Jump to content

Conference Discussion


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I like the stage setting this conference and the seating of the apostles and first presidency wearing their masks.

I was just thinking it looked like a typical temple interior. 

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wasn’t he called to the Presiding Bishopric?

yeah, i wrote that out but it  got figured out!

Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

The talk that actually touched me personally the most so far was actually Sister Craig's.  The others were great, but there was something about the questions in her talk that I need to look at further.

Yeah, I liked hers a lot!! 

Link to post
4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Elder Cook said our church culture comes from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a judaic or gentile culture. while we rejoice in distinctive cultures we should leave behind aspects of those cultures that conflict with the gospel
He mentioned that paul wanted the saints to leave behind cultural impediments that are not consistent with the Gospel.
I am wondering what specific cultural aspects he is talking about.

In our day, an extreme example of one such a cultural impediment might be the widely accepted post sexual revolution notion that sexual relations outside of marriage is acceptable, harmless and even healthy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Rain said:

We are quaranting my covid type symptom husband in the office/guestroom and communicating by text since his voice is rough.  I don't think you want to come.

Well, I'm certainly sorry to hear that you're experiencing such difficulties, and pray that the Lord will bless you and yours in your time of need.

  • Like 1
Link to post

I think he is talking primarily about more subtle cultural biases. Cultures where the wife is excluded from parental decisions, hyperindividualistic cultures, ethnic hate in cultures, cultures that overly reverence athletics, intelligence, financial success, etc. There are lots of weird biases we pick up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, Pres. Oaks gave a very timely and needed message.  Perhaps preaching to the choir, but still needed.  I kept thinking of Jewish novelist Andre Schwarz-Bart speaking of the "impossible love" preached by Jesus.  How can we truly love our enemies?  The Gospel can be so hard.

It can.

I think we are all going to have to do a lot of compromising to pull off anything like "unity" AND do it peacefully.

And that presumes that both sides have compromise as a goal to even get started on it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, I'm certainly sorry to hear that you're experiencing such difficulties, and pray that the Lord will bless you and yours in your time of need.

Likewise.

@Rainyou are in my prayers as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In my dad's Polish family, kissing all kinds of relatives was appropriate.

From John Denver's song, "Grandma's Feather Bed":

"Well, I love my ma and I love my pa, I love granny and grandpa too
I've been fishin' with my uncles, I wrestled my cousin
I even kissed Aunt Lou, ew!"

 

 

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
39 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In our day, an extreme example of one such a cultural impediment might be the widely accepted post sexual revolution notion that sexual relations outside of marriage is acceptable, harmless and even healthy.

For most humans, pair-bonding was marriage.  That meant no marriage ceremony was necessary.  The couple simply set up housekeeping.  This was true in many localities even in the 19th and 20th centuries -- known as common law marriage, or contrato consensual.

Quote

A marriage may be proved ... from cohabitation, reputation, acknowledgment of the parties, reception in the family, and other circumstances from which a marriage may be inferred.... No formal solemnization of marriage was requisite. A contract of marriage made per verba de presenti amounts to an actual marriage, and is valid as if made in facie ecclesiaeYale Law Journal, 107:1885-1886, online at  https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7816&context=ylj .

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In my dad's Polish family, kissing all kinds of relatives was appropriate.

More like "mandatory"  ;)

To do otherwise was kind of like refusing to shake someone's extended hand.

"What's HIS problem?  Did I do something?"

  • Haha 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For most humans, pair-bonding was marriage.  That meant no marriage ceremony was necessary.  The couple simply set up housekeeping.  This was true in many localities even in the 19th and 20th centuries -- known as common law marriage, or contrato consensual.

 

I recently created my first common law marriage entry in family search. It was something like my 10k person but I finally did one.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think he is talking primarily about more subtle cultural biases. Cultures where the wife is excluded from parental decisions, hyperindividualistic cultures, ethnic hate in cultures, cultures that overly reverence athletics, intelligence, financial success, etc. There are lots of weird biases we pick up.

