Thoughts on conference

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I actually don't think that was mentioned.

Good news! Now I don't have to worry.

Wait, does he teach something even worse???

Edited October 8, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good news! Now I don't have to worry.

Wait, does he teach something even worse???

No.  Not at all.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

No.  Not at all.

Phew! 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Phew! 

Not sure what gave you that impression. 

[Rivers]

I just finished listening to all the talks.  Except the women’s session since I am not a woman.

I did, however, listen to President Oaks’ talk  in that session to hear all the mean things he said.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that much of the talk was spent admonishing us to obey the second great commandment to love all people even when we disagree.  And it really did strengthen my resolve to love everybody.  I also find it interesting that GA’s are now using the LGBT acronym. 

I also liked Oaks’ talk on the spirit world.  It was something different.

President Nelson’s talk on humanitarian aid was uplifting and inspiring.  

Elder Uchdorf’s comparison of the Plan of Salvation to The Hobbit was great.  It had a nice Joseph Campbell vibe.

The first African American GA gave an important message about not comparing yourself to others.  I needed that one.  

The rugby talk was great.

There were some other good ones but I can’t recall them all.  Overall a good conference.  

Looking forward to worshipping Joseph Smith in April 😏

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Rivers

[stemelbow]

I'm confused, what did Oaks possibly say in Women's conference that has not been said at some point to the general members, including 8 years olds, in the past?  I think he's doing well to be well-quoted in future years when society pushes the church to conform again, and people point out the really stupid things church leaders have said about the topic.  He'll be Bruce R at some point and I"m guessing he'd embrace such a notion.  Of course at that time members will offer the defense that he was speaking with less and light and knowledge and he was heavily influenced by the prejudices of the culture he was brought up in...and all of that.  We've seen it all before and will see it again.  

I don't really care to sit and listen to his voice, so I'll wait till the transcript is out, I guess, unless someone can offer any quotes?  

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours 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.

This is simply one opinion of one member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to one of our Roman Catholic Church friends, so take it for what it's worth (or not), but I think that our understanding of space and time and relationships (to name just three such things) is going to have to undergo a radical shift for us even to begin to understand Eternity.

[longview]

6 hours ago, Rivers said:

 I also find it interesting that GA’s are now using the LGBT acronym.

Hopefully we will stay away from the Q acronym.  No need to pile on perversion and to celebrate "queerness".

[Rivers]

24 minutes ago, longview said:

Hopefully we will stay away from the Q acronym.  No need to pile on perversion and to celebrate "queerness".

I thought the Q stood for questioning.  

[SettingDogStar]

12 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I thought the Q stood for questioning.  

I’m sure it means multiple things, but I’m pretty sure it was supposed to be questioning.

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused, what did Oaks possibly say in Women's conference that has not been said at some point to the general members, including 8 years olds, in the past?  I think he's doing well to be well-quoted in future years when society pushes the church to conform again, and people point out the really stupid things church leaders have said about the topic.  He'll be Bruce R at some point and I"m guessing he'd embrace such a notion.  Of course at that time members will offer the defense that he was speaking with less and light and knowledge and he was heavily influenced by the prejudices of the culture he was brought up in...and all of that.  We've seen it all before and will see it again.  

I don't really care to sit and listen to his voice, so I'll wait till the transcript is out, I guess, unless someone can offer any quotes?  

Oaks didn’t say anything new.  He simply reiterated the church’s  long-held teachings on the law of chastity and the doctrine of marriage.  But he did put a much greater emphasis on loving and respecting those with whom we disagree.  When dealing with such a sensitive topic, there’s no way to not trigger people.  But I thought President Oaks was quite graceful in the way he handled it.  

 

 

[Stargazer]

On 10/7/2019 at 12:42 AM, Calm said:

Yeah, a bunch of young men with short hair and nametags on white shirts with ties and dress pants freak me out every time I see them going around places where they are sure to be noticed.

In the situation you describe, I would think tourists or local group out having fun after a gettogether, possibly at their local mosque.

Yes, and I have no problem with it. I just get a bit annoyed that, just because I noticed the odd thing that doesn't happen around there EVER, as far as I know, and wonder what they're doing, that somehow makes me "a little Islamophobic".  Or a little Hellsangelophobic.  Or whatever.

One has to be deaf and blind to stay out of danger of accusations of prejudice in one form or another.  

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m sure it means multiple things, but I’m pretty sure it was supposed to be questioning.

