First Session of GC Sept 2016

[Calm]

For those who missed it like me, here it is (I think, url is really weird):

https://www.lds.org/general-conference?cid=HP_SA_24-9-2016_dPFD_fLHNA_xLIDyL1-C_&lang=eng

[Rain]

Thank you calm.  I loved it.  

 It was such a balm to my heart after the last few weeks of hardly being able to stand being at church.  

Loved that 2 of the talks encouraged us strongly to learn doctrine.  I have seen this since I was in seminary more than 30 years ago.  Women DO need to learn doctrine and so many shy away from it. I need to watch for the quote about the kingdom of God not being able to function unless we stand up as women of faith, learn doctrine and fulfill our callings with the power that comes from learning and teaching doctrine. That may be more than one quote. 

Loved when Sister Stephens talks about the Savior giving us comfort over loved ones.  I need to look up what she quoted from Elder Scott about not suffering from the sins of others.  

Then after Sister Stephen's talk I felt Elder Uchtdorf's talk sort of finished what she said.  He acknowledged that that faith cannot violate another's agency.  I have heard so many talks the last few weeks about agency being great and a mother's faith doing wonders and miracles happening and they have just been such a source of pain to me.  Then to have him say that having faith does not change that agency, but it means that we trust in God's wisdom and love. Beautiful!     

Edited September 25, 2016 by Rain

[Duncan]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

Thank you calm.  I loved it.  

 It was such a balm to my heart after the last few weeks of hardly being able to stand being at church.  

Loved that 2 of the talks encouraged us strongly to learn doctrine.  I have seen this since I was in seminary more than 30 years ago.  Women DO need to learn doctrine and so many shy away from it. I need to watch for the quote about the kingdom of God not being able to function unless we stand up as women of faith, learn doctrine and fulfill out callings with the power that comes from learning and teaching doctrine. That may be more than one quote. 

Loved when Sister Stephens talks about the Savior giving us comfort over loved ones.  I need to look up what she quoted from Elder Scott about not suffering from the sins of others.  

Then after Sister Stephens talk I felt Elder Uchtdorf's talk sort of finished what she said.  He acknowledged that that faith cannot violate another's agency.  I have heard so many talks the last few weeks about agency being great and a mother's faith doing wonders and miracles happening and they have just been such a source of pain to me.  Then to have him say that having faith does not change that agency, but it means that we trust in God's wisdom and love. Beautiful!     

if you find that quotation from Elder Scott please share!

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you find that quotation from Elder Scott please share!

"If you are free of serious sin yourself, don’t suffer needlessly the consequences of another’s sins. As a wife, husband, parent, or loved one, you can feel compassion for one who is in the gall of bitterness from sin. Yet you should not take upon yourself a feeling of responsibility for those acts. When you have done what is reasonable to help one you love, lay the burden at the feet of the Savior. He has invited you to do that so that you can be free from pointless worry and depression.11 As you so act, not only will you find peace but will demonstrate your faith in the power of the Savior to lift the burden of sin from a loved one through his repentance and obedience."

To be free of heavy burdens

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't have occasion to tune in to the session (my wife and daughter watched it at the stake center).

But I love this quote from Bonnie Oscarson I read just now in the Deseret News coverage by my colleague Sarah Jane Weaver:
 

Quote

 

Sister Oscarson said she worries that members live in such an atmosphere of avoiding offense that they sometimes avoid teaching correct principles. “We fail to teach our young women that preparing to be a mother is of utmost importance because we don’t want to offend those who aren’t married, those who can’t have children, or to be seen as stifling future choices,” she said.

“On the other hand, we may also fail to emphasize the importance of education because we don’t want to send the message that it is more important than marriage. We avoid declaring that our Heavenly Father defines marriage as being between a man and woman because we don’t want to offend those who experience same-sex attraction. And we may find it uncomfortable to discuss gender issues or healthy sexuality.”

Sister Oscarson asked women to use not only sensitivity but also common sense and their understanding of the plan of salvation to be bold and straightforward. “If we don’t teach our children and youth true doctrine — and teach it clearly — the world will teach them Satan’s lies.”

 

 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I love President Uchtdorf. I really do.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I love President Uchtdorf. I really do.

Yeah, fabulous talk!

All we need is the spirit!  Forget apologetics!

That was a landmark, imo.   I am gonna use it all the time!

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, fabulous talk!

All we need is the spirit!  Forget apologetics!

That was a landmark, imo.   I am gonna use it all the time!

That interpretation is rather contrary to Sister Stephens? who talked about women learning about the issues and then teaching their children how to deal with them through doctrine, etc.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

That interpretation is rather contrary to Sister Stephens? who talked about women learning about the issues and then teaching their children how to deal with them through doctrine, etc.

