One woman speaker

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

After reading your post, the following two excepts from the Bible instantaneously came to my mind.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Mathew 10)

and...

13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Eccl 12)

How about the verses from Jesus that says there is no marriage in heaven, do we listen to those?

 

 

²⁷And last of all the woman died also. ²⁸Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. ²⁹Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. ³⁰For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. ³¹But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, ³²I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. ³³And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

[SteveO]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  I do believe that.  God follows his own laws.  It's not an issue of "God damning people".  It's a case of people not following the requirements to receive the blessings.

I think when everything is said and done, people will voluntarily damn themselves.  

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Calm, do you think you may be taking my comments out of context of this thread?  Yes, you know you are and it does not apply.  If someone is evaluating GC or church meetings and making a judgment call on their value solely by determining if "my" gender of choice spoke and how often then there is a problem.  

Why is it so difficult to have a conversation about these types of topics without exaggerating things out of proportion?

You ask that after you said something like value is determined by gender of choice? After all of the explaining that has been offered, that is what you take  from it? But women do exaggerate, I suppose. When they aren't being hysterical.  sigh

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

No, it isn't. My wife is more than capable of working, if needed, and my daughter is very capable, resilient, and competent. My sister has been a single mother for 18 years. And, economically, it is extremely hard to just have one income now, unless the couple make it a #1 priority for dad to work and mom to stay home. 

bsjkki:

 

We have no insurance. Our premium through the school is $10,000 a year, and that is for high-deductible coverage. We would then pay the first $2600 of anything. It is much better for us to roll the dice and take our chances. Luckily, the Obamacare fine was only about $750, which beats the premium and deductible we were paying for absolutely nothing. We wouldn't be able to make ends meet if I had health insurance, and Obamacare is just as expensive. I'm skeptical that there actually are people on Obamacare. My parents, both on social security alone, also would have had to pay $10,000-$15,000 a year in premiums under Obamacare. If they don't qualify for the "subsidies," I'm not sure who would --- unless it is people with absolutely no income. 

Sorry for the derail. This just reminded me of that. 

This could derail further. We have two expensive chronic health conditions in my family so we don't have the ability to be insurance free. With the cost of insurance and the high deductibles...self insuring makes financial sense for a lot of people. I wish there were low cost catastrophic plans still available. Insurance with high premiums and high deductibles hurts and doesn't help the middle class. 

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I think when everything is said and done, people will voluntarily damn themselves.

They do it here, why not there?

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This could derail further. We have two expensive chronic health conditions in my family so we don't have the ability to be insurance free. With the cost of insurance and the high deductibles...self insuring makes financial sense for a lot of people. I wish there were low cost catastrophic plans still available. Insurance with high premiums and high deductibles hurts and doesn't help the middle class. 

What the heck. It's a conference thread, and conference is long over.  

We're lucky, because my wife had a colectomy and an ileectomy back in 2008 (plus the surgeries to put Humpty Dumpty back together again). She is still on high doses of blood thinners for life (she has a clotting disorder, and clots in hundreds of places in her organs without them. Her ileum and part of her colon had died from blood starvation). We would be in very bad shape if there were a hospitalization today. Luckily, we are very healthy right now. But having any kind of insurance (including Obamacare) isn't financially feasible for us --- not even close. 

People who have chronic or expensive health conditions have to have insurance. I just can't imagine having to pay for that. There's no way we could do it.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

What the heck. It's a conference thread, and conference is long over.  

We're lucky, because my wife had a colectomy and an ileectomy back in 2008 (plus the surgeries to put Humpty Dumpty back together again). She is still on high doses of blood thinners for life (she has a clotting disorder, and clots in hundreds of places in her organs without them. Her ileum and part of her colon had died from blood starvation). We would be in very bad shape if there were a hospitalization today. Luckily, we are very healthy right now. But having any kind of insurance (including Obamacare) isn't financially feasible for us --- not even close. 

People who have chronic or expensive health conditions have to have insurance. I just can't imagine having to pay for that. There's no way we could do it.

My daughter and husband have been married over 10 years and have never had insurance either. I worry over it constantly. But I guess if you build up a savings and a hospital would let you make payments at least the money you saved isn't going down the tubes every year like car/home insurance. We've paid home/car insurance for years, thousands, and never used it.

Glad you and you're wife are healthy now!!

[bsjkki]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

What the heck. It's a conference thread, and conference is long over.  

We're lucky, because my wife had a colectomy and an ileectomy back in 2008 (plus the surgeries to put Humpty Dumpty back together again). She is still on high doses of blood thinners for life (she has a clotting disorder, and clots in hundreds of places in her organs without them. Her ileum and part of her colon had died from blood starvation). We would be in very bad shape if there were a hospitalization today. Luckily, we are very healthy right now. But having any kind of insurance (including Obamacare) isn't financially feasible for us --- not even close. 