The question was about leaving behind elements of Ancient Greek culture. The Hellenic philosophies that ultimately came to corrupt the precepts if Christendom are perhaps an example of cultural elements that should have been left behind by converts to Christianity but weren’t. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For most humans, pair-bonding was marriage.  That meant no marriage ceremony was necessary.  The couple simply set up housekeeping.  This was true in many localities even in the 19th and 20th centuries -- known as common law marriage, or contrato consensual.

 

Hereabouts in LA you are considered foolish for NOT having sex before marriage- the argument is made that it is necessary that one needs to find out if one is "compatible" with one's "partner" instead of assuming that two people who truly loved each other could simply work out any possible problems in this area.  Does that mean there were never problems in such a marriage?   Of course there were, but the overwhelming assumption was that two loving people could work it out.

In the 50's such an idea- the "incompatibility" of two loving people of opposite sexes -was a remote possibility of course-  but "incompatible"??   You have a virgin male and virgin female crazy about each other, completely attracted to each other, obviously or the relationship would not have gotten that far,  and totally fed up with abstinence after practicing it for a few months at least, and now the doors are open ?  

Some of you youngsters under 50 ;) may not have heard this song- which was a major hit of the Everly Brothers  AND was banned by the Catholic Bishop of Boston for being too suggestive    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Up_Little_Susie  

Are you ready to be shocked?  I hope the mods don't ban me   🤯  ;)

Quote

 

Wake up, little Susie, wake up
We've both been sound asleep, wake up, little Susie, and weep
The movie's over, it's four o'clock, and we're in trouble deep
Wake up little Susie...

Whatta we gonna tell your mama
Whatta we gonna tell your pa
Whatta we gonna tell our friends when they say "ooh-la-la"...

 
I told your mama that you'd be in by ten
Well Susie baby looks like we goofed again...
Wake up little Susie, we gotta go home...
Wake up, little Susie, wake up
The movie wasn't so hot, it didn't have much of a plot...
Our reputations are shot...

 


The assumptions are clear that even in early days of the "devil's music" - rock n roll- even young people themselves would be concerned about their "reputations" and their friends saying "ooh-la-la" and disapproving of what MIGHT have happened until 4 AM if a boy and girl were out together that late.
 
So what are the foundation assumptions of that view which have disappeared?
And why have they disappeared?
 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The question was about leaving behind elements of Ancient Greek culture. The Hellenic philosophies that ultimately came to corrupt the precepts if Christendom are perhaps an example of cultural elements that should have been left behind by converts to Christianity but weren’t. 

Oh, sorry, then I do not have much to contribute. I never delved too deep into Platonism.. I found Plato a dry read and I just want to punch Socrates every time he facetiously claims ignorance and then rambles on endlessly.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to post
18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Hereabouts in LA you are considered foolish for NOT having sex before marriage- the argument is made that it is necessary that one needs to find out if one is "compatible" with one's "partner" instead of assuming that two people who truly loved each other could simply work out any possible problems in this area.  Does that mean there were never problems in such a marriage?   Of course there were, but the overwhelming assumption was that two loving people could work it out.

In the 50's such an idea- the "incompatibility" of two loving people of opposite sexes -was a remote possibility of course-  but "incompatible"??   You have a virgin male and virgin female crazy about each other, completely attracted to each other, obviously or the relationship would not have gotten that far,  and totally fed up with abstinence after practicing it for a few months at least, and now the doors are open ?  

Some of you youngsters under 50 ;) may not have heard this song- which was a major hit of the Everly Brothers  AND was banned by the Catholic Bishop of Boston for being too suggestive    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Up_Little_Susie  

Are you ready to be shocked?  I hope the mods don't ban me   🤯  ;)


The assumptions are clear that even in early days of the "devil's music" - rock n roll- even young people themselves would be concerned about their "reputations" and their friends saying "ooh-la-la" and disapproving of what MIGHT have happened until 4 AM if a boy and girl were out together that late.
 
So what are the foundation assumptions of that view which have disappeared?
And why have they disappeared?
 

 

 

 

 

If you’re going to cite a great song like that, don’t just quote the lyrics. Give us a link to the recording on YouTube. 

