Thoughts on conference

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do the presidents of the church announce temples to be built at men's sessions, like they did the yw/women's session? I thought those temple announcements were only at the main sessions. 

He's the prophet.  If he wants to announce Temples at the Women's Session or at a press conference originating from the Salt Lake Temple which begins as the Nauvoo Bell strikes midnight, he can do that!

[Jake Starkey]

The leader of the Church makes the call, and that is how he called it.

[MustardSeed]

As for Oaks’ reference to housing assignments- there’s not a man I know of who can feel what a second wife feels regarding this topic. I might listen to a woman who says “worry less” about his topic than I ever would a male.  Sorry, that’s just me. 

I love the presidents assertion that women have value. That said, it’s no news to me.   

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do the presidents of the church announce temples to be built at men's sessions, like they did the yw/women's session? I thought those temple announcements were only at the main sessions. 

Lately they have been done at the end of the last session but it varies. The only general constant is that it is done by the President in almost all cases assuming they are in good health. I do wonder if this means there is another announcement in the last session so they moved it here.

I loved the talk on depression in women’s conference. I hope men who needed to hear it do. While women face it a lot many men stick to a stoic stance and try not to seek help.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I do think there was a "joke" at all. 

I think there was a kind of wry humor but not a direct joke.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Clearly, the apostles have got serious about people not reading their handbooks. For years, the handbook has instructed the bishop to call a priests quorum adviser, who would also serve as the Young Men president. Likewise, to call a teachers quorum adviser, who would also serve as the first counsellor to the Young Men president, and a deacons quorum adviser, who would serve as second counsellor in the Young Men presidency. When I was called as Young Men president, I was first set apart as an adviser to the priests quorum and then as YMP. That means that Aaronic Priesthood quorums have always had advisers. There was also the option of having assistant advisers.

This created a situation where the Young Men president presided over his two counsellors, his secretary, and any assistant advisers but no one else. And certainly not the boys! For years, we have been told that bishopric members needed to stop outsourcing their responsibilities over the Aaronic Priesthood to men who held no keys. I have no idea how many times in the Church I've seen a member of a YM presidency directing boys in relation to the sacrament, for example.

The change says that each quorum is still have have the same number of adult advisers. It's just that someone figured out that we are not going to get this to work right in many tradition-bound wards until the other titles go away. The presidency of the Aaronic Priesthood is the bishopric. The president of the priests quorum is the bishop. The president of the teachers quorum holds keys and presides. The president of the deacons quorum holds keys and presides. Literally three-fourths of the key-holders in a ward are those three men/boys.

And still we've had wards where the Young Men presidency plan activities, tell the boys what to do, etc. Solution: stop organising the men called to advise Aaronic Priesthood quorums into a presidency but leave them in their roles. I think it's brilliant. When we finally got this working right in our ward, our boys became unstoppable.

Yes, but most wards (in the United States at least) also had advisors called to teach more often then the YM Presidency while the YM Presidency attended the meeting and oversaw it (but of course did not preside). This removes the YM Presidency and puts the Bishopric in their place. Perhaps the biggest practical change is that the Bishopric is now planning Youth Activities from camp outs to the weekly weekday evening activities.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Because it is the established order and ordinance of the Priesthood. 

While I would always recommend a Priesthood blessing I would interpret the warning against non-Priesthood holders ministering to the sick is limited to a pantomime of Priesthood ordinances and not through healing through the Gifts of the Spirit.

[Maidservant]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What’s to prevent a mother from giving a blessing to her child?

The desire not to be excommunicated? That's why I don't do it. I have gotten as close as I can. I have had my children kneel by me (I'm usually sitting on the bed), and place my hand on their shoulder and "pray over them" which is simply a prayer, but specifically for them. I do not do it more formally, with hands on head, and invoking heaven, because I am afraid. I am afraid I will break the universe or at least get crossways with Church/God. As far as I can tell, a mother's blessing is not sanctioned, encouraged, taught, allowed, and ZERO ZERO mention as even a thing. I'm surprised that you feel free with it; and I am very glad to hear it, actually. Ultimately in the universe in God's plan? I don't know, I suspect it was always meant to be. Here and now? Absolutely not.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As for Oaks’ reference to housing assignments- there’s not a man I know of who can feel what a second wife feels regarding this topic.