People who have chronic or expensive health conditions have to have insurance. I just can't imagine having to pay for that. There's no way we could do it.

We have a broken system and the high costs are the problem. Insurance was meant to help people pay for health care but now people are paying high premiums and overwhelming health care costs. It makes no sense. Our out of pocket costs have skyrocketed the last few years. Plus we have to fight and document in order to get any coverage of the needed supplies. It's depressing. I am so happy your family is healthy and I hope it continues. 

I hear stories from many about these problems. I budget my healthcare expenses by cost of insurance ($24000) plus out of pocket max ($5000). We will pay $29000 for health care this year. (I am extremely lucky that I do not have to work...I have the time to semi-homeschool my autistic child who graduates this year. Yay! We may do pathways together this fall.)

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You ask that after you said something like value is determined by gender of choice? After all of the explaining that has been offered, that is what you take  from it? But women do exaggerate, I suppose. When they aren't being hysterical.  sigh

Yup, that will get you a lot of places.  Stupid old males don't understand women - Mars and Venus - but mostly just stupid old men. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, omni said:

Did the Church become a "worldly church" when it abandoned polygamy to gain statehood?

Why would the Church abandon a practice they viewed as a commandment so that Utah could become a state.  That is about as absurd as thinking the Church would abandon the Book of Mormon, the restoration, or Jesus Christ himself if Utah was to be offered a few more congressional seats in return? 

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe girls need to see more women speak also. I guess some men don't get it.

There is the women session of conference.  Does not more women speak in that session?

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, omni said:

Do you really believe that an all loving God would damn an otherwise good person for eternity in the Telestial Kingdom, simply for leaving the Church?

YES.  Apostasy is not a trivial thing.  If one knows the truth and leaves it is a serious offense.  Read the Book of Mormon to see how it views those who leave the Church.  It pleads with them to repent as this is the time for repent and not procrastinate.  There is no indication anywhere in the scriptures that nothing bad will happen if someone leaves the Church.  God may be all loving but God also a just God.  God is a serious God who takes actions seriously.  Leaving the membership of the Church is not like leaving the membership of Costco.  Perhaps some might find residence in the Terrestrial world but that is it.  I understand that many in our modern generation do not really subscribe to consequences to actions but they still do exist.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

There is the women session of conference.  Does not more women speak in that session?

Including the women's session there were a total of 4 talks and 3 prayers given by women over the complete 6 session conference.

Women do speak in womens' conference but if that's the only place they speak the message being sent is that women may speak to other women but their voices aren't important to men.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think God needs us to obey him, not worship.  (Although some would say obedience is worship).
Yes, I think the gospel is to fulfill God's work and glory.  That happens to benefit us too and provide the ultimate fulfillment for us as well.
If we are not becoming like God and obeying his commandments all the warm feelings of closeness will be for naught.

When religion allows sinners to keep their sins it prevents them for coming closer to God.
When religion attempts to unite the wicked with the righteous in a false unity.
When religion drops its God given standards to prevent discrimination.
When religion casts its pearls before swine, profanes the sacred, and seeks popularity.
THEN that religion is worth very little regardless of how many stay.

 

Tell me exactly why God needs us to obey Him.  Because I always thought that we obeyed God for OUR good, not for God's.  He will still be God whether we obey Him or not. He will have glory whether we obey Him or not.  When satan and his followers left heaven, it did not diminish who God is one bit.  Obeying God does not just "happen" to help us, it brings us closer to Him.  It is the very reason to obey Him.

So who is left in this church of yours?  Does a church allow some sinners, but not others?  Does the church allow you to participate?  Have you given up all your sins?  Is the gospel only for those that have given up all sin?  Is it the role of religion to bar the door from sinners until they give up their sins?  No one is saying that the role of a church is not to teach what they feel is the gospel of Christ and to help others overcome sin.  But that is not what you are stating is it.  And that is not what the Mormon church is doing.  The Mormon church wants to keep out of the church those that sin, and their children as well even if they aren't sinning.

These kinds of attitudes are exactly why people have become disalussioned with religion.  Because most people don't view themselves as being without sin.  They want a church that accepts all who wish to draw closer to Christ.  They are not looking for a church that accepts their sins.  They are looking for a church that embraces them despite their sins.  You think this is a false premise?  There are people on this very board that have left the church because of this attitude.  Their children have left as well.  This new interpretation of the gospel of Christ where some are not welcome because they don't meet the sin standard is having an impact.  And so it should.  Because this is not the gospel that Christ taught.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me exactly why God needs us to obey Him.  Because I always thought that we obeyed God for OUR good, not for God's.  He will still be God whether we obey Him or not. He will have glory whether we obey Him or not.  When satan and his followers left heaven, it did not diminish who God is one bit.  Obeying God does not just "happen" to help us, it brings us closer to Him.  It is the very reason to obey Him.

