Thoughts on conference

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

In my experience, Church leaders share messages that are good for those who are hearing to hear, so even if a parent doesn't agree that their young children should hear it, I would say that it is good for those who can hear it to hear it, anyway.

So in your opinion, church leaders can preempt by not consulting or announcing the topic prior to a talk or discussion the parents' decision not to expose their children yet to a certain teaching even though the Church teaches it is the parents' decision?

Edited October 7, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I am curious about these 8 year olds who have supposedly never heard of homosexuality because their parents have not told them about it yet. Are they all home schooled?

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am curious about these 8 year olds who have supposedly never heard of homosexuality because their parents have not told them about it yet. Are they all home schooled?

This had been my question as well. We live in a fairly rural, predominantly LDS area and my kids saw this as young as 5. A same-sex couple moved into our neighborhood and I've been impressed by the welcome they and their children have received. They attend every Ward activity, exposing children as young as a few months to their relationship. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am curious about these 8 year olds who have supposedly never heard of homosexuality because their parents have not told them about it yet. Are they all home schooled?

 

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This had been my question as well. We live in a fairly rural, predominantly LDS area and my kids saw this as young as 5. A same-sex couple moved into our neighborhood and I've been impressed by the welcome they and their children have received. They attend every Ward activity, exposing children as young as a few months to their relationship. 

 

President Oaks' address did far more than mention homosexuality.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

So much for sharing your spouse with others then....

My understanding back then, 17 years ago, was that women needed to be willing to loose any sealing to any previous husband before being able to be sealed to another man as a husbansd, and that is why I asked her if she was willing to do that.  And her understanding back then was pretty much the same as my understanding then too, which is why she gave careful thought to that issue before giving me her answer.   We're still going through the motions of being sealed to each other, though, so we're still trying to find out how this actually works.  We've talked with several bishops about this before and received various answers according to what they thought, procrastinating going through with it for various reasons, and our current bishop hasn't had any experience before with things like this so we're still waiting for him to get back to us after he checks with the stake president and feels right about what he is going to be telling us.  

So while we don't know yet, I am willing to share her with him, on several levels. I"m sure I will get to be good friends with her first husband if we both receive celestial glory and continue to see my wife's children, which are now our children as she shares them with me.  There are many ways we share people with other people.  We never have anyone all to ourselves with no other people in their lives which they don't also share themselves with.  This whole idea about sharing people with other people isn't difficult for me to accept.  The main thing I wonder about is that if she has sexual relations with him as well as me how will we be able to tell which of her children are his and which of them are mine.  I mean, who will be the actual Father?  I'm currently sharing her 2 sons with her now though and I suppose I would share any of her other children she might have with him later if they were to have any, but I would still kind of like to know which of her children would be mine, biologically.  If we're ever going to get to the point that we know everything about everything I suppose there will be some way to find out but I would kind of like to know right now!  Just because I would like to be able to understand how all of that would work out.

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

So in your opinion, church leaders can preempt by not consulting or announcing the topic prior to a talk or discussion the parents' decision not to expose their children yet to a certain teaching even though the Church teaches it is the parents' decision?

Judge for yourself by what just happened during this past conference address where supposedly there were some young children who heard from our Church leaders what some parents say they didn't want their children to hear.

Did those children hear what they heard without their parents permission?  Without parents doing anything at all to help their children to hear and understand what our Church leaders told them?  Not even taking them to hear what those Church leaders said?

[ksfisher]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

So in your opinion, church leaders can preempt by not consulting or announcing the topic prior to a talk or discussion the parents' decision not to expose their children yet to a certain teaching even though the Church teaches it is the parents' decision?

Do you have some of the quotes that are offending people so much.  I didn't watch/listen and the transcript isn't up on the church's web site yet. 

My 16 year old daughter came back from the meeting and said, in particular,  that President Oaks' talk was very good.

Edited October 7, 2019 by ksfisher

[Jake Starkey]

OK, get me straight.  Are all of you saying you all agree on everything the leadership teaches and says?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have some of the quotes that are offending people so much.  I didn't watch/listen and the transcript isn't up on the church's web site yet. 

My 16 year old daughter came back from the meeting and said, in particular,  that President Oaks' talk was very good.

I am just going off the comments here (so they should provide the specific comments rather than me guessing) and previous comments I have been aware of about local leaders sometimes skipping consultation/announcement before teaching sensitive subjects )(therefore no quotes available).  Parents generally expect that from schools or media exposure or friends, so it happening at church is rather disconcerting and may bother them more than if others do it.

It is not a typical complaint outside of youth interviews as I recall.

There are probably very few things I would not discuss with a 16 year old these days, but there is a mass of stuff I wouldn't share with an 8 year old.  You might ask your daughter if she would feel comfortable discussing the talk with any 8 year old girls she knows.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

Just for clarification. Is it a common LDS belief (meaning most believe it) that you will be living in literal physical houses in the celestial kingdom? From the discussion here it seems so, but sometimes this board (from what I gather) isn't necessarily representative of the common/standard view.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Are all of you saying you all agree on everything the leadership teaches and says?

Not sure where you get that idea.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just for clarification. Is it a common LDS belief (meaning most believe it) that you will be living in literal physical houses in the celestial kingdom? From the discussion here it seems so, but sometimes this board (from what I gather) isn't necessarily representative of the common/standard view.