No I don't think so necessarily- you certainly need both parts of it in apologetics at least.  You need to be able to make an intelligent argument but then the final analysis is that it all boils down to the spirit anyway.

I mean we can learn the doctrine, but what is doctrine based on anyway?  Revelation.  How do you know revelations are "true" or the doctrine itself true?  Revelation.  So eventually revelation is what it all boils down to imo.

It's like the old "the prophet will never lead us astray" argument.  It kind of begs the question because the only way to know that the prophet is or is NOT leading us astray is by our own testimonies.  We can only accept the prophet by Moroni 10 or Alma 32 anyway.  Absent that, who would believe in gold plates and prophets at all?   I mean that can be seen as Jim Jones kind of stuff.

So yes, know the doctrine and reason it out, but in the final analysis it's personal revelation all the way down!   So say I at any rate!

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

That interpretation is rather contrary to Sister Stephens? who talked about women learning about the issues and then teaching their children how to deal with them through doctrine, etc.

It's the Spirit that converts. But defense (apologetics) keeps the ground unencumbered so that belief may flourish. (See Austin Farrer quote.)

[The Nehor]

But the first session is not until Saturday. 

[Guest]

On September 25, 2016 at 0:11 AM, Rain said:

Thank you calm.  I loved it.  

 It was such a balm to my heart after the last few weeks of hardly being able to stand being at church.  

Loved that 2 of the talks encouraged us strongly to learn doctrine.  I have seen this since I was in seminary more than 30 years ago.  Women DO need to learn doctrine and so many shy away from it. I need to watch for the quote about the kingdom of God not being able to function unless we stand up as women of faith, learn doctrine and fulfill our callings with the power that comes from learning and teaching doctrine. 

I was asked about 20 years ago to teach a Relief Society lesson about "Searching the Scriptures". In the class  told the sisters that scripture scholarship is not a Priesthood calling, I told them it is the calling of every member, and that their husbands or fathers are no more apt to understand the doctrines of the kingdom that they were. It was a big hit, I then challenged them to become scholars. I was frightened out of my mind teaching a room full of Sisters, but it went very well. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Bill (Papa) Lee said:

I was asked about 20 years ago to teach a Relief Society lesson about "Searching the Scriptures". In the class  told the sisters that scripture scholarship is not a Priesthood calling, I told them it is the calling of every member, and that their husbands or fathers are no more apt to understand the doctrines of the kingdom that they were. It was a big hit, I then challenged them to become scholars. I was frightened out of my mind teaching a room full of Sisters, but it went very well. 

It has been an odd thing to me.  My parents never made it seem like it was a male thing yet I have met a number of women who go to their husbands on doctrine rather than search themselves. Perhaps it is a normal imbalance when men go on missions. My dad didn't go, but I did. I feel like my husband and I are balanced. One of the things I have taught my daughter is that if she doesn't choose to go that she still should search the scriptures and learn them well so there isn't that imbalance when the guys get home. 

[mnn727]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I love President Uchtdorf. I really do.

Yeah, he was scheduled to speak at our Stake Conference - the weekend President Hinckley passed away. Which of course canceled his visit.

We did get Elder Christofferson the following year though.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Bill (Papa) Lee said:

I was asked about 20 years ago to teach a Relief Society lesson about "Searching the Scriptures". In the class  told the sisters that scripture scholarship is not a Priesthood calling, I told them it is the calling of every member, and that their husbands or fathers are no more apt to understand the doctrines of the kingdom that they were. It was a big hit, I then challenged them to become scholars. I was frightened out of my mind teaching a room full of Sisters, but it went very well. 

Just before my resignation, I wanted to be sure and invited to my home the Bishop, his counselors and my RS president who was also a very close friend.  I valued how she would feel and whatever feed back should could give to my questions.  Her answer was flat.  "I am not into deep doctrine".  Shoot..I had counted on her to at least care enough to contribute.  It is I feel very revelent that women in all wards..perhaps in all churches, are able to understand and want to understand any deep doctrine.  The women I know on this board are unique and I value that.

[Boanerges]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I love President Uchtdorf. I really do.

I'd give you a rep point if I could.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just before my resignation, I wanted to be sure and invited to my home the Bishop, his counselors and my RS president who was also a very close friend.  I valued how she would feel and whatever feed back should could give to my questions.  Her answer was flat.  "I am not into deep doctrine".  Shoot..I had counted on her to at least care enough to contribute.  It is I feel very revelent that women in all wards..perhaps in all churches, are able to understand and want to understand any deep doctrine.  The women I know on this board are unique and I value that.