Concerning housing assignments?  That's the big worry about potentially living plural marriage in eternity?

I'll admit, I don't have the first idea what feelings that produces.  Personally I don't care where I have to live in the Celestial Kingdom .  I just want to get there.  Don't care who my Celestial  neighbors will be.  As long as my roommate doesn't snore.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

The desire not to be excommunicated? That's why I don't do it. I have gotten as close as I can. I have had my children kneel by me (I'm usually sitting on the bed), and place my hand on their shoulder and "pray over them" which is simply a prayer, but specifically for them. I do not do it more formally, with hands on head, and invoking heaven, because I am afraid. I am afraid I will break the universe or at least get crossways with Church/God. As far as I can tell, a mother's blessing is not sanctioned, encouraged, taught, allowed, and ZERO ZERO mention as even a thing. I'm surprised that you feel free with it; and I am very glad to hear it, actually. Ultimately in the universe in God's plan? I don't know, I suspect it was always meant to be. Here and now? Absolutely not.

I think it is sad that a mother fears to bless her own child.   Do you even see that there is something wrong with this  kind of fear?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Of course he didn’t intend to. But he did and did it on a very tender topic for many women. Denying or spinning it is part of the greater problem we have as church members. It isolates those it wounds. We badly need to move away from the idea that male leaders can never have a bad day. 

While I can understand this matters a lot I think President Oaks using that example may have served another purpose. He is saying that the Brethren do not have an answer. Picking a much less serious example (can spirit bodies waterski?) could imply that they have answers to the big questions but not the small ones. It also points to the only answer they can currently give: That God loves us and that those who live the gospel will not be disappointed once they arrive and that that is the answer for all such questions. Sadly the words alone are not the answer. When caught in the rapture of the Spirit it can be convincing.

[Maidservant]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I think it is sad that a mother fears to bless her own child.   Do you even see that there is something wrong with this  kind of fear?

Of course I do. I am close to fury on the matter. It's ludicrous that I should fear to place a particular body part of mine (hand) upon a particular body part (head) of anyone, much less my child. Nevertheless, it's what is right now until I work through it one way or the other. Either way has massive consequences, or as I imagine at this time.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Maidservant

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

The desire not to be excommunicated? That's why I don't do it. I have gotten as close as I can. I have had my children kneel by me (I'm usually sitting on the bed), and place my hand on their shoulder and "pray over them" which is simply a prayer, but specifically for them. I do not do it more formally, with hands on head, and invoking heaven, because I am afraid. I am afraid I will break the universe or at least get crossways with Church/God. As far as I can tell, a mother's blessing is not sanctioned, encouraged, taught, allowed, and ZERO ZERO mention as even a thing. I'm surprised that you feel free with it; and I am very glad to hear it, actually. Ultimately in the universe in God's plan? I don't know, I suspect it was always meant to be. Here and now? Absolutely not.

That is so sad.  There is a right and wrong way for blessings to be bestowed according to our roles and callings.  But anyone can bless another.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Of course I do. I am close to fury on the matter. It's ludicrous that I should fear to place a particular body part of mine (hand) upon a particular body part (head) of anyone, much less my child. Nevertheless, it's what is right now until I work through it one way or the other. Either way has massive consequences, or as I imagine at this time.

President Kimball had his wife do that to him.   I see zero reason you shouldn't do the same.

[Maidservant]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But anyone can bless another.

Since when? I guess I missed the memo.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

President Kimball had his wife do that to him.   I see zero reason you shouldn't do the same.

 

Interesting. I shall ponder that.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

The desire not to be excommunicated? That's why I don't do it. I have gotten as close as I can. I have had my children kneel by me (I'm usually sitting on the bed), and place my hand on their shoulder and "pray over them" which is simply a prayer, but specifically for them. I do not do it more formally, with hands on head, and invoking heaven, because I am afraid. I am afraid I will break the universe or at least get crossways with Church/God. As far as I can tell, a mother's blessing is not sanctioned, encouraged, taught, allowed, and ZERO ZERO mention as even a thing. I'm surprised that you feel free with it; and I am very glad to hear it, actually. Ultimately in the universe in God's plan? I don't know, I suspect it was always meant to be. Here and now? Absolutely not.