The "Q" can also stand for queer with the HRC defines as:  A term people often use to express fluid identities and orientations.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused, what did Oaks possibly say in Women's conference that has not been said at some point to the general members, including 8 years olds, in the past?  I think he's doing well to be well-quoted in future years when society pushes the church to conform again, and people point out the really stupid things church leaders have said about the topic.  He'll be Bruce R at some point and I"m guessing he'd embrace such a notion.  Of course at that time members will offer the defense that he was speaking with less and light and knowledge and he was heavily influenced by the prejudices of the culture he was brought up in...and all of that.  We've seen it all before and will see it again.  

I don't really care to sit and listen to his voice, so I'll wait till the transcript is out, I guess, unless someone can offer any quotes?  

He taught the Gospel....Love God, Love Your Neighbor, we make choices in life, those choices affect our eternal progression, and repentance. 

He mentioned same sex marriage, God standard on marriage and the law of chastity...children were present.

(It is understandable that a parent has not discussed sexuality, homosexuality, marriage, and same sex marriage with a child)

[provoman]

nevermind

[Stargazer]

On 10/7/2019 at 1:05 AM, Rain said:

It wouldn't have phased me and you said yourself that most other people didn't take notice, but then I've spent time in Israel.

As I said, it didn't faze me, either.  And this wasn't Israel where such sights are common and unremarkable, it was Olympia, Washington where such sights are so rare that I had never seen such in 30 years of residence. I was just puzzled about what they were doing. Because it was UNUSUAL.

On 10/7/2019 at 1:05 AM, Rain said:

I've been to mosques there and here. I've eaten dinner with Muslims. I've held their children. I've visited with them in their living room. I've listened to them expressing faith.

Great! What of it?  Did I express one word relating to Islam, other than that they were dressed in Muslim garb?  Did I take issue with their faith?  No, I didn't.  And you just ASSUMED that I had a problem, just because I noticed them and wondered what was up.  

On 10/7/2019 at 1:05 AM, Rain said:

What would I think if I saw smiling Muslim men in a group? That they were happy just as I would think if I saw my son and his friends smiling in a group. And if they were trolling for reactions like you think? Who cares? I've seen groups of young men who were white dressed in American clothes doing the same thing.

THIS is what I am amazed about.  In the occasion I mention, I did not visibly react to how these men were dressed; I did not fear for my life that they were going set off suicide vests; I wasn't looking to see if they were hiding AK-47s under their robes.  I was just wondering what they were doing dressed so peculiarly FOR THE VENUE.  This was something entirely foreign to the area.  As if a man in a spacesuit showed up in the middle of a village in Mali and got offended because people were looking at him funny.  By the way, I thought they might be trolling for reactions because of the looks THEY were giving everyone else, who were, like me, trying to act like they saw nothing.  

Actually, I kinda proved what I was trying to prove.  That we have suddenly gotten so sensitive about flipping everything, that a person dare not so much as notice that someone is dressed differently for fear that he's going to get labelled as "-phobic" or "intolerant".  

Actually, @Rain, what I was doing with my post was trolling for everyone's reactions.  All of you who have assumed things about me because I admitted that I noticed something unusual and was curious about it.  

On 10/7/2019 at 1:05 AM, Rain said:

Islam does not equal Islamic terrorist just as Mormon does not equal Mormon bishop child abuser.

Did I say anything to indicate that I thought they were terrorists?  No, I did not, and I wasn't worried about that at all.  But you seem to be assuming that is what I thought.  Isn't that a degree of prejudice in itself?  You read about my reaction to a very unusual event and went off on a rant, assuming in me all kinds of things that weren't the case.

On 10/7/2019 at 1:05 AM, Rain said:

What the church is doing is showing that we are all God's children.

No kidding?  Why would the church do that, do you think?

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Oaks didn’t say anything new.  He simply reiterated the church’s  long-held teachings on the law of chastity and the doctrine of marriage.  But he did put a much greater emphasis on loving and respecting those with whom we disagree.  When dealing with such a sensitive topic, there’s no way to not trigger people.  But I thought President Oaks was quite graceful in the way he handled it.  

 

 

Thank you.  I had guessed the same.  

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

He taught the Gospel....Love God, Love Your Neighbor, we make choices in life, those choices affect our eternal progression, and repentance. 

He mentioned same sex marriage, God standard on marriage and the law of chastity...children were present.

(It is understandable that a parent has not discussed sexuality, homosexuality, marriage, and same sex marriage with a child)

Seems normal, really.  these things are always mentioned in front of children in the Church.  Most children aren't really paying much attention to adult talk though.

 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thank you.  I had guessed the same.  

Seems normal, really.  these things are always mentioned in front of children in the Church.  Most children aren't really paying much attention to adult talk though.