I'm sad to say I'd have been that woman who wasn't into deep doctrine, as were many that I knew in the ward. I remember when I first learned of JS's certain polygamy and happened to mention it to my visiting teachers to get some help and see if they'd know about it. One of these ladies said, she didn't want to know anything, because she didn't want her testimony hurt in any way. So that was when I realized I couldn't say a word to anyone for fear of hurting their testimony. Which lead me here to get answers. And remember hearing that people study their way out of the church. 

Strange but true, I guess. 

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sad to say I'd have been that woman who wasn't into deep doctrine, as were many that I knew in the ward. I remember when I first learned of JS's certain polygamy and happened to mention it to my visiting teachers to get some help and see if they'd know about it. One of these ladies said, she didn't want to know anything, because she didn't want her testimony hurt in any way. So that was when I realized I couldn't say a word to anyone for fear of hurting their testimony. Which lead me here to get answers. And remember hearing that people study their way out of the church. 

Strange but true, I guess. 

How does one have a testimony on things she doesn't know?  There is line upon line, I realize that..but the core of many things are obsolete if you don't get into study and asking questions.  I, too, wish that I had studied more. 

[ERayR]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, fabulous talk!

All we need is the spirit!  Forget apologetics!

That was a landmark, imo.   I am gonna use it all the time!

My wife came home and almost all she could talk about was Pres. Uchtdorf's talk.  I haven't had a chance but I am going to have to listen to it myself.

[Glenn101]

56 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just before my resignation, I wanted to be sure and invited to my home the Bishop, his counselors and my RS president who was also a very close friend.  I valued how she would feel and whatever feed back should could give to my questions.  Her answer was flat.  "I am not into deep doctrine".  Shoot..I had counted on her to at least care enough to contribute.  It is I feel very revelent that women in all wards..perhaps in all churches, are able to understand and want to understand any deep doctrine.  The women I know on this board are unique and I value that.

 

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sad to say I'd have been that woman who wasn't into deep doctrine, as were many that I knew in the ward. I remember when I first learned of JS's certain polygamy and happened to mention it to my visiting teachers to get some help and see if they'd know about it. One of these ladies said, she didn't want to know anything, because she didn't want her testimony hurt in any way. So that was when I realized I couldn't say a word to anyone for fear of hurting their testimony. Which lead me here to get answers. And remember hearing that people study their way out of the church. 

Strange but true, I guess. 

Jeanne and Tacenda, I do not know what you believe now. If you still believe in God, where will you go? I don't know what questions you have, what doctrines of the church turned you away (although polygamy seems to be a major hop button issue for many).  But to what denomination would you turn for answers?

From a Biblical perspective, I think that the LDS religion is the most rational of all of the Christian religions.

When we are told in the Bible that God is our Father in Heaven, we are also taught that we look like him, that He has a body si,ilar in form to that which we have. Paul affirms that when he said in his epistle that to the Hebrews that Jesus was  " the express image of his person" referring to God the Father.

The necessity of baptism is affirmed, but with the knowledge that many millions of people have lived and died without baptism, provisions have been made by God so that all will have the opportunity.

There are so many others, but I will just quote the second article of faith "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

As I noted in a previous post somewhere, I would have to become an atheist if I were to ever conclude that the LDS church is not what it is claimed to be.

In all honesty, I have not received a testimony of whether or not polygamy was commanded of God. I actually have not prayed about it. I have prayed about the Book of Mormon and about Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. I have received very emphatic affirmations to both. I accept Joseph's words that he did receive that commandment. I am a person that has been sealed to two women, one deceased and one living. I do not know what the situation will be come the next phase. It is something that I have put on my shelf. The whole polygamy question is one I have put on my shelf.

I actually do not have any qualms about the practice of polygamy (as long as it is someone else that is doing it). But, if were to be proven conclusively that Joseph Smith never received that commandment, it would not affect my testimony of the restoration of the Gospel, of the Book of Mormon, or that Joseph was a prophet. I would be saddened that he had strayed, much as I am saddened that King David strayed, in that matter. It is because my testimony came via the Holy Ghost. If Joseph did stray, he was still the instrument of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (now of the Latter-Day Saints). He still translated the Book of Mormon, and it was by the gift and power of God. He still was a prophet of God, and God will judge and deal with Joseph for any of Joseph's follies.

Whatever the case, the saving ordinances that open the gates to salvation and exaltation, the sealing power that is able to bind families together forever, and the authority (not to mention the knowledge to employ that authority) has been restored.