Of course it diminished God when 1/3 part of the host were cast out.  Wouldn't it diminish you to lose a child forever?
What is God's work, glory, even his title?  WE are the glory of God, without us he has less glory.  We are his children, without us his work is less successful.  Yes, God does these things for us.  But all his infinite love isn't enough to make him violate law.  We are required to obey the law to return to him.  And he will sorrow when we refuse.

Quote

So who is left in this church of yours?  Does a church allow some sinners, but not others?  Does the church allow you to participate?  Have you given up all your sins?  Is the gospel only for those that have given up all sin?  Is it the role of religion to bar the door from sinners until they give up their sins?  No one is saying that the role of a church is not to teach what they feel is the gospel of Christ and to help others overcome sin.  But that is not what you are stating is it.  And that is not what the Mormon church is doing.  The Mormon church wants to keep out of the church those that sin, and their children as well even if they aren't sinning.

This type of false martyr attitude attempts to change what I have said.  I have never claimed that sinners were not welcome in the Church, nor that they aren't welcome in God's kingdom.  You like to play to our sympathies - "The Mormon church wants to keep out of the church those that sin."  But that's not actually the case is it?  And you know that.
God sent Christ to pay for our sins and invited all to repent and come to Christ.  The Church does the same (yes, even children of SSM when they are old enough not to become pawns in a conflict between parent belief and church belief.)
God also says that any sin is enough to keep us out of his Kingdom and no unclean thing can enter his presence.
Sinners are welcome in the Church, but not if they are claiming their sins are completely acceptable.  Faith and repentance are the first requirements prior to baptism.  Repentance is a lifelong process but you cannot repent if you don't think what you are doing is wrong.
Those working through the process are welcome.  Those embracing their sin and rejecting repentance are not and should not be.

Quote

These kinds of attitudes are exactly why people have become disalussioned with religion.  Because most people don't view themselves as being without sin.  They want a church that accepts all who wish to draw closer to Christ.  They are not looking for a church that accepts their sins.  They are looking for a church that embraces them despite their sins.  You think this is a false premise?  There are people on this very board that have left the church because of this attitude.  Their children have left as well.  This new interpretation of the gospel of Christ where some are not welcome because they don't meet the sin standard is having an impact.  And so it should.  Because this is not the gospel that Christ taught.

Yes, this is a false premise.  Because these people with sin you mention don't want to be embraced despite their sins.  They want to be allowed to keep their sins.
You are trying to claim that the Church only welcomes those who think they are perfect.  But this is not true.  It's a false premise.  The Church invites any who are working to give up their sins and move closer to Christ.  Those who think they should get to keep their sins and move closer to Christ are deluding themselves.
 

Edited April 5, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Calm, do you think you may be taking my comments out of context of this thread?  Yes, you know you are and it does not apply. 

Have you considered you are unintentionally doing the same thing?

What I was doing was pointing out the inappropriateness of the type of reasoning you are using to tar a group of diverse people with varying POVs.  If your reasoning doesn't work in other contexts, it is a good chance it won't work in the context of conference.

I try very hard to represent others' comments accurately,  intentionally misrepresenting them is the same as lying in my view and I don't appreciate the accusation that I am knowingly manipulating the conversation into inaccuracy of what you are saying.  I may be inaccurate, but I would never do so intentionally for any reason.

I find the use of "You know you are..." or the other version " I know you know you are..." arrogant and ignorant.  I have yet to see someone use that who demonstrates actual insight into what and why something is being said.  Your credibility has plummeted for me.

I am out of this conversation.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Calm

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

You ask that after you said something like value is determined by gender of choice? After all of the explaining that has been offered, that is what you take  from it? But women do exaggerate, I suppose. When they aren't being hysterical.  sigh

We are just too emotional ya know???  Hand me a kerchief...I think I have the vapors..

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

YES.  Apostasy is not a trivial thing.  If one knows the truth and leaves it is a serious offense.  Read the Book of Mormon to see how it views those who leave the Church.  It pleads with them to repent as this is the time for repent and not procrastinate.  There is no indication anywhere in the scriptures that nothing bad will happen if someone leaves the Church.  God may be all loving but God also a just God.  God is a serious God who takes actions seriously.  Leaving the membership of the Church is not like leaving the membership of Costco.  Perhaps some might find residence in the Terrestrial world but that is it.  I understand that many in our modern generation do not really subscribe to consequences to actions but they still do exist.

Welll...i know darn well that if I hit the Telestial Kingdom...i will meet a lot of TBM's there in person!  The person who sits in church and is unkind, uncharitble who judges before Jesus does..will see my face.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Welll...i know darn well that if I hit the Telestial Kingdom...i will meet a lot of TBM's there in person!  The person who sits in church and is unkind, uncharitble who judges before Jesus does..will see my face.

