Pres. Uchtdorf'S Priesthood Talk About Diversity

[Hamba Tuhan]

That would suggest that two Mormons in good standing can have different political or cultural values. Therefore, these are, I conclude, not matters of the spirit.

Assuming of course that our political, social, and cultural preferences are not at odds with 'our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments'.

We haven't had General Conference here yet, but what I've read in this thread reminds me of something I heard Pres Hinckley say at a fireside when I was living and studying in America. He told us that members often obsess over things that don't matter instead of caring about the 'weightier matters of the law' because it lets them feel like they are doing many righteous things without actually being very righteous at all.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Be yourself.

It has been my experience that the most quirky, uniquely individual people I've ever come to know are faithful, committed Latter-day Saints, my recently released bishop being Exhibit A.

[Bikeemikey]

That's when women don't shave their armpits and men don't shower daily. Beer is consumed rampantly, the only real sport is soccer, and cigarettes are not smoked filtered. Movies have far less censorship, kids are not produced nearly enough to keep up with economic growth, economic austerity rules the day, and anyone or nation who endorses self responsibility is defiled.

Any questions?

You forgot to mention how they out perform their US counterparts in life expectancy, quality of life after retirement, childhood education, high school education, lower percentages of citizens in prison, minimal murder rates and almost all indicators of first world well being.

Other than those minor omissions, you got it spot on.

[Stone holm]

Assuming of course that our political, social, and cultural preferences are not at odds with 'our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments'.

We haven't had General Conference here yet, but what I've read in this thread reminds me of something I heard Pres Hinckley say at a fireside when I was living and studying in America. He told us that members often obsess over things that don't matter instead of caring about the 'weightier matters of the law' because it lets them feel like they are doing many righteous things without actually being very righteous at all.

Interesting, the problem is that both the left and the right often think that they are the one's keeping God's commandments. But though he did mention politics, I did think that he was specifically addressing those who seem to think that all good Mormons should conform to the roles, dress, and lifestyle of the 1950's White Middle class family.

[Bikeemikey]

This thread brought up a good question that I still think hasn't been answered. What or who was President Uchtdorf's talk addressing exactly?

.

I think the ongoing demand we have for exactness might have been the very thing he was addressing... Even the way the question is being asked is seeking a uniform clarity.

He probably meant about a million different things... Heck we are meant to have almost 15 million members so he probably meant at least 15 million different things.

Each member is unique and expressing that uniqueness is good, even if other don't like it or find it to different.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

It has been my experience that the most quirky, uniquely individual people I've ever come to know are faithful, committed Latter-day Saints, my recently released bishop being Exhibit A.

Totally agree - you and I may be committing an observational fallacy however, between work family and church the only people I know closely are committed LDS.

[Stone holm]

.

I think the ongoing demand we have for exactness might have been the very thing he was addressing... Even the way the question is being asked is seeking a uniform clarity.

He probably meant about a million different things... Heck we are meant to have almost 15 million members so he probably meant at least 15 million different things.

Each member is unique and expressing that uniqueness is good, even if other don't like it or find it to different.

Really you think so? I don't he seemed to be drilling in the okay folks lets knock off the unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap we aren't Amish.

[Bikeemikey]

Really you think so? I don't he seemed to be drilling in the okay folks lets knock off the unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap we aren't Amish.

Agreed...

However you don't battle conformity with lists of now acceptable non-conforming norms.

You just be yourself.

I recently had really close friends leave the church. They left angry. The wife had grown up in the Mormon beltway (between Utah and California) and had felt pressured to live a certain way. Her animosity was that she had been socially coerced into the Mormon way of living.

I didn't mention that by the sounds of it she is blaming the church for having never had the courage to live the life she wanted... But anyway. Social pressures are real and powerful, they are also not unique to the LDS . The talk is applicable to everyone - be who you are... Even if you have to leave some cultural norms by the wayside.

[canard78]

Assuming of course that our political, social, and cultural preferences are not at odds with 'our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments'.

We haven't had General Conference here yet, but what I've read in this thread reminds me of something I heard Pres Hinckley say at a fireside when I was living and studying in America. He told us that members often obsess over things that don't matter instead of caring about the 'weightier matters of the law' because it lets them feel like they are doing many righteous things without actually being very righteous at all.

I agree with you. After listing a few "extremes" (including some I oppose), I'd said: "These are all personal decisions and as long as we can be Christlike as we do them it's fine to do so." I like your version too as it draws on the talk and is more specific.

[canard78]

Interesting, the problem is that both the left and the right often think that they are the one's keeping God's commandments. But though he did mention politics, I did think that he was specifically addressing those who seem to think that all good Mormons should conform to the roles, dress, and lifestyle of the 1950's White Middle class family.

True. But also, that if you do and you like being that way it's fine too. Just let me be the child of hippies lefty bearded tree hugger that I want to be.

[CV75]

Really you think so? I don't he seemed to be drilling in the okay folks lets knock off the unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap we aren't Amish.