Link to post

A general observation: Without a live congregation to react, perhaps they need a laugh track. The speakers have been getting off some pretty good one-liners that seem to be falling flat for the want of an audience. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Hereabouts in LA you are considered foolish for NOT having sex before marriage- the argument is made that it is necessary that one needs to find out if one is "compatible" with one's "partner" instead of assuming that two people who truly loved each other could simply work out any possible problems in this area.  Does that mean there were never problems in such a marriage?   Of course there were, but the overwhelming assumption was that two loving people could work it out.

In the 50's such an idea- the "incompatibility" of two loving people of opposite sexes -was a remote possibility of course-  but "incompatible"??   You have a virgin male and virgin female crazy about each other, completely attracted to each other, obviously or the relationship would not have gotten that far,  and totally fed up with abstinence after practicing it for a few months at least, and now the doors are open ?  

Some of you youngsters under 50 ;) may not have heard this song- which was a major hit of the Everly Brothers  AND was banned by the Catholic Bishop of Boston for being too suggestive    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Up_Little_Susie  

Are you ready to be shocked?  I hope the mods don't ban me   🤯  ;)


The assumptions are clear that even in early days of the "devil's music" - rock n roll- even young people themselves would be concerned about their "reputations" and their friends saying "ooh-la-la" and disapproving of what MIGHT have happened until 4 AM if a boy and girl were out together that late.
 
So what are the foundation assumptions of that view which have disappeared?
And why have they disappeared?
 

 

 

 

 

The 50s were late stage Victorianism. Then again, what would I know? I am like George IV and his socks:

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A general observation: Without a live congregation to react, perhaps they need a laugh track. The speakers have been getting off some pretty good one-liners that seem to be falling flat for the want of an audience. 

I chuckled at a few. I don’t like laugh tracks generally.

Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Hereabouts in LA you are considered foolish for NOT having sex before marriage- the argument is made that it is necessary that one needs to find out if one is "compatible" with one's "partner" instead of assuming that two people who truly loved each other could simply work out any possible problems in this area.  Does that mean there were never problems in such a marriage?   Of course there were, but the overwhelming assumption was that two loving people could work it out.....................................

The secular Israelis I knew had a rule that became apparent when I lived on a kibbutz.  They would have sex with their beloved before marriage, and only have a wedding if she got pregnant.  It's all about family to them, and no one wanted to be childless.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For most humans, pair-bonding was marriage.  That meant no marriage ceremony was necessary.  The couple simply set up housekeeping.  This was true in many localities even in the 19th and 20th centuries -- known as common law marriage, or contrato consensual.

 

So are you saying that prior to the 19th century (or thereabouts) marriage was basically nothing more than the modern equivalent of shacking up? Sort of an easy come, easy go “friends with benefits” arrangement without commitment?

Link to post
7 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

So are you saying that prior to the 19th century (or thereabouts) marriage was basically nothing more than the modern equivalent of shacking up? Sort of an easy come, easy go “friends with benefits” arrangement without commitment?

That would depend on the culture.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

That would depend on the culture.

I’m sure you would agree a culture that widely approves of noncommittal shaking up, as opposed to legal marriage as sanctioned by the Church, should be considered a cultural impediment to the spread of the restored gospel?

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The secular Israelis I knew had a rule that became apparent when I lived on a kibbutz.  They would have sex with their beloved before marriage, and only have a wedding if she got pregnant.  It's all about family to them, and no one wanted to be childless.

Ah, so it seems that the "compatibility" issue was more about fertility than pleasure, which to me at least is probably a step up from raw physical attraction.

That seems to be the evolving rule around here was well.

In one instance, we had a missionary from Utah in our ward- a guy on his mission, to make it crystal clear, and became the father of the child of one of the young women in the ward.

Not exactly standard LDS morality.  ;)

He got ex'ed and moved to our area instead of going "home", did what was required by the disciplinary council and eventually they got sealed and are now active members with a couple of more kids,  and all that happened long enough ago that most in the ward don't even know what happened, all of which is the best possible outcome under the circumstances in my opinion.  

Those are tough times to live through and it IS better to marry than to "burn".   The good news is that they found each other and it is a happy ending.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Oh my gosh

duplicate

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...