 

He also spoke of children being uncertain of their sexual orientation and to be careful with premature labeling.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

Does anyone know anything about the Stake YM counsellours? how can one High Councilor govern the entire stake of YM's? especially some stakes have a ton of youth

He'll work with counselors and a secretary, just like the old stake YM presidency did.  The counselors will be other high councilmen and the secretary will be from the general stake membership.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

He also spoke of children being uncertain of their sexual orientation and to be careful with premature labeling.

At some point any child is going to start catching on with what it being talked about by adults.  They hear it and they start to ask questions, or wonder what it means.  I think 90% of these things are shared amongst the kids themselves.  Older kids in school start saying things to their siblings and the talk can be pretty silly in terms of information sharing.  I figure my roll is to talk to my kids each day and make sure they are aware anything they might have heard about and wonder about can be talked about amongst us.  It's a normal trend in our society to have children wonder about their orientation, more and more.  

I guess I'm not concerned about him bringing up to women and children in women's conference.  Most kids dont' hear what is said there anyway, and those that do have, or should have a good resource with their parents.  It's likely all kids hear this stuff at ages much younger than I did.  And I mean I ran with a mean crowd in my pre-10 days.  

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

it was Olympia, Washington 

Nothing should surprise you in Olympia WA. In fact, anything normal should be a big surprise in Olympia 😳

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Actually, @Rain, what I was doing with my post was trolling for everyone's reactions.  All of you who have assumed things about me because I admitted that I noticed something unusual 

It wasn’t that you noticed something unusual that suggested to “me” a bit of racism.  Your attempt to “troll” and get a rise required some language that suggested to me a bit of racism.  What I’m noticing now is admitting to bait and switch. So that’s a game I’m not into. 

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Did I say anything to indicate that I thought they were terrorists?  No, I did not, and I wasn't worried about that at all.  But you seem to be assuming that is what I thought.  Isn't that a degree of prejudice in itself?  You read about my reaction to a very unusual event and went off on a rant, assuming in me all kinds of things that weren't the case.

 

Your core issue is heightened sensitivity.  Let’s have an honest discussion about that instead of the tactics you are trying to employ.

yes, I agree, we as a society are more aware, more reactive, more critical, more aggressive- (due I believe to increase in violence and mass shootings and danger) and as a natural snap reaction, we are also more sensitive and critical of what we perceive as racism and judgement in an attempt to balance the scales. 

We cant have evil like 9/11 and columbine and all the successive violence sincevand not have these consequences. 

IMO. 

(Yes dad, I’m talking to you.  Polack jokes are racist.  So are your Mexican jokes.  And you can no longer say someone is queerer than a three dollar bill .  So just stop with that. That said, I still have a hard time not saying something is “retarded” yet I know it’s offensive. )

The world is changing faster than many of us can keep up.   I agree with you Star to a degree, in some ways it seems impossible.  It’s a very threatening world out there. We all offend- one way or another.  I just do my best and if I hurt someone I care about, we work it out. 

 

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He also spoke of children being uncertain of their sexual orientation and to be careful with premature labeling.

He also stated that (many?) change their minds later. 

Id love a stat on that.  Not to catch him but for my own knowledge. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

At some point any child is going to start catching on with what it being talked about by adults.  They hear it and they start to ask questions, or wonder what it means.  I think 90% of these things are shared amongst the kids themselves.  Older kids in school start saying things to their siblings and the talk can be pretty silly in terms of information sharing.  I figure my roll is to talk to my kids each day and make sure they are aware anything they might have heard about and wonder about can be talked about amongst us.  It's a normal trend in our society to have children wonder about their orientation, more and more.  

I guess I'm not concerned about him bringing up to women and children in women's conference.  Most kids dont' hear what is said there anyway, and those that do have, or should have a good resource with their parents.  It's likely all kids hear this stuff at ages much younger than I did.  And I mean I ran with a mean crowd in my pre-10 days.  

Yes, my daughters have a good resource with their parents.  And their parents believed that it was still a little too early to be discussing these some of these topics with them.

Edited October 8, 2019 by rockpond

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

He also stated that (many?) change their minds later. 

Id love a stat on that.  Not to catch him but for my own knowledge. 

He said:  "In most children, such uncertainty decreases significantly over time."

I don't know the stats... he could be correct on that.  But that doesn't mean that over time as uncertainty decreases they become opposite sex attracted.  Their uncertainty could decrease and they become more certain that they are LGB or T.  He didn't say.

Edited October 8, 2019 by rockpond

[gopher]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He said:  "In most children, such uncertainty decreases significantly lover time."

I agree, that's certainly inappropriate to discuss around young children.