Unless they repent.  Same with you and everyone else.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

There is the women session of conference.  Does not more women speak in that session?

Same as the Priesthood session....all men there. 

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Tell me exactly why God needs us to obey Him.  Because I always thought that we obeyed God for OUR good, not for God's.  He will still be God whether we obey Him or not. He will have glory whether we obey Him or not.  When satan and his followers left heaven, it did not diminish who God is one bit.  Obeying God does not just "happen" to help us, it brings us closer to Him.  It is the very reason to obey Him.

So who is left in this church of yours?  Does a church allow some sinners, but not others?  Does the church allow you to participate?  Have you given up all your sins?  Is the gospel only for those that have given up all sin?  Is it the role of religion to bar the door from sinners until they give up their sins?  No one is saying that the role of a church is not to teach what they feel is the gospel of Christ and to help others overcome sin.  But that is not what you are stating is it.  And that is not what the Mormon church is doing.  The Mormon church wants to keep out of the church those that sin, and their children as well even if they aren't sinning.

These kinds of attitudes are exactly why people have become disalussioned with religion.  Because most people don't view themselves as being without sin.  They want a church that accepts all who wish to draw closer to Christ.  They are not looking for a church that accepts their sins.  They are looking for a church that embraces them despite their sins.  You think this is a false premise?  There are people on this very board that have left the church because of this attitude.  Their children have left as well.  This new interpretation of the gospel of Christ where some are not welcome because they don't meet the sin standard is having an impact.  And so it should.  Because this is not the gospel that Christ taught.

 

 

So much that just isn't so in this post...

http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel

[omni]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

When the Church changes to be more acceptable to the world it becomes a "worldly church".  When God speaks and gives direction it shouldn't matter what the world would think of that direction.
If God wants to end polygamy we end polygamy.  If God wants to start up polygamy we start up polygamy.

Do you believe the Church's desire to become more acceptable to the world (i.e. gain statehood) played any role in the decision to abandon polygamy?

It's hard to see the changes the Church has made throughout it's history and not think "acceptance to the world" played at least some part.  Which, imo is a good thing.  Had the Church not changed and evolved, we'd be talking about an organization with a fraction of the size and influence.

Quote

Yes.  I do believe that.  God follows his own laws.  It's not an issue of "God damning people".  It's a case of people not following the requirements to receive the blessings.

Isn't this the same rationale used by some Islamic leaders who jail or even execute apostates?  

[omni]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

YES.  Apostasy is not a trivial thing.  If one knows the truth and leaves it is a serious offense.  Read the Book of Mormon to see how it views those who leave the Church.  It pleads with them to repent as this is the time for repent and not procrastinate.  There is no indication anywhere in the scriptures that nothing bad will happen if someone leaves the Church.  God may be all loving but God also a just God.  God is a serious God who takes actions seriously.  Leaving the membership of the Church is not like leaving the membership of Costco.  Perhaps some might find residence in the Terrestrial world but that is it.  I understand that many in our modern generation do not really subscribe to consequences to actions but they still do exist.

This will be my last post on the subject so as not to derail the thread anymore.  

I realize this is what the BoM states, but think about it for a minute, does it actually make logical sense?  Would a perfectly just and loving God damn one of his children for eternity (i.e. in 1 trillion years he will essentially be "just getting started") for simply having a change of faith?

If this is true, then it makes the Taliban look quite reasonable in comparison.

 

 

 

[Garden Girl]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How about the verses from Jesus that says there is no marriage in heaven, do we listen to those?

²⁷And last of all the woman died also. ²⁸Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. ²⁹Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. ³⁰For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. ³¹But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, ³²I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. ³³And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

You need to study more on this, Tacenda... Jesus doesn't say there is no marriage in Heaven... He says they neither marry nor are given in marriage... which is why we perform the ordinance of temple marriage/sealing now, and why temple work will be a focus in the Millenium prior to final judgment...  in 1 Cor 11:11-12 "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."  In Matt 16:19 Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom..."And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  

LDS believe these keys were restored to Joseph, and as with Peter, with the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven...  these keys he delegated and today Pres Monson holds those keys, which he delegates to those who perform the temple ordinances... including the binding, or sealing, ordinances.  There is no doubt in my mind that my marriage to my husband has been sealed by one with authority under the keys and our marriage is eternal.

GG

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Garden Girl

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, omni said:

This will be my last post on the subject so as not to derail the thread anymore.  

I realize this is what the BoM states, but think about it for a minute, does it actually make logical sense?  Would a perfectly just and loving God damn one of his children for eternity (i.e. in 1 trillion years he will essentially be "just getting started") for simply having a change of faith?

If this is true, then it makes the Taliban look quite reasonable in comparison.

 

 

 

Your comparisons of the LDS faith to the Taliban are starting to irritate...