LDS branches in the American south probably lost up to 50% of their membership because of the lifting of the Priesthoodd ban.  I knew a Mississippi branch president in poured concrete into the font so blacks could not be baptized.

 

No, that is not reality - i.e. it is a lie. I lived in the south (NW Florida) from 1970 to 1981 except for two years I served a mission. Our branch did not lose a single member. Our District lost very, very few members for a short time and almost all returned after their hearts were softened and fewer than can be counted on one hand stayed away.  

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Jake Starkey]

30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, that is not reality - i.e. it is a lie. I lived in the south (NW Florida) from 1970 to 1981 except for two years I served a mission. Our branch did not lose a single member. Our District lost very, very few members for a short time and almost all returned after their hearts were softened and fewer than can be counted on one hand stayed away.  

 

Stop the abuse, Storm Rider.  I am reporting what I was told of first hand experiences by people who were there.  I lived on and off in the lower South for three decades and more, so while I believe that you believe what you are saying, my experience and those of others who told me theirs leads me to believe you are flatly wrong and taking your anger out on me.  I can handle it, easily.

[Jake Starkey]

35 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, that is not reality - i.e. it is a lie. I lived in the south (NW Florida) from 1970 to 1981 except for two years I served a mission. Our branch did not lose a single member. Our District lost very, very few members for a short time and almost all returned after their hearts were softened and fewer than can be counted on one hand stayed away.  

 

You speak for one branch and one district only.  And you left in 1981.  Think about this, please.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jake Starkey