Who heard the disruption?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If they put it that close to 89 they will definitely need to make that road a freeway and that is going to make a lot of people who live along there very angry.  It's already a disaster at certain times of the day though.

Edit-is there enough vacant land east of Smiths?  From my memory, that area is really hilly and, aside from the ravines, mostly built on already.

 

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I might be in that area today i'll check. 

See here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0615103,-111.9385882,399m/data=!3m1!1e3

Also, I have no direct knowledge. Just passing along what I've seen in a couple places on facebook.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If they put it that close to 89 they will definitely need to make that road a freeway and that is going to make a lot of people who live along there very angry.  It's already a disaster at certain times of the day though.

Edit-is there enough vacant land east of Smiths?  From my memory, that area is really hilly and, aside from the ravines, mostly built on already.

89 is already a headache..hate to see more construction  as this is always the route travel to other family. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

See here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0615103,-111.9385882,399m/data=!3m1!1e3

Also, I have no direct knowledge. Just passing along what I've seen in a couple places on facebook.

I would like that spot better than west Layton. It’s onle a couple of miles south of my house. 

Guess we’ll have to wait and see. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I found the more obnoxious disruption the sound effects accompanying the temple announcements in the last session. That was a more general lack of reverence by people most of whom should know better.

 

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

them's my sentiments as well

 

4 hours ago, Prof said:

Mine as well!

Agreed it was inappropriate. But more obnoxious than the hostile yelling during the meeting? Hardly.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is the conference center a more sacred place than the chapel?  We perform ordinances in the chapel.  As amazing and awesome as the conference center is, it's just a room built to accommodate a large group of people, isn't it? (Not to take anything away from the conference center.  The spirit is strong there).

I've seen (and even engaged in) some rather boisterous applause in the Conference Center during Tabernacle Choir concerts.

I think more determinative than the location is the overall setting. It is, after all, a worship service, or, as Smac97 is wont to call it, a sacred convocation.

In some areas, sacrament meeting has been held in a Moose lodge in which Church members have had to sweep up cigarette butts from the night before to prepare for the meeting. Reverence and decorum would be expected there as surely as if it had been a dedicated meetinghouse with carpet and pews.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've seen (and even engaged in) some rather boisterous applause in the Conference Center.   during Tabernacle Choir concerts.

I think more determinative than the location is the overall setting. It is, after all, a worship service, or, as Smac97 is wont to call it, a sacred convocation.

In some areas, sacrament meeting has been held in a Moose lodge in which Church members have had to sweep up cigarette butts from the night before to prepare for the meeting. Reverence and decorum would be expected there as surely as if it had been a dedicated meetinghouse with carpet and pews.

I remember having church in an old school house...but for me..on good days in my childhood with family....the reverence in home is awesome..because you don't expect to find it there...but the spirit can be anywhere. Sacred is in the heart,  It is not a place.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've seen (and even engaged in) some rather boisterous applause in the Conference Center during Tabernacle Choir concerts.

I think more determinative than the location is the overall setting. It is, after all, a worship service, or, as Smac97 is wont to call it, a sacred convocation.

In some areas, sacrament meeting has been held in a Moose lodge in which Church members have had to sweep up cigarette butts from the night before to prepare for the meeting. Reverence and decorum would be expected there as surely as if it had been a dedicated meetinghouse with carpet and pews.

True, but laughter and shouts of praise have often been a part of our most sacred meetings. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

True, but laughter and shouts of praise have often been a part of our most sacred meetings. 

True, but the vocalization is more directed than spontaneous (singing and the Hosannah shout, for example).

And it is very easy for laughter to get out of hand. I realized that the other day when sitting in a class at church.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True, but the vocalization is more directed than spontaneous (singing and the Hosannah shout, for example).

And it is very easy for laughter to get out of hand. I realized that the other day when sitting in a class at church.

Is spontaneous praise always inappropriate?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is spontaneous praise always inappropriate?

I don't know. I don't think I've ever heard it at an LDS service.

Didn't one of the conference speakers address that this time? He took a friend to church. The friend said the service was not as "lively" as he was used to. The man who took him responded by asking him how he would behave if the Savior were to come to the meeting. The friend replied that he would go to his knees in humility.

Am I mis-remembering this? I don't have the time or wherewithal to readily look it up just now.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know. I don't think I've ever heard it at an LDS service.

Didn't one of the conference speakers address that this time? He took a friend to church. The friend said the service was not as "lively" as he was used to. The man who took him responded by asking him how he would behave if the Savior were to come to the meeting. The friend replied that he would go to his knees in humility.

Am I mis-remembering this? I don't have the time or wherewithal to readily look it up just now.

It  happened yesterday in General Conference.  The prophet did not seem at all bothered by it.  Besides that spontaneous celebration does not have to equal 'living services.'  It's weird to think that celebrations are only allowed in sacred places or circumstances if they have been directed beforehand.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is spontaneous praise always inappropriate?

I thought the audience reaction to the temples was cool! It was genuine.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I thought the audience reaction to the temples was cool! It was genuine.

I did too.  

[provoman]

Call me old fashioned or whatever, 

But I found the reaction frm the congregation uncouth and a lack of decorum.; I was disappointed with the reactions.

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by provoman

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It  happened yesterday in General Conference.  The prophet did not seem at all bothered by it.  Besides that spontaneous celebration does not have to equal 'living services.'  It's weird to think that celebrations are only allowed in sacred places or circumstances if they have been directed beforehand.