The Adam-God theory and all of the other "problems" of Mormonism are but distractions to me. They have no bearing upon my own salvation or exaltation or that of anyone else.

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I love President Uchtdorf. I really do.

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, fabulous talk!

All we need is the spirit!  Forget apologetics!

That was a landmark, imo.   I am gonna use it all the time!

One might not have been alert to this unless one was privy to a copy of President Uchtdorf's written text with footnotes, but four times in his talk he quoted from the New International Version of the Bible instead of the King James Version.

I know it is not uncommon for LDS scholars to cite Bible translations other than the King James Version in their writings and discourse. But as far as I am aware, this is the first time a Church leader has done that in a general conference talk. I suppose it's OK, since President Uchtdorf did it and he is a member of the First Presidency.

Is anyone here aware of any instance when that has happened before?

 

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

One might not have been alert to this unless one was privy to a copy of President Uchtdorf's written text with footnotes, but four times in his talk he quoted from the New International Version of the Bible instead of the King James Version.

I know it is not uncommon for LDS scholars to cite Bible translations other than the King James Version in their writings and discourse. But as far as I am aware, this is the first time a Church leader has done that in a general conference talk. I suppose it's OK, since President Uchtdorf did it and he is a member of the First Presidency.

Is anyone here aware of any instance when that has happened before?

 

It's sure easier to understand, the New International Bible!

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

 

Jeanne and Tacenda, I do not know what you believe now. If you still believe in God, where will you go? I don't know what questions you have, what doctrines of the church turned you away (although polygamy seems to be a major hop button issue for many).  But to what denomination would you turn for answers?

From a Biblical perspective, I think that the LDS religion is the most rational of all of the Christian religions.

When we are told in the Bible that God is our Father in Heaven, we are also taught that we look like him, that He has a body si,ilar in form to that which we have. Paul affirms that when he said in his epistle that to the Hebrews that Jesus was  " the express image of his person" referring to God the Father.

The necessity of baptism is affirmed, but with the knowledge that many millions of people have lived and died without baptism, provisions have been made by God so that all will have the opportunity.

There are so many others, but I will just quote the second article of faith "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

As I noted in a previous post somewhere, I would have to become an atheist if I were to ever conclude that the LDS church is not what it is claimed to be.

In all honesty, I have not received a testimony of whether or not polygamy was commanded of God. I actually have not prayed about it. I have prayed about the Book of Mormon and about Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. I have received very emphatic affirmations to both. I accept Joseph's words that he did receive that commandment. I am a person that has been sealed to two women, one deceased and one living. I do not know what the situation will be come the next phase. It is something that I have put on my shelf. The whole polygamy question is one I have put on my shelf.

I actually do not have any qualms about the practice of polygamy (as long as it is someone else that is doing it). But, if were to be proven conclusively that Joseph Smith never received that commandment, it would not affect my testimony of the restoration of the Gospel, of the Book of Mormon, or that Joseph was a prophet. I would be saddened that he had strayed, much as I am saddened that King David strayed, in that matter. It is because my testimony came via the Holy Ghost. If Joseph did stray, he was still the instrument of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (now of the Latter-Day Saints). He still translated the Book of Mormon, and it was by the gift and power of God. He still was a prophet of God, and God will judge and deal with Joseph for any of Joseph's follies.

Whatever the case, the saving ordinances that open the gates to salvation and exaltation, the sealing power that is able to bind families together forever, and the authority (not to mention the knowledge to employ that authority) has been restored.

The Adam-God theory and all of the other "problems" of Mormonism are but distractions to me. They have no bearing upon my own salvation or exaltation or that of anyone else.

Glenn

Glenn, I don't have church nor have I looked for one.  In my mind I will just took good things I learned from the LDS church and apply them in doing good things and service to others.  My church yesterday was a long river walk after work..with the leaves changing..the quite and a sense of divine in the nature of things brought me almost to prayer.  After so many lies and confusion, I place value in my intuition and personal prayers and living life to best I can.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It's sure easier to understand, the New International Bible!

That might be a reason why President Uchtdorf, whose native tongue is not English, likes to quote from it.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

One might not have been alert to this unless one was privy to a copy of President Uchtdorf's written text with footnotes, but four times in his talk he quoted from the New International Version of the Bible instead of the King James Version.

I know it is not uncommon for LDS scholars to cite Bible translations other than the King James Version in their writings and discourse. But as far as I am aware, this is the first time a Church leader has done that in a general conference talk. I suppose it's OK, since President Uchtdorf did it and he is a member of the First Presidency.

Is anyone here aware of any instance when that has happened before?

 

Give me the truth in Elizabethan English or don't give it to me at all!