Actually, the Amish have been held up a number of times as wonderful examples of forgiveness. Just one example: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

[Stone holm]

Actually, the Amish have been held up a number of times as wonderful examples of forgiveness. Just one example: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

I respect the Amish I had a colony of conservative Amish as neighbors for years, what I was referring to was the regimentation they lived under which controlled even the color of their horses.

[CV75]

I respect the Amish I had a colony of conservative Amish as neighbors for years, what I was referring to was the regimentation they lived under which controlled even the color of their horses.

And for that you hold them up as an example of what the Church considers “unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap”? That actually seems counter to the message in these few lines of Elder Uchdorf’s talk.

[Saints Alive]

I respect the Amish I had a colony of conservative Amish as neighbors for years, what I was referring to was the regimentation they lived under which controlled even the color of their horses.

I understood your point. We (and the Church) should be less concerned with outward appearances and more concerned with a persons spirit.

[CV75]

I understood your point. We (and the Church) should be less concerned with outward appearances and more concerned with a persons spirit.

And then again, the same thing is being done when one holds up an entire religious community as an example of being concerned with outward appearances and not with a person’s spirit.

I am skeptical about the claim anyway, since flashiness of any kind is avoided, and if only particular work horse breeds are available / used in a particular area for practical purposes, this would translate into a narrow range of color. Even if the claim represents a very rare exception, is it not rather a form of diversity than an “unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap” to lay on the Amish community with a broad brush?

Are we now making excuses for using intolerance on a point of diversity to champion diversity as well as to stereotype?

Edited April 12, 2013 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Uh uh. Selfishness is not quite the spirit that is hoped for, but perhaps over time other things may come.

The odd thing is, these are the sorts of things that the kids learn when they are young teenagers. Here we are as adults acting confused.

I don't remember where it is in Scripture where it says the Gospel is for everyone, but thesometimesaint. Would you please point that out? Is it selfish of me to decline its offer? I always though that the Gospel was universal in reach.

[Saints Alive]

And then again, the same thing is being done when one holds up an entire religious community as an example of being concerned with outward appearances and not with a person’s spirit.

I am skeptical about the claim anyway, since flashiness of any kind is avoided, and if only particular work horse breeds are available / used in a particular area for practical purposes, this would translate into a narrow range of color. Even if the claim represents a very rare exception, is it not rather a form of diversity than an “unnecessary cookie cutter uniformity crap” to lay on the Amish community with a broad brush?

Are we now making excuses for using intolerance on a point of diversity to champion diversity as well as to stereotype?

You are stretching his example too far and reading too much into it.

[CASteinman]

I don't remember where it is in Scripture where it says the Gospel is for everyone, but thesometimesaint. Would you please point that out?

Don't know. Don't know why you would want to find that.

Is it selfish of me to decline its offer?

In my view yes. Not sure why you would care about that though.

[CV75]

You are stretching his example too far and reading too much into it.

Not really. First, a few lines out of a talk about roles as priesthood holders is being used as an appeal against traditional white US grooming standards and associating that with racism “here at home” (pinpointing Utah of all places) and unnecessary uniformity (whatever that is, culturally-speaking) as if the same doesn’t go on everywhere else in the world.

But then, to support a point against traditional white Utah Mormons, a negative reference is made about the Amish—but wait, it turns out not the entire religious community, just a small, conservative group of former neighbors who because of their purported uniqueness merit to be picked on and used to portray a false generality.

I can’t think of anything more counter to the talk as a whole or the mini-point made within it about diversity. If you think I’m reading too much into it, maybe you’re not thinking enough about what you are concurring with!

[thesometimesaint]

Don't know. Don't know why you would want to find that.

In my view yes. Not sure why you would care about that though.

Just looking for whom is to be excluded from the Gospel.

I disagree. Because it sets up a dichotomy that is self contradictory.

[CASteinman]

Just looking for whom is to be excluded from the Gospel.

Strange thing to want to find. Jesus has said that in His version of the Gospel, all men will be brought before him and the Father to account. Doesn't seem anyone is excluded.

I disagree. Because it sets up a dichotomy that is self contradictory.

If only it did that, you might have a good point.

As an aside, you seem to be wandering off the subject.

Edited April 12, 2013 by CASteinman

[Saints Alive]

If you think I’m reading too much into it, maybe you’re not thinking enough about what you are concurring with!

[CV75]

I don't understand what you are trying to convey with the icon--would you please explain?

[Saints Alive]

I don't understand what you are trying to convey with the icon--would you please explain?

It is the "rolls eyes" emoticon. I am rolling my eyes at the quoted statement. Edited April 12, 2013 by Saints Alive

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair, that is simply outstanding. You big old grisly Celt! You're exactly who Elder Uchtdorf was talking about. I hope you went to church like that. It certainly looks like a proud Scot's Sunday best.

I never brought the claidheamh mòr inside a chapel, and I don't think I've ever worn my dirk to a church service (I have worn it to weddings and such), but other than that, yes. I've had to get rid of the beard and long hair because I'm looking for a job right now.

(edit to add: could you tell my Mom that she doesn't have to be embarrassed about my kilt?)

Edited April 12, 2013 by Nathair