You said “spontaneous praise” before. That made think of what happens in many evangelical congregations. 

Now you’ve changed it to “celebration.” Doesn’t strike me as quite the same thing. 

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said “spontaneous praise” before. That made think of what happens in many evangelical congregations. 

Now you’ve changed it to “celebration.” Doesn’t strike me as quite the same thing. 

I meant it to be the same thing. But, this discussion isn’t important and I don’t want to get into semantics so we can probably just move on. 

[Tacenda]

They're pretty excited in Layton. Looks like SeekingUnderstanding was pretty much correct. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46292553

[CA Steve]

I wonder if she had yelled "Stop non-consensual immorality", would her disruption have been any better received?

Washington Post article on Elder Cook's conference talk.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by CA Steve
For accuracy

[Danzo]

23 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I wonder if she had yelled "Stop non-consensual morality", would her disruption have been any better received?

Washington Post article on Elder Cook's conference talk.

 

 

Talk about making someone an offender for a word.

I'll have to use this article as an example for our next family counsel.

Like the great philosopher once said "haters gona hate"

 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Talk about making someone an offender for a word.

I'll have to use this article as an example for our next family counsel.

Like the great philosopher once said "haters gona hate"

 

So you don't see a problem? Why is it the leaders of this church can do no wrong? I'll agree with CA, I don't like how Elder Cook said this. It's such a soft way to disguise the word "rape" or "sexual assault". In fact, I'm curious to know how it will be worded in the Ensign when conference talks are put out in May. 

I guess if a TBM said the same thing people look the other way or may even agree on this board. 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Tacenda

[Gray]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

It  happened yesterday in General Conference.  The prophet did not seem at all bothered by it.  Besides that spontaneous celebration does not have to equal 'living services.'  It's weird to think that celebrations are only allowed in sacred places or circumstances if they have been directed beforehand.

Celebrating is only appropriate when you're being told to celebrate. That way the audience is not actually feeling celebratory, and so will celebrate with reverent hesitance. Actually feeling like celebrating and doing so during a service sets a dangerous precedence. Things could quickly get out of hand.

/s

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Talk about making someone an offender for a word.

I'll have to use this article as an example for our next family counsel.

Like the great philosopher once said "haters gona hate"

 

I agree - it's obvious what he meant to say.

I didn't hear the talk. I hope he made it clear that rape is a much, much more serious sin than consensual premarital sex.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So you don't see a problem? Why is it the leaders of this church can do no wrong? I'll agree with CA, I don't like how Elder Cook said this. It's such a soft way to disguise the word "rape" or "sexual assault". In fact, I'm curious to know how it will be worded in the Ensign when conference talks are put out in May. 

We do get some very torturous euphemistic expressions used in the Church. 

It isn't the "non-consentual" part that's a problem. Putting that with "morality" is strange. We all know what he meant, but it's a strange way to put it. "Non-consentual sex" is a euphemism for rape or assault, but equating "sex" with "morality" is strained and tortured. 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So you don't see a problem? Why is it the leaders of this church can do no wrong? I'll agree with CA, I don't like how Elder Cook said this. It's such a soft way to disguise the word "rape" or "sexual assault". In fact, I'm curious to know how it will be worded in the Ensign when conference talks are put out in May. 

I guess if a TBM said the same thing people look the other way or may even agree on this board. 

This time, the church leader didn't do any wrong.  

When you heard this talk, did you think that he was saying that victims of sexual abuse are at fault?

Because I didn't hear that at all.  My wife (who was a victim of child sexual abuse) did not hear that at all.

If you heard that, then you and I (and Elder Cook, I suspect) are just not speaking the same language.  

That, is I think is the biggest problem with this protect LDS children movement. That is why they are going to fail.  

I brought this up with our teenage children the other night and they had the same reaction (Huh?, what are they talking about?). 

I explained to them that these people want to force parents(or other adults)  to attend interviews with their children.  My children both thought that was a stupid idea.  Why would they want their parents in their interviews?  What if they wanted talk about something they didn't want others to know about?   Isn't privacy one of the points to having an interview in the first place? These children are smart enough to know the purposes of the interview.

Me and my wife explained to our children that although the vast majority of the bishops are good people, the Lord doesn't take away their free agency when they get a call.  They are still subject to temptations and there have even been church leaders who have fallen (I mentioned Judas Iscariot, Richard Lyman, George P Lee a former stake president of ours they know that is going to spend some time in jail (not for abuse)).  Being a priesthood holder doesn't give a person license to act unrighteous.  They are free to walk out of an interview if they feel uncomfortable.

We also told them, that as parents we didn't feel that it was our obligation to hide them in some hole in the ground because someone might do something bad to them, but to prepare them and give them the tools to deal with problems and conflicts that are going to happen to them whether we like it our not. 

My 8 year old did admit that he was a bit uncomfortable talking with the bishop alone for his baptismal interview because there was a jar of chocolates on the bishop's desk and he was hungry at the time. 

 

[CA Steve]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

We do get some very torturous euphemistic expressions used in the Church. 

It isn't the "non-consentual" part that's a problem. Putting that with "morality" is strange. We all know what he meant, but it's a strange way to put it. "Non-consentual sex" is a euphemism for rape or assault, but equating "sex" with "morality" is strained and tortured. 

The entire phrase is horrible.

Can you imagine how a woman would feel if the lawyer prosecuting her assault or rape, got up in a courtroom and told the jury  she was a victim of  "non-consensual immorality"?

Edited April 3, 2018 by CA Steve
for accuracy