We do generally assume that we will have some kind of place of abode, since we will be in resurrected bodies and occupy actual space.

[Ahab]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Just for clarification. Is it a common LDS belief (meaning most believe it) that you will be living in literal physical houses in the celestial kingdom? From the discussion here it seems so, but sometimes this board (from what I gather) isn't necessarily representative of the common/standard view.

 Yes.  physical houses for our physical resurrected bodies to go to for whatever reason we might want to go to our physical houses.  And I suppose we will have physical chairs for our physical resurrected bodies to sit down on, and physical beds to lay on for whatever reason we want to lay down, and real windows in our physical houses to look out at the physical landscape outside of our physical houses which we will sometimes just want to look out of while we are either sitting down in our physical chairs or laying down in our physical beds.

Unlike some Christians, we believe in the literal resurrection of the physical body to be joined to our spirit which will never be separated from it again (because that would be death, that separation, that is what it is).

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just for clarification. Is it a common LDS belief (meaning most believe it) that you will be living in literal physical houses in the celestial kingdom? From the discussion here it seems so, but sometimes this board (from what I gather) isn't necessarily representative of the common/standard view.

I don't believe I have ever had that come up in a conversation besides this board.

The idea of mansions is sometimes talked about, but sounds more symbolic or just repetition of scripture without going into what it might mean in actual residence in the discussions I remember.  Pretty much only discussion about what one would do in creation of planets if one could do exactly like one likes goes into details.

I have no clue about the reality.  In some ways I like the idea (pretty much limitless budget for decorating I am guessing), in other ways I prefer how I usually imagine it as out in nature.  Probably I would end up with a mix of the two with trees and creeks and ponds interspersed with rooms.

The few pictures portraying the preexistence I have seen has people walking around in a natural setting.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Calm

[etana]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

We do generally assume that we will have some kind of place of abode, since we will be in resurrected bodies and occupy actual space.

pretty sure it will be soft comfy cloud beds

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

So you have no problem with your wife being married to five or so other men then?

He won’t have to.  That’s the point. 

If ahab doesn’t mind I’ll step away from this discussion. 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just for clarification. Is it a common LDS belief (meaning most believe it) that you will be living in literal physical houses in the celestial kingdom? From the discussion here it seems so, but sometimes this board (from what I gather) isn't necessarily representative of the common/standard view.

I have no idea but I called dibs on some beachfront land in California just in case.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not even taking them to hear what those Church leaders said?

Huh?!  Why would a parent be concerned about what their child heard if they hadn't heard it?

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

 

President Oaks' address did far more than mention homosexuality.

I am not sure what else was offensive to a child.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just for clarification. Is it a common LDS belief (meaning most believe it) that you will be living in literal physical houses in the celestial kingdom? From the discussion here it seems so, but sometimes this board (from what I gather) isn't necessarily representative of the common/standard view.

Any response to this question is speculation. We only know that we will have tangible resurrected bodies of flesh and bone and perhaps be able to eat as Jesus did with his resurrected body (Luke 24: 43).  Beyond that we don't know anything about the living conditions there or what kind of physical structures there will be.  

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So while we don't know yet, I am willing to share her with him, on several levels.

But if it came down to you or him having first call on your wife's time, you insisted that you get the sealing, did you not?  Even if you haven't gotten it yet?

Quote

The main thing I wonder about is that if she has sexual relations with him as well as me how will we be able to tell which of her children are his and which of them are mine

Not like science will cease to exist.  Unless biology becomes significantly different, then there will be DNA testing.  But more likely people will have total awareness of their selves, thus be aware of their own biology which means a woman can tell when she gets pregnant and thus know the father.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

Children at elementary age can begin questioning their gender and their attractions and their sexuality, and they do.  Children do not have the language for expression but they are very very aware of sex related things. 

At what age should we introduce the idea of sin to children? 

At what age should kids be taught about sex? 

Any idea how early girls are now menstruating? 

If your child attends public school, the education of peers is EARLY

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

 

President Oaks' address did far more than mention homosexuality.

Did you wife mention what he spoke about specifically that she was upset with?  I wasn't listening with an 8 year old in mind so my memory of the appropriateness of what was said is not helpful in that regard.

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Huh?!  Why would a parent be concerned about what their child heard if they hadn't heard it?

Why would a parent be concerned about what they would hear from Church leaders if they are the intended audience the leaders knew they were addressing?  Women and young girls ages 8 and up, right?  You think the leaders didn't know who was there listening to them?

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have some of the quotes that are offending people so much.  I didn't watch/listen and the transcript isn't up on the church's web site yet. 

My 16 year old daughter came back from the meeting and said, in particular,  that President Oaks' talk was very good.

 

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure what else was offensive to a child.

 

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did you wife mention what he spoke about specifically that she was upset with?  I wasn't listening with an 8 year old in mind so my memory of the appropriateness of what was said is not helpful in that regard.

 

My wife didn't use the word "offensive" ( @The Nehor ) and I wouldn't use that word either.

Conceptually, there were ideas he taught that will require the "birds and bees" type discussions with a 9 year old. 

As noted, there is no transcript and I'm not willing to try to paraphrase what he said.  In any case, it was the overall message and content of his address that my wife felt would require follow up discussions with our daughters and she felt it was too early to have those discussions.