Hold them and pray. Unless you invoke the Priesthood formally or mimic a Priesthood blessing in some way I cannot imagine anyone but the most dyed in the wool chauvinist being upset and who cares what that idiot thinks? I have sat in quite a few disciplinary councils and I cannot think of anyone in any of them that would dare punish a mother for praying or healing a child. I cannot think of anyone who would even convene a council for it. I would avoid proselyting that you are doing it for fear of causing confusion but do what the Spirit guides. Sometimes we have to ad hoc things. I have ad hoced a few Priesthood ordinances I was not sure of and I am pretty sure I am not going to Hell for it.

[Maidservant]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 pray. ... praying

Thank you for the encouragement, I do mean that.

However, I am not afraid of praying for my child.

I am afraid of giving a blessing to my child.

And the distinction between the two.

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

51 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As for Oaks’ reference to housing assignments- there’s not a man I know of who can feel what a second wife feels regarding this topic.

Concerning housing assignments?  That's the big worry about potentially living plural marriage in eternity?

I'll admit, I don't have the first idea what feelings that produces.  Personally I don't care where I have to live in the Celestial Kingdom .  I just want to get there.  Don't care who my Celestial  neighbors will be.  As long as my roommate doesn't snore.

For those who do get sealed to multiple women in this life I have no clue as to how that is handled in heaven once we all get there. In the temple we seal all women and men to all spouses they had in life.  In my opinion, those who are worthy to be exalted will not experience any sort of jealousy or selfishness when it comes to their relationships there. Otherwise they would not be worthy to be there. 

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Since when? I guess I missed the memo.

I  don't care what policy says.  Blessings don't require priesthood ordination.  Priesthood blessings require priesthood ordination.  And they aren't the same.

And the ordinance of Mother's blessings for expectant mothers should be brought back too.

Edited October 6, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Bernard Gui]

Maybe we can finally knock off the bellyaching about how little the Church supposedly gives to humanitarian assistance. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Nacho2dope]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

As for Oaks’ reference to housing assignments- there’s not a man I know of who can feel what a second wife feels regarding this topic. I might listen to a woman who says “worry less” about his topic than I ever would a male.  Sorry, that’s just me. 

I love the presidents assertion that women have value. That said, it’s no news to me.   

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If a man and women are divorced what makes anyone think he or she wants to be with their ex in heaven? I think this is something unfortunately all worry about. I have seen similar thoughts on social media and feel that they are doing exactly what they think Oaks is doing and telling men how to fell on this topic. Always enjoys your insight. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. 

[Jeanne]

To what I have learned here on this thread and listening to conference this morning....I am hoping the doors will open for my female friends and relatives to be a part of the blessing in the circle for naming of babies.  I have seen positive things happening...but still not understanding them  To jump and down for joy on witnessing of baptisms when children can also participate seems in many ways embarrassing.  May all of you have a wonderful Sunday.

 

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To jump and down for joy on witnessing of baptisms when children can also participate seems in many ways embarrassing.  

 

 

Why does being happy about any member being able to witness at a baptism, even a child, seem embarrassing to you?  Can you elaborate?

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Of course I do. I am close to fury on the matter. It's ludicrous that I should fear to place a particular body part of mine (hand) upon a particular body part (head) of anyone, much less my child. Nevertheless, it's what is right now until I work through it one way or the other. Either way has massive consequences, or as I imagine at this time.

That's one of the drawbacks of being a member in this church. I hope the church is going to walk back things like this. They shouldn't be middle men to our abilities to do what we think is best. 

 

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe we can finally knock off the bellyaching about how little the Church supposedly gives to humanitarian assistance. 

I agree that it is wonderful that the countries with these needs are being addressed. But like the video below, I want more. Sorry, but with what the church can do and what it does, there is a huge gulf. 